The proliferation of students’ use of technology in the classroom, including laptops and tablets, is a defining characteristic of 21st century education. And, as many who share HxA values may agree, another prominent feature of modern education is a certain degree of censoriousness that began creeping through campuses in the 2010s. While campus cultures of fear existed long before we all tethered to devices—after all, McCarthyism managed to flourish in segments of academia without Facebook or X—the parallel growth between technology and illiberal campus climates is impossible to ignore.

Technology has endowed us all with the collective knowledge of the universe, which was expected to be a boon to academic outcomes (though results have varied). It has also provided the elevated stage, the global audience, and the dopamine reward for engaging in grievance culture and shaming. College campuses sit on a network of devices that, just as much as they have become integral to modern education, also fuel climates of hostility.

At their least intrusive, digital devices such as laptops in the classroom may represent a significant distraction, both for students using laptops and for those sitting nearby. Whether through the nearly subconscious reflex to check social media at every opportunity, or the prioritization of homework and other academic demands during what should be focused class time, students’ time and attention is constantly pulled elsewhere. How can we expect students to engage meaningfully with difficult ideas if they’re not even listening? And moreover, how can classrooms build any sense of community if students are too distracted to engage with professors or their peers?

To foster environments that promote viewpoint diversity, constructive disagreement, and open inquiry, classrooms need less tech and more engagement—from all students, regardless of identity or political leanings.

Proponents of technology in the classroom may point out that technology can actually facilitate discussions in a variety of ways. For example, instead of risking a verbal gaffe in front of peers, students can submit anonymous questions or comments that can facilitate discussions without risks to social capital. Given students’ hesitation about weighing in on controversial topics, the opportunity to engage without actually speaking could be interpreted as a net positive.

But creating pathways for students to express questions and ideas while sidestepping potential confrontation is a feeble workaround for a much bigger problem, which is that campus climates are struggling to be supportive of inquiry, engagement, and curiosity. Students are often uncomfortable discussing controversial issues. Not only do they fear consequences from instructors, but they also fear social consequences from their peers. This is understandable given that some students are inclined to complain to the administration or their own social media sphere-of-influence about perceived slights before attempting to resolve conflicts in person.

Classrooms should be “safe spaces” to work through ideas, concepts, and questions without fear of knee-jerk social reprisal and without invisible guardrails meant to guide students to the assumed socially acceptable opinion. And in any case, what better time and place is there than college for young adults to try on ideas that are a bit bizarre, or even “offensive”? The college experience should be a time of growth, but students can’t grow if they fear stepping out of line.

Emphasizing interpersonal communication– that is, in-person conversation not facilitated by technology—is essential to creating environments that celebrate shared humanity and connection. In sociologist Sherry Turkle’s extensive work on the relationships between humans and technology, she has emphasized the need to “reclaim conversation,” which is just as relevant inside as outside of the classroom. Conversation among students promotes trust and can be an effective tool in reducing polarization. Moreover, facilitating participation from all students will ensure that even the more moderate students (who are, on average, more reluctant to weigh in on controversial matters) are engaging with their peers.

From the time-honored Socratic method to more recent “dialogue-building” programs, there are numerous ways that meaningful exchange can be re-centered in the modern classroom. This will look different for different courses and faculty members, and does not necessitate an overly prescriptive method. But putting away the devices and setting expectations about listening and engagement could go a long way towards cultivating community. Minimally, even if students don’t leave the class hand in hand with their political enemies, they will not have wasted the class by being sucked into the endless scroll vortex of the internet.

This is not a suggestion that students’ use of technology or social media should be restricted in any way outside of the classroom. But it is time to “reclaim conversation” in the classroom as Sherry Turkle might say, and make classrooms that are not safe spaces for ideology, but safe spaces for curiosity.