free college debate essay

• Search Search Please fill out this field.
• Student Loans
• Paying for College

Should College Be Free? The Pros and Cons

Types of Publicly Funded College Tuition Programs

Pros: why college should be free, cons: why college should not be free, what the free college debate means for students, how to cut your college costs now, frequently asked questions (faqs).

damircudic / Getty Images

Americans have been debating the wisdom of free college for decades, and more than 30 states now offer some type of free college program. But it wasn't until 2021 that a nationwide free college program came close to becoming reality, re-energizing a longstanding debate over whether or not free college is a good idea. 

And despite a setback for the free-college advocates, the idea is still in play. The Biden administration's free community college proposal was scrapped from the American Families Plan . But close observers say that similar proposals promoting free community college have drawn solid bipartisan support in the past. "Community colleges are one of the relatively few areas where there's support from both Republicans and Democrats," said Tulane economics professor Douglas N. Harris, who has previously consulted with the Biden administration on free college, in an interview with The Balance. 

To get a sense of the various arguments for and against free college, as well as the potential impacts on U.S. students and taxpayers, The Balance combed through studies investigating the design and implementation of publicly funded free tuition programs and spoke with several higher education policy experts. Here's what we learned about the current debate over free college in the U.S.—and more about how you can cut your college costs or even get free tuition through existing programs.

Key Takeaways

• Research shows free tuition programs encourage more students to attend college and increase graduation rates, which creates a better-educated workforce and higher-earning consumers who can help boost the economy. 
• Some programs are criticized for not paying students’ non-tuition expenses, not benefiting students who need assistance most, or steering students toward community college instead of four-year programs.  
• If you want to find out about free programs in your area, the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education has a searchable database. You’ll find the link further down in this article. 

Before diving into the weeds of the free college debate, it's important to note that not all free college programs are alike. Most publicly funded tuition assistance programs are restricted to the first two years of study, typically at community colleges. Free college programs also vary widely in the ways they’re designed, funded, and structured:

• Last-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs cover any remaining tuition after a student has used up other financial aid , such as Pell Grants. Most state-run free college programs fall into this category. However, these programs don’t typically help with room and board or other expenses.
• First-dollar tuition-free programs : These programs pay for students' tuition upfront, although they’re much rarer than last-dollar programs. Any remaining financial aid that a student receives can then be applied to other expenses, such as books and fees. The California College Promise Grant is a first-dollar program because it waives enrollment fees for eligible students.
• Debt-free programs : These programs pay for all of a student's college expenses , including room and board, guaranteeing that they can graduate debt-free. But they’re also much less common, likely due to their expense.  

Proponents often argue that publicly funded college tuition programs eventually pay for themselves, in part by giving students the tools they need to find better jobs and earn higher incomes than they would with a high school education. The anticipated economic impact, they suggest, should help ease concerns about the costs of public financing education. Here’s a closer look at the arguments for free college programs.

A More Educated Workforce Benefits the Economy

Morley Winograd, President of the Campaign for Free College Tuition, points to the economic and tax benefits that result from the higher wages of college grads. "For government, it means more revenue," said Winograd in an interview with The Balance—the more a person earns, the more they will likely pay in taxes . In addition, "the country's economy gets better because the more skilled the workforce this country has, the better [it’s] able to compete globally." Similarly, local economies benefit from a more highly educated, better-paid workforce because higher earners have more to spend. "That's how the economy grows," Winograd explained, “by increasing disposable income."

According to Harris, the return on a government’s investment in free college can be substantial. "The additional finding of our analysis was that these things seem to consistently pass a cost-benefit analysis," he said. "The benefits seem to be at least double the cost in the long run when we look at the increased college attainment and the earnings that go along with that, relative to the cost and the additional funding and resources that go into them." 

Free College Programs Encourage More Students to Attend

Convincing students from underprivileged backgrounds to take a chance on college can be a challenge, particularly when students are worried about overextending themselves financially. But free college programs tend to have more success in persuading students to consider going, said Winograd, in part because they address students' fears that they can't afford higher education . "People who wouldn't otherwise think that they could go to college, or who think the reason they can't is [that] it's too expensive, [will] stop, pay attention, listen, decide it's an opportunity they want to take advantage of, and enroll," he said.

According to Harris, students also appear to like the certainty and simplicity of the free college message. "They didn't want to have to worry that next year they were not going to have enough money to pay their tuition bill," he said. "They don't know what their finances are going to look like a few months down the road, let alone next year, and it takes a while to get a degree. So that matters." 

Free college programs can also help send "a clear and tangible message" to students and their families that a college education is attainable for them, said Michelle Dimino, an Education Director with Third Way. This kind of messaging is especially important to first-generation and low-income students, she said. 

Free College Increases Graduation Rates and Financial Security

Free tuition programs appear to improve students’ chances of completing college. For example, Harris noted that his research found a meaningful link between free college tuition and higher graduation rates. "What we found is that it did increase college graduation at the two-year college level, so more students graduated than otherwise would have." 

Free college tuition programs also give people a better shot at living a richer, more comfortable life, say advocates. "It's almost an economic necessity to have some college education," noted Winograd. Similar to the way a high school diploma was viewed as crucial in the 20th century, employees are now learning that they need at least two years of college to compete in a global, information-driven economy. "Free community college is a way of making that happen quickly, effectively, and essentially," he explained. 

Free community college isn’t a universally popular idea. While many critics point to the potential costs of funding such programs, others identify issues with the effectiveness and fairness of current attempts to cover students’ college tuition. Here’s a closer look at the concerns about free college programs.

It Would Be Too Expensive

The idea of free community college has come under particular fire from critics who worry about the cost of social spending. Since community colleges aren't nearly as expensive as four-year colleges—often costing thousands of dollars a year—critics argue that individuals can often cover their costs using other forms of financial aid . But, they point out, community college costs would quickly add up when paid for in bulk through a free college program: Biden’s proposed free college plan would have cost $49.6 billion in its first year, according to an analysis from Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. Some opponents argue that the funds could be put to better use in other ways, particularly by helping students complete their degrees.

Free College Isn't Really Free

One of the most consistent concerns that people have voiced about free college programs is that they don’t go far enough. Even if a program offers free tuition, students will need to find a way to pay for other college-related expenses , such as books, room and board, transportation, high-speed internet, and, potentially, child care. "Messaging is such a key part of this," said Dimino. Students "may apply or enroll in college, understanding it's going to be free, but then face other unexpected charges along the way." 

It's important for policymakers to consider these factors when designing future free college programs. Otherwise, Dimino and other observers fear that students could potentially wind up worse off if they enroll and invest in attending college and then are forced to drop out due to financial pressures. 

Free College Programs Don’t Help the Students Who Need Them Most

Critics point out that many free college programs are limited by a variety of quirks and restrictions, which can unintentionally shut out deserving students or reward wealthier ones. Most state-funded free college programs are last-dollar programs, which don’t kick in until students have applied financial aid to their tuition. That means these programs offer less support to low-income students who qualify for need-based aid—and more support for higher-income students who don’t.

Community College May Not Be the Best Path for All Students

Some critics also worry that all students will be encouraged to attend community college when some would have been better off at a four-year institution. Four-year colleges tend to have more resources than community colleges and can therefore offer more support to high-need students. 

In addition, some research has shown that students at community colleges are less likely to be academically successful than students at four-year colleges, said Dimino. "Statistically, the data show that there are poorer outcomes for students at community colleges […] such as lower graduation rates and sometimes low transfer rates from two- to four-year schools." 

With Congress focused on other priorities, a nationwide free college program is unlikely to happen anytime soon. However, some states and municipalities offer free tuition programs, so students may be able to access some form of free college, depending on where they live. A good resource is the University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education’s searchable database of Promise Programs , which lists more than 100 free community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

In the meantime, school leaders and policymakers may shift their focus to other access and equity interventions for low-income students. For example, higher education experts Eileen Strempel and Stephen Handel published a book in 2021 titled "Beyond Free College: Making Higher Education Work for 21st Century Students." The book argues that policymakers should focus more strongly on college completion, not just college access. "There hasn't been enough laser-focus on how we actually get people to complete their degrees," noted Strempel in an interview with The Balance. 

Rather than just improving access for low-income college students, Strempel and Handel argue that decision-makers should instead look more closely at the social and economic issues that affect students , such as food and housing insecurity, child care, transportation, and personal technology. For example, "If you don't have a computer, you don't have access to your education anymore," said Strempel. "It's like today's pencil."

Saving money on college costs can be challenging, but you can take steps to reduce your cost of living. For example, if you're interested in a college but haven't yet enrolled, pay close attention to where it's located and how much residents typically pay for major expenses, such as housing, utilities, and food. If the college is located in a high-cost area, it could be tough to justify the living expenses you'll incur. Similarly, if you plan to commute, take the time to check gas or public transportation prices and calculate how much you'll likely have to spend per month to go to and from campus several times a week. 

Now that more colleges offer classes online, it may also be worth looking at lower-cost programs in areas that are farther from where you live, particularly if they allow you to graduate without setting foot on campus. Also, check out state and federal financial aid programs that can help you slim down your expenses, or, in some cases, pay for them completely. Finally, look into need-based and merit-based grants and scholarships that can help you cover even more of your expenses. Also, consider applying to no-loan colleges , which promise to help students graduate without going into debt.

Should community college be free?

It’s a big question with varying viewpoints. Supporters of free community college cite the economic contributions of a more educated workforce and the individual benefit of financial security, while critics caution against the potential expense and the inefficiency of last-dollar free college programs. 

What states offer free college?

More than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program, including Arkansas, California, Connecticut, Delaware, Hawaii, Indiana, Kentucky, Louisiana, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Michigan, Nevada, New York, Oklahoma, Oregon, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Virginia, and Washington State. The University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education lists over 100 last-dollar community college programs and 16 first-dollar community college programs, though the majority are limited to California residents.

Is there a free college?

There is no such thing as a truly free college education. But some colleges offer free tuition programs for students, and more than 30 states offer some type of tuition-free college program. In addition, students may also want to check out employer-based programs. A number of big employers now offer to pay for their employees' college tuition . Finally, some students may qualify for enough financial aid or scholarships to cover most of their college costs.

Scholarships360. " Which States Offer Tuition-Free Community College? "

The White House. “ Build Back Better Framework ,” see “Bringing Down Costs, Reducing Inflationary Pressures, and Strengthening the Middle Class.”

The White House. “ Fact Sheet: How the Build Back Better Plan Will Create a Better Future for Young Americans ,” see “Education and Workforce Opportunities.”

Coast Community College District. “ California College Promise Grant .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Biden’s Free College Plan Would Pay for Itself Within 10 Years.”

Third Way. “ Why Free College Could Increase Inequality .”

Georgetown University Center on Education and the Workforce. “ The Dollars and Cents of Free College ,” see “Free-College Programs Have Different Effects on Race and Class Equity.”

University of Pennsylvania Graduate School of Education. “ College Promise Programs: A Comprehensive Catalog of College Promise Programs in the United States .”

Is free college a good idea? Increasingly, evidence says yes

Subscribe to the brown center on education policy newsletter, douglas n. harris douglas n. harris nonresident senior fellow - governance studies , brown center on education policy , professor and chair, department of economics - tulane university @douglasharris99.

May 10, 2021

• 10 min read

In just a few short years, the idea of free college has moved from a radical idea to mainstream Democratic thinking. President Biden made free college one of his core campaign planks , and one that the first lady has been promoting for years. In his recent address to Congress, the president also signaled that he is ready for legislative action on a scaled-back version of the idea as part of his American Families Plan .

Two weeks ago, the nonprofit College Promise (CP)—led by Martha Kanter, who served as President Obama’s undersecretary for education—also released a proposal that will influence the free college debate. (Full disclosure: I previously advised the Biden campaign and presently advise CP, but have received no compensation for these efforts.)

In today’s polarized environment, the free college idea stands out for its bipartisan support. A majority of self-identified Republicans has supported the notion of free college in some polls. In fact, one of the first such statewide programs was put in place by Bill Haslam, the former Republican governor of Tennessee. While this could go the way of Obamacare, which faced strong GOP congressional opposition despite the law’s origins with Republican Mitt Romney, free college seems different. Biden’s latest plan only applies to community colleges, which focus on career and vocational education of the sort Republicans support, as opposed to universities, which many Republicans view as hostile battlegrounds in a culture war.

But I am less interested in the politics than the evidence of effectiveness. I have studied college access for many years and run two randomized control trials of financial aid , which produced some of the first causal evidence on free college in Milwaukee. Two years ago, Brookings released the first installment of the Milwaukee work, which I carried out with a team of researchers. Since then, we have collected more data and learned more about how students responded over time. Below, I summarize our just-released study (co-authored with Jonathan Mills), compare our results to other financial aid programs, and then discuss implications for the Biden and CP proposals. Consequently, I conclude that the evidence increasingly favors free college and “open access aid” more generally.

What Did We Learn in Milwaukee?

I developed The Degree Project (TDP) in 2009 as a demonstration program in partnership between the nonprofit Ascendium (then known as the Great Lakes Higher Education Corporation and Affiliates) and Milwaukee Public Schools (MPS). TDP offered all first-time 9 th graders in half of MPS high schools $12,000 for college as “last-dollar” aid. Students could use the funds for college if they graduated from high school on time with a GPA of 2.5 and a class attendance rate of 90%. Also, as is the norm with free college programs, students had to fill out the FAFSA and have at least one dollar of unmet need. The aid could be used to attend any of the 66 public, in-state, two- or four-year colleges in Wisconsin. Ascendium provided up to $31 million to fund the grant and, as the main program administrator, sent regular letters to remind students about the program and its requirements. The organization also worked with school counselors to support students becoming eligible for the funds and preparing for college.

TDP was announced to students in the fall of 2011. Using anonymized data, we then tracked students’ high school, college, and life outcomes for eight years, and we recently received data extending through when students were roughly 22 years old. As a rare randomized trial, we could estimate the effects by comparing the control and treatment group outcomes. Here is what we found:

• For students who met the performance requirements, the program increased graduation from two-year colleges by 3 percentage points . This might seem small, but the denominator here is comprised of low-income 9 th graders. Half of the control group did not even graduate from high school, let alone college. The effect amounts to a 25% increase in two-year degrees.
• The framing and design of the program as free two-year college changed student decisions in ways consistent with what free college advocates suggest. The $12,000 maximum award amount was selected because it was sufficient to cover tuition and fees for a two-year college degree. The fact that TDP made two-year college free, but only reduced the cost of four-year college, was clearly communicated to students. This appears to explain one of our main results: Student enrollments shifted from four-year to two-year colleges. This is noteworthy given that students could use the funds at either two- or four-year colleges. In fact, students likely would have been able to use more of the $12,000 if they had shifted to four-year colleges. The only plausible reason for shifting to two-year colleges is that they were really attracted to the idea of free college.
• The “early commitment” nature of the program had some modest positive effects on some high school outcomes . Students learned about TDP in their 9 th grade year, giving them time to change their high school behaviors and college plans. Although it did not improve high school academic achievement, we find that TDP increased college expectations and the steps students took to prepare for college. TDP recipients also reported working harder because of the program (even though this did not show up in the academic measures). This highlights the fact that free college might also help address not only college-going rates, but the long-term stagnancy in high school outcomes.
• The merit requirements undermined the program’s effectiveness . Though the 2.5 GPA and 90% attendance and other requirements were arguably modest, only 21% of eligible students ended up meeting them. So, they ended up excluding many students. We also tested the two main ways that the merit requirements could have been helpful: (a) merit requirements might provide incentives for students to work hard during high school and better prepare for college, and (b) merit requirements might target aid to students who respond to it most. We find no evidence of either benefit. While students did work harder (see point [3] above), this appears to be due to other elements of the program, not the merit requirements.

Overall, these results suggest that aid is most effective when it is “open access”—that is, aid with early commitment and free college framing, but no merit requirements.

What about the evidence beyond Milwaukee?

Our study also reviews other research on financial aid, including federal aid, state merit aid programs, and the newer “promise scholarship” programs that mimic free college. Our study is not alone in finding that financial aid improves student outcomes. In fact, the vast majority of the most rigorous studies find positive effects on college attendance and college graduation. Given the strong average benefits of college, we can expect follow-up studies to show effects on employment earnings, voting, and other outcomes.

What about the costs? Open access aid is more expensive to be sure. More students receive aid and the aid levels per students are larger than traditional financial aid. Is it worth it? Our analysis suggests it is. We carried out new cost-benefit analyses of multiple programs, including TDP, but also other actively studied programs in: Kalamazoo, Michigan; Knox County, Tennessee; Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania; and one statewide program in Nebraska. We also used estimates of the average effects of aid taken from prior literature reviews. All of these programs pass a cost-benefit test. That is, the effects on college outcomes, and the effects of college outcomes on future earnings, is much larger than the cost to the government and society as a whole. Moreover, it appears that benefits-per-dollar-of-cost are at least as high with open access aid as with more restricted programs. This means that open access aid provides greater total benefits to the community as a whole.

Back to the Free College Proposals

What do these results mean for President Biden’s and CP’s proposals? The table below provides a side-by-side comparison. The main difference is the level of detail. This reflects that the CP plan was designed to align with, and flesh out, the Biden campaign proposal. Perhaps the only substantive difference is that the CP proposal (and the Milwaukee program) includes private colleges. The Biden campaign documents exclude private colleges, though the American Families Plan just says “free community college,” signaling alignment with the CP plan. Both proposals are clearly in the category of open access aid.

There are numerous similarities between these provisions and the Milwaukee program that my team and I studied. All three programs make two-year college free (or nearly so) for all students without income requirements and through early commitment of aid. All three require the FAFSA and high school graduation. Importantly, unlike both the Biden and CP proposals, the Milwaukee program had merit requirements, which undermined its success. This is partly why our evidence is so relevant to the current debate.

Some might wonder why the president has scaled back the proposal to just free community college. This reflects that the idea of free college—even the “scaled back” version—is such a marked departure from past policy, especially at the federal level. Free community college alone would still be arguably the largest shift in federal higher education policy in the past half-century.

Caveats and Concluding Thoughts

We cannot make policy from evidence alone, but it can and should play a key role. Sometimes, policy ideas have such limited evidence of effectiveness that it is difficult to make any plausible case for a large-scale, national program. In other cases, there is enough promise for pilot studies and competitive grants to establish efficacy. With free college, we seem to be well beyond that point. In addition to decades of results on general financial aid programs, we have a growing number of studies on state and local programs that all show positive evidence—the “laboratory of democracy” at work. The idea of a large, federal free-college program therefore has more and more credibility.

A decade ago, it was not at all obvious that this is what the evidence would show. There was really no evidence on free college programs when we started this project back in 2009. Also, there were good reasons to expect that such a large increase in aid would suffer from “diminishing returns”—the idea that the next dollar is less effective than the previous one. This could have made free college more costly than the benefits could justify. Now, we know better.

I do still worry a bit about other factors and challenges. For example, the above analyses can only capture the immediate effects of financial aid, yet a federal free college program is such a marked departure in policy that it could alter political and market forces operating on higher education in unpredictable ways, perhaps even lowering college spending and quality. Also, if the proposal remains focused on community colleges, then this will shift students out of four-year colleges and into colleges that currently have very low completion rates. There are also other ways to increase college affordability and access that do not require free college (e.g., increased Pell Grants and income-based loan repayment), some of which target funds more narrowly to the most disadvantaged students. And there are many details to be worked out as the president’s allies in Congress try to generate sufficient support without (a) sacrificing core principles, or (b) creating new problems that can arise when grafting new federal programs on to widely varying state contexts.

Still, it is not often that an idea comes around that addresses a widely acknowledged problem and has both research support and a fair degree of bipartisan political support. The stars seem aligned to make some form of national free college a reality. The more evidence we see, the more that would seem to be a step forward.

Related Content

Douglas N. Harris, Raquel Farmer-Hinton, Debbie Kim, John B. Diamond, Tangela Blakely Reavis, Kelly Krupa Rifelj, Hilary Lustick, Bradley R. Carl

September 20, 2018

Louis Serino

October 2, 2018

Education Access & Equity Education Policy Higher Education

Governance Studies

Brown Center on Education Policy

Katharine Meyer, Rachel M. Perera, Michael Hansen

April 9, 2024

Dominique J. Baker

Katharine Meyer

June 29, 2023

• Follow us on Facebook
• Follow us on Twitter
• Criminal Justice
• Environment
• Politics & Government
• Race & Gender

Expert Commentary

The pros and cons of ‘free college’ and ‘college promise’ programs: What the research says

We've gathered and summarized a sampling of research to help journalists understand the implications and impacts of “free college,” “tuition-free” and “college promise” programs.

Republish this article

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License .

by Denise-Marie Ordway, The Journalist's Resource October 8, 2019

This <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org/economics/free-college-promise-tuition-research/">article</a> first appeared on <a target="_blank" href="https://journalistsresource.org">The Journalist's Resource</a> and is republished here under a Creative Commons license.<img src="https://journalistsresource.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/11/cropped-jr-favicon-150x150.png" style="width:1em;height:1em;margin-left:10px;">

More than 19.9 million students are taking classes at colleges and universities across the United States this semester, up from 14.9 million two decades ago, according to the National Center for Education Statistics.

As enrollment has swelled, so has the price of college. The average combined cost of undergraduate tuition, fees, room and board at four-year schools has doubled since 2000 . The average cost of attendance for full-time students living on campus at an in-state, public college or university during the 2017-18 academic year totaled $24,320 . It totaled $50,338 at private institutions.

Heavy student debt loads created America’s student loan crisis. A recent report from the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis shows that outstanding student loan debt topped $1.6 trillion in the U.S. during the second quarter of 2019.

State and federal lawmakers and 2020 presidential candidates have put forward a range of plans aimed at reducing college costs to curb student debt and encourage more Americans to pursue degrees. Most programs and proposals focus on eliminating tuition at community colleges and state universities. But some also aim to cover educational costs such as mandatory student fees, which schools charge to help pay for student events, health services and other campus offerings.

These initiatives often are referred to as “free college” — even when they only cover tuition — and as “tuition-free” programs. A number of cities, counties and states have introduced “college promise” programs, which also pay students’ tuition and, sometimes, other expenses at two- and four-year institutions.

Recent research indicates there are hundreds of college promise programs in the U.S. Some are small, serving students in a city or public school district. Others are open to students across a state. In 2015, Tennessee became the first state in the country to offer free tuition at all of its community colleges and technical schools with its Tennessee Promise Scholarship . Earlier this month, officials in San Antonio announced AlamoPROMISE , which will allow students who graduate from one of 25 local high schools to receive 60 credits worth of free tuition at five area community colleges starting in fall 2020.

New York’s Excelsior Scholarship , launched in 2017, is the nation’s first statewide program to provide free tuition at state-funded two- and four-year colleges. The program is open to New York residents who have a household income of $125,000 or less and agree to live and work in New York for the same amount of time they receive the scholarship.

To help journalists understand the implications and impacts of these efforts, we’ve gathered and summarized a sampling of research on “free college,” “tuition-free” and “college promise” programs. Because most programs are relatively new, scholars are continuing to study them. We will add new research to this collection as it is published or released.

Also check out these five tips for reporting on free college and college promise programs from Laura Perna, an education professor at the University of Pennsylvania who’s also executive director of its Alliance for Higher Education and Democracy.

Merit Aid, College Quality, and College Completion: Massachusetts’ Adams Scholarship as an In-Kind Subsidy Cohodes, Sarah R; Goodman, Joshua S. American Economic Journal: Applied Economics , 2014.

This study examines a Massachusetts program that offers tuition waivers to high-achieving students who graduated from Massachusetts public high schools. The waivers, a key component of the John and Abigail Adams Scholarship Program , cover the cost of tuition for up to eight semesters at any Massachusetts state college or university.

The key takeaway: While the scholarship induced some of these students to remain in Massachusetts for college — a primary goal of the program — it reduced college completion rates, find the authors, Sarah Cohodes , an associate professor of economics and education at Teachers College, Columbia University, and Joshua Goodman , an associate professor of economics at Brandeis University. After the program started, about 200 fewer Massachusetts high school graduates per year earned college degrees.

Cohodes and Goodman find that each scholarship, valued at less than $7,000, encouraged students with high test scores to attend in-state public colleges and universities, which “were of lower quality than the average alternative available to such students.” Going to a lower quality school is associated with higher odds of dropping out, possibly because public institutions spend substantially less on instruction than private, non-profit colleges, the authors suggest. They analyzed a variety of data on Massachusetts students who graduated high school between 2005 and 2008, tracking them through 2012.

“The scholarship, though relatively small in monetary value, induced substantial changes in college choice,” Cohodes and Goodman write. “College completion rates decreased only for those subsets of students forgoing the opportunity to attend higher quality colleges when accepting the scholarship. We describe the magnitude of this response as remarkable because the value of the scholarship is dwarfed by estimates of the forgone earnings of attending a lower quality college or failing to graduate.”

Free Tuition and College Enrollment: Evidence from New York’s Excelsior Program Nguyen, Hieu. Education Economics , 2019.

New York’s Excelsior Scholarship — the nation’s first statewide “free college” initiative — has had a “negligible” effect on undergraduate enrollment in four-year colleges in the state, finds Hieu Nguyen , a researcher at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville.

Nguyen examined enrollment at public and private higher education institutions to gauge how students are responding to the initiative, launched in 2017 with the goal of helping more New York residents go to college. He looked at full-time undergraduate enrollment in the fall semesters between 2010 and 2017. He finds that even though students were offered free tuition, there was no statistically significant change in enrollment.

Nguyen indicates the program’s requirements might have discouraged some students from participating. “Apart from having to meet the state residency requirement to be eligible for the program, Excelsior recipients are expected to stay and work within the boundary of the state for the same number of years for which they receive the financial aid,” he explains in the paper. “While this constraint can be interpreted as fairly lax and reasonable by some, it might be viewed by others as too stringent, considering that New York has a high average cost of living relative to other states, and that Excelsior scholars are only awarded up to $5,500 per year after all other aid resources are exhausted.”

He notes that the Excelsior Scholarship is unlikely to change enrollment patterns among low-income students, whose tuition often is covered by other forms of financial aid such as federal Pell grants. Nguyen also notes the Excelsior program lacks a coaching component — unlike the Tennessee Promise program, which uses “community coaches” to help guide high school students toward graduation and immediately into college.

Understanding the Promise: A Typology of State and Local College Promise Programs Perna, Laura W.; Leigh, Elaine W. Educational Researcher , 2018.

This academic paper offers a detailed look at the characteristics of college promise programs and introduces a framework for classifying them. The researchers analyzed 289 programs operating in the U.S. in fall 2016 and found they varied in numerous ways, including in their eligibility requirements, the types of costs covered, the structure of financial awards, the length of time students can receive the awards, and the number and types of higher education institutions that participate in the program.

“Perhaps most importantly, the analyses underscore the need for policymakers, practitioners, and researchers to recognize the diversity of approaches that is masked by the college promise label before drawing conclusions about the transferability of findings about one college promise program to another,” write the researchers, Laura W. Perna and Elaine W. Leigh of the University of Pennsylvania.

Perna and Leigh find that college promise programs have these features in common:

• They aim to boost higher education attainment.
• They offer a financial award to eligible students.
• They have a place-based requirement such as residing in a specific city or state or attending a certain school or group of schools.
• They tend to target the traditional college-age population.

Some other findings:

• College promise programs exist nationwide, but the largest share of those that were analyzed — 37% — are in the South. A quarter are in the Midwest while 24% operate in the western U.S. and 14% are in the Northeast.
• Just over half of the college promise programs are state-sponsored. More than three-quarters of state-sponsored programs require award recipients to live in the state for a year. Most — 80% — allow students to attend a two-year or four-year school.
• Of those not sponsored by a state, 23% target students in a specific county, 24% target a school district and 11% target a city. More than half of programs that are not state-sponsored offer awards only to two-year colleges.
• Of the programs examined, 28% cover full tuition and take a “last dollar” approach, meaning they cover the amount of tuition left over after a student’s grants, scholarships and other financial aid money are applied. Meanwhile, 12% cover the full cost of tuition on a “first dollar” basis, meaning the award is applied first, allowing students to use other forms of financial aid to pay for other education-related expenses such as books, housing and food .

About The Author

Denise-Marie Ordway

• Newsletters

Site search

• Israel-Hamas war
• Home Planet
• 2024 election
• Supreme Court
• All explainers
• Future Perfect

Filed under:

Democrats’ ongoing argument about free college, explained

A big debate in theory that may not mean much in practice.

Share this story

• Share this on Facebook
• Share this on Twitter
• Share this on Reddit
• Share All sharing options

Share All sharing options for: Democrats’ ongoing argument about free college, explained

Bernie Sanders made an early splash in 2015 with his call to make public colleges and universities tuition-free — a battle he’s rejoining this week with a new version of legislation to eliminate tuition and cancel student debt — and Democrats have been arguing about it ever since.

In the 2020 field, Elizabeth Warren has joined Sanders on the free college bandwagon. Joe Biden was an early endorser of this idea in 2015 , though he hasn’t talked about it much in the current cycle. Pete Buttigieg says he’s opposed , favoring instead a dramatic expansion of Pell Grants to make college much more affordable for students from low-income families. Amy Klobuchar has been more dismissive , saying she’s not “a magic genie” who can just give expensive stuff to everyone (although the federal government’s ability to create and spend money is not magic but just how the financial system works).

It’s a debate that cleaves two philosophically distinct approaches to politics: one a mentality of hoarding scarce resources for the most efficient uses, and the other a broad, aspirational vision of public luxury in which there’s little need to quibble about exactly who gets what.

But it also speaks to the generational divide in Democratic politics. To older voters, accustomed to the cheap college tuition that prevailed decades ago, “free college” sounds quixotic and frivolous; to younger people burdened by today’s much higher tuition structure and loan-based financing system, it’s a clear commitment to fix a broken system.

Yet the federal government is a secondary actor in higher education. State governments allowed higher education cost structures to rise even while pulling back on funding, pushing more costs onto students. It’s ultimately state governments that will need to decide whether they’re willing to spend more on higher education, cut costs, or both. The candidates arguing about this are running for president, not governor, and when you look under the hoods of their plans, there may be less to the contrast than the broad philosophical discussion would suggest.

Free college helps the rich more than the poor

The crucial criticism of free college plans is that they are “regressive,” which means they deliver more public funds to higher-income families than to low-income families.

This happens for two main reasons.

One is that kids from affluent families are considerably more likely to attend college than kids from less prosperous backgrounds, so any kind of higher education spending tends to disproportionately benefit the affluent. The other is that lower-income kids pay less in tuition than affluent ones. They are more likely to attend relative cheap community colleges than relatively expensive public university flagship campuses. And lower-income kids benefit from Pell Grants and other forms of means-tested tuition assistance like state grant programs and scholarships.

Economists Sandy Baum and Alexandra Tilsley calculate that more than a third of the benefits of free college would go to households earning over $120,000 and relatively little money would flow to the genuinely neediest families or to independent students who are paying for college on their own.

There are different ways of doing the calculation, but they’ll all return the same result. “Parents of college students” is a richer group of people than parents overall. Affluent families are more likely to attend four-year programs rather than two-year programs, and less affluent families are more likely to be already getting help with their tuition.

That’s why Third Way, the flagship policy shop for centrist Democrats, warns that free college “could increase inequality,” while Conor Friedersdorf at the Atlantic terms it “a regressive scandal.”

It’s worth being clear, however, that even though free college helps the rich more than the poor, it’s actually not true that any of the Democratic plans would be regressive in its overall impact. Sanders’s College for All Act is paid for by imposing a financial transactions tax on stock trading, while Warren’s free college plus debt relief plan is supposed to be paid for with some of the proceeds from her proposed wealth tax . Both of these financing mechanisms (especially Warren’s) are extremely progressive, so the aggregate impact of the proposals is, in turn, progressive.

Free college is regressive relative to a hypothetical alternative in which the same pool of money is handed out flatly to everyone regardless of whether they go to college. But Democrats’ free college plans are still progressive relative to the status quo. What’s true is that they’re less progressive than using the same revenue sources to just cut equal checks to everyone would be.

Proponents, however, say this misses the point.

Free college is part of a broader social democratic vision

The general principle of charging high tuition and then largely offsetting that tuition with grants for the poor could, of course, be applied much more broadly.

Local governments could charge $2,500 a year in tuition to attend high school, and most families would be able to pay it. You could then layer a grant program for the neediest families on top and argue that the change was a progressive strategy to soak the rich. But charging tuition to public high school would seriously undermine Americans’ shared understanding of the meaning of a public high school. Imposing a means test on free book borrowing at public libraries would, similarly, cut against the civic purpose of the library, even though many families who take advantage of library services are in the top third of the income distribution and don’t strictly need public assistance to get our hands on books.

Indeed, the fact that affluent families use public libraries is arguably an institutional strength. My neighborhood library attracts people from all walks of life. And by bundling together book lending services that seem to be mostly used by educated yuppies, computer terminals and job training classes that seem to be mostly used by lower-income working-class people, and toddler activities that a very diverse set of families enjoy, the library system garners strong public support.

By the same token, Jordan Weissmann argues that the point of free college is “to rope middle- and upper-middle-class families into a broader social democratic project, one important piece of which is making sure that public colleges stay well-funded for everybody.”

But the universality of free college initiatives isn’t just about cynical politics — it’s a statement of values. To guarantee free college to qualified students is a way of saying that higher education is important and valued, which is one reason the idea seems very popular among young college graduates who would not actually benefit in a concrete way. That said, most people are not young college graduates, and polling from Quinnipiac University and elsewhere tends to indicate that free college plans are moderately unpopular with the electorate at large — even though the exact same poll shows that imposing a wealth tax is popular.

Beyond public opinion, there are a lot of annoying specifics that tend to get glossed over in the high-level argument about free college.

These plans wouldn’t create universal free college

The basic reality is that the federal government does not run colleges or universities and does not set tuition or spending levels at colleges or universities.

Consequently, this whole space is stalked by the fear that if the federal government makes an open-ended commitment to cover students’ tuition, states will simply allow college spending to soar. To address that fear, Sanders’s free college plan does not actually guarantee that students would be able to attend college for free. What it does instead is offering a two-to-one federal matching grant to any state that wants to increase its subsidies to public colleges by enough to eliminate tuition. This tuition elimination must be achieved entirely by higher subsidies — stricter spending discipline is prohibited — and in fact, Sanders’s plan would require states taking the money to “reduce their reliance on low-paid adjunct faculty.”

This is a perfectly reasonable legislative proposal, but in a practical sense, most states aren’t going to take the money. Most state-level Republicans have been reluctant to accept the much more generous nine-to-one matching grants provided by the Affordable Care Act to expand Medicaid.

Somewhat contrary to the stereotype of Warren as the more detail-oriented progressive senator, meanwhile, her free college proposal doesn’t offer any mechanism at all through which to accomplish this goal. The text of her plan simply states that “the federal government will partner with states to split the costs of tuition and fees and ensure that states maintain their current levels of funding on need-based financial aid and academic instruction.”

Perhaps at some future point Warren will spell out a plan that would actually accomplish this, but as written, it’s more of a placeholder than a plan. And Sanders’s plan, while very real, is in a practical sense closer to “free college in a few blue states” than “universal free college,” which in turn raises questions about the plan’s viability in Congress.

By tweaking these proposals somewhat, you could almost certainly increase the likelihood of state uptake. Realistically, though, as long as higher education remains a joint state-federal responsibility, it will be hard to achieve true universality. And once one relaxes the demand for total universality, the distinction between “free college” and other progressive higher education ideas starts to wane.

There are a bunch of ideas that aren’t quite free college

One popular alternative to free college, championed by the Obama administration in its final years, is the idea that the federal government should act to make two years of community college free for everyone . This is both cheaper than a commitment to making four-year public universities free and more narrowly targeted at lower-income students. And because it’s cheaper, it’s feasible for the federal government to offer to shoulder a larger share of the cost, which probably makes it likely that more states would be tempted to get with the program.

A nuance here is that there is significant state-to-state variation in how the lower tier of public higher education is organized .

According to Kevin Carey, the director of New America’s education program, “in Illinois, 62 percent of students enrolled in public institutions attend community college” versus only 32 percent in nearby Michigan and Wisconsin. The difference is the latter states have invested in creating a more extensive network of non-selective four-year institutions to meet the needs of many of the kind of people Illinois serves via community colleges.

Carey proposes that instead of matching funds or a community college limitation, the federal government should just pick a number — somewhere between $5,000 and $10,000 per student — and say any state that wants to make a public college campus free can get that much cash to help them do it. The network would be linked through a set of quality standards including a promise to accept one another’s credits and set the stage for coursework to be done at least partially online.

Meanwhile, Rep. Mark Pocan (D-WI) and Sen. Brian Schatz (D-HI) have legislation to make college debt-free . That includes a clear commitment to ensuring that students don’t need to take out loans to cover living expenses or books, something tuition-oriented plans aren’t always clear on, but also focusing more on high-need students rather than wealthier ones who don’t need to borrow. Their program would give participating states a dollar-for-dollar match from the federal government for however much funding they appropriate for state schools. In exchange, those schools would have to commit to helping students pay for the full cost of college without taking on debt, through need-based grants to help students who can’t afford it cover costs.

This matching rate, however, is even lower than in the Sanders plan, and in practice, many states would just say thanks but no thanks.

There may be less than meets the eye to this debate

On a philosophical level, the free college debate is fascinating.

You have on the one hand a vision of higher education as part of a bundle of free (or at least very cheap) public services offered on equal terms to all — an extension of the principle of free high school and a natural complement to the aspiration to create a single-payer health care system. Then you have on the other hand a vision of higher education as primarily a private benefit to students that should be financed through loans, with targeted assistance to particularly needy cases.

Precisely because this cleaves so neatly into two contrasting visions of higher education and, more broadly, the nature of the good society, it’s easy to become entranced by the pros and cons of the social democratic romance.

The more you dig into the particulars, however, the less obvious it is what this contrast amounts to in presidential politics.

In theory, a candidate could propose using an extremely sharp stick to essentially force states to make college free by eliminating the federal student loan program and replacing it with the carrot of matching funds. But in practice, nobody in the field is actually proposing that. Instead, presidential aspirants have different varieties of carrot-oriented plans that are ultimately going to leave authority in the hands of governors and state legislatures.

Meanwhile, proposals to boost the generosity of federal higher education spending in a targeted way — the main Democratic alternative to free college — would also make it easier for state governments that want to do free college to do it.

So regardless of what happens in presidential politics, the success or failure of the free college movement is ultimately bound to be determined in the states — where most legislative houses remain firmly under GOP control.

Will you support Vox today?

We believe that everyone deserves to understand the world that they live in. That kind of knowledge helps create better citizens, neighbors, friends, parents, and stewards of this planet. Producing deeply researched, explanatory journalism takes resources. You can support this mission by making a financial gift to Vox today. Will you join us?

We accept credit card, Apple Pay, and Google Pay. You can also contribute via

Vox’s guide to where 2020 Democrats stand on policy

• The metapolitics of Medicare-for-all
• Bernie Sanders’s Medicare-for-all plan, explained
• The Sanders-Warren dispute about how to pay for Medicare-for-all, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s plan to pay for Medicare-for-all, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s new Medicare-for-all plan starts out with a public option
• Joe Biden’s health care plan, explained
• Kamala Harris’s Medicare-for-all plan, explained
• Pete Buttigieg’s Medicare-for-all-who-want-it plan, explained
• Where 2020 Democrats agree and disagree on Medicare-for-all
• How the Democratic presidential candidates would combat the opioid epidemic
• Elizabeth Warren’s $100 billion plan to fight the opioid epidemic, explained
• Kamala Harris’s plan to reduce prescription drug costs, explained
• America’s first-ever public option, explained by Gov. Jay Inslee
• Elizabeth Warren’s ambitious new bill to lower generic drug prices, explained
• What 2020 Democrats would do about maternal mortality rates
• Democrats’ confused, and confusing, Medicare-for-all debate
• Bernie Sanders’s criminal justice reform plan, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s criminal justice reform plan, explained
• Kamala Harris’s criminal justice reform plan, explained
• Cory Booker is a genuinely distinctive Democrat on one big issue: criminal justice
• Cory Booker has a plan to reform the criminal justice system — without Congress
• The controversial 1994 crime law that Joe Biden helped write, explained
• Amy Klobuchar’s record as a “tough on crime” prosecutor, explained
• Joe Biden’s long record supporting the war on drugs and mass incarceration, explained
• Kamala Harris just introduced a bill to decriminalize marijuana
• Amy Klobuchar has a plan to reverse the war on drugs — and doesn’t need Congress to do it
• Kamala Harris wants public defenders to get paid as much as prosecutors
• Thousands of rape kits are currently untested. Kamala Harris has a plan to change that.
• Bernie Sanders’s wealth tax proposal, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s proposed tax on enormous fortunes, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s new plan to supercharge the estate tax, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s latest big idea is “economic patriotism”
• Bernie Sanders wants to tax companies that pay their CEOs way more than their workers
• Elizabeth Warren’s plan to expand Social Security, explained
• The big divide among 2020 Democrats over trade — and why it matters
• Presidential hopefuls are promising workers a $15 minimum wage
• Elizabeth Warren’s vision for changing America’s trade policy, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s plan to make farming great again, explained
• Amy Klobuchar’s $1 trillion infrastructure plan, explained
• Michael Bennet’s plan to prevent and end recessions, explained
• The 2020 Democratic immigration debate, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s immigration plan puts the rights of workers into focus
• Elizabeth Warren’s immigration proposal goes much further than a pathway to citizenship
• Julián Castro wants to radically restrict immigration enforcement
• Beto O’Rourke’s immigration plan would go even further on executive power than Trump
• Elizabeth Warren has endorsed the most radical immigration idea in the 2020 primary
• A guide to how 2020 Democrats plan to fight climate change
• Kamala Harris’s climate plan would take polluters to court
• Bernie Sanders’s Green New Deal, explained
• Pete Buttigieg wants the US to be carbon-neutral by the time he’s 68
• Elizabeth Warren thinks corruption is why the US hasn’t acted on climate change
• Julián Castro’s Green New Deal frames climate as a civil rights issue
• Beto O’Rourke now has the most robust climate proposal of any 2020 presidential candidate
• Andrew Yang’s plan to tackle climate change, explained
• Jay Inslee promised serious climate policy and he is delivering
• Jay Inslee has a radical plan to phase out fossil fuel production in the US
• Kirsten Gillibrand wants the fossil fuel industry to pay for climate damages
• Jay Inslee is writing the climate plan the next president should adopt
• The 2020 Democratic primary debate over reparations, explained
• Pete Buttigieg has a plan to win over women
• The one big policy change 2020 Democrats want to make for veterans, explained
• The Democratic debate over letting people in prison vote, explained
• Julián Castro has an ambitious plan to fix American policing
• Marianne Williamson presents the 2020 Democratic primary’s first reparations plan
• Pete Buttigieg lays out his plan to help black Americans
• Julián Castro released an animal welfare plan. It’s good policy — and smart politics.
• Julián Castro’s indigenous communities plan is a 2020 first
• Elizabeth Warren has a plan to narrow the wage gap for women of color
• Amy Klobuchar releases plan to fight hate crimes in wake of El Paso shooting
• Study: Cory Booker’s baby bonds nearly close the racial wealth gap for young adults
• Beto O’Rourke just unveiled a comprehensive proposal to protect LGBTQ people
• Elizabeth Warren’s K-12 education plan, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s free college plan, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s free college proposal just got a whole lot bigger
• Bernie Sanders is rolling out an education plan that cracks down on charter schools
• Kamala Harris’s plan to dramatically increase teacher salaries, explained
• Cory Booker’s massive overhaul of the Newark schools, explained
• Joe Biden’s plan to triple spending on low-income schools, explained
• Every 2020 frontrunner’s labor platform, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s plan to reshape corporate America, explained
• Elizabeth Warren wants to break up Google, Amazon, and Facebook
• Amy Klobuchar enters 2020 race ready to take on Big Tech
• Elizabeth Warren’s new plan to make sure Amazon (and other big companies) pays corporate tax, explained
• Elizabeth Warren wants CEOs to go to jail when their companies behave badly
• The 20-year argument between Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren over bankruptcy, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s corporate employee ownership plan, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s latest Wall Street enemy: private equity
• The big new plan to save unions endorsed by Bernie Sanders and Pete Buttigieg, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s ambitious plan to double union membership, explained
• Facial recognition tech is a problem. Here’s how the Democratic candidates plan to tackle it.
• We asked all the 2020 Democrats how they’d fix child care. Here’s what they said.
• Kamala Harris’s new paid family leave plan is the most generous yet
• Elizabeth Warren’s universal child care plan, explained
• Kamala Harris’s plan to close the gender wage gap, explained
• Kirsten Gillibrand is making paid family leave a defining issue in her 2020 run
• Kirsten Gillibrand’s new policy platform is about making parenting affordable
• The 2020 Democrats’ foreign policy divide
• Democrats want to challenge Trump’s foreign policy in 2020. They’re still working out how.
• Democrats are increasingly critical of Israel. Not Pete Buttigieg.
• Bernie Sanders’s political revolution on foreign policy, explained
• John Delaney has a serious foreign policy plan
• Why Kirsten Gillibrand’s foreign policy plan is one of the strongest yet
• Why Joe Biden’s foreign policy experience is both a weakness and a strength in 2020
• Joe Biden wants to restore the pre-Trump world order
• Here’s where every 2020 candidate stands on guns
• Joe Biden’s gun plan calls for universal background checks and an assault weapons ban
• Elizabeth Warren has a new plan to reduce gun violence by 80 percent
• Bernie Sanders’s record on gun control, explained
• Pete Buttigieg’s plan to combat domestic terrorists and pass gun control laws, explained
• Cory Booker’s ambitious new gun control plan, explained
• Here’s where all the 2020 Democratic candidates stand on abortion rights
• Elizabeth Warren just announced her abortion platform. It’s aggressive.
• Kamala Harris has a plan to stop states from restricting abortion access
• Joe Biden’s evolution on abortion, explained
• Elizabeth Warren’s new remedy for corruption: a tax on lobbying
• Elizabeth Warren’s first priority as president: ending government corruption
• 2020 Democrats’ campaign finance pledges, explained
• Elizabeth Warren has a new plan to make voting easier
• The Democratic debate over filibuster reform, explained
• Elizabeth Warren says she wants to make it legal to indict presidents
• Kirsten Gillibrand’s plan to get more small donors into politics: give every voter $600
• Elizabeth Warren’s new policy rollout targets Pentagon corruption
• 5 anti-poverty plans from 2020 Democratic presidential contenders, explained
• Kamala Harris’s new basic income-style bill is so frustratingly close to being great
• Why Andrew Yang wants to give a random Twitter follower a $12,000 basic income
• Elizabeth Warren’s plan to fix America’s digital divide, explained
• Bernie Sanders’s housing-for-all plan, explained
• Cory Booker’s plan to fix the housing crisis and make renting affordable
• Cory Booker and Kamala Harris’s affordable housing plans, explained

Sign up for the newsletter Today, Explained

Understand the world with a daily explainer plus the most compelling stories of the day.

Thanks for signing up!

Check your inbox for a welcome email.

Oops. Something went wrong. Please enter a valid email and try again.

Choose Your Test

Sat / act prep online guides and tips, 55 great debate topics for any project.

General Education

A debate is a formal discussion about a topic where two sides present opposing viewpoints. Debates follow a specific structure: each side is given time to speak either for or against the topic at hand.

Many students study debate in high school to improve their speaking skills. As a debater, you learn how to clearly structure and present an argument. The skills you develop as a debater will help you on everything from a college admissions interview to a job presentation.

Selecting debate topics is one of the most important parts of debating. In this article, we’ll explain how to select a good debate topic and give suggestions for debate topics you can use.

How to Select Good Debate Topics

A good debate topic is one that lets the participants and the audience learn about both sides of an issue. Consider the following factors when selecting a debate topic:

Interest: Are you interested in the topic? Would the topic be interesting to your fellow classmates, as well as to the audience listening to the debate? Selecting a topic that you’re interested in makes the preparation part of the debate more exciting , as well as the debate more lively.

Argument Potential: You want to choose a debate topic that has solid argument potential. If one side is clearly right, or if there isn’t a lot of available information, you’ll have a hard time crafting a solid debate.

Availability of Data: Data points make an argument more robust. You’ll want to select a topic with lots of empirical data that you can pull from to bolster your argument.

Now that we know how to select a debate topic, let’s look at a list of good debate topics.

Debate Topics Master List

If you’re searching for your next debate topic, here are some suggestions.

Social and Political Issues Debate Topics

• All people should have the right to own guns.
• The death penalty should be abolished.
• Human cloning should be legalized.
• All drugs should be legalized.
• Animal testing should be banned.
• Juveniles should be tried and treated as adults.
• Climate change is the greatest threat facing humanity today.
• Violent video games should be banned.
• The minimum wage should be $15 per hour.
• All people should have Universal Basic Income.
• Sex work should be legal.
• Countries should be isolationist.
• Abortion should be banned.
• Every citizen should be mandated to perform national public service.
• Bottled water should be banned.
• Plastic bags should be banned.

Education Debate Topics

• Homework should be banned.
• Public prayer should not be allowed in schools.
• Schools should block sites like YouTube, Facebook, and Instagram on their computers.
• School uniforms should be required.
• Standardized testing should be abolished.
• All students should have an after-school job or internship.
• School should be in session year-round.
• All high school athletes should be drug tested.
• Detention should be abolished.
• All student loan debt should be eliminated.
• Homeschooling is better than traditional schooling.
• All schools should have armed security guards.
• Religion should be taught in schools.
• All schools should be private schools.
• All students should go to boarding schools.
• Sexual education should be mandatory in schools.
• Public college should be tuition free.
• All teachers should get tenure.
• All school districts should offer school vouchers.

Health Debate Topics

• Healthcare should be universal.
• Cosmetic procedures should be covered by health insurance.
• All people should be vegetarians.
• Euthanasia should be banned.
• The drinking age should be 18.
• Vaping should be banned.
• Smoking should be banned in all public places.
• People should be legally required to get vaccines.
• Obesity should be labeled a disease.
• Sexual orientation is determined at birth.
• The sale of human organs should be legalized.
• Birth control should be for sale over the counter.

Technology Debate Topics

• Social media has improved human communication.
• The development of artificial intelligence will help humanity.
• Individuals should own their own DNA.
• Humans should invest in technology to explore and colonize other planets.
• Governments should invest in alternative energy sources.
• Net neutrality should be restored.
• Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies should be encouraged or banned.
• Alternative energy can effectively replace fossil fuels.
• Cell phone radiation is dangerous and should be limited.

How to Prepare for a Debate

Once you’ve selected your debate topic, the next step is to prepare for your debate. Follow these steps as you get ready to take the podium.

Read Your Evidence

The most important step to building your debate confidence is to familiarize yourself with the evidence available. You’ll want to select reputable sources and use empirical data effectively.

The more well read on your topic you are, the better you’ll be able to defend your position and anticipate the other side’s arguments.

Anticipate the Other Side’s Arguments

As part of your debate, you’ll need to rebut the other side’s arguments. It’s important to prepare ahead of time to guess what they’ll be talking about. You’ll bolster your own side’s argument if you’re able to effectively dismantle what the other side is saying.

Plan to Fill Your Speech Time

Each speaker at a debate is limited to a certain amount of time. You should plan to use every second of the time that you’re allotted. Make sure you practice your talking points so that you know you’re within the time frame. If you’re short, add in more evidence.

Practice to Build Confidence

It can be scary to take the stage for a debate! Practicing ahead of time will help you build confidence. Remember to speak slowly and clearly. Even if your argument is great, it won’t matter if no one can understand it.

Final Thoughts

Debate is a great way to hone your public speaking skills and get practice crafting and defending an argument. Use these debate topics if you're searching for a focus for your next debate.

What's Next?

Looking for ways to keep the debate going in non-academic life? Then you'll love our list of 101 "this or that" questions to argue over with your friends.

Thinking about how you can use your argumentative skills in a future career? Read up on the five steps to becoming a lawyer to see if that's a path you want to pursue.

Getting ready to take an AP test? Here’s a list of practice tests for every AP exam, including the AP literature exam .

It can be hard to schedule time to study for an AP test on top of your extracurriculars and normal classwork. Check out this article on when you need to start studying for your AP tests to make sure you’re staying on track.

Hayley Milliman is a former teacher turned writer who blogs about education, history, and technology. When she was a teacher, Hayley's students regularly scored in the 99th percentile thanks to her passion for making topics digestible and accessible. In addition to her work for PrepScholar, Hayley is the author of Museum Hack's Guide to History's Fiercest Females.

Ask a Question Below

Have any questions about this article or other topics? Ask below and we'll reply!

Improve With Our Famous Guides

• For All Students

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 160+ SAT Points

How to Get a Perfect 1600, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 800 on Each SAT Section:

Score 800 on SAT Math

Score 800 on SAT Reading

Score 800 on SAT Writing

Series: How to Get to 600 on Each SAT Section:

Score 600 on SAT Math

Score 600 on SAT Reading

Score 600 on SAT Writing

Free Complete Official SAT Practice Tests

What SAT Target Score Should You Be Aiming For?

15 Strategies to Improve Your SAT Essay

The 5 Strategies You Must Be Using to Improve 4+ ACT Points

How to Get a Perfect 36 ACT, by a Perfect Scorer

Series: How to Get 36 on Each ACT Section:

36 on ACT English

36 on ACT Math

36 on ACT Reading

36 on ACT Science

Series: How to Get to 24 on Each ACT Section:

24 on ACT English

24 on ACT Math

24 on ACT Reading

24 on ACT Science

What ACT target score should you be aiming for?

ACT Vocabulary You Must Know

ACT Writing: 15 Tips to Raise Your Essay Score

How to Get Into Harvard and the Ivy League

How to Get a Perfect 4.0 GPA

How to Write an Amazing College Essay

What Exactly Are Colleges Looking For?

Is the ACT easier than the SAT? A Comprehensive Guide

Should you retake your SAT or ACT?

When should you take the SAT or ACT?

Stay Informed

Get the latest articles and test prep tips!

Looking for Graduate School Test Prep?

Check out our top-rated graduate blogs here:

GRE Online Prep Blog

GMAT Online Prep Blog

TOEFL Online Prep Blog

Holly R. "I am absolutely overjoyed and cannot thank you enough for helping me!”

Numbers, Facts and Trends Shaping Your World

Read our research on:

Full Topic List

Regions & Countries

• Publications
• Our Methods
• Short Reads
• Tools & Resources

Read Our Research On:

Democrats overwhelmingly favor free college tuition, while Republicans are divided by age, education

American adults generally support making tuition free at public colleges and universities for all U.S. students, yet there are sizable partisan and demographic differences in views of tuition-free college.

Republicans, in particular, are divided by age and educational attainment in opinions on this issue, according to a new Pew Research Center survey conducted July 8-18, 2021.

Among all U.S. adults, 63% favor making tuition at public colleges free, including 34% who strongly favor the proposal. Slightly more than a third oppose tuition-free college (36%), with 20% strongly opposed. These views are little changed over the past year.

Large shares of Black (86%), Hispanic (82%) and Asian American (69%) adults favor making college free for all Americans, compared with 53% of White adults. And while 73% of adults under age 30 favor this proposal, only about half (51%) of those ages 65 and older support it.

For this analysis on views of tuition-free college, we surveyed 10,221 U.S. adults from July 8-18, 2021. Everyone who took part is a member of Pew Research Center’s American Trends Panel (ATP), an online survey panel that is recruited through national, random sampling of residential addresses. This way nearly all U.S. adults have a chance of selection. The survey is weighted to be representative of the U.S. adult population by gender, race, ethnicity, partisan affiliation, education and other categories. Read more about the  ATP’s methodology.  

Here are  the questions used  for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents overwhelmingly favor making college tuition free for all American students (85% support this). While 63% of Republicans and Republican leaners oppose making college tuition-free, 36% support this.

There are significant differences in these views among Republicans and GOP leaners: Those under age 30 are nearly twice as likely as those 65 and older to support making college tuition free for all Americans (45% vs. 23%).

And while Republicans who have completed college mostly oppose making tuition free for all American students, the proposal draws more support from Republicans who do not have a four-year degree.

The differences among Republicans are particularly stark when combining age and educational attainment. Among Republicans under age 50 who have not completed college, 52% favor making college tuition free for all Americans. Among Republican college graduates in this age group, only 30% support this.

Support for tuition-free college declines among older Republicans, regardless of whether or not they have completed college. However, even among Republicans ages 50 and older, those who have not completed college are more supportive of this proposal than those who have a college degree.

Note: This is an update of a post originally published Feb. 21, 2020. Here are  the questions used  for this report, along with responses, and its methodology .

• Comparison of Age Groups
• Education & Politics
• Higher Education
• Political Issues
• Politics & Policy

Hannah Hartig is a senior researcher focusing on U.S. politics and policy research at Pew Research Center .

About half of Americans say the best age for a U.S. president is in their 50s

Social trust in advanced economies is lower among young people and those with less education, experiences with the covid-19 outbreak can vary for americans of different ages, the financial risk to u.s. business owners posed by covid-19 outbreak varies by demographic group, young adult households are earning more than most older americans did at the same age, most popular.

1615 L St. NW, Suite 800 Washington, DC 20036 USA (+1) 202-419-4300 | Main (+1) 202-857-8562 | Fax (+1) 202-419-4372 |  Media Inquiries

Research Topics

• Age & Generations
• Coronavirus (COVID-19)
• Economy & Work
• Family & Relationships
• Gender & LGBTQ
• Immigration & Migration
• International Affairs
• Internet & Technology
• Methodological Research
• News Habits & Media
• Non-U.S. Governments
• Other Topics
• Race & Ethnicity
• Email Newsletters

ABOUT PEW RESEARCH CENTER  Pew Research Center is a nonpartisan fact tank that informs the public about the issues, attitudes and trends shaping the world. It conducts public opinion polling, demographic research, media content analysis and other empirical social science research. Pew Research Center does not take policy positions. It is a subsidiary of  The Pew Charitable Trusts .

Copyright 2024 Pew Research Center

Terms & Conditions

Privacy Policy

Cookie Settings

Reprints, Permissions & Use Policy

Winter 2024

The Case Against Free College

Without an overhaul of how we understand student benefits, making college free would boost the wealth of college attendees without any egalitarian gains.

[contentblock id=subscribe-ad]

In the United States, as in much of the rest of the world, college students receive three kinds of public benefits: tuition subsidies, living grants, and public loans. Through various combinations of this benefit troika, almost all students are able to finance their college education. Some on the left are very unhappy with the precise mix of student benefits currently on offer. Student debt activists, among others, complain that tuition subsidies and living grants make up too little of the student benefit bundle, while public loans make up too much of it.

Recently, this complaint has begun to coalesce into a number of movements and proposals for “free college.” I put the phrase in quotes because it means different things to different people. For some, “free college” means subsidizing tuition to zero. For others, it means subsidizing tuition to zero and providing living grants high enough to completely cover room and board. For still others, it appears to mean putting in place some mix of means-tested tuition subsidies, living grants, and even subsidized work-study jobs that, combined with expected parental assistance, allow nearly all students to leave college with little to no debt.

One could write at great length about these different conceptions of “free” and the policy proposals that have formed around them. For instance, since people who do not attend college also have housing and food costs, is it really correct to say room and board is a cost of attending college? Why do none of these conceptions consider as a cost of college all of the potential wages students forego by choosing to study rather than work? Does parental assistance with college really help to make it free or is it more properly understood as a family wealth transfer that students then pay towards their higher education?

Of greater importance than all of those questions, however, is the more basic question about the fairness of free college as an idea. Those clamoring for free college make normative claims about the nature of a just and good society. As currently argued, however, these claims are largely uncompelling. Without a dramatic overhaul of how we understand student benefits, making college more or entirely free would most likely boost the wealth of college attendees without securing any important egalitarian gains.

The main problem with free college is that most students come from disproportionately well-off backgrounds and already enjoy disproportionately well-off futures, which makes them relatively uncompelling targets for public transfers. At age nineteen, only around 20 percent of children from the poorest 2 percent of families in the country attend college. For the richest 2 percent of families, the same number is around 90 percent. In between these two extremes, college attendance rates climb practically straight up the income ladder: the richer your parents are, the greater the likelihood that you are in college at age nineteen. The relatively few poor kids who do attend college heavily cluster in two-year community colleges and cheaper, less selective four-year colleges, while richer kids are likely to attend more expensive four-year institutions. At public colleges (the type we’d likely make free), students from the poorest fourth of the population currently pay no net tuition at either two-year or four-year institutions, while also receiving an average of $3,080 and $2,320 respectively to offset some of their annual living expenses. Richer students currently receive much fewer tuition and living grant benefits.

Given these class-based differences in attendance levels, institutional selection, and current student benefit levels, making college free for everyone would almost certainly mean giving far more money to students from richer families than from poorer ones. Of course, providing more generous student benefits might alter these class-based skews a bit by encouraging more poor and middle-class people to go to college or to attend more expensive institutions. But even reasonably accounting for those kinds of responses, the primary result of such increased student benefit generosity would be to fill the pockets of richer students and their families.

Student benefit campaigners tend not to focus on these sorts of distributive questions, preferring instead to gesture towards a supposed student debt crisis to prove that those who attended college really are a hurting class needing higher benefits. While there are certain extreme cases of students with very high debts, and certain college sectors such as for-profits that are truly immiserating specific groups of students, the reality remains that college graduates are generally on track for much better financial outcomes than non-attendees. Even in the wake of the Great Recession, which hit young people harder than anyone else, those with bachelor’s degrees had median personal incomes $17,500 higher than young high school graduates. Just one year of this income premium would be enough to wipe out the median debt of a public four-year-college graduate, which currently stands slightly above $10,000.

Although extending extra benefits to such a disproportionately well-off group is a deeply suspicious idea, the way American student benefit campaigners talk about it is somehow worse still. Due to the toxic American mix of aversion to welfare benefits, love of individual rights, and faith in meritocracy, the typical line you hear about free college is that it should be a right of students because they have worked hard and done everything right. The implicit suggestion of such rhetoric is that students are really owed free college as the reward for not being like those less virtuous high school graduates who refuse to do what it takes to better themselves through education.

Needless to say, such thinking is extremely damaging to a broader egalitarian project, even more so in some ways than its goal of setting aside a part of our national income for the inegalitarian aim of making college free. If we are actually going to push a free college agenda, it should not be under a restrictive students’ rights banner, but instead under a general pro-welfare banner. The goal of free college should not be to help students per se , but instead to bind them to a broader welfare benefit system. By presenting their tuition subsidies and living grants as indistinguishable from benefits for the disabled, the poor, the elderly, and so on, it may be possible to encourage wealthier students to support the welfare state and to undermine students’ future claims of entitlement to the high incomes that college graduates so often receive. After all, the college income premium would only be possible through the welfare benefits to which the rest of society—including those who never went to college—has contributed.

Without understanding and presenting student benefits as welfare handouts, a free college agenda has no real egalitarian purpose. Giving extra money to a class of disproportionately well-off people without securing any reciprocal benefit to poor and working-class people who so often do not attend college, all while valorizing the college student as a virtuous person individually deserving of such benefits, would be at worst destructive, and at best, totally pointless.

Matt Bruenig is a writer who researches poverty, inequality, and welfare systems.

This article is part of   Dissent’s special issue of “Arguments on the Left.” Click to read contending arguments from Tressie McMillan Cottom and Mike Konczal .

[contentblock id=subscribe-plain]

Sign up for the Dissent newsletter:

Socialist thought provides us with an imaginative and moral horizon.

For insights and analysis from the longest-running democratic socialist magazine in the United States, sign up for our newsletter:

Type search request and press enter

What Should Free Speech Mean in College?

Universities must cultivate a climate in which students feel comfortable taking intellectual risks. four faculty members weigh in on why setting that culture is hard..

Reading time min

Illustration: Aad Goudappel

By Jill Patton

I magine a student posting satirical flyers around his dorm that mock undocumented students who fear deportation. Or flyers that say, “Racism lives here.” Or posters advertising a controversial speaker’s visit—which another resident rips down.

Now picture a classroom discussion about police shootings of African Americans. Some students attribute the deaths to cops’ racist attitudes. Another student counters that claim, saying a more likely explanation is that violent crime rates are higher among blacks. “Now, that was particularly uncivil!” the professor replies. Another student stands, as if to storm out in disgust at his classmate’s rebuttal. The professor slams his hand on the table, crying, “Sit down!” as he tries to regain control of the room.

Out in White Plaza—a Stanford free speech zone—a student group staffs a table in support of a Supreme Court nominee. Detractors try to steal the group’s signs, prompting the supporters to film the sign stealers and the taunting that ensues on both sides.

There are no easy answers to how a university should address conflicts in which students feel attacked or silenced—sometimes on both sides simultaneously. As Debra Satz, a philosopher and the dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences, says, “A central aim of the university—to generate knowledge—depends on the free exchange of ideas.” But, says Satz, who expands on her view in an essay below, “The classroom is not a street corner: No classroom can be a place of learning without abiding by norms of civility and mutual respect.”

For several years now, we’ve debated as a nation whether free speech on college campuses is under duress—and if so, how so and what to do about it. Here, you’ll read four senior faculty members’ views on the matter, and on how Stanford might cultivate open dialogue while paying heed to another university value that molds our educational experiences: inclusion. We hope you’ll consider their views and then share your own .

Jill Patton , ’03, MA ’04, is the senior editor of S tanford .

Ralph Richard Banks (Photo: Natalie Glatzel)

When silence isn’t golden.

by Ralph Richard Banks

“Words are dangerous. That’s why we should always choose them with care.” 

That’s my way of preparing my law students for the discussion of controversial and polarizing topics—abortion, same-sex marriage, capital punishment, affirmative action. I worry that the inclination to censor oneself or others may deprive us all of the full and rich inquiry such topics warrant. I know, too, that students may feel invested in these topics, implicated by them, in a way they don’t when we discuss, say, invalidation of wage and hour laws during the New Deal. It’s all too easy for the class to reach an unproductive equilibrium, where some students don’t speak to avoid the risk of censure and others confidently declare some views righteous and others bigoted.

Students are unlikely to make useful intellectual contributions if they are feeling attacked or if they feel that they don’t belong at Stanford.

Gay and lesbian students may feel, understandably, that criticisms of same-sex marriage imply rejection of them. Other students may be hesitant to voice religious opposition to same-sex marriage, fearing moral condemnation by their classmates. Similar issues arise with race-based affirmative action, where students from underrepresented racial minority groups might feel as though their status as a Stanford student is being questioned. Classmates, in turn, might either imply that they don’t belong or decline to voice important questions about the wisdom and effects of race-based affirmative action.

In short and plain language, we need to cut other people some slack.

In both cases, I try to frame the discussion broadly and to make it about policies rather than people. I situate race-based affirmative action, for example, in the context of the many ways that universities deviate from strict admissions criteria of grades and test scores. I place same-sex marriage within a broader conversation about the changing role and nature of marriage. With both topics, I try to create space for conversation by encouraging students to identify unbigoted reasons that people may oppose race-based affirmative action or the Supreme Court’s mandate of same-sex marriage. 

While the challenges of conversation around such sensitive issues are longstanding, my sense is that they have become more daunting in recent years. It has become increasingly difficult to maintain an environment in which all students feel free to share their views and to join together in working through morally fraught and politically divisive issues.

I see two factors as undermining debate on college campuses. One is the rise of social media, or, more accurately, the dominance of social media as a means through which young people relate to others and learn about their society. Now, what happens inside the classroom is shaped by what could happen outside of the classroom. In class, comments can be made available to the world nearly instantaneously. Social media mobs can seem merciless and relentless. The second factor relates to students’ willingness to pounce on others who voice sentiments they deem unacceptable. Some portion of this inclination stems from anxiety and insecurity; students in their search for comfort seek certainty—an ideological safe space. This confluence of forces can lead to an uncomfortable classroom dynamic, in which the most thoughtful students become the least likely to speak out, leaving a conversation dominated by those with the most extreme and self-righteous views. 

This situation is worsened by the fact that the nearest role models—the faculty—are often not very much better at engaging around polarizing issues. Just as students do not want to be called to account by their classmates, neither do faculty want to be targeted by students for having said something allegedly racist, sexist, classist, etc. All too often, faculty, rationally, pull back from discussing contentious issues for fear of censure. And faculty are aware that if issues do arise, the institution is more likely to protect its own interest, which is in avoiding controversy, protest and bad publicity, than to take a principled stance in support of a faculty member. No wonder that students fall short of our aspirations for full and vigorous debate; faculty often do as well.

I have my own way of pushing back against the forces that squelch debate. I emphasize that even polarizing, politically divisive issues are, in fact, complicated; they highlight difficult questions of law and policy, areas where the answers are not obvious. We would do well, then, to resist the urge toward self-righteousness and instead embrace a sense of humility, with full awareness of the limits of our own understanding. Curiosity will lead to more insight than certainty. 

Confronted with challenging topics, we need to cultivate patience, both with ourselves and with others. We should be less likely to take offense, less likely to impute ill. We need to charitably interpret others’ perspectives and hold in our minds the possibility that they may be criticizing our position, not us; our viewpoint, not our identity. In short and plain language, we need to cut other people some slack. And if we cut them some slack, hopefully they will cut us some slack. That would give everyone more space to join together in trying to figure out this complicated and frightening world in which we live. 

Ralph Richard Banks , ’87, MA ’87, is the Jackson Eli Reynolds Professor of Law at Stanford Law  School. His scholarship focuses on  the law with respect to race, education, employment and family.

Academic Value No. 1

by Michael McConnell

Freedom of speech on campus has become controversial as never before. A recent national survey of 2,225 college students found that 57 percent think university administrators should be able to restrict political views that are seen as hurtful or offensive to others. Even at Stanford, students frequently appeal to the university to silence other students whose views make them feel uncomfortable. This makes serious discussion of many important political issues almost impossible. Students of a conservative persuasion tell me that they do not feel free to express their views—even mainstream, reasonable views shared by millions of Americans—in class or in common spaces, for fear of attracting a torrent of abuse from fellow students and occasional disapproval from a small minority of ideologically intolerant faculty. They simply self-censor; they keep their mouths shut.

In disciplines like law, political science, history, the humanities and even medicine, the silencing of political dissent has devastating consequences. The purpose of the university is to search for the truth through the relentless exercise of reason and evidence; that purpose cannot be achieved if dissenting views are suppressed or potentially controversial avenues of inquiry are avoided. At a personal level, it is, of course, bad for the political minority, who feel excluded and unwelcome. But the greatest victims are members of the political majority, the left-progressive students who are deprived of the opportunity to test their arguments against contrary ideas, to learn how to engage with (and perhaps to persuade) people from the other side, and even, on occasion, to discover that they were wrong or misguided. Universities should not be bubbles. A university education should prepare students to encounter the world, in all its diversity and contentiousness, where not everyone will agree and not everyone will be willing to follow left-progressive notions about what can and cannot be said.

Universities should not be bubbles.

Moderate students who share some but not all the views of either side may be the most endangered. In these highly polarized times, students of a conservative, libertarian or religious-traditionalist bent can find friends and allies—at least outside of the classroom or the more public arenas for discussion. But moderates are without a home. They are excoriated if they deviate from the left-progressive orthodoxy but may not wish to make common cause with the right side of the spectrum. My sense is that moderate voices are disappearing from the campus debate. 

Stanford as a university should actively encourage diversity of opinion in a way that would be beyond the proper role of government. We should not be content with protecting the freedom of speech. We should regard a healthy pluralism of opinion as a pedagogical necessity.

What, then, should we do? I have three suggestions.

First, we should undertake a survey of the campus environment to determine just how constrained the expression of dissenting opinions really is. Do students who differ from the majority feel silenced? Do students at Stanford interact with people of differing views? Are serious cross-ideological conversations taking place? Is the classroom a place of free inquiry and discussion, rather than of ideological indoctrination or conformity? These must be questions, not assumptions. As a scientific, empirically minded institution, when Stanford is serious about campus problems, whether they are sexual assaults or the high cost of housing, the first step is to survey students and faculty to find out how serious the problem actually is.

Second, we need to elevate the topic of free exchange of ideas within the Stanford community. For much of our history, educators could assume that free speech and the toleration of difference of opinion were values shared by all Americans. This can no longer be assumed. Perhaps the role of the university in society, and the central place of freedom of expression in fulfilling that role, could be made the focus of a portion of New Student Orientation. Princeton chose Professor Keith Whittington’s Speak Freely: Why Universities Must Defend Free Speech as the book all incoming students would read and discuss together last fall. We could, and should, do something similar.

Third, we need an office in the university administration that is committed to protecting freedom of inquiry and freedom of expression. Currently, when a student’s poster is taken down by dorm officials or a professor demands ideological conformity, students have no obvious place to go for redress. 

Free speech is not just a legal constraint. It is an academic value. We need to do more to give it life.

Michael McConnell  is the Richard and Frances Mallery  Professor of Law and director of the Constitutional Law Center, as well as a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution.

Listen and Learn

by Hazel Rose Markus

We have two ears and one mouth; it is wise to use them in these proportions. This wisdom, attributed to multiple advice-givers across time and continents, highlights the underappreciated power of listening.

To provide a stable foundation for learning, growth and community at Stanford, our values of free expression and inclusion should be equally strong. Currently, free speech, which privileges the use of the mouth, is far stronger. Inclusion, the idea that everyone belongs and that no one should feel like a guest in someone else’s house, could use buttressing. Cultivating the use of the ears in houses and dorms but also in classes is one way to strengthen inclusion. 

As a psychologist who studies culture, I know that the imbalance in institutional emphasis between free speech and inclusion is hardly unique to Stanford. In the United States, where the individual is understood as a stable, independent entity, free speech has the advantage of historical precedent and widespread philosophical and moral support. Through talking, people express their rights and individuality; they influence their worlds. Americans are constantly exhorted to find and use their voices. Free speech is guaranteed by the First Amendment, and the United States is a nation of many free talkers. The best way to counter any excesses of free speech, we are told by legal experts, is with more speech. 

When a class becomes a community, everyone learns more.

Inclusion is a newer and more complex concern with much less historical and institutional underpinning. Inclusion is hard because it removes the spotlight from the free and independent individual and instead illuminates interdependence, relationships and the consequences of individuals’ actions. Meaningful recognition and inclusion of the many experiences and perspectives that now make up Stanford is a challenge that will require many small tweaks, as well as larger changes in norms, policies and practices. 

Speaking freely in my Cultural Psychology class, I noted that in the United States, talking was valuable because “the squeaky wheel gets the grease.” Several students with East Asian backgrounds seemed puzzled and offered a different cultural take on talking: “The mouth is the source of misfortune” and “The duck that quacks the loudest gets shot.” For those who hail from worlds in which the individual is not centered and separated but understood as a flexible, committed being defined by relations with close others, speaking requires attention to the consequences of one’s speech. And research confirms that while it’s true for European Americans that talking helps thinking, for many Asians and Asian Americans, talking can actually get in the way of thinking.

In class, some students with European American backgrounds were extremely well practiced in speaking freely and often. As one student told me, “I don’t even know what I think until I hear myself saying it.” Others, however, often those with less wealth and privilege, or those who were first-gen, were decidedly more reticent. A student who grew up in a rural community where he practiced fitting in, keeping his head down and paying attention to authority, asked me, “All those students who talk all the time—how do they do it? How do they already have so many ideas and opinions?”

As I have listened to these students, I have learned that they all have a lot to contribute but that the university as currently arranged makes inclusion more likely for the easy talker than for the others. Designing for inclusion raises many speech-related questions: Are people equally familiar and practiced with speaking and with engaging in active debate in the marketplace of ideas? Do they feel equally entitled and empowered to speak? Is speaking the most important way to have impact in the world? When is my speech hurting, threatening or excluding others? Do I have a responsibility to care about this?

These are tough questions, but they are the kinds of questions that Stanford has the responsibility to answer as it designs itself for an inclusive future. Some can be answered by listening to the rich array of perspectives available at Stanford. A class called Intergroup Communication that I teach with Dereca Blackmon, ’91, assistant vice provost and executive director of inclusion and diversity education, facilitates both talking and listening among people with different backgrounds and experiences. Based on a technique known as the fishbowl, students divide themselves into groups and ask and answer questions about one another. The groups can be based on any social distinction—major, region, birth order, religion, etc. 

Often the class begins with gender. Students divide into men, women and gender nonconforming. Each group develops thoughtful questions for the other groups, which take turns sitting in the middle of the room while the other groups pose their questions. In subsequent weeks, students divide into groups based on race and ethnicity, on the socioeconomic level of their families, and on sexual orientation. The class debriefs together following each unit, and outside of class, students meet for a discussion with a student from a different social category than their own. 

A set of norms guides the discussions, including: What is learned here leaves here, what is heard here stays here, make space, take space, understand your intention and own your impact. The questions are real. How can men be allies to women? What do men think about women who ask them out? What are some microaggressions you have experienced? How do you feel knowing you have so much more than other people? How does your family background influence your major? What are the best things about being Native? There is no back-and-forth between those asking the questions and those answering. The focus is on listening. The answers reveal important and often unseen differences, as well as many similarities in dreams and worries. 

After five years as part of this teaching team, I know that listening doesn’t just happen. It requires a set of values and skills grounded in the understanding that for many questions there is often more than one right answer. Yes, this is a class devoted to communication, but time devoted to establishing norms for discussion and getting to know one another can be a valuable use of classroom time whatever the topic. When a class becomes a community, everyone learns more. Innovating, experimenting and doubling down on ways to listen to one another, to ask the important follow-up questions and to listen some more, can give inclusion the institutional support it needs. 

Hazel Rose Markus is the Davis-Brack Professor in the Behavioral Sciences, the co-founder  and co-director of Stanford SPARQ ,  and an author of  Clash! How to Thrive in a Multicultural World.  

Tools for Debate

by Debra Satz

Many of the challenges to the free exchange of ideas on college campuses come from outside: There are individuals and organizations that monitor the teaching of professors who hold controversial views. There are groups that seek simply to incite confrontations. Our public culture is full of voices that hope to shut down or drown out rational deliberation. The existence of the internet also means that many of our well-intentioned mistakes can go viral. All of these social forces lead to a chilling of honest, probing and difficult discussions.

But some of the challenges we face come from within. Let me call out three obstacles to free inquiry that can arise inside our classrooms: 

Conformism. A central impediment with respect to free speech in our classrooms is self-censorship. Many students are afraid to voice opinions that go against what they perceive as the dominant opinion of their peers. Indeed, exercising one’s own judgment when all received opinion seems to go against that judgment is hard. It is far easier to cede to what the philosopher John Stuart Mill calls the “despotism of custom,” to go along with the majority view, to engage in group-think, or at the least to stay quiet. 

Subjectivism. Some students conclude that the existence of disagreement over policy matters means that moral values are subjective—that they are nothing but matters of mere opinion. If that’s right, then there is no point in trying to discuss and reason about them. But that isn’t right. We can subject our values to pressure by seeing if they are consistent with other values and beliefs we hold; we can increase awareness of costs and trade-offs given feasibility constraints and facts; and we can confront our ideas with other ways of thinking and see if they survive critical scrutiny. 

Dogmatism. Some students conclude from the existence of disagreement that someone must be wrong. But not all disagreements are unreasonable. Sincere people motivated to find common ground, and looking at the same evidence, can still disagree about policies because they attach different weights to the moral values involved in such policies, or because the evidence is incomplete and difficult to interpret, or because they assess the risk of different outcomes differently. 

We can confront our ideas with other ways of thinking and see if they survive.

We have pedagogical tools for addressing these difficulties in the classroom. The Socratic method is perhaps the best thing philosophy has produced. Socrates believed in the method of subjecting one’s beliefs to pressure from counterexamples and critical questions. In Plato’s Republic , Socrates begins with the everyday opinion that justice is “truth and returning what one takes,” and argues that this opinion leads to contradictions. By questioning those who hold such an opinion, Socrates shows that the commonsense morality of his time is full of internal tensions and can be brought under pressure by rational thought to resolve those tensions. It’s up to each of us to determine, in the face of critical questioning and open inquiry, our own values and beliefs about what is just. 

The devil’s advocate is another useful tool. When views—including cherished ones—go unchallenged, an educational opportunity is lost. This can even be the case when the opposing views are false or unreasonable. As John Stuart Mill wrote, “Both teachers and learners go to sleep at their post as soon as there is no enemy in the field.” It’s important for teachers to model engagement with diverse perspectives. In my classes on democratic thought, I am always sure to teach the strongest criticisms of democracy and, if necessary, to play the role of the devil’s advocate.

At the moment, we are in the midst of rethinking our undergraduate curriculum to make room in freshman year for classes that confront students with the need to reflect on their moral choices and moral responsibilities, to consider the fact of enduring disagreements in a diverse and free society, to recognize the importance of critical reflection, and to model the norms of civility and mutual respect. May our efforts at Stanford succeed and be a model for our society as a whole. 

Debra Satz   is the Vernon R. and  Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences and the Marta Sutton  Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society. 

Tell us how you think colleges should handle the challenges surrounding free speech and inclusion.

Trending Stories

Advice & Insights

Student Life

Law/Public Policy/Politics

You May Also Like

Re: the thought police.

On college campuses, how do we achieve both civility and candor?

Not on Her Watch

Her knowledge of Internet law is profound, and her advocacy for civil liberties is fierce. Meet Jennifer Granick, one of the country's most powerful voices for digital privacy.

What the Law Says About Campus Free Speech

As faculty grapple with how to set a culture that maximizes learning, administrators must also ensure the university follows the law.

Stanford Alumni Association

• Current Issue
• Past Issues
• Class Notes

Collections

• Vintage 1973
• Recent Grads
• Resolutions
• The VanDerveer Files
• Mental Health
• Sandra Day O'Connor
• The Stanfords

Get in touch

• Letters to the Editor
• Submit an Obituary
• Accessibility
• Privacy Policy
• Terms of Use
• Code of Conduct

• Stanford Home
• Maps & Directions
• Search Stanford
• Emergency Info
• Non-Discrimination

© Stanford University. Stanford, California 94305.

Essay Papers Writing Online

Learn the best strategies and tips on how to write an effective and persuasive debate essay for your academic success.

When it comes to expressing opinions, engaging in a debate can be an effective way to communicate and support your stance on a particular issue. A debate essay, or argumentative essay, allows you to showcase your critical thinking skills and present a well-reasoned argument. This type of essay requires careful planning and organization to effectively persuade your audience. By following a step-by-step approach, you can develop a strong debate essay that presents your point of view clearly and convincingly.

Before diving into the writing process, it’s essential to understand the purpose of a debate essay. The goal is not only to express your own opinion but also to address counterarguments and anticipate potential objections. Your aim is to convince your audience to understand and accept your perspective by presenting strong evidence and logical reasoning. To achieve this, you need to research and gather relevant information on the topic, evaluate different viewpoints, and outline a clear structure for your essay.

One of the key components of a successful debate essay is a strong thesis statement. This statement presents the main argument or claim that you will be defending throughout your essay. It should be clear, concise, and impactful. Your thesis statement should express your position on the topic and provide a preview of the main points you will be discussing. A well-crafted thesis statement sets the tone for your essay and helps guide your writing process, ensuring that every point you make supports and strengthens your overall argument.

Understand the topic and choose a side

Before diving into the debate essay writing process, it is crucial to thoroughly understand the topic at hand and carefully consider which side you will argue for. This step is essential as it sets the foundation for a well-reasoned and persuasive argument.

Take the time to read and research extensively on the topic to gain a comprehensive understanding of its different aspects and perspectives. Look for reliable sources such as books, scholarly articles, and reputable websites to gather information and insights. By doing so, you will be able to familiarize yourself with various arguments, counterarguments, and evidence presented by experts in the field.

Once you have gained a deep understanding of the topic, it is time to choose a side. Consider the different arguments presented by both sides and evaluate which one aligns with your own beliefs, values, and knowledge. Think about the strengths and weaknesses of each argument, as well as the evidence supporting them. Reflect on your own experiences and personal views to help you make an informed decision.

Choosing a side does not necessarily mean that you have to agree with it wholeheartedly. It simply means that you will be presenting and defending that particular perspective in your debate essay. Keep in mind that choosing a side does not imply being closed-minded or dismissive of the opposing viewpoint. A well-rounded debate essay will acknowledge and address counterarguments, showing a balanced and thoughtful approach to the topic.

Once you understand the topic and have chosen a side, you can move on to the next step of the debate essay writing process: gathering evidence and constructing a persuasive argument.

Research and gather supporting evidence

In order to write a strong and convincing debate essay, it is essential to conduct thorough research and gather relevant supporting evidence. Research serves as the foundation for an effective argument, providing credible information that strengthens your position and persuades your audience.

When conducting research, it is important to explore multiple sources to ensure a well-rounded understanding of the topic. This can include peer-reviewed articles, academic journals, books, and reputable websites. By utilizing a variety of sources, you can gain different perspectives and enhance the credibility of your argument.

During the research process, it is crucial to critically analyze the information you gather. This involves evaluating the credibility and reliability of your sources. Look for evidence that is backed by reputable experts, institutions, or organizations. Additionally, consider the timeliness of the information to ensure that you are presenting the most current and relevant data.

As you gather evidence, it is also important to keep track of your sources. This will allow you to properly cite and reference your information in your debate essay. Utilize a citation style guide, such as APA or MLA, to ensure consistency and accuracy in your citations.

When selecting evidence to support your argument, consider the strengths and weaknesses of each piece of information. Choose evidence that is logical, well-reasoned, and directly relevant to your argument. Avoid using biased or unreliable sources that may weaken your position.

In conclusion, research and gathering supporting evidence is a critical step in writing a debate essay. Thorough research and careful evaluation of sources will strengthen your argument and enhance your credibility. By selecting well-reasoned and relevant evidence, you can effectively persuade your audience and present a compelling debate essay.

Organize your arguments

When writing a debate essay, it is crucial to organize your arguments in a clear and logical manner. By doing so, you will be able to effectively present your ideas and support your stance on the given topic. Organizing your arguments not only helps you convey your message more effectively, but it also makes it easier for your readers to comprehend and follow your line of thinking.

One way to organize your arguments is to group them based on similarities or themes. This can be done by identifying common elements or ideas among your arguments and grouping them together. For example, if you are arguing in favor of stricter gun control laws, you might have separate arguments related to reducing gun violence, preventing accidental shootings, and deterring criminals. By grouping these arguments together, you can present a more cohesive and convincing case.

Another way to organize your arguments is by presenting them in a logical order. This can be done by arranging your arguments from the strongest to the weakest or from the most general to the most specific. By structuring your arguments in this way, you can build a strong foundation and gradually persuade your readers as they progress through your essay. Additionally, presenting your arguments in a logical order makes it easier for your readers to follow your reasoning and understand the progression of your ideas.

Furthermore, it is important to provide evidence and examples to support your arguments. This can be done by incorporating research findings, statistics, expert opinions, and real-life examples into your essay. By including evidence, you not only strengthen your arguments but also make them more persuasive and credible. However, it is crucial to ensure that the evidence you present is reliable and relevant to your topic. Additionally, you should clearly explain how the evidence supports your arguments so that your readers can understand the connection.

In conclusion, organizing your arguments is a crucial step in writing a debate essay. By grouping your arguments based on similarities or themes, presenting them in a logical order, and providing evidence to support them, you can effectively convey your ideas and persuade your readers. Remember to stay focused on your main point and to present your arguments in a clear and concise manner. With proper organization, your debate essay will be more impactful and convincing.

Related Post

How to master the art of writing expository essays and captivate your audience, convenient and reliable source to purchase college essays online, step-by-step guide to crafting a powerful literary analysis essay, tips and techniques for crafting compelling narrative essays.

Home — Essay Samples — Education — College Tuition — The Debate Of Whether College Should Be Free In America

The Debate of Whether College Should Be Free in America

• Categories: College Tuition

About this sample

Words: 1333 |

Published: Dec 16, 2021

Words: 1333 | Pages: 3 | 7 min read

Cite this Essay

Let us write you an essay from scratch

• 450+ experts on 30 subjects ready to help
• Custom essay delivered in as few as 3 hours

Get high-quality help

Verified writer

• Expert in: Education

+ 120 experts online

By clicking “Check Writers’ Offers”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy . We’ll occasionally send you promo and account related email

No need to pay just yet!

Related Essays

3 pages / 1411 words

2 pages / 1110 words

2 pages / 971 words

2 pages / 767 words

Remember! This is just a sample.

You can get your custom paper by one of our expert writers.

121 writers online

Still can’t find what you need?

Browse our vast selection of original essay samples, each expertly formatted and styled

Related Essays on College Tuition

Anyone who has ever attended college or thought about attending college has noticed that participating in any sort of higher education is costly. Many families are able to put their kids through school with the help of student [...]

Should college be free? Argumentative essay on this issue is worth writing. Yes, some students, parents, and educators say that it is completely wrong for a person to attend public schools for free and now have them pay for [...]

“When it comes to Malcolm X once said: “education is the passport to the future, for tomorrow belongs to who prepare for it today.”Why are that many countries like, Norway, and Finland, Sweden, etc. Provide free college [...]

"Why did you choose University of Central Florida?" or "Why are you interested in UCF?" - those are questions that are asked of me almost as often as "What do you want to be when you grow up?" Among my explanations and [...]

It is thought in American society that a college degree is necessary to pursue a prestige high-paying career. More students are taking the path of higher education causing a growth in student and national debt. Rising debt in [...]

Education has positive advantages for whatever is left of society. Education is the establishment of sound society. Everybody has a privilege to educate in this cutting edge world. Education enables a man to manufacture great [...]

Related Topics

By clicking “Send”, you agree to our Terms of service and Privacy statement . We will occasionally send you account related emails.

Where do you want us to send this sample?

By clicking “Continue”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy policy.

Be careful. This essay is not unique

This essay was donated by a student and is likely to have been used and submitted before

Download this Sample

Free samples may contain mistakes and not unique parts

Sorry, we could not paraphrase this essay. Our professional writers can rewrite it and get you a unique paper.

Please check your inbox.

We can write you a custom essay that will follow your exact instructions and meet the deadlines. Let's fix your grades together!

Get Your Personalized Essay in 3 Hours or Less!

We use cookies to personalyze your web-site experience. By continuing we’ll assume you board with our cookie policy .

• Instructions Followed To The Letter
• Deadlines Met At Every Stage
• Unique And Plagiarism Free

Those Who Preach Free Speech Need to Practice It

Too many leaders, on campus and in government, are failing to uphold the First Amendment rights they claim to champion.

Updated at 9:35 a.m. ET on April 30, 2024

Say you’re a college senior, just a few weeks from graduation. For as long as you can remember—even back in high school, before you set foot on campus—older people have talked about free speech. More specifically, older people have talked about free speech and you : whether your generation understands it, whether you believe in it, whether you can handle it.

After watching some of those same people order crackdowns on campus protests over the past few days, you might have a few questions for them.

Last week, from New York to Texas, cops stormed college campuses clad in riot gear. They weren’t there to confront active shooters, thank goodness, or answer bomb threats. Instead, they were there to conduct mass arrests of students protesting the war in Gaza.

As the legal director of a First Amendment advocacy nonprofit, I teach students across the country that the government can’t silence speakers because of their beliefs, even—and perhaps especially—if those beliefs are unpopular or cause offense. That’s a foundational principle of free-speech law. But many of the crackdowns appear to be a direct reaction to the protesters’ views about Israel.

After sending a phalanx of state law-enforcement officers into the University of Texas at Austin campus, for example, Governor Greg Abbott announced on X that students “joining in hate-filled, antisemitic protests at any public college or university in Texas should be expelled.”

Erwin Chemerinsky: No one has a right to protest in my home

But no First Amendment exception exists for “hate-filled” speech. And for good reason: In our pluralistic democracy, everyone has their own subjective idea of what, if any, speech is too “hateful” to hear, making an objective definition impossible. And empowering the government to draw that line will inevitably silence dissent.

At UT, the officers arrested scores of protesters for “ trespassing .” But the students don’t appear to have violated school rules. And you can’t trespass on a place where you have the right to be, as students at the public universities they attend clearly do. Even a cameraman for a local news station was tackled and arrested . The next day, the Travis County attorney’s office dropped all of the trespassing charges for lack of probable cause—a telling indicator of the disturbingly authoritarian response. (Shockingly, the cameraman does face a felony charge , for allegedly assaulting a police officer—an allegation difficult to square with video of his arrest.) The government can’t throw Americans in jail for exercising their First Amendment right to peaceful protest.

Governor Abbott’s illiberal show of force has no place in a free country. It’s especially galling given the governor’s previous posture as a stalwart defender of campus free speech: In June 2019, he signed a law prohibiting Texas’s public colleges and universities from shutting down campus speakers because of their ideology. So much for that.

Governor Abbott isn’t alone. During her congressional testimony earlier this month, Columbia University President Minouche Shafik pledged investigations of students and faculty who voiced allegedly anti-Semitic criticism of Israel and Zionism, and agreed—on the fly—to remove a professor from his position as a committee chair because of his speech.

Michael Powell: The unreality of Columbia’s ‘liberated zone’

Columbia is a private institution, so it isn’t bound by the First Amendment. But the university promises freedom of expression to its students and faculty—and Shafik’s willingness to sacrifice faculty and student rights to appease hostile members of Congress betrays those promises.

If such things had happened only at UT and Columbia, that would be bad enough—but the problem is spreading. At Emory University, in Atlanta, police officers reportedly used tear gas and Tasers against protesters. State troopers with rifles directed toward protesters stood watch on a rooftop at Ohio State University. At Indiana University, administrators rushed out a last-minute, overnight policy change to justify a similar show of force from law enforcement, resulting in 34 arrests. It’s hard to keep up.

Students nationwide are watching how the adults who professed to care about free speech are responding under pressure. And they are learning that those adults don’t really mean what they say about the First Amendment. That’s a dangerous lesson. Our schools and universities could still teach the country a better one.

“Free Speech 101” starts here: The First Amendment protects an enormous amount of speech, including speech that some, many, perhaps most Americans would find deeply offensive. You may not like pro-Palestine speech; you may not like pro-Israel speech. You may think some of it veers into bigotry. The answer is to ignore it, mock it, debate it, even counterprotest it. But don’t call in the SWAT team.

George Packer: The campus-left occupation that broke higher education

Granted, free speech is not without carefully designated exceptions, and these exceptions are important but narrow. True threats and intimidation, properly defined, are not protected by the First Amendment. Neither is discriminatory harassment. Violence is never protected.

And public universities can maintain reasonable “time, place, and manner” restrictions on speech. That means, for example, that for the authorities to place a ban on playing heavily amplified sound right outside the dorms at 2 a.m. likely does not violate the First Amendment. A prohibition on camping overnight in the quad probably doesn’t either. And taking over a campus building, as Columbia students did early this morning , is not protected.

But the enforcement of these rules must be evenhanded and proportionate. The use of force should be a last resort. Students must be given clear notice about what conduct crosses a line. And any student facing punishment for an alleged infringement should receive a fair hearing. Consistency counts. Our leaders—in government, in university administration—must demonstrate their commitment to free expression in both word and deed.

Students are protesting on campuses nationwide, and they’re watching the reaction of university presidents and elected officials closely. The current moment presents a generational challenge: Do older people and people in authority really mean what they say about the First Amendment? Do they believe in free speech—and can they handle it? Right now, too many leaders are failing the test.

How a Palestinian slogan has ignited debate on college campuses and beyond

A decades-old rallying cry for Palestinian nationalist aspirations has reached a new, broad audience among opponents of Israel’s military campaign in the Gaza Strip — and become a controversial focal point in protests on U.S. college campuses as they have escalated over recent weeks.

At protests and on social media, activists and pro-Palestinian demonstrators have used the phrase “from the river to the sea” to express support for the cause of Gaza and Palestinians in the Israeli-occupied West Bank. The slogan refers to the territory between the Jordan River and the Mediterranean Sea — which includes the state of Israel — and is often followed by a second clause: “Palestine will be free.”

internationally

THE WASHINGTON POST

Annexed by Israel

in 1981, not

Mediterranean

Jordan River

Annexed by Israel in

1981, not internationally

Some people have interpreted the phrase as a call to eradicate Israel. Critics, including some Jewish American organizations, say it constitutes antisemitic speech. A rise in antisemitic attacks in the United States and Europe since the start of the war has contributed to the unease.

Pro-Palestinian activists say the phrase is encompassing enough to express a range of visions, and that the controversy about it serves to silence dissent over Israel’s assault on Hamas in Gaza, launched in response to the Hamas attack on Israeli communities on Oct. 7.

The phrase has been chanted and displayed on signs at protests on college campuses across the United States amid unrest and clashes between protesters, counterprotesters and law enforcement. Intertwined in the tumult are accusations that some of the speech and actions by students protesting the war in Gaza are antisemitic.

Here’s what to know about the origins of the phrase, its connotations and the controversy it has caused.

Middle East conflict

It gained traction as a call for a ‘secular, democratic, free Palestine’

It’s not clear when the slogan emerged, but scholars say it started gaining traction in the 1960s among Palestinian activists and intellectuals who were made refugees by the 1948 war.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict: A chronology

During that conflict, an estimated 700,000 Palestinians either fled or were expelled from their homes by Israeli forces, after which the state of Israel was established. Many of them settled in the West Bank, which was later annexed by Jordan, and in Gaza, which was administered by Egypt. (Israel captured both territories in the 1967 war with neighboring Arab states.)

Palestinian refugees began developing the idea of a “free Palestine” — a “secular, democratic, free” state, from the Jordan River to the Mediterranean Sea, Maha Nassar, an associate professor of Middle East history and Islamic studies at the University of Arizona, said in an interview in November.

Later, the phrase was taken up by supporters of the Palestine Liberation Organization, or PLO, the coalition founded in 1964 that remains the official representative of the Palestinian people at the United Nations. In the rounds of conflicts and uprisings in the decades that followed, it became popular among different Palestinian factions.

More recently, supporters of Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza, have adopted the slogan. The group’s charter, in which the phrase does not appear, calls for a movement that “hits deep into the earth and spreads to hug the sky.”

“Palestine is ours from the river to the sea and from the south to the north,” Khaled Meshal, then leader of the group’s political wing, said in a 2012 speech in Gaza celebrating the 25th anniversary of the founding of Hamas, the Associated Press reported .

What is the two-state solution for Israelis and Palestinians?

To some, it’s a call for peace

To many Palestinians and their supporters, “min an-nahr ila al-bahr,” “from the river to the sea,” is still a call for a peaceful land — though not always with the aim of a single, secular state. The slogan does not conjure “a specific political platform,” Nassar said. Instead, it is a call for an “imagined future of peace and freedom.”

It’s “a call to end the occupation” by Israel, she said, and a “call for an ability to return” to areas from which Palestinians fled or were expelled. The internationally recognized “right of return” to land and home, held by refugees including many Palestinians, has long been a key point of dispute in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.), the only Palestinian American member of Congress, was censured in November for her remarks about the conflict, including a video she posted on social media of protesters chanting the slogan. Tlaib, in a post on X, defended the phrase as “an aspirational call for freedom, human rights, and peaceful coexistence, not death, destruction, or hate.”

The slogan is “a demand for democratic coexistence between Jews and Arabs,” the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said in a statement defending Tlaib.

To others, it’s antisemitic

Many Jews, Jewish organizations and advocates for Israel, among others, view the slogan as antisemitic.

“The vast majority of Jews in many contexts, hearing that slogan, hear something that feels deeply threatening and offensive, and many, many Jews would characterize it as antisemitic,” Ethan Katz, an associate professor of history and Jewish studies at the University of California at Berkeley, said in an interview last year.

At best, Katz said, the slogan comes across to many Jews as a call for the end of the state of Israel. At its worst, he said, it’s a call for “the annihilation of Jews living between the river and the sea.” The attack by Hamas on Oct. 7 has amplified negative interpretations of the phrase, he said.

The Anti-Defamation League, an advocacy group devoted to identifying and fighting antisemitism, in a statement in October, described the slogan as “an antisemitic charge denying the Jewish right to self-determination, including through the removal of Jews from their ancestral homeland.”

Such fears touch on memories of genocide and displacement instilled in Jewish communities by Nazi Germany’s eradication of some 6 million Jews in the Holocaust.

Many pro-Palestinian advocates say that “from the river to the sea” does not call for the expulsion of Jews, and that extreme interpretations of the slogan are misguided. “The attempts to redefine this chant by those who are not Palestinian is an overreach and mischaracterization,” the American-Arab Anti-Discrimination Committee said.

Other defenders of the phrase contend that even maximally interpreted, it conveys an inverse of the stated ambitions of leaders of the Israeli settler movement, which has ties to the current Israeli government.

It’s “important to center those who are actually using the phrase and what it means to them” in discussions about the slogan’s meaning, Nassar said. Attacks on those who use the phrase, however well intentioned, serve to disarm Palestinians and their supporters of a powerful rhetorical tool, she said.

Intent aside, Katz said, people using the phrase should “think carefully about how the slogan is heard in this moment.”

The slogan is commonplace at college protests

Protests against the war in Gaza have been ongoing since October, but demonstrations on college campuses across the United States in recent weeks have become a focus of national attention. The phrase “from the river to the sea” can be seen and heard at many of the protests.

Columbia University in New York and UCLA are among the colleges where the demonstrations have been particularly fraught , but hundreds of people have been arrested on campuses across the country, according to a Washington Post tally.

Universities have historically been the nuclei of antiwar protests and discussions over free speech. Some of the debate over free speech at college campuses in recent weeks has centered on when free speech begins to intrude on the rights of other students, who may feel that protesters’ statements or actions create an unsafe environment for them .

Just over a quarter of U.S. undergraduate students view the phrase “from the river to the sea” as calling for Palestinians to replace Israelis in the region, even if it means forcibly expelling or committing genocide against Jews, according to a poll conducted by the University of Chicago. About the same percentage of students said the phrase meant Palestinians and Israelis should live in two separate states side by side.

But among Jewish students, about two-thirds said the phrase was calling for genocide or the forced expulsion of Jews from the territory. Among Muslim students, 42 percent said it called for a two-state solution and 14 percent said it was calling for genocide. The survey was of 5,233 undergraduate students in December and January and has a margin of error of plus or minus one percentage point for the general student population, and plus or minus two to seven percentage points when broken down by religion.

Sarah Dadouch in Beirut contributed to this report.

Israel-Gaza war

The Israel-Gaza war has gone on for six months, and tensions have spilled into the surrounding region .

The war: On Oct. 7, Hamas militants launched an unprecedented cross-border attack on Israel that included the taking of civilian hostages at a music festival . (See photos and videos of how the deadly assault unfolded ). Israel declared war on Hamas in response, launching a ground invasion that fueled the biggest displacement in the region since Israel’s creation in 1948 .

Gaza crisis: In the Gaza Strip, Israel has waged one of this century’s most destructive wars , killing tens of thousands and plunging at least half of the population into “ famine-like conditions. ” For months, Israel has resisted pressure from Western allies to allow more humanitarian aid into the enclave .

U.S. involvement: Despite tensions between Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and some U.S. politicians , including President Biden, the United States supports Israel with weapons , funds aid packages , and has vetoed or abstained from the United Nations’ cease-fire resolutions.

History: The roots of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict and mistrust are deep and complex, predating the establishment of the state of Israel in 1948 . Read more on the history of the Gaza Strip .

• Share full article

For more audio journalism and storytelling, download New York Times Audio , a new iOS app available for news subscribers.

• May 10, 2024   •   27:42 Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand
• May 9, 2024   •   34:42 One Strongman, One Billion Voters, and the Future of India
• May 8, 2024   •   28:28 A Plan to Remake the Middle East
• May 7, 2024   •   27:43 How Changing Ocean Temperatures Could Upend Life on Earth
• May 6, 2024   •   29:23 R.F.K. Jr.’s Battle to Get on the Ballot
• May 3, 2024   •   25:33 The Protesters and the President
• May 2, 2024   •   29:13 Biden Loosens Up on Weed
• May 1, 2024   •   35:16 The New Abortion Fight Before the Supreme Court
• April 30, 2024   •   27:40 The Secret Push That Could Ban TikTok
• April 29, 2024   •   47:53 Trump 2.0: What a Second Trump Presidency Would Bring
• April 26, 2024   •   21:50 Harvey Weinstein Conviction Thrown Out
• April 25, 2024   •   40:33 The Crackdown on Student Protesters

Stormy Daniels Takes the Stand

The porn star testified for eight hours at donald trump’s hush-money trial. this is how it went..

Hosted by Michael Barbaro

Featuring Jonah E. Bromwich

Produced by Olivia Natt and Michael Simon Johnson

Edited by Lexie Diao

With Paige Cowett

Original music by Will Reid and Marion Lozano

Engineered by Alyssa Moxley

Listen and follow The Daily Apple Podcasts | Spotify | Amazon Music | YouTube

This episode contains descriptions of an alleged sexual liaison.

What happened when Stormy Daniels took the stand for eight hours in the first criminal trial of former President Donald J. Trump?

Jonah Bromwich, one of the lead reporters covering the trial for The Times, was in the room.

On today’s episode

Jonah E. Bromwich , who covers criminal justice in New York for The New York Times.

Background reading

In a second day of cross-examination, Stormy Daniels resisted the implication she had tried to shake down Donald J. Trump by selling her story of a sexual liaison.

Here are six takeaways from Ms. Daniels’s earlier testimony.

There are a lot of ways to listen to The Daily. Here’s how.

We aim to make transcripts available the next workday after an episode’s publication. You can find them at the top of the page.

The Daily is made by Rachel Quester, Lynsea Garrison, Clare Toeniskoetter, Paige Cowett, Michael Simon Johnson, Brad Fisher, Chris Wood, Jessica Cheung, Stella Tan, Alexandra Leigh Young, Lisa Chow, Eric Krupke, Marc Georges, Luke Vander Ploeg, M.J. Davis Lin, Dan Powell, Sydney Harper, Mike Benoist, Liz O. Baylen, Asthaa Chaturvedi, Rachelle Bonja, Diana Nguyen, Marion Lozano, Corey Schreppel, Rob Szypko, Elisheba Ittoop, Mooj Zadie, Patricia Willens, Rowan Niemisto, Jody Becker, Rikki Novetsky, John Ketchum, Nina Feldman, Will Reid, Carlos Prieto, Ben Calhoun, Susan Lee, Lexie Diao, Mary Wilson, Alex Stern, Dan Farrell, Sophia Lanman, Shannon Lin, Diane Wong, Devon Taylor, Alyssa Moxley, Summer Thomad, Olivia Natt, Daniel Ramirez and Brendan Klinkenberg.

Our theme music is by Jim Brunberg and Ben Landsverk of Wonderly. Special thanks to Sam Dolnick, Paula Szuchman, Lisa Tobin, Larissa Anderson, Julia Simon, Sofia Milan, Mahima Chablani, Elizabeth Davis-Moorer, Jeffrey Miranda, Renan Borelli, Maddy Masiello, Isabella Anderson and Nina Lassam.

Jonah E. Bromwich covers criminal justice in New York, with a focus on the Manhattan district attorney’s office and state criminal courts in Manhattan. More about Jonah E. Bromwich

Advertisement