We argue that freedom without grounding increases polarization.
We call on leaders to hold tension and set boundaries.
We advocate for genuine dialogue.

Summary

This blog explores how freedom of speech and respect for difference can reinforce one another in organizations and society. What does it require of leaders to reverse polarization and create space for an honest, yet constructive conversation?

At universities, a growing debate is unfolding about the boundaries of freedom of speech. What was once a foundation of academic freedom now increasingly seems to be a playground for polarizing conflicts. The paradox is painful: while the call for open debate and freedom grows louder than ever, the space for truly constructive exchange of ideas appears to be shrinking.

We see how freedom of speech is sometimes used as a weapon, not as an invitation to dialogue. The debate then becomes not a search for truth or understanding, but a battlefield where positions harden. What does leadership mean in such a context? And how do we find the balance between allowing space for difference and safeguarding respectful interaction?

The systemic field of tension

Systemically, more is happening than a clash of opinions. Universities, companies, and public institutions are themselves mini-societies, embedded in broader social dynamics. When society polarizes, it resonates directly within these organizations.

Many institutions have embraced diversity as a value—and rightly so. But diversity without dialogue can unintentionally strengthen polarization. If there is no holding environment in which people truly listen to one another, groups retreat into their own beliefs. In this way, parallel realities emerge within the same community.

The uncomfortable consequence is that the same structures meant to celebrate difference can also become spaces where meeting is avoided. The system then unintentionally feeds the dividing lines.

Psychodynamics of threat and identity

Psychodynamically, another layer is at play: when people feel that their identity or right to exist is being questioned, deep, often unconscious defense mechanisms are activated.

These reactions—fight, flight, or freeze—show up in heated debates. It is no longer only about arguments, but about existential security. The other person’s opinion can feel like an attack on who you are. In that layered emotional reality, it becomes almost impossible to remain open to the other person’s perspective.

For leaders, this means that intervening in a conflict requires not only rational judgment, but also emotional sensitivity. It requires the ability to hold tension without immediately trying to resolve or erase it.

A historical perspective

The tension between freedom of speech and safeguarding respectful interaction is not new. In every period of social change, this discussion flares up. From student protests in the 1960s to today’s debates about online hate speech: time and again it becomes clear that freedom is never absolute, but always connected to responsibility.

However, the current digital context increases the intensity and speed of these conflicts. Social media amplify extreme viewpoints, filter bubbles narrow our perspective, and the pressure to respond quickly displaces space for reflection. This makes it even more urgent to consciously create space within organizations for slow, deepening dialogue.

A mini case: a university in the storm

Imagine a university where two student organizations are in direct opposition. One group invites a controversial speaker, the other demands the event be cancelled because that person’s views are considered discriminatory. Petitions, protests, and media attention follow one another rapidly.

As rector, you can try to dampen the conflict with rules—but the risk is that you only address the visible symptom. Another path is to engage the conversation instead. Not about who is “right,” but about what the university wants to be as a place of encounter. Which values do we want to uphold here? How do we ensure that everyone feels safe enough to disagree?

By placing those questions at the center, the focus shifts from winning the debate to strengthening the community.

Leadership as holding space

In times of polarization, leadership is less about “cutting the knot” and more about “holding the space.” That means:

• Creating a safe context in which people dare to share their story.
• Setting boundaries on behavior that harms others, without suppressing the difference in perspective itself.
• Slowing down, so that emotions and viewpoints do not have to collide immediately, but can first be acknowledged.

This requires courage: it is easier to smooth over the conflict or force a decision. But sustainable change only emerges when something shifts in the way people see one another.

Practical guidance for leaders

1. Acknowledge the emotional layer
   Name not only what is being said, but also what is felt. This reduces tension.
2. Formulate shared values
   Make visible what connects you, even when opinions differ.
3. Create space for slow dialogue
   Use conversation formats that slow things down, so people do not immediately fall into defensive reflexes.
4. Be clear about boundaries
   Freedom of speech does not mean that everything can be said without consequences. Protect human dignity.
5. Model the example
   How you, as a leader, listen, respond, and tolerate difference sets the tone for the culture.

What are you sustaining?

As a leader, it is useful to regularly ask yourself: what am I sustaining, even with the best intentions, that blocks the real conversation? Sometimes it is an overly quick need for harmony, sometimes a preference for certain voices over others.

Freedom and difference do not flourish automatically. They require active care, courageous presence, and the ability to tolerate tension. Only then can the conversation once again become a place where people truly meet one another—precisely across boundaries.

Rene de Baaij