What Higher Ed Can Teach K–12 About Dialogue: A Conversation with Dartmouth’s Kristi Clemens

I recently found myself nodding enthusiastically as I was reading Sian Leah Beilock’s article in The Atlantic, “Teach Students How to Think, Not What to Think.” Beilock, a cognitive scientist and the president of Dartmouth College, argues that higher education should focus less on ideology and more on helping students develop the skills to think critically and communicate across perspectives.

At R.E.A.L.® Discussion, understanding how higher education approaches dialogue and discourse gives us a glimpse of what lies ahead for our K-12 students. The habits we build in middle and high school shape how young people show up as thinkers and community members for life. That starts with intentionally teaching how to actively listen, articulate ideas, question assumptions, and make meaning together. 

I reached out to Kristi Clemens, Executive Director of Dartmouth Dialogues at Dartmouth and co-author of From Safe Spaces to Brave Spaces, to learn how those same goals are coming to life on campus through Dartmouth Dialogues. 

Liza Garonzik: I’m excited to hear about Dartmouth Dialogues, but first, tell us about your path. Why do you believe in dialogue? 

Kristi Clemens: Thank you for inviting me. One of the joys of this work is connecting with people outside of higher education. We know we’re just one moment in a person’s larger education journey. 

Speaking of that journey, I’m a first-generation college student who never expected to build a career in higher ed. As an undergrad, I worked in admissions and residence life and found my calling in helping students grow. I tend to find the most joy in problem-solving work, so I sometimes describe myself as the person who runs towards the fire rather than away from it, and that’s been a theme in various higher ed roles for more than 25 years now.

That perspective shapes how I see today’s students. When they show up on our campus, it’s often the first time they’re confronted with something unexpected, and they aren’t sure how to handle it. They struggle with having uncomfortable conversations or talking through important decisions. These moments of friction and growth are pivotal, yet more often, I see students opt out when faced with uncertainty. Instead of problem-solving or seeking help, they outsource decisions or avoid hard conversations together. Their communication skills have precipitously decreased over the past decade.

And nationally, our discourse isn’t offering healthy models. If not higher education, who will teach these skills? As a first-generation graduate whose life was changed by access and challenge, I take that responsibility seriously.

That certainly resonates with our view at R.E.A.L.® Discussion, where we talk a lot about the opportunity teachers have to ensure their students graduate high school and enter today’s rapidly changing world with essential communication skills. Turning to Dartmouth Dialogues: what’s the origin story, the goals, and what does programming look like?

Kristi: Many colleges are rethinking how to teach dialogue and discourse, but Dartmouth began this work earlier. In 2019, Dean of the Faculty Elizabeth Smith noticed faculty struggling to spark deep classroom discussion and to navigate conflict with one another. She convened a small group to explore how other institutions were teaching constructive dialogue and drafted a proposal for what became the Dartmouth Dialogue Project.

The pandemic paused progress, but the idea gained momentum when President Sian Beilock arrived in 2023. Having led similar work at Barnard, she immediately saw its potential. Later that year, as global events renewed the urgency for difficult conversations, particularly following October 7, Dartmouth’s Jewish Studies and Middle Eastern Studies departments modeled what constructive engagement could look like through public panels on Israel and Gaza. Their example helped shape Dartmouth Dialogues, officially launched in January 2024.

Today, the initiative brings dialogue practice into every corner of campus, from the Dickey Center’s Middle East Dialogues to the Rockefeller Center’s political conversations to student-led debates through the Dartmouth Political Union. With partners like the Constructive Dialogue Institute and StoryCorps’ One Small Step, the goal is simple but ambitious: to make dialogue a shared skill set, not a side program. We want “surround sound” across campus, not a “dialogue house.” 

You’re right. Too often, dialogue is opt-in, missing those who need it most and creating echo chambers. We use a “Conversation Lab” analogy, like the computer labs that once taught every student to type. Imagine if discussion skills were taught with the same intentionality. 

Kristi: We definitely agree—intentionality matters, especially for today’s students. Our Gen Z students bring perspectives shaped by COVID and today’s political climate. They want change but often don’t know where to start. From day one, we set the expectation that dialogue is part of being in this community and give them brave spaces to practice. 

Our Gen Z students bring perspectives shaped by COVID and today’s political climate. They want change but often don’t know where to start. From day one, we set the expectation that dialogue is part of being in this community and give them brave spaces to practice. 

Kristi Clemens, Executive Director of Dartmouth Dialogues

Students value it, and some choose Dartmouth for it, yet time is a real barrier. Our 10-week quarters move fast. They want these skills but can’t add more to their plates, which reinforces the need to integrate dialogue into existing courses and experiences.

Looking ahead, we’re exploring ways to anchor this work in the first-year writing program, seminars, and our residential house communities. Building trust takes time, but students consistently tell us they want dialogue embedded, not treated as an add-on.

We see the same gap: the desire is there, the skills aren’t, and time is scarce. Live conversation is rarely the most efficient, which is why protecting time matters.

Kristi: I think that’s why we’re seeing many pitches for AI chatbots as dialogue tools. Sure, some AI tools can help, but they can reinforce unhelpful habits. My own seventh-grader rarely meets friends face-to-face; they text and trade voice notes. The norms we’re allowing to solidify concern me.

That’s why I appreciate K–12 partners who interrupt those norms: phone-free schools, prompts to talk to one another, and more typing and writing rather than dictation. Small interventions can steer us back toward healthy interpersonal interaction, though we still need to learn how to scale what works.

K–12 colleagues like Eric Hudson point out that human–AI interaction is a “new category of conversation.” We’ll need language for it and clarity about how it differs from human dialogue. AI has compelling use cases, and face-to-face conversation has biological ones. We can outsource tasks and pursue efficiency, but if we cannot be good friends, partners, debaters, or collaborators, we lose essential social fitness.

Kristi: Yes, I think about late-night residence hall debates that challenged ideas for the fun of it. But on small campuses these days, a single misstep can follow a student, chilling discourse. Even so, there’s something rejuvenating about face-to-face exchange that challenges and is challenged in return. I hope we find ways to preserve that energy.

We absolutely share that hope at R.E.A.L. It’s not just about conversation; it’s about preparing them for citizenship, leadership, and life. To keep the conversation going, follow R.E.A.L.® Discussion on LinkedIn.