Many conservatives understandably associate UC Berkeley with leftist activism. But it has been surprisingly open to differing opinions.

Y ou might think that I, as a conservative at the University of California, Berkeley, have nothing but criticisms of my school. It’s true that I have faced challenges for my beliefs here. Just a few days ago, in my capacity as chairman of the campus chapter of Young Americans for Freedom, I invited Manhattan Institute fellow Daniel Di Martino to speak. Posters advertising his appearance were pulled down minutes after being put up.

Such events, however, have been surprisingly rare here. Conservatives may know UC Berkeley primarily for its association with leftist activism: the anti-war movement, the free-speech movement, and the constant protests. From such evidence, which no one can deny, Berkeley has earned a reputation as the country’s center of progressive activism and hostility to conservative politics. Yet this is only a partial portrait of Berkeley.

In reality, the school administration has generally been respectful of right-of-center groups. Contrary to what conservatives might think, UC Berkeley could be well-positioned to become a haven for genuine political diversity — if the administration has the courage to make it one. Berkeley could evolve from a progressive free-speech school to a diverse civil-dialogue school.

From my experience thus far, UC Berkeley meets the baseline expectation of allowing the expression of differing political views on campus. That isn’t enough, though. The school should look at the disconnect between its reputation as a free-speech school and its record. The Berkeley community and its administration have a unique opportunity to propel national collegiate political culture forward, cementing Berkeley’s legacy as the first major campus to embrace political diversity.

Already, Berkeley hosts a variety of conservative intellectual and activist student organizations, including Young Americans for Freedom, Turning Point USA, and the Alexander Hamilton Society. For years, conservative organizations have hosted successful projects and events without any censorship or pressure from the administration. And yet, many conservatives carry a visceral mistrust of Berkeley, which is not entirely misplaced, as there have been recent examples of explicit intolerance toward conservatives by the student body. In 2018, the campus erupted in violence in response to Ben Shapiro’s appearance at a College Republicans event. In 2024, a mentally disturbed transgender person attacked Turning Point USA tables for the organization’s support of detransitioner Chloe Cole. And it remains the case that the campus climate and curriculum lean left. Conservative opinions and students are often ridiculed and ostracized by other students and professors.

But conservatives get one thing wrong about Berkeley: The administration’s commitment to free speech has generally been admirable. This is impressive in an age when universities and faculty often discriminate openly against conservatives. The result, at Berkeley, has been a robust conservative presence on campus, despite intolerance from some of the students and professors. But the administration must go beyond preserving basic standards of free speech and the open exchange of ideas. It should focus on expanding these ideals toward a truly inclusive campus climate. What would that look like? There are three major steps that Berkeley’s administration can take that would bring the campus closer to becoming a torchbearer for political dialogue.

First, Chancellor Rich Lyons should immediately sign the YAF’s Contract for Safe Campus Dialogue. Unveiled by former Wisconsin Governor and YAF President Scott Walker after Charlie Kirk’s assassination, the contract commits university presidents to — among other things — “ensure that conservatives, as well as others along the ideological spectrum, are welcome to talk on campus.” By signing it, the Berkeley administration would display an explicit commitment to championing free speech.

Second, the administration should facilitate students’ exposure to different viewpoints on campus. There are many ways to do this. Working with bipartisan organizations like BridgeUSA to host policy seminars or hosting ideologically diverse panels on contemporary politics would be a welcome start. Even such modest steps can begin to humanize political divides. As the late Charlie Kirk said, “when you stop having a human connection with someone you disagree with, it becomes a lot easier to want to commit violence against that group.” We must work to create human connections between students who may disagree politically, and the best way to do that is to encourage such interactions.

Last, and most important, the administration must undertake a long-term effort to include more moderates and conservatives in its faculty. The current ideological ratio of Berkeley’s faculty is ten Democrats to one Republican. No institution can create an authentic atmosphere of civil dialogue with such a disproportionate ratio that favors one side, because professors have a real effect on their students. A long-term goal of ideological diversity within the faculty would set Berkeley on a course of fundamental institutional change — a rare move among many stubbornly progressive universities.

Many conservatives have started to adopt the belief that we should seek to create our own institutions, including universities. This solution may help in some ways, but it is, at best, incomplete. Reforming existing institutions would be far more effective. While major universities have failed at preserving peace and civility, the birthplace of the free-speech movement still has great potential. It’s a challenge, to be sure. Many students at Berkeley will surely object, at least at first. (A few torn-down posters aside, our event with Di Martino otherwise took place without a hitch.) But if the administration is willing to commit to this process, it will be among the first to dismantle the stereotypical hostile university atmosphere and revolutionize political dialogue. Students will ultimately benefit — and, who knows, maybe they’ll even come to enjoy it over time.

Chancellor Lyons, administrators, and faculty: the future is calling us — but only you can answer it.