Columbia University is exploring whether artificial intelligence can enhance discussions around contentious topics such as abortion, racism, immigration, and the Israel-Palestine conflict.
Technology News reports that the university has begun testing Sway, an AI-driven debate platform in its beta phase. Created by researchers with expertise in philosophy and psychology, Sway pairs students with differing perspectives for personal discussions aimed at promoting effective dialogue. According to developer Nicholas DiBella from Carnegie Mellon University, around 3,000 students across more than 30 institutions have already engaged with the tool.
Columbia may soon join this group.
The potential collaboration follows a period of heightened tensions at Columbia, with various conflicts arising among students, faculty, and federal authorities. The university has recently faced a stream of controversies, including the expulsion of pro-Palestinian demonstrators and increased government scrutiny.
At Columbia’s Teachers College, Sway is being piloted for possible inclusion in the school’s conflict resolution curriculum, aimed at fostering initiatives for building bridges within the university, DiBella noted. Additionally, there is interest from various teams at Columbia for using Sway starting in the fall semester of 2026. Simon Cullen, another co-developer and a visiting research professor at UNC-Chapel Hill, stated that discussions are underway with Columbia University Life about the initiative.
Sway incorporates an “AI Guide” during discussions that poses challenging questions to enhance students’ reasoning skills and offers suggestions for rephrasing language deemed disrespectful. The platform’s promotional materials include a debate topic asking whether the U.S. should prioritize Palestinian rights and discontinue arms support to Israel.
Columbia did not respond to requests for comment prior to publication, even after being given additional time to do so.
Following the publication, Columbia spokesperson Millie Wert released a statement to Technology News, highlighting the institution’s ongoing efforts to promote open and respectful dialogue among community members.
“Sway is just one of the many avenues the university is pursuing to encourage constructive conversations on campus,” Wert added. “At this moment, we are not aware of any decision regarding the implementation of this tool.”
‘A pattern that Columbia repeats’
In tandem with its partnerships, Columbia is undergoing significant modifications following a $200 million settlement with the previous Trump administration aimed at addressing antisemitism. This deal has reinstated up to $1.3 billion in federal funding access for the university but also mandates extensive data reporting and stricter regulations concerning protests and the oversight of international students. As part of this settlement, Columbia committed to engage with organizations to foster “constructive dialogue” on campus, which may implicate the anticipated collaboration with Sway.
Sources familiar with the situation noted that this is part of an ongoing pattern at Columbia, where financial resources are allocated to address student disagreements in an attempt to quell disputes.
One anonymous source critiqued the university’s approach, stating, “This is a recurring theme where the nuances of politics and history are stripped from our discussions. Columbia has the potential to navigate the complexities of these issues as a scholarly institution, but the administration is framing them as merely ‘difficult conversations’ without considering their broader contexts.”
“It’s pretty much the trustees trying to put out fires in my opinion.”
The Student Leadership Engagement Initiative (SLEI) is one forum intended to facilitate dialogue between students and administration. This initiative had seven sessions over the past year, drawing more than 70 students who were selected by deans to engage in discussions aimed at understanding differing viewpoints.
A source criticized this initiative as trustees responding to perceived issues with financial incentives, stating, “You wouldn’t see trustees investing such significant amounts of money per student to engage in discussions unless they were trying to manage a situation.”
Joseph Howley, an associate professor in Columbia’s Classics department, remarked, “A response strategy driven by crisis management characterizes recent years at universities. Approaches from corporate crisis management, policing, and law enforcement are now being applied to address dissent and disagreement, treated as issues instead of valued aspects of academic engagement.”
“We are in a political moment where everyone is looking for magic bullets.”
‘Looking for magic bullets’
Cullen noted Sway is connected to U.S. intelligence funding for some aspects of its research, which has drawn scrutiny. The platform also receives backing from multiple foundations, including the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations and Carnegie Mellon University.
DiBella explained that while Sway shares aggregated data with public entities and intelligence agencies, it does not disclose detailed transcripts or individual responses from students. He emphasized that all data shared is public, and there are no specific reporting pathways to the intelligence community.
The intelligence community supports DiBella’s postdoctoral research, providing funding for general scientific positions relevant to their interest, while ensuring all research remains public and unclassified.
Student responses are not shared with instructors, but scores from a brief quiz assessing understanding after the discussions are provided to them.
One Columbia source expressed concern that Sway may overlook crucial aspects of international relations and power dynamics, stating, “I doubt Sway will consider the complexities of these discussions, focusing instead on creating an atmosphere of comfort, a common but frustrating pattern at Columbia.”
Sway’s initial studies evaluated discussions around the legitimacy of the 2020 U.S. election. This prompts inquiry into whether promoting mutual understanding among participants is beneficial when one party represents a false narrative. The challenge lies in determining when moderation between conflicting opinions is detrimental and who makes that judgment.
“We are in a political moment where everyone is looking for magic bullets.”
Sway’s post-discussion quiz evaluates whether students feel more positively toward counterarguments, appreciate alternative perspectives, and whether they adjust their beliefs based on the interaction. DiBella reported nearly half of the participants indicated they had shifted their views, although he cautioned that such changes don’t necessarily reflect accuracy or truthfulness in thought processes.
He added that students often exhibit reduced confidence in their own opinions following discussions, which reflects the Sway goal of promoting a willingness to re-evaluate beliefs. “The purpose of our program, fittingly labeled ‘sway,’ is to encourage adaptability in opinion,” DiBella stated.
Cullen reiterated that Sway is intended to cultivate “constructive disagreement,” not to impose consensus.
He emphasized the importance of viewing campus disputes as opportunities for growth rather than problems to resolve. “Engaging with differing perspectives strengthens reasoning,” he stated. “Sway is a faculty-led initiative designed to help students practice how to engage in constructive dialogue without forcing agreement.”
The initiative with Sway is part of a broader trend at Columbia, where technology is being deployed to influence student perspectives. The university is also reportedly exploring Schoolhouse Dialogues, an initiative from Sal Khan’s organization, which aims to connect high school students with opposing views for discussions, potentially impacting admissions evaluations based on their displayed civility.
Reflecting on the trend, Howley noted that there’s a growing desire among university leaders to find “magical solutions” through AI. “Some decision-makers, who are not directly involved in knowledge creation or education, believe that such software can serve as a panacea in our current political climate, which only exacerbates the disconnect from the university’s fundamental responsibilities,” he remarked.
Correction, September 5th: This article previously misstated that Cullen is an assistant professor at Carnegie Mellon University; he left the institution in June. His current affiliation has since been corrected.
0 Comments
