Why I Started A Free-Speech Magazine at Duke

At America’s elite universities, we are told that pursuing free inquiry and civil discourse is a fundamental value. Administrators champion “grand” initiatives such as the Duke Provost’s Initiative on Free Inquiry (though it is laughable that a university feels the need to announce its commitment to free inquiry; is that not the point of academia?), roll out glossy programs housed in liberal echo chambers, and occasionally invite conservative speakers such as Liz Cheney—sorry, I meant conservative speakers such as Richard Burr.

In reality, these institutions have largely failed to cultivate an environment where civil discourse can organically flourish. Instead of fostering a culture of intellectual rigor where the best ideas win, they settle for performative gestures that keep everyone comfortably in line. If this sounds familiar, it’s because universities such as Duke have been running the same tired playbook for years—addressing historical racial discrimination with cosmetic fixes, as if renaming buildings and creating bureaucratic diversity offices will magically undo deep-seated problems.

Elite universities have failed to cultivate an environment where civil discourse can flourish. Now, they apply the same strategy to free inquiry: Roll out a few initiatives, check the “intellectual diversity” box, and call it a day.

Despite these challenges, many others in the Duke community and I refused to accept that civil discourse is impossible or that ideological orthodoxy must be the default state of university life. That is why I co-founded The Lemur: Duke’s Big Ideas Magazine—to challenge prevailing narratives, create a genuine platform for intellectual engagement, and prove that meaningful dialogue can and should thrive on college campuses.

There is little institutional will to foster authentic ideological engagement at Duke. To understand why The Lemur is necessary, one must first understand the shortcomings of Duke’s intellectual environment. While occasional efforts showcase ideological diversity, there is little institutional will to foster authentic ideological engagement. The problem is a lack of conservative voices and a broader unwillingness to cultivate genuine debate.

Many students, regardless of their political affiliation, enter discussions not to engage but to dominate. It is far too easy to fall into the trap of intellectual tribalism, dismissing those with different perspectives as morally or intellectually deficient. Without a genuine commitment to free inquiry, students are not encouraged to challenge their beliefs or understand the logic and motivations of those who disagree with them.

This stagnation is particularly evident in how political discourse is handled on campus. While Duke has invited conservative speakers, these events are anomalies—brief interruptions in an otherwise uniform ideological landscape. What is missing is an ongoing, structured commitment to open dialogue, whereby students can challenge and refine their perspectives through rigorous engagement with opposing views.

Recognizing this void, my friend Zachary Partnoy and I sought to create something different. As fellow history majors on opposite sides of the political spectrum, we had long engaged in impassioned debates about politics, philosophy, and culture. Despite our differences, we found that intellectual respect and a shared commitment to truth allowed us to have meaningful and challenging discussions without resorting to hostility or condescension.

We envisioned The Lemur as an extension of that dynamic—a publication in which students could engage with diverse ideas, unfiltered and unafraid. We operate on a simple but powerful principle: The best ideas should outcompete the bad ones. We believe that free expression and open debate are not threats but essential components of a thriving intellectual community.

The Lemur is guided by the Chicago Statement’s free-speech principles, which state unequivocally:

In a word, the University’s fundamental commitment is to the principle that debate or deliberation may not be suppressed because the ideas put forth are thought by some or even by most members of the University community to be offensive, unwise, immoral, or wrong-headed. It is for the individual members of the University community, not for the University as an institution, to make those judgments for themselves, and to act on those judgments not by seeking to suppress speech, but by openly and vigorously contesting the ideas that they oppose.

In other words, The Lemur exists not to shield students from controversy but to equip them with the intellectual tools necessary to confront it.

Since its inception, The Lemur has provided a space for diverse perspectives, publishing pieces on history, politics, philosophy, and civilization. We do not impose ideological litmus tests on our contributors. Our pages feature everything from a critique of J.D. Vance’s alleged moral failures to an article lambasting the Democratic National Committee over its recent leadership election. Our goal is not to promote any particular ideology, whether through open support or tacit omission, but to foster a genuine exchange of ideas.

Our goal is not to promote any particular ideology, whether through open support or tacit omission, but to foster a genuine exchange of ideas. One of our flagship initiatives is the Uncommon Ground series, which pairs a liberal and a conservative in conversation on contentious issues. This series demonstrates that common ground is not a myth—it is something that can be achieved when people approach discourse with an open mind and a willingness to listen. A recent Uncommon Ground piece condemned the politicization of natural disasters, highlighting how both the Left and the Right exploit human suffering for political gain.

Common ground is not a myth—it is something that can be achieved when people approach discourse with an open mind. Beyond the written word, The Lemur has expanded its mission through two major initiatives: bipartisan roundtables and a “great books” seminar on political philosophy.

Last month, we hosted a bipartisan roundtable discussion between members of Duke College Republicans and Duke Democrats. The focus was the recent election and expectations for the next four years. The conversation was undoubtedly heated, and I am not sure anyone left the room with their minds changed. Yet we can boast that we did something that Duke University, with all of its resources and “critical thinking,” has yet to even attempt: place Republican and Democrat students in a room to discuss politics.

Meanwhile, our great-books seminar aims to deepen students’ understanding of political philosophy by engaging with foundational texts. We are starting with Edmund Burke’s Reflections on the Revolution in France, a seminal work in the conservative tradition. Rather than indoctrinating students into any single perspective, we aim to provide them with the intellectual tools to think critically about political philosophy across the ideological spectrum.

Acknowledging that not everyone at Duke opposes the ideals of free inquiry and civil discourse is essential. Abdullah Antepli, the current director of Polis: Duke’s Political Center and the Civil Discourse Project, has steadfastly supported our efforts. Though progressive in his politics, Professor Antepli has demonstrated an unwavering commitment to intellectual diversity and open dialogue. His willingness to expand The Lemur and serve as faculty advisor for the Duke College Republicans underscores that the fight for free expression is not a partisan issue—it is a fundamental academic principle. He has even gone out of his way to recruit conservative faculty members to ensure that conservative ideas do not go unnoticed.

At the same time, challenges remain. While some within the administration support our mission, institutional inertia makes it difficult to effect real change. Genuine commitment to free inquiry requires more than words; it demands action, which many elite institutions hesitate to take.

Despite these challenges, The Lemur continues to grow. We are expanding our roster of writers, increasing our reach on campus, and exploring partnerships with other organizations committed to intellectual freedom. Our goal is not just to create a publication but to build an institution that proves that civil discourse and genuine inquiry are still possible in an age of ideological polarization.

Ultimately, The Lemur is more than just a magazine—it is a direct challenge to the comfortable intellectual conformity that elite institutions have come to accept as “discourse.” It stands as a rebuke to the idea that meaningful debate requires administrative oversight or carefully curated initiatives.

For too long, universities have championed free inquiry in name while ensuring that only the “right” perspectives flourish in practice. The Lemur exists to prove that real intellectual engagement does not need institutional approval or a faculty committee’s blessing. It requires students willing to think critically, engage openly, and challenge orthodoxy—no matter where they stand politically. That is why I started The Lemur, and that is why it will continue to thrive.

Sherman Criner is a junior at Duke University studying public policy, history, and political science.