On a cool April afternoon in Raleigh, a student stood on the steps of the North Carolina State Capitol holding a Bible in one hand and the weight of a promise in the other — a scene that captures both the hopeful drama and practical purpose behind a nearly century-old experiment in student self-government and bipartisan civic practice.
The essay published in EdNC chronicles a personal moment that ties into a larger argument: civic life in North Carolina and across the United States is fraying at the edges, and one practical, scalable remedy is deeper investment in spaces that teach students how to debate, collaborate, and legislate together. The North Carolina Student Legislature (NCSL) — founded in the 1930s and still active today — is presented as a living laboratory where students draft bills, follow parliamentary procedure, and interact with state policymakers in a deliberately nonpartisan forum. That lived practice, the author argues, produces a form of civic competence and cross-ideological empathy that passive classroom instruction and online echo chambers do not. The piece makes three core claims: (1) civic participation and civic infrastructure among young people are alarmingly low, (2) NCSL provides a durable model for restoring bipartisan, face-to-face deliberation, and (3) policymakers, institutions, and students should commit resources and attention to expand this work now.
Those are the stakes; what follows unpacks the data behind the claims, situates NCSL historically and practically, tests the argument against independent research, and then draws policy- and campus-level recommendations for anyone serious about reviving bipartisan civic debate for a new generation.
Nationally, youth civic life shows complex signals: many young people express strong political interest and activism on specific issues, but other measures — especially face-to-face participation in local government, public meetings, and cross-ideological discussion — remain weak. Survey research from CIRCLE at Tufts University finds that while a majority of young people report believing they can make change and express interest in political action, smaller shares feel qualified to participate or report regular, structured deliberation with ideological opponents. CIRCLE’s work documents both high energy for issue activism and significant gaps in civic skills and institutional trust that can blunt long-term bipartisan collaboration. (circle.tufts.edu)
Other national polling reinforces the picture that cross-ideological dialog is strained: Pew Research Center polling shows a majority of Americans find conversations with people they disagree with to be “stressful and frustrating,” a tone that is shared across age cohorts and that reduces opportunities for the kinds of in-person, deliberative exchanges NCSL models. (pewresearch.org)
A few clarifications and caveats about the numbers are essential. Different surveys measure different things (self-reported volunteering in the last year, group participation, attendance at public meetings, or conversational habits), and wording differences matter. Where one survey registers that "only 22.8% volunteered in the past year," another may show that among those who volunteer, a far higher fraction do so frequently — suggesting polarization between a smaller core of routine volunteers and a larger passive majority. The empirical picture is therefore nuanced, but the headline is clear: the institutional scaffolding that supports cross-cutting civic engagement is under strain in North Carolina and across the country. (ncoc.org, nccampusengagement.org)
At the same time, national studies indicate generational ambivalence rather than total disengagement. Multiple recent surveys show young people care deeply about issues — climate, racial justice, economic fairness — and they often act outside traditional institutions (boycotts, protests, digital campaigns). Yet those modes of action do not substitute for the day-to-day practices of bipartisan governance: attendance at public meetings, structured legislative deliberation, and regular conversations with people whose views differ. Where activists meet, we often see activation; where institutions provide accountable channels for influence, we see durable civic power. The gap between the two is the problem NCSL seeks to address. (circle.tufts.edu, dataforprogress.org)
Why does that longevity matter? Institutions shape habits. An organization that has persisted for decades embodies norms — rules for civil disagreement, expectations of accountability, and rituals for turning argument into policy recommendations. Those habits matter because they train successive cohorts of students to practice governance rather than merely perform partisanship. The EdNC piece highlights stories of students who, after debating on the House or Senate floor in the Old Capitol, ate lunch together with ideological opponents and iterated on compromise amendments — small moments that accumulate into a thicker civic muscle.
NCSL’s alumni network and historical reach, with notable former delegates who later served in the state legislature and executive branch, give the organization practical influence that extends beyond rhetorical training: student proposals have, on multiple occasions, informed real policy conversations and been taken up by elected leaders. That pipeline — student to policy — is part of what distinguishes NCSL from theatrical or purely extracurricular campus debate. (ncstudentlegislature.wordpress.com, ncstudentlegislature.org)
Concrete differences include:
That said, not every statistical claim is equally straightforward to verify. For example, the assertion that “fewer than one in four young adults believe they have real influence over government decisions” is a strong, specific statement that depends on survey question wording and sampling frame. Different polls measure "influence," "efficacy," and "representation" in distinct ways; some find large majorities of youth saying they can effect change in communities, while others show widespread doubts about representation at the federal level. Independent surveys by Data for Progress and the Institute for Citizens & Scholars document persistent feelings of underrepresentation and skepticism about whether political institutions work for young people, but the exact numeric thresholds vary across instruments and timeframes. Consequently, any single, crisp percentage should be reported with methodological caveats. (dataforprogress.org, citizensandscholars.org)
Put simply: the qualitative diagnosis is robust; the precise numeric claim needs context. That means advocates and policymakers should treat headline percentages as directional signals rather than immutable facts and should ground funding and reform decisions in multiple measures and repeated local surveys.
But modeling is not enough. If the state and its educational institutions truly value bipartisan civic repair, they must invest in scalable, equitable, and evaluated programs — embed civic simulations into the curriculum, underwrite access for students who otherwise cannot participate, and create formal pathways from student debate to public policy. When students learn how to legislate, not just what to believe, they gain something far more valuable than a resume line: the capacity to listen, revise, and govern together.
The alternative is familiar: a generation trained primarily in online spectacle and selective outrage, with fewer opportunities to practice the patient, procedural, interpersonal work of democracy. The choice is institutional, not inevitable. The NCSL example shows what that institutional investment looks like in practice. The next step is to scale it with care, equity, and evidence — because reviving bipartisan debate for a new generation is not an act of nostalgia; it is a strategic investment in governing competence and civic resilience.
Source: EdNC Perspective | Reviving bipartisan debate for a new generation
Background
The essay published in EdNC chronicles a personal moment that ties into a larger argument: civic life in North Carolina and across the United States is fraying at the edges, and one practical, scalable remedy is deeper investment in spaces that teach students how to debate, collaborate, and legislate together. The North Carolina Student Legislature (NCSL) — founded in the 1930s and still active today — is presented as a living laboratory where students draft bills, follow parliamentary procedure, and interact with state policymakers in a deliberately nonpartisan forum. That lived practice, the author argues, produces a form of civic competence and cross-ideological empathy that passive classroom instruction and online echo chambers do not. The piece makes three core claims: (1) civic participation and civic infrastructure among young people are alarmingly low, (2) NCSL provides a durable model for restoring bipartisan, face-to-face deliberation, and (3) policymakers, institutions, and students should commit resources and attention to expand this work now.Those are the stakes; what follows unpacks the data behind the claims, situates NCSL historically and practically, tests the argument against independent research, and then draws policy- and campus-level recommendations for anyone serious about reviving bipartisan civic debate for a new generation.
The civic engagement gap: data and what it means
The EdNC piece anchors its diagnosis in the 2024 North Carolina Civic Health Index (NCCHI), which finds troubling indicators of civic decline: North Carolina’s volunteer rates and group participation are below desirable levels, with only about one in five residents reporting volunteer activity in the past year and participation in formal groups hovering in the mid‑20s percent range. These figures are not rhetorical flourishes; they come from the 2024 NCCHI produced in partnership with the National Conference on Citizenship and state civic engagement partners. The report notes that just over 22% of respondents said they had volunteered in the last year, and roughly 24–25% reported participation in groups — placing North Carolina well below the norms civic health advocates would prefer. (ncoc.org, nccampusengagement.org)Nationally, youth civic life shows complex signals: many young people express strong political interest and activism on specific issues, but other measures — especially face-to-face participation in local government, public meetings, and cross-ideological discussion — remain weak. Survey research from CIRCLE at Tufts University finds that while a majority of young people report believing they can make change and express interest in political action, smaller shares feel qualified to participate or report regular, structured deliberation with ideological opponents. CIRCLE’s work documents both high energy for issue activism and significant gaps in civic skills and institutional trust that can blunt long-term bipartisan collaboration. (circle.tufts.edu)
Other national polling reinforces the picture that cross-ideological dialog is strained: Pew Research Center polling shows a majority of Americans find conversations with people they disagree with to be “stressful and frustrating,” a tone that is shared across age cohorts and that reduces opportunities for the kinds of in-person, deliberative exchanges NCSL models. (pewresearch.org)
A few clarifications and caveats about the numbers are essential. Different surveys measure different things (self-reported volunteering in the last year, group participation, attendance at public meetings, or conversational habits), and wording differences matter. Where one survey registers that "only 22.8% volunteered in the past year," another may show that among those who volunteer, a far higher fraction do so frequently — suggesting polarization between a smaller core of routine volunteers and a larger passive majority. The empirical picture is therefore nuanced, but the headline is clear: the institutional scaffolding that supports cross-cutting civic engagement is under strain in North Carolina and across the country. (ncoc.org, nccampusengagement.org)
At the same time, national studies indicate generational ambivalence rather than total disengagement. Multiple recent surveys show young people care deeply about issues — climate, racial justice, economic fairness — and they often act outside traditional institutions (boycotts, protests, digital campaigns). Yet those modes of action do not substitute for the day-to-day practices of bipartisan governance: attendance at public meetings, structured legislative deliberation, and regular conversations with people whose views differ. Where activists meet, we often see activation; where institutions provide accountable channels for influence, we see durable civic power. The gap between the two is the problem NCSL seeks to address. (circle.tufts.edu, dataforprogress.org)
NCSL: an institutional sketch and why it matters
NCSL is not a new idea. Founded in the late 1930s, the North Carolina Student Legislature is widely documented as the oldest active, student-run, nonpartisan legislative organization in the nation. It organizes annual sessions and interim councils where student delegations from across public and private campuses draft and debate proposals, elect student governors and officers, and present a compiled "Compendium" of enacted student legislation to state lawmakers. The organization’s formal structure and long history mean it is not an ad hoc debating club: it follows parliamentary procedure, holds inter-campus committees, and cultivates long-term alumni networks that extend into the state’s political ecosystem. (ncstudentlegislature.org, lib.ncsu.edu)Why does that longevity matter? Institutions shape habits. An organization that has persisted for decades embodies norms — rules for civil disagreement, expectations of accountability, and rituals for turning argument into policy recommendations. Those habits matter because they train successive cohorts of students to practice governance rather than merely perform partisanship. The EdNC piece highlights stories of students who, after debating on the House or Senate floor in the Old Capitol, ate lunch together with ideological opponents and iterated on compromise amendments — small moments that accumulate into a thicker civic muscle.
NCSL’s alumni network and historical reach, with notable former delegates who later served in the state legislature and executive branch, give the organization practical influence that extends beyond rhetorical training: student proposals have, on multiple occasions, informed real policy conversations and been taken up by elected leaders. That pipeline — student to policy — is part of what distinguishes NCSL from theatrical or purely extracurricular campus debate. (ncstudentlegislature.wordpress.com, ncstudentlegislature.org)
Why NCSL is different from other campus opportunities
Many campus groups gather like-minded students. The default model for college political activity is often ideologically homogeneous: clubs, caucuses, or affinity groups where internal alignment is the primary function. NCSL, by contrast, is intentionally nonpartisan and procedural: it simulates the legislative process, which means delegates must learn to build coalitions, draft amendments, and negotiate across differences if they want a bill to pass.Concrete differences include:
- Institutionalized procedure — bills are researched, filed, assigned to committees, and debated under recognized rules.
- Cross-campus representation — delegations come from public and private institutions, bringing disciplinary and demographic variety.
- Legislative orientation — the point is drafting working policy proposals, not scoring rhetorical points.
- Access to policymakers — sessions include lawmakers and policy experts who engage with students on substance rather than soundbites.
Independent verification: what the research supports and what it doesn’t
The EdNC piece’s broad diagnosis — falling civic participation among young people and a scarcity of face-to-face bipartisan debate — is supported by multiple independent sources. The 2024 North Carolina Civic Health Index documents low volunteer rates and weak local participation metrics. CIRCLE’s national work shows gaps in youth civic preparation and a range of engagement practices that are often issue-focused rather than institution-focused. Pew Research documents widespread stress around cross-ideological conversations. Together, these studies substantiate the claim that structured, in-person deliberative institutions are essential and currently under-resourced. (ncoc.org, circle.tufts.edu, pewresearch.org)That said, not every statistical claim is equally straightforward to verify. For example, the assertion that “fewer than one in four young adults believe they have real influence over government decisions” is a strong, specific statement that depends on survey question wording and sampling frame. Different polls measure "influence," "efficacy," and "representation" in distinct ways; some find large majorities of youth saying they can effect change in communities, while others show widespread doubts about representation at the federal level. Independent surveys by Data for Progress and the Institute for Citizens & Scholars document persistent feelings of underrepresentation and skepticism about whether political institutions work for young people, but the exact numeric thresholds vary across instruments and timeframes. Consequently, any single, crisp percentage should be reported with methodological caveats. (dataforprogress.org, citizensandscholars.org)
Put simply: the qualitative diagnosis is robust; the precise numeric claim needs context. That means advocates and policymakers should treat headline percentages as directional signals rather than immutable facts and should ground funding and reform decisions in multiple measures and repeated local surveys.
Strengths and risks of scaling the NCSL model
Strengths
- High-fidelity civic training: NCSL teaches parliamentary procedure, bill drafting, and coalition-building — transferable skills for public service and civic life.
- Cross-ideological practice: By design, delegates must persuade across differences, building the muscle for civil disagreement.
- Institutional longevity: The organization’s decades-long history provides continuity, alumni pathways, and institutional memory that amplify impact.
- Policy pipeline: The Compendium and direct contact with lawmakers provide a real-world feedback loop where student ideas can influence public policy.
Risks and limitations
- Selection effects: Students who join NCSL may already be more civically inclined; expanding reach to the broader student population requires targeted recruitment and resources.
- Resource intensity: Authentic simulation of a legislature requires funding for staff, travel, training, and institutional partnerships. Without stable support, quality erodes.
- Scalability vs. depth: Scaling to thousands of campuses risks diluting the intensity of debate; careful fidelity to procedural norms is essential.
- Equity and access: Without deliberate inclusion strategies, underrepresented students (first-generation, low-income, certain minority groups) may remain marginalized within student legislative structures.
Practical recommendations: how to revive bipartisan debate at scale
- Institutionalize funding and academic credit.
- Create paid staff positions at universities (civic engagement coordinators) and offer elective credits for sustained participation in student legislatures.
- Build equitable recruitment pipelines.
- Partner with community colleges, HBCUs, and minority-serving institutions to widen representation and provide stipends or travel scholarships.
- Tie simulation to civic pathways.
- Formalize internships with state legislative offices and judicial clerkships that give participating students real-world placements.
- Strengthen teacher and advisor training.
- Offer summer institutes for faculty advisors to learn facilitation, restorative dialogue techniques, and curriculum integration.
- Measure and iterate.
- Use pre/post assessments of civic skills, cross-ideological empathy scales, and longitudinal alumni tracking to evaluate effectiveness.
- Promote bipartisan institutional buy-in.
- Encourage state legislatures to formally acknowledge student compendia, host legislative days, and invite student testimony as a routine practice.
What policymakers, educators, and civic leaders should do now
- Policymakers: fund statewide civic engagement coordinators and match university grants to scale student legislature programs. Institutional recognition from the General Assembly — for example, regular hearings with student delegations — signals that student voices matter and strengthens civic pipelines.
- Educators: integrate experiential civic learning into degree programs and offer credit-bearing opportunities for students who participate in legislative simulations.
- Philanthropists and foundations: invest in equity-focused recruitment, travel stipends, and evaluation frameworks to ensure programs reach students who otherwise lack access.
- Students: prioritize joining or starting campus chapters of nonpartisan legislative simulations and seek mentorship from alumni networks that bridge campus and state government.
A note on political context and risks to democratic norms
Bipartisan, face-to-face deliberation does not, on its own, inoculate institutions from broader political threats. Scholars and analysts have documented the dangers when parties or movements delegitimize institutions, amplify conspiracies, or normalize distrust — phenomena that require systemic responses beyond campus programs. Strengthening student civic infrastructure must therefore be paired with media literacy, institutional accountability, transparency in elections, and robust civic education from K–12 through higher education. The point is not to romanticize student government as a cure-all, but to recognize it as a practical, high-leverage component of a comprehensive civic health strategy.Conclusion: restoring practice to principle
The EdNC perspective is right about one crucial thing: durable civic capacity is not manufactured by slogans or social media triumphs. It is learned in rooms where procedure matters, in committees where compromise is the metric of success, and in cafeterias where adversaries become collaborators. The North Carolina Student Legislature is a rare institutional laboratory that teaches those skills, and its longevity offers a model for replication.But modeling is not enough. If the state and its educational institutions truly value bipartisan civic repair, they must invest in scalable, equitable, and evaluated programs — embed civic simulations into the curriculum, underwrite access for students who otherwise cannot participate, and create formal pathways from student debate to public policy. When students learn how to legislate, not just what to believe, they gain something far more valuable than a resume line: the capacity to listen, revise, and govern together.
The alternative is familiar: a generation trained primarily in online spectacle and selective outrage, with fewer opportunities to practice the patient, procedural, interpersonal work of democracy. The choice is institutional, not inevitable. The NCSL example shows what that institutional investment looks like in practice. The next step is to scale it with care, equity, and evidence — because reviving bipartisan debate for a new generation is not an act of nostalgia; it is a strategic investment in governing competence and civic resilience.
Source: EdNC Perspective | Reviving bipartisan debate for a new generation