Civility-theater liberalism is not enough, whether it’s the staged heat of campus showdowns or the cool civility of podcast tête-à-têtes. The duty is twofold: Design a forum that can carry facts, history, and counterargument into the room, and host it with someone who has done the homework to press, correct, and judge in real time. When a platform is given to arguments that narrow the circle of equal regard, pair the marquee guest with the scholar who can supply the record and with those who live with the downstream effects—the policies those arguments license and the resentments they cultivate. If the host can meet the standard, let them; if not, choose one who will—or don’t stage the show. If the format can’t do that, if it launders or airbrushes dehumanization, then don’t use it. If the platform can be rebuilt, rebuild it; if it can’t, retire it.

Building an information infrastructure like this will not be easy. It asks for coordinated buy-in—from newsroom editors and bookers, podcast hosts and producers, public intellectuals and columnists, university deans and student organizations, debate societies and conference conveners, philanthropies and civic groups that underwrite public forums. But it is necessary because America’s present moment is precarious, marked by a rising tolerance for politically motivated intimidation and attacks, and by an information market flooded with bad stock.