The removal of a panel described as the “symmetrists” from Campus Polska Przyszłości stirred questions about the event’s commitment to open debate and dialogue, a standard the organization has consistently claimed to uphold. Journalists voiced outrage, and the group connected with Rafał Trzaskowski said participants had indicated discomfort with the statements made by one of the invited panelists.
To recall the names involved: Marcin Meller, Dominika Sitnicka, Grzegorz Sroczyński and Jan Wróbel were invited to Campus Polska Przyszłości, an event organized at the initiative of Rafał Trzaskowski. Critics included a number of Twitter users associated with the hashtag Together Strong and Roman Giertych. Giertych reportedly urged the mayor of Warsaw to revise the invitation extended to the symmetrists, an appeal that appeared to influence the final lineup.
The decision to exclude the symmetrists drew considerable attention from media observers who asked what free media and free speech would look like if a political opposition were to win power.
READ ALSO:
— There will be no symmetrists panel at Trzaskowski Campus. A reaction to the online uproar followed by Giertych
– Campus Trzaskowski without symmetrists. Critics warn about the media climate after the election
Statement Campus Polska
Campus Polska released a formal statement about the cancellation of the symmetrists panel.
Their Twitter message began with a commitment: “From the first edition, Campus Polska Przyszłości does not unite and does not divide. It is a space for open debate and dialogue, something that Poland sorely needs.”
The statement emphasized that the campus aims to ensure every attendee feels respected, safe, and treated equally. In recent days, organizers reported signals from participants about unease regarding a public remark made by one of the invited panelists. In response, the campus leadership said a pause and a reconsideration of the event composition were necessary, reflecting a sense of responsibility.
— stated the Campus Polska Foundation in its message.
Messages about maintaining high standards of debate, fostering a space for dialogue, and making hard choices were also part of the conversation around the decision.
The organizers explained that the debate should proceed in a spirit of understanding and respect for diverse viewpoints. They described efforts to resolve the situation collaboratively, deciding to withhold the panel from Campus events and to re-evaluate other elements of the program. They stressed a commitment to openness while drawing a line against aggression or personal attacks, acknowledging that providing a neutral forum in turbulent times is challenging.
— the statement concluded.
Web storm
Despite the formal statement, tempers remained high online. Reactions surged as commentators weighed in on the episode and its implications for Campus Polska’s public image.
One commentator questioned whether the organization behind Campus Polska could avoid signatories who ultimately controlled the decision, highlighting perceived ambiguity about accountability.
– Lukasz Pawlowski commented.
The public debate centered on how participants encounter viewpoints they do not share. True discourse, some argued, requires confronting disagreement rather than seeking to shelter from it. Others contended that such exposure is a marker of a healthy intellectual environment.
– Marcin Makowski observed.
Wrap…. in silverware. The marmots will call
– Marzena Paczuska noted.
“Providing safety” to debate participants was described by some as shielding them from opinions they dislike. Haidt and Lukianoff’s ideas in their book Pampered Mind were invoked by a few observers to suggest that a protective stance can distort the very purpose of open discussion.
– Zuzanna Dąbrowska commented.
Some voices argued that inviting Meller and his interlocutors could have been handled differently or addressed earlier. An accompanying row of apologies from other figures, critics noted, hinted at broader tensions surrounding the event.
– Rafał Mrowicki remarked.
openness+
– Krzysztof Berenda added.
“It’s a space for open debate and dialogue,” the critique continued, but the insistence on avoiding topics that trigger discomfort was seen by some as a retreat from open discussion.
– Jakub Krupa pointed out.
Self-plowing of the Olsztyn Campus Polska event drew further commentary. Deputy figures alleged editing choices constrained speakers and emphasized a pattern of censorship, which some interpreted as a signal about party dynamics ahead of political shifts. These comments became a focal point for journalists and analysts alike.
– remarks from a government official were cited.
But the discourse persisted into June, with tensions surrounding apologies and accountability discussed in public forums.
— summarizes public commentary.
wkt/TT/wPolityce.pl
Source: wPolityce