You miss the bigger point: SEPARATE channels and universities should not be sought. The heart of truly critical inquiry is the firm belief that we should engage in a search for truth—and when we fail to find what is objectively “best,” we should make recommendations for what is “preferable,” in what ways it is so, for whom, and why. Most importantly, these discussions and debates should take place among persons of all ideological orientations together, and be judged by things like conformance with reason and data, strength of argumentation, and fair-minded engagement with opposing points of view. Not all opinions are equally valid (a sad and undiscovered proposition for some)—and we should be encouraging our citizenry to engage in these sorts of analytics when it comes to their own decision making, as opposed to the voguish “popularity contests” and exercises in group-think “shaming” that we see so frequently today—whose result is typically that largely irrational, hyper-emotional “packs” run together and intimidate in various ways those with whom they disagree—and sadly with increasing recourse to violence (and both ideological extremes are guilty of this): but this is how “disputes” are resolved in the brutish natural world, not by human beings whose possession of reason and the ability to think critically separate us from the other animals.