The replacement of truth with truthiness and platitudes and dialogue with attacks and tribes and dehumanization is not the way to build a stable society.
Fortunately this has not yet hit education here from what I can see.
Is the denial of nuance really a path to truth? Is it better to "maintain civility" instead of actually naming and dealing with problems openly? Maybe in American colleges, with their airing of the grievances (activism) and feats of strength (sports), Festivus doesn't just come once a year any more. And maybe all of that leads to better-rounded humans instead of just qualified job applicants.
Maybe it could, or maybe everything gets razed by it, getting an expensive lesson in failure.
Civility is entirely different from dialogue. Disobedience is sometimes necessary but cannot be the base of a society.
You can be non-civil and still discuss and engage with your opponent, but shouting them down is not engagement, neither are loud protests without constructive ideas that actually can work, or without actual pressure.
Lying and shooting down inconvenient research is not an acceptable tactic. That's what communists did. Putting words into mouth of your opponent only escalates stakes. What you do they can do onto you, and smaller (poorer, less in control of media or masses) will lose.
In dialog, both sides can win. Compromises led to steady victory for many movements. (Such as feminists.)
Fortunately this has not yet hit education here from what I can see.