A Harvard forum discussion with Kellyanne Conway last week took a turn when the question and answer portion of the talk grew heated.

The former advisor to Donald Trump, who has often been criticized for her spin on the president-elect and violation of the Hatch Act for disparaging political opponents, spoke about Trump’s recent presidential victory and where she felt the Democrats went wrong.

The forum, moderated by Institute of Politics Director Setti Warren, sparked spirited exchanges between Conway and the student audience.

Jane Petersen, a student in her second year of a master’s degree program in public policy, asked Conway about her time working for the Trump White House and if the responses she gave — “alternative facts” — were out of survival or strategy.

Conway became defensive.

“You need to be fair. You’re not going to go back eight years and do that,” Conway said, after turning the spotlight back at Petersen by asking her to explain what “alternative facts” meant.

“I asked you a question about your role in the White House. … You decide to come here and know that you’re going to be accepting questions from students yet,” Petersen replied.

“OK, so then I’ll answer it. Thank you for your question. I gave you a good chance there, and it’s a great chance for you, because I don’t need any more air time — I get plenty of it,” Conway responded.

Petersen said in a statement to GBH News that her decision to ask the question was deliberate. “We have a lot to gain from people across the ideological spectrum coming to our campus to defend their actions and positions,” she wrote. “I wanted to use that opportunity to ask a question that was tough, but fair.”

The forum ran 30 minutes over its scheduled one-hour time slot.

Jobim Steyermark, a first-year student at Harvard Law School, asked the first question of the night to Conway about the potential loss in credibility of Trump’s leadership after his recent controversial cabinet picks.

Conway said, “As goes the Senate confirmation hearings and nominees, that’s why we have a process. It will be on TV, you can all watch it. It’s available to everyone. It will be transparent. It’ll be truthful. The people asking questions will not be under oath. The people answering the questions will be under oath. I can play this game all day long.”

Conway continued, “I can say, ‘Wow, I really wish Alejandro Mayorcas had not said the border was secure and closed in 2021 — lie, lie — and was willing to call the border a crisis while 72% of Americans were at the same time. That would have helped — would have helped Laken Riley, would have helped Rachel Morin — actually, they’d probably be alive. Would have helped Jocelyn Nungaray. So I can do this all day.”

Steyermark later told GBH News “We’re still waiting to hear a clear explanation of how appointing unhinged, lawless ideologues to key cabinet positions will serve to make Americans safer and more prosperous.”

He added, “Unfortunately, Trump’s surrogate was unable to answer that question and had to save face by relitigating stale anecdotes about the foibles of the outgoing administration. To my mind, that suggests a lack of preparation for the task of real governance.”

As the Q&A session continued, the tone of the evening shifted, becoming less confrontational.

Harvard College senior Greg Kossman later told GBH News that while he felt “a bit nervous” due to the heated exchanges before him, he “appreciated the opportunity to get her candid perspective on how she thought we can restore trust in our sources of information.”

Conway also took time to criticize the recent op-ed written by the IOP’s president calling for the organization to “no longer be nonpartisan.”

“Deplatforming MAGA people — oh that’s going to really help wash away the 76 million votes that Donald Trump just got,” Conway said.

Conway commended Warren for his response, in which he confirmed that the IOP would maintain its nonpartisan stance. Earlier in the week, Warren reiterated this commitment during a forum with Secretary of Transportation Pete Buttigieg.

“I want to emphasize the fact that the IOP takes great pride that we are a nonpartisan organization — from my standpoint and our standpoint — it’s important for us to hear different views even if we disagree,” Warren said.

The push to preserve nonpartisanship on college campuses has intensified since Trump’s victory. Opinion boards of student newspapers across the Boston area have become arenas for contentious back-and-forth exchanges. The Harvard Crimson editorial board published a piece urging conservative students to “stop hiding,” which sparked a retort from the chairman of the John Adams Society, who argued that Harvard conservatives “owe nothing” to the campus.

Meanwhile, at Boston College, a letter from BC Republicans calling for an end to the “dehumanization” of Trump voters was met with accusations that their message was “unserious,” pointing to the group’s past involvement in hosting controversial speakers.

“You have every right to speak up and stand up and put up and show up…but there’s a way to do that without taking the voice box out of other students and telling them that they’re somehow less than,” Conway said.

Layla Chaaraoui is a Harvard student and a member of the IOP’s student advisory committee