Given the deep divisions on college campuses—most recently over the conflict in Gaza and Israel—many observers fear that universities usually are not places where students can discuss divisive issues with individuals who disagree with them. In my research and teaching, I actually have found that students do indeed wish to have difficult conversations across divides, but they need the support of school and other facilitators to make those conversations successful.
Since early 2017, I actually have observed events on college campuses where students are brought along with peers with whom they disagree to speak about politics. In these sessions, facilitators ask students guiding questions that help them understand their peers' political opinions.
I conducted follow-up interviews with the scholars a couple of weeks later and, if possible, three years later.
My goal is to know what is occurring in these conversations. I need to know: Who is learning what from whom? Who is satisfied or frustrated and why? And what does all this mean for American democracy?
From the conversations I observed, I learned that six practices contribute to a greater experience for all students.
1. Establish standards and expectations
When people speak about setting conversational norms, they often assume that they try to prescribe language rules. But setting norms does something higher than following rules: it allows students to develop a way of their very own and others' hopes and fears about conversation.
In my experience, starting the session with questions like, “What are you hoping to get out of this conversation?”, “What are you most concerned about about the conversation?”, “What are you willing to contribute?”, and “What are you hoping to get out of it?” can assist show students that they’re already revealing greater than expected.
Furthermore, this discussion inevitably results in the query, “How can we interact in ways that are most likely to help us achieve our goals?” Students typically volunteer their very own guidelines, corresponding to assuming good faith, objecting to an individual's idea moderately than attacking it, truthfully communicating when and why they feel hurt, and listening rigorously.
2. Let students tell their personal stories
By starting with students' personal stories, the barrier to entry is lowered, allowing students who usually are not policy experts to contribute. Students feel that their direct experiences are being heard. And it enables what I actually have found to be probably the most profound final result of the dialogue: the change in how students feel about one another.
For example, consider the “Can we talk” Campus Dialogue Series, which brings together ideologically diverse students for two-hour sessions by which moderators pose a series of questions for college kids to ask one another. Sessions began with questions corresponding to “How was politics discussed in the home you grew up in?” and “What is your earliest political memory?” before moving on to questions on students’ substantive views on relevant issues.
The focus of those sessions, which I observed at colleges in Pennsylvania and New Jersey through the 2017-2018 academic yr, is to extend students' understanding of one another's views and the way they form.
Morsa Images via Getty Images
If the dialogue is to concentrate on a particular issue, corresponding to gun control, abortion, or the war in Israel and Gaza, appropriate questions will be asked, corresponding to: “When did you first hear about this issue?” “What impact did it have on you at the time?” or “What is it about this issue that prompts you to have this conversation?”
3. Encourage curiosity
Students often fear that in the event that they don’t attempt to discredit views they’ll find yourself confirming those views. Follow-up interviews I conducted three years later When she participated in a dialogue session, I discovered that the scholars who eventually modified their political opinions were prompted to accomplish that by sincere and non-threatening questions. “I remember one girl asking me, 'If you say you believe that, why did you vote that way?' I've been asking myself that question ever since,” admitted one student whose political opinions had modified significantly within the years between our first and second interview. Most importantly, she felt questioned and never attacked.
Asking questions will be encouraged throughout a conversation by setting aside time for it in each round, or by giving instructions corresponding to, “Think of a question you've always wanted to ask someone who thinks differently than you on this topic. Ask it now.”
4. Address differences of opinion
One risk of emphasizing personal experiences at the start is that students are hesitant to voice their disagreements. They wish to be supportive, and it’s difficult to argue with personal experiences. However, in my research, I actually have found that students ended with the deepest respect for one another after they realized the character of their differences.
By clarifying what their differences were about, students were capable of see that their differences weren’t attributable to ignorance, malice, or madness on the opposite side, but to legitimate differences in views about what is nice and possible.
After students have shared their views on topics and asked one another questions out of curiosity, they will be instructed to ask one another questions corresponding to, “What is the reason for our disagreement?” and “What is really important to me and to you, and is it the same? And if not, why not?”
Kentaroo Tryman via Getty Images
5. Plan the following steps together
Students are frequently happiest after they can work towards a particular goal. The most ambitious of those will be real collaborative projects.
For example Sorenson Institutean institute for political leadership on the University of Virginia, convenes dialogues At the top, students develop a proposal for the Virginia State Legislature on a particular issue, corresponding to gun control.
Even one-time conversations can result in conclusions about what students could do in a different way on social media, on their campuses, and of their families. When I followed up with them, I learned that many students had already implemented these changes, and located that folks were changing their very own behavior in response. One student found that her uncle began to read and reflect on the articles she sent him. Another student found that fellow students in her political science class who had been dismissive of her up to now became more respectful when she expressed her views and looked as if it would take heed to her more genuinely.
6. Debriefing
Some students will thrive in these conversations, while others will struggle. In my research, I actually have found that students whose rights are threatened by opposing policy proposals understandably struggle probably the most. However, these students' experiences will be enhanced by a follow-up debriefing with a trusted mentor.
For example, one student who identifies as queer felt shaken after a discussion with fellow students who opposed her right to marry. But the next meeting with a professor helped her feel empowered by the conversation and equipped with latest knowledge that can help her fight for a more just society.
Listening to protests
Dialogue can deepen divisions when it’s presented because the only appropriate type of political communication, thereby silencing individuals who don’t take part in these conversations. Students needs to be encouraged to take heed to messages which might be conveyed in other ways. For example, they will study protest movements – including current, contemporary movements – and skim the texts posted by activists who organize these movements.
It is very important to convey to students that dialogue alone cannot solve all the issues of today's democracy. Protests, boycotts and other types of collective motion are also vital.
image credit : theconversation.com