In this column distributed by the Elon University Writers Syndicate, Professor of Biology Dave Gammon reflects on what his freshman students taught him about crossing the political divide. The column was published by the Charleston Post & Courier and the Burlington Times-News.
The longest government shutdown in US history painfully illustrated that most elected officials are not good at interacting productively with the opposite political party. Far from this embarrassing dysfunction, my college students showed that meaningful political dialogue is still possible.
I teach college freshmen in an interdisciplinary seminar titled “The Global Experience.” I chose to focus on politics because these days it is impossible to understand global experiences without thinking about politics, especially the rise of Donald Trump in the United States. I wanted my students to understand both the attraction and the repulsion of President Trump.
In contrast, decision makers in Washington, D.C. seem more interested in blaming and shaming the other political party. Instead of engaging in dialogue, they circle the wagons, perform for their own party, and pretend that someday the other half of the country will magically fade away.
I believed my students could do better. I had this crazy idea that meaningful conversation about political disagreements is still possible. It certainly beats participating in political echo chambers or contemplating violence.
We began our politics unit with a coin toss. Heads – Republican Week, followed by tails – Democrat Week.
We celebrated Republican Week by reading everything we could find about the motivations and values of that party. Using a Republican lens, we explored foreign policy topics like immigration, border security, alliances, and tariffs. During Democrat Week, we repeated this exercise using a liberal lens.
Each week culminated in a debate between a team of student champions, nominated by their classmates, and a political opponent. I played the role of the opponent, but my arguments changed each week based on whether I wore a blue or a red T-shirt.
The third week, we explored the strengths and weaknesses of each party on major political topics. Then we voted anonymously on who had the stronger position.
Students favored Democrats for some issues, such as climate change and preserving traditional alliances. They favored Republicans for other issues, such as how to secure our southern border and how to achieve peace in Gaza. No clear party preference emerged for some issues, such as tariffs and the treatment of illegal immigrants. Some students favored neither party.
In written assignments on chosen foreign policy topics, students advocated for a variety of perspectives and solutions. Even as Congress failed to perform its basic functions, my freshmen managed to present viable solutions to thorny and pressing issues. None of them presented raw partisan dogma from just one side. Most sought out middle ground by blending ideas and policies from both parties. For example, some advocated for preserving foreign aid, but with greater oversight to ensure tangible benefits for Americans. Others advocated for deportation procedures that incorporated greater compassion.
I learned college freshmen can understand and respect multiple political viewpoints. In doing so, students did not have to sacrifice or water down their own political beliefs. Anonymous polls of my students showed equal levels of support and opposition for President Trump both before and after our politics unit. But encouragingly, my students also reported greater familiarity and less animosity towards the opposite party.
In an age when three in 10 Republicans and three in 10 Democrats agree that Americans may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track, it was encouraging to see students challenge this misguided belief. A negotiated middle ground rarely satisfies anyone, but it sure beats the ‘good guys, bad guys’ mentality that too often dominates our political discourse.
It’s challenging these days for elected officials to serve both sides of the country. Politicians who don’t fit the mold of a ‘pure’ Democrat or a ‘pure’ Republican get vilified by both sides, often leading to dysfunctional government. But my students have shown me that the gap separating Republican and Democratic positions is not as wide as we might believe.
—
Views expressed in this column are the author’s own and not necessarily those of Elon University.