Deep divisions are prevalent on college campuses, and most recently over the Gaza-Israel conflict, leading many observers to worry that universities are not places where students can discuss divisive issues with people with whom they disagree. Through my research and teaching, I have found that students are in fact willing to reach across divides to have difficult conversations, but they need support from faculty and other facilitators to have these discussions successfully.
Since early 2017, I have been observing events on college campuses where students with differing views come together to discuss politics. In these sessions, facilitators provide students with guiding questions to help them understand the political views of their peers.
I conducted follow-up interviews with students a few weeks later and, when possible, three years later.
My goal is to understand what’s happening in these conversations: who is learning what from whom, who is satisfied or dissatisfied and why, and what does all of this mean for American democracy?
From the conversations I observed, I learned that six practices can help support better experiences for all students.
1. Set norms and expectations
When people talk about setting conversational norms, they usually assume it’s an effort to enforce the rules of conversation. But setting norms does more than just follow the rules: it allows students to be sensitive to their own and others’ hopes and fears about the conversation.
In my experience, when I begin a session with questions like, “What do you most hope will happen from this conversation?”, “What are you most worried about the conversation?”, “What do you want to give to the conversation?”, and “What do you want to get out of the conversation?”, I find that students have already shared much more than they expected.
Furthermore, this discussion naturally leads to the question, “How can we best facilitate the interaction?” Students typically volunteer their own guidelines, such as assuming goodwill, disagreeing with the other person’s point of view rather than attacking them, being honest about when and why you are hurt, and listening with open arms.
2. Have students share personal stories
Starting with students’ personal stories lowers the barrier to participation and makes it accessible to students who are not political experts. Students feel that their first-hand experiences are being heard. In my experience, this leads to a change in attitudes among students, which is the greatest outcome of any dialogue.
Consider, for example, a campus dialogue series called “Can We Talk,” which brings together ideologically diverse students for two-hour sessions in which a facilitator prepares a set of questions for students to ask each other. The sessions begin with questions like, “How were politics discussed in the household where you grew up?” and “What is your earliest political memory?” and move on to questions about students’ substantive views on relevant issues.
The focus of these sessions, which I observed at universities in Pennsylvania and New Jersey during the 2017-2018 academic year, is to deepen students’ understanding of each other’s perspectives and the context in which those perspectives originated.
If you want to focus the conversation on a particular issue, like gun control, abortion, or the Israel-Gaza war, you can ask questions accordingly, such as, “When did you first hear about this issue?”, “How did this issue affect you at the time?”, and “What about this issue drew you to this conversation?”
3. Stimulate curiosity
Students often fear that unless they try to refute opposing views, they will end up justifying them. But in follow-up interviews I conducted three years after participating in the dialogue sessions, I found that students who ultimately changed their political views were prompted to do so by honest, non-threatening questions. “I remember one girl asking me, ‘If you say you believe this, why did you vote that way?’ I’ve been asking myself that question ever since,” she said, acknowledging that her political views had changed significantly in the years between our first and second interviews. What mattered most was that she felt questioned, not attacked.
You can encourage questions throughout the conversation by setting aside a specific time for questions in each round or by offering instructions such as, “Think of one question you’ve always wanted to ask someone who thinks differently from you on this issue. Ask it now.”
4. Dig into the differences
One risk of emphasizing personal experiences first is that students may be hesitant to dig deep into disagreements. Students want to support one another, so discussing personal experiences can be difficult. But in my research, I found that students developed the deepest respect for one another when they understood the nature of their disagreements.
By clarifying what their differences meant, students were able to understand that their disagreements were not due to ignorance, malice, or insanity on the part of the other party, but due to legitimate differences of opinion about what is good and what is possible.
After students have shared their views on an issue and asked each other curiosity-based questions, you can guide them to ask each other questions like, “What is the root of our disagreement?” and “What is really important to me and to you? Is it the same thing? If not, why not?”
5. Collaborate on next steps
Students tend to feel most satisfied when they can work towards more concrete goals, the most ambitious being to undertake real cooperative projects.
For example, the Sorenson Institute, a political leadership research institute at the University of Virginia, hosts conversations where students develop proposals for the Virginia General Assembly on specific topics, such as gun control.
Even a one-off conversation can lead to conclusions that shape how a student behaves on social media, on campus, and with their family. When we followed up with students, we found that many made these changes, and people changed their behaviors accordingly. One student noticed that her uncle read an article she sent him and started thinking about it. Another student noticed that classmates in his political science class who previously ignored him were now more respectful and listened more intently when he expressed his opinion.
6. Reporting
Some students thrive in these conversations, while others struggle. In my research, I found that students whose rights are threatened by the opposing side’s policy proposals understandably experience the most difficulty. But those same students’ experiences can be improved by talking it through with a trusted mentor afterward.
For example, one student who identifies as queer felt upset after speaking with a peer who opposed her right to marry, but then met with her professor, finding the conversation gave her more confidence and new knowledge to help her fight for a more just society.
Listen to the protests
When dialogue is presented as the only appropriate form of political communication, it can deepen divisions and silence the voices of those who do not participate in the dialogue. Students should be encouraged to listen to messages conveyed through other means. For example, they could study protest movements (including ongoing ones) and read writings posted by the activists who organize them.
It is important to convey to students that dialogue alone cannot solve all of modern democracy’s woes: protests, boycotts, and other collective actions are also important.