This fall, I am teaching a seminar course on polarization. Ironically, my class is full, even though my course is the target of a boycott. The class aims to give a broad overview of American politics through the many socio-cultural and political divisions in the United States, which means that our reading and discussion will inevitably lead us to the culture wars.
In this course, my students and I do not shy away from controversial topics. We discuss traditional political science topics, including ideology, partisanship, and different institutions. We also go beyond traditional academic topics to discuss many highly controversial and salient political topics, such as gender inequality and faith and religion. We must explore these issues because they impact the entire campus and even the broader socio-political realm. Last week, we tackled one of the biggest issues related to polarization: identity politics. And when the class tackled these issues head-on, we had civil, respectful, and engaging dialogue.
College campuses have now become the epicenter of the culture war with a wave of protests providing clear evidence that politics and differences of opinion are fueling real unrest on campuses across the country. Nevertheless, I believe it is possible to have meaningful dialogue with students about difficult topics. While the news and social media tend to highlight a vocal, aggressive, agenda-setting minority at the expense of curious students who seek to learn at college, many less vocal students are also up for the challenge of discussing and learning from differences.
For example, we read Yascha Maunk’s The Identity Trap. The book tackles many of the tough issues of our time: race, ethnicity, gender, and sexuality. All of these have become “standards by which everything else is measured.” Maunk explains that the United States is seeing the rise of progressive political thought that “centers on the role that identity categories like race, gender, and sexual orientation play in the world,” and that this is problematic because “adherents of this ideology fixate on identity to the exclusion of everything else, rejecting universal values and neutral rules like freedom of speech and equal opportunity as mere distractions.” Maunk points out that this worldview has gained support in countless institutions and, much to the chagrin of DEI offices across the country, is difficult to counter.
Up until now, I have been fortunate to have inquisitive, open-minded students in my classes. Given the political climate and the upcoming presidential election, I was worried about this new group of students. I wasn’t sure how they would respond to discussing Maunk’s critique of the thinking that has become so dominant on campus.
And yet, for over an hour, my class had a wide-ranging discussion about diversity and the rise of identity politics. The discussion covered the pros and cons of identity politics, and no one tried to storm out of the classroom. No one assumed the worst when participants asked questions or made comments, and no one yelled or tried to dominate the dialogue. Participants listened, empathized, and considered differences of opinion. I made it clear that I would be respectful and open-minded, follow the Chatham House Rules, and start from a position that no one in the classroom was trying to harm anyone else.
By keeping the tone of the discussion consistent, students opened up and shared that they appreciated being able to talk about their identities, but that they thought the strong focus on dividing and separating people by various characteristics was problematic and dangerous. Students acknowledge that there are historically marginalized groups and appreciate the efforts to increase belonging and inclusion that identity politics has fostered, but they believe that the focus on characteristics is oversimplified, regressive, and reductionist about their unique individuality. For them, such a strong focus on gender and race hampers progress and the formation of friendships, focusing on differences rather than generating shared experiences, values, and traditions. While they appreciate and find it very useful to have certain socially safe spaces, they also recognize that these spaces can limit broader connections and create echo chambers and ideological bubbles.
We had a great discussion and enjoyed being able to speak freely and openly about an issue that is so salient and ubiquitous on campus. Students were excited to finally have a space to engage in these discussions and told me they wanted to participate in this seminar because my lectures explicitly require students to embrace that “we will be grounded in data, not dogma,” and that “we will treat this material as social scientists, not as ideologists.” Clearly, students are looking for a space for real debate. We as faculty can help realize these goals by setting the right terms and conditions for these vitally important discussions. We need to rise to the challenge.
