Talking with people who share our opinions is validating. We make friends, share viewpoints and ultimately feel comfortable. But what are we missing out on when we are communicating with people who already agree with us?

In 2019, self-proclaimed unifier Sophie Beren founded a conversation-based talk show called “POVz.” During each episode, people with opposing viewpoints have a discussion on the topic they disagree on. These conversations should not be a platform for hateful speech that dehumanizes someone; “POVz” addresses ideas that have opposing perspectives, such as reproductive rights, but approaches them with civil disagreement. During almost every episode, the group reaches an understanding of one another’s perspectives. They often realize that their ideologies have more in common than they had initially expected. In an interview with The Urban Legend, Beren said, “We would be far better off… acknowledging that people have different experiences and opinions, and an ounce of perspective outside of our own bubble.”

However, beyond “POVz,” do these conversations exist in everyday life? Do people find it easy to converse with those who prefer the “opposing” presidential candidate, for example? Can people easily hold challenging discussions with those who think differently from them? More specifically, is a school like Urban, where the majority of students share similar political viewpoints, capable of having meaningful and respectful discussions similar to those on “POVz”? 

Evan Wetherell ‘23 said, “In my definition, a successful political conversation would be two opposite sides interacting in a way where both come out of it with an expanded viewpoint. I don’t think there’s enough of an opposing side here to really have that kind of political conversation.” 

Additionally, an anonymous student shared what they have collected about Urban’s political stance as a whole. “If you have political opinions that are so far left or so liberal…I’d like to think of it as almost a pendulum: it swings all the way around to the right side. And because of that, it restricts views and opinions to the point where they’re no longer liberal,” they said. This manifests itself by creating a confining and prohibitory space for “open conversation.”

Beyond a restrictive space, some students also feel policed by one another. Another reason why students may not feel comfortable voicing their opposing opinions is a fear of being ostracized. Why disagree if you might get blacklisted? Evelyn Kim ‘23 said, “I don’t think [Urban] allows for people here to venture into those other places without at least seeing it in a negative connotation.” Even for this article, at the end of most interviews, interviewees asked to reread their quotes in fear of misspeaking on the topic of free speech. 

Jeremiah Rosenfels, Urban’s service learning teacher, also restated worries he has heard from some of his students. “Students have said in classes that they do hold back;…[they] are openly acknowledging that only certain perspectives are safe to say in the classroom because of a fear of being labeled,” he said.

Beren suggests a way around this fear. “Oftentimes we go into conversations with the wrong intention: to change someone’s mind and to bring someone over to our side. But in fact, [ideally the conversation] would be an exchange of listening and learning.” If every party could enter a conversation with the purpose of hearing others’ ideas, progress would be made.

Kim said, “I think it’s a little dangerous to always be with people who agree with you…It doesn’t foster growth.”

So how do we foster this growth? Beren believes the answer lies in open conversation. “It can’t come from this one person, or one organization. It’s going to have to take commitment from both and or all sides…to figure out how we [can progress past polarization].”