An Examination of (Un)civil Discourse

*In 2016, the SOL program pivoted for the year to focus on political engagement in what was then called the “Political Engagement Pilot Project,” or PEPP. This was an alternative version of SOL that laid the groundwork for the development of the PEP program as it currently exists.

Problem Statement:

The Adaptive Leadership course offers a rare opportunity to dive headfirst into some of our nation’s messiest social and political problems, and do so from vantages points that might be entirely unfamiliar, from poverty-stricken mountain towns of West Virginia to New York City boroughs where surveillance policing is the norm. We were therefore challenged to understand the role of culture in impeding conflict resolution within these various settings. This practice was one of empathy, of putting ourselves in others’ shoes in order to meet them where they are.

Meanwhile, as we toiled through the value conflicts presented in the case studies, an enormous value conflict took shape before our very eyes. The political incivility that we were able to condemn in our adaptive analysis essays and at the national level, came into play within the confines of our classroom. Specifically, I observed the following:

1. We forgot to engage in inner work. We did not heed the advice found in Wired to Create and William Deresiewicz’s speech “Solitude and Leadership” to carve out time for solitary reflection to consider our values and think for ourselves. Did pestering the celebratory Trump supporters at the Sanford watch party align with our values of equity and inclusion? Did reciting the latest comedic bit that host of The Daily Show Trevor Noah used to ridicule Trump supporters serve to accurately convey our opinions about conservative policies?
2. We made icons of the presidential candidates. By growing so attached to our own ideological icon, presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, we became so certain of her win that we only laughed at the possibility of a win for the other icon, President-elect Donald Trump. Had we not been so fearful of loss, and dared to say “if Clinton wins…” instead of “when Clinton wins…” perhaps we would have been better prepared to respond to the current reality.
3. We failed to fully humanize non-liberal voters, and specifically those that did not vote for Hillary Clinton. Intergroup contact has been shown to reduce prejudice because it humanizes otherwise nameless and faceless people. In class, we frequently alluded to the fact that we simply didn’t know who could be amongst the millions of Trump supporters because they certainly weren’t amongst our friend circles. Yet, while we might not have encountered them in our daily lives, the majority of us admitted to personally knowing at least a few, whether they were loved ones or childhood friends. Lance, Rachel, and Jacob all spoke of their anxiety to go home and immerse themselves amongst entire communities of Trump supporters. Steven and Maria each have brothers who voted for Trump. Dana’s grandparents voted for Trump. Parts of Adam’s family hail from the “hillbilly country” that was almost entirely in favor of Trump. Two of my close friends voted for Trump, and recently admitted to me that, they, like many other Americans, were just as afraid to leave their homes the day after the election. No one suggested that these people were inherently bad, and oftentimes, offered excuses for their political choices. Nonetheless, we designated unfamiliar Trump supporters as aliens.

Although the problem of uncivil discourse about Trump supporters unfolded within the context of the Fall 2016 Adaptive Leadership class, instead of detailing “what if” scenarios, I think it more productive that my reflections be used to aid the next group of students uniquely positioned to explore leadership strategies “for moving past political polarization to engage in the difficult work of governance.” Accordingly, my alternatives have been written in response to the problems that I witnessed within my own class, but with the Spring 2017 Political Participation and Leadership students in mind.