Talking Across Differences

At a time of heightened political animosity, polarization, and extremism, we felt it was important to demonstrate not only to the Middlebury community but more broadly that meaningful discussion can still take place among people with sharply differing political beliefs.

Our decision to bring Hillel (now known as the Jewish Association at Middlebury) into these conversations grew out of a desire to hear a wider range of perspectives, particularly from people with a personal connection to the issues being discussed. The conflict in Israel and Palestine has been especially difficult for many Jewish Americans, who may be grappling simultaneously with religious, cultural, and familial connections to Israel and with serious concerns about Israel’s conduct during the current war. Including Jewish students in these discussions therefore offered an opportunity to move beyond purely abstract political debate and better understand how these issues affect members of our own community.

Over the past several years, antisemitic rhetoric, conspiracy theories, harassment, and violence have become increasingly visible both online and in the wider world. Social media in particular has provided a platform for forms of bigotry and conspiracy thinking that can sometimes sound disturbingly reminiscent of much older antisemitic tropes. At the same time, many Jewish communities have become more conscious of their security and of the hostility directed toward them. In that environment, including Jewish students and organizations in important political conversations can serve two purposes: It allows their perspectives and concerns to be heard, and it gives others a better understanding of the experiences members of the Jewish community may be facing.

Our joint meeting between the Democrats, Republicans, and Hillel ultimately covered a wide range of subjects, including Jewish life on campus, antisemitism, Israel and Palestine, and the war in Iran. What I appreciated most about the meeting was its civility. These are subjects that can easily inflame tensions and cause conversations to devolve into accusations or shouting. Instead, despite the wide range of opinions represented in the room, participants gave one another the time to explain their views and then engaged seriously with points of agreement and disagreement.

Peaceful and productive political conversations can feel far too rare today. For that reason, I was particularly pleased to see three different campus organizations come together and make a deliberate effort to create one. The meeting did not require anyone to abandon their own beliefs or avoid difficult disagreements. Rather, it showed that those disagreements can be approached with curiosity, respect, and a willingness to listen, exactly the kind of political culture that we hoped these joint meetings would help foster.