Sarah Hall

Political Polarization in the Classroom

Sarah Hall, Ph.D., Dean, Associate Professor of Psychology

As I reflect on the 2024 CACE faculty seminar on political polarization in the classroom, one of the most valuable takeaways for me were the stories my colleagues told about the interactions with students, in and outside of the classroom, at Wheaton and elsewhere. We heard stories about students who were deeply changed by challenging readings, students who could not engage civilly with classmates who disagreed with them, office hour conversations with students struggling with hurtful comments made by others, and passionate debates between students who disagreed but who respected each other’s views. 

As I reflect on these stories, I am struck by the difference between the stories that occurred in secular settings and the stories that occurred among Christians, including at Wheaton. Certainly, productive, civil discourse can occur in secular settings. However, the majority of the stories shared from these settings had discouraging outcomes: students who declared that their rights trumped those of others (and acted accordingly), students who became hostile and demeaning toward their classmates when faced with views that differed from their own, students who did not feel free to voice their earnest opinion in class or other settings because of fear about how they would be received by their peers. This month, (mostly secular) colleges and universities across the US have seen these stories play out in the large spaces on their campuses as students – and sometimes faculty – protest the school policies they see as relevant to the conflict in the Middle East. Being pro-Israel is seen as being inherently anti-Palestine; being pro-Palestine is seen as being inherently antisemitic; civil discourse around disagreement is seen as ineffective; and the right to free speech is conflated with the right to inhibit others’ free speech or even to break laws by occupying campus buildings.

Again, not that Christians don’t sometimes have these types of heated, often unproductive engagement (or lack thereof) with individuals we disagree with, but the majority of the stories I heard from my colleagues had a different tenor.  Faculty shared stories about students who were willing to engage with topics that were difficult for them to process and about students who worked to have civil, respectful conversations (even debates) with their classmates, even when they saw an issue in very different ways. One common refrain was that faculty have experienced these conversations at Wheaton in a way they have not experienced in other settings. There is something different about how we engage with one another as Christians when we have 1) a set of shared values, and 2) an identity rooted in Christ. First, our shared values of love, kindness, and respect for fellow humans created in the image of God guide the ways that we engage; no matter whether I agree or disagree with you, you are worthy of my kindness and respect. Second, because our identity is rooted in being believers in Jesus, we are not defined by our politics, our views on social issues, or even who we vote for. Having a foundation in Christ gives us the freedom to engage with difficult political and social issues, and even to have our minds changed through civil discourse, rather than being defined by – and willing to fight to the death over – where we stand on politics. Our common ground in Christ gives us the freedom to disagree with one another in love. The seminar was a lively and encouraging reminder that the work we do to help our students grow in their own understanding and their engagement with others will sometimes feel successful, sometimes feel discouraging, but always be worth the effort as we aim to shape them into faithful Christians who are in but not of this world.