As an institution that focuses on international studies, Maggie Walker aims to bring together academically-minded and motivated individuals in a school with an emphasis on government and international affairs. As a school with a faculty and student body that holds majority-liberal views with such an emphasis on government and global studies, however, politics is always a relevant issue, which can sometimes lead to divisions or instances of uncivil discourse among students of differing political views.

Uncivil discourse can be attributed to the general polarization of political parties and insularity of today’s political climate. Common misconceptions have polarized the political spectrum and have encouraged a sense of ideological consistency among individuals who identify as “liberal” or “conservative.” In other words, the typical views of a conservative are misinterpreted as views that every conservative must have, and the same for liberals. In today’s political climate, the extremist, far-right or far-left values have often been appropriated to every member of the political party without regard to the personal extent of an individual.

Furthermore, the evident insularity of today’s society has contributed to the polarization of individuals. Like-minded individuals tend to gravitate towards the same areas and places, and these places become hubs for the crossing of ideas of similar individuals. Since the environment that one is in is so crucial to the development of ideas, the creation of these homogenous communities has only exacerbated the divide between liberals and conservatives and has misconstrued the values and beliefs of political parties.

Senior Audrey Hendricks, an officer of Maggie Walker’s Young Republicans Club, defines civil discourse as a conversation between two opposing political views which includes an “equal opportunity given to share their point of view without being insulted or demeaned.”

Hendricks, whose political views represent a minority in the school, has often felt misunderstood and found it difficult to have an open conversation about political expression. “You can definitely be as open as you want to be, but you’re constantly aware of the possibility of being ostracized or openly insulted because of your beliefs,” Hendricks said, addressing her comfort with expressing her opinions at school. “I’ve been told directly that my conservative values are hateful, sexist—I’m a female by the way— racist, and idiotic, among other things.”

Along with the polarization of the political parties, the extremist values of each political party are seen as the standard or precept for every individual identifying with that political party. Hendricks comments that the Young Republicans Club is misunderstood, saying, “People tend to think that if you are a Republican, then you are automatically a political extremist, and that’s not true at all. Even within the Young Republicans club, there are a range of political beliefs.”

One representation of the threat that civil discourse faces at Maggie Walker was the creation of the “Dragon Trumpies’” Instagram account in 2020, which became widespread among the student body when a student “outed” their fellow peers that supported President Donald Trump. The Young Republicans of Maggie Walker were specifically targeted by account. “We will never get to a point where we can have effective civil discourse if we continue trying to bully or harass those that disagree with us into being silent,” Hendricks said.

As the political tensions of society are reflected in today’s schools, differences are more emphasized than similarities. Ms. Wendy DeGroat, Maggie Walker’s librarian and sponsor of “One Small Step,” a program aimed at teaching civil discourse centered on listening, spoke to the numerous divisions between students.

DeGroat commented that students tend to gravitate toward the same news sources, social media apps, podcasts, and websites, meaning they receive information from the same sources. The source of the information can often isolate the viewpoint of an individual, especially a young student, and prevent them from diverging onto more unconventional paths. “The news sources control what the individuals are aware of,” she mentioned, stating that bubbles can sometimes form due to the news “blind spots” that media sources and social media apps perpetuate.

DeGroat further brings into the light the origins of political belief. A belief can grow from meaningful past experiences, influential individuals, or tenets of faith, but the backstory of an individual’s opinion is not often taken into consideration. “It is vital that individuals listen to one another and are aware, both selfaware and outwardly aware,” she says.

When involved in a heated discussion about politics, uncivil discourse is an easy hole to fall into. “A lot of the decisions we make when we get uncivil about these things are based in our emotions, not in our logical brain. We are responding from a defensive place, sometimes a condescending place, where we want to feel like we have a one-up or we want to judge the person,” DeGroat continued. Civil discourse is a conversation, not a debate, and its goal is to simply foster a better understanding of where the opposer is coming from.

DeGroat mentioned a quote from Dave Isay, the founder of StoryCorps, an organization dedicated to recording, preserving, and sharing the stories of Americans: “If we take the time to understand why they believe what they believe, it’s hard to hate a person up close.”

Politics today is often discussed to convince, rather than to understand. There are endless statistics and facts to support any political standing or belief, but civil discourse is specifically about experiences and origins of belief. “Why do you believe what you believe? When we hear the human story, when we remember that that’s what we share, a common humanity; that’s when those walls can come down,” says DeGroat. “A lot of times, we are trying to win our argument, and unfortunately, that’s a loss for all of us in the long run.”