By Andrew Menendez | Contributing Writer
As FIU students walk to class, they are sometimes met, often to their surprise, with protests or political organizers. These are often student-led organizations that are local chapters of national organizations. Whether it is the Youth Democratic Socialists of America, Turning Point USA, College Libertarians, College Democrats, or College Republicans, there is an immense diversity of political beliefs and opinions that students have the freedom to subscribe to or participate in.
National issues that are politically polarizing are at the forefront of discussion and organizing. Political and ideological activists often bring controversial issues to the center of discussion by coming to the campus to persuade students to agree with their stance. This can be seen through the presence of anti-abortion activists through organizations such as the Center for Bio-Ethical Reform.
In the past, particularly after the overturning of Roe v. Wade, this type of activism was counteracted with pro-choice protests. In more recent years, the presence of ICE on campus has proved to be an increasingly polarizing and difficult situation. ICE has numerous controversies regarding false arrests, and concerns about FIU’s cooperation with these federal immigration agents have clashed with the opinions of students. This has resulted in several protests, with one incident involving 7 students that silently protested at an indoor speaking event.
According to WLRN Public Media, the students are going to be disciplined, which has brought up concerns surrounding free speech laws in Florida. This highlights a tension between students and local campus authorities, because local authorities are cooperating with the federal government while executing policies that many students vehemently disagree with. The federal government has obviously been controversial, which exacerbates existing political disagreements at a national level that then trickle down to local areas and campus life.
Additionally, there are not only tensions between students and faculty but also between students. For example, the Gaza war has brought protests from people decrying Israeli actions in Gaza with there also being counter protesters arguing for a more pro-Israel stance. These examples of friction on campus might make it seem that political divisions are themselves the issues, but I think the issue is not the divisions themselves but how those divisions are being dealt with.
By and large, political polarization is considered a negative thing because it causes people to view opposing sides as a moral danger which weakens our social fabric. While I do recognize that political polarization has largely had a negative impact, I think that focusing on the fact that people are ideologically shifting away from each other is in fact not the main issue when it comes to political polarization. The issue is largely the inability to interact with people who disagree.
In a democracy, disagreement is essentially unavoidable. Unlike in electoral politics, there’s not as much need for compromise among students on a college campus. On campus, students are free to be inquisitive, communicative, or firm in their beliefs without the same consequences of higher responsibility. In my opinion, this is a healthy way to explore belief systems and gain a greater understanding of the world without damage to one’s well-being or the well-being of others.
I think what’s important is not necessarily a sense of compromise in one’s beliefs, but the shifting of beliefs according to new information through reasoning in good faith. The typical notion against political polarization is that it prevents compromise, but it doesn’t totally address the issue. After all, strictly partisan voices are not going to be receptive to even the notion of compromise. I would shift the discussion of fixing political polarization away from “compromise,” and more towards an engagement with arguments from an opposing side. In this way, people can shift and begin to agree with others without necessarily having to compromise on core values or beliefs.
I think that this is especially important with more polarizing issues and the fact that it is incredibly difficult to shift people away from the beliefs that they are attached to. Creating a culture in which people can engage with opposing arguments wouldn’t necessarily fix polarization, but it would provide a healthy mechanism that lowers the demonization of an opposing stance.
This culture can potentially be fostered through things such as regularly held and moderated debates on campus that have rules which strongly discourage personal attacks or demonization of opponents. This could also aid in reducing overly radical political beliefs, because these beliefs often come from a deep demonization of opposing arguments or the outright rejection of discussion. Overall, disagreement is not harmful, but failing to engage with it is.
DISCLAIMER:
The opinions presented on this page do not represent the views of the PantherNOW Editorial Board. These views are separate from editorials and reflect the perspectives of contributing writers and/or university community members.
About Post Author
