At the beginning of this year, I was completely new to the GDS community. During Bridge Week, a three-day orientation for new freshmen, 9th Grade Dean Julie Stein told us that every freshman was required to take Seminar. She said that the class’ aim was to help students understand their own identity and the identities of others and to engage in dialogue about political issues. When I received my schedule for the year, I was intrigued by the idea of participating in Seminar because it seemed like a time where students could engage in dialogue about issues that they felt strongly about.
However, having taken Seminar for over a semester, I can confidently say that the class is an extension of the closed-minded nature of GDS often referred to as the GDS bubble. Rather than fostering an environment conducive to open dialogue where students can freely exchange ideas and beliefs, Seminar often feels more like a lecture delivered from a specific perspective.
I have observed numerous instances when my classmates hesitate or backtrack on their statements, and many have told me that they feel nervous about participating due to fear of repercussions. Students are expected to engage in discussions led by teachers presenting a particular school-sanctioned viewpoint. For instance, during a class focusing on transgender issues, many students were reluctant to participate because they were afraid of getting judged by the teacher or offending other classmates. My classmates have told me that they are scared to voice their true opinions because they don’t want their teacher to send them to the Disciplinary Consultation Committee or send an email home. Because many people do not want to voice their true opinions, there is a lack of meaningful dialogue.
According to the Seminar course description, the class is intended to build “a campus culture that embodies equity, inclusion and engagement.” However, after many classes, I cannot help but wonder whether Seminar does the direct opposite of its mission by not welcoming everyone’s ideas and not allowing people to be fully engaged due to fear of repercussions.
In my experience, Seminar tends to lean heavily towards lecture-style presentations rather than genuine discussion. This format can be quite daunting for students attempting to express their opinions freely. Most of the lectures present opinions, not facts, which doesn’t allow some students to feel safe giving their perceptive on the given topic. In one of my classes, my teacher lectured to convey the racial power dynamic in America. The lecture was focused on his opinions about why Black people cannot be racist towards white people. Seminar is supposed to be a safe space, but starting with these opinionated lectures makes students afraid to voice their opinions because they are scared of getting in trouble if they have beliefs that differ from the teacher’s views.
In an effort to gain a broader perspective on the effectiveness of Seminar, I spoke with freshman Mae Lazerow, a lifer at GDS. “It is making the GDS bubble worse,” she said. Lazerow was referring to the idea that GDS is in a bubble since most community members have similar opinions on political and social issues. While acknowledging that Seminar could potentially enable open and important dialogue for students, she emphasized the importance of nurturing students’ capacity to develop independent perspectives and cautioned against influencing students by only introducing left-leaning opinions in the classroom.
To understand more about Seminar, I interviewed Stein, who teaches two Seminar classes. “There might be 15 minutes of lecture laying out the concepts,” Stein said. After the lecture, the students dive into discussion. “Seminar gives students a chance to express themselves and creates a place where students of different perspectives can talk,” Stein said.
Yet after being lectured to, I’m afraid to speak—to voice my opinion. After being told in a 15-minute or longer lecture what the proper way to think about certain issues is, I immediately feel trapped and pressured to abide by it.
Stein said she is ready to stop conversation or silence certain viewpoints if they are “harming” other people or are insensitive. However, when I asked Stein who gets to decide what is insensitive or harmful, she replied saying she is the decider. Instead of having set rules on acceptable speech in the class, Stein said that she uses her own judgment about whether to interfere in conversations during Seminar.
The line between prohibiting free speech and creating a safe environment is often blurred. What may seem insensitive to Stein could be a very valid point to someone with a different belief. Not allowing students to share their opinions disregards the very purpose of Seminar: to understand multiple perspectives.
In order to create an environment of “equality, inclusion and engagement,” teachers need to stop presenting opinions in their lectures and instead present facts. After the fact-based lectures, teachers should allow students to engage in student-led discussions, which would empower them to articulate their viewpoints without fear of retribution from the school, thereby facilitating the development of informed perspectives and enhancing their readiness to engage with dissenting opinions. Students must feel safe to share their opinions in Seminar—even if they go against the left-leaning, progressive views of most people at GDS.