Last month, as I was scrolling through my email, a message from associate director of diversity, equity and inclusion Guyton Mathews popped up on my screen. Mathews sent a survey to high school students and staff about how the GDS community engages in civil discourse. One question on the survey read, “Do you think GDS needs a civil discourse statement?”
Mathews’ question prompted me to think about the kind of civil discourse at GDS and made me realize that we have very few school-led opportunities for civil discourse.
During the summer before my freshman year, the Supreme Court struck down race-based affirmative action. I was really looking forward to discussing the Supreme Court decision with my classmates and teachers. However, the only communication I received from the administration about the decision was an email from college counseling department chair Emily Livelli and High School Principal Yom Fox saying they were “troubled and disappointed” by the ruling, and explained its impacts. When I actually got to school, neither the administration nor the office of diversity, equity and inclusion held any sort of space for students to discuss their thoughts about the ruling. A few assembly speakers brought in by the office of diversity, equity and inclusion glazed over the Supreme Court decision instead of directly talking about it.
Instead of the administration sending an informative email or the office of diversity, equity and inclusion bringing in speakers, they must host opportunities for students to actively engage in discourse about prominent issues. It is the school’s responsibility to foster some dialogue because it prides itself on helping students learn to think critically and communicate effectively — neither of which we will be able to do if we cannot engage with others across difference. It should not be the responsibility of the students to educate ourselves about civil dialogue; GDS must also take part in helping us foster this discourse. Now, over a year since affirmative action was struck down, there have been several missed opportunities for school-led civil discourse.
To address the ongoing conflict between Israel and Palestine, the administration hosted an assembly where three representatives from the organization Seeds of Peace came to talk. They did not discuss the history or impacts of the conflict; instead, they mainly talked about the work they do with Seeds of Peace and why it is important. The Jewish Student Coalition, Muslim Student Association and Middle Eastern and Arab Affinity Group planned a discussion about the Israel-Palestine conflict, but only students who could participate in those affinity groups could participate in the conversation. GDS has not hosted any spaces for all students to come together to discuss the Israel-Palestine conflict — despite many students wanting that type of dialogue at school.
Students want school-led discourse about other issues, besides the Israel-Palestine conflict.
“I wish we were given more opportunities to have conversations about current issues,” sophomore Mae Lazerow said. “The administration and office of diversity, equity and inclusion should be offering us a chance to express our opinions.”
The day after the presidential election, the administration adjusted the schedule by switching first period classes with advisory, so students had an opportunity to process any emotions that may have arisen from the election results the previous night. In my advisory, we were instructed to write about how we were feeling that morning, though there was no formal discussion about the new president-elect. I wanted a structured opportunity to discuss the election with my peers and teachers, but I was not given that opportunity in advisory or any of my classes.
The election brought the perfect opportunity for civil discourse, but the school didn’t take any initiative to host any conversations. I went to a Student Voices (StuVo) club meeting, where we talked about the election results. Students were respectful of differing beliefs and were eager to hear others’ perspectives. The StuVo conversation showed me that students are eager to engage in dialogue across diverse views and are completely capable of doing so. While the discussion was productive, it lasted only 40 minutes during lunch, and a lot of students didn’t go to the meeting because they had prior commitments. I wish the school had provided students with the opportunity to participate in election-related dialogue.
Head of School Russell Shaw also sent an email to high school students and families about the election results. “We know that we prepare students for citizenship by listening to them, taking them seriously, teaching them how to speak up for what they believe and, just as importantly, how to listen to people with whom they disagree,” the email read. “We know that our work is to prepare them to think critically, collaborate across difference, self-advocate, engage ethically, and ultimately, to lead.” Although I agree with Shaw’s statement, I have not seen any of these commitments fulfilled relating to the election or other issues. If the administration wants students to be able to engage with people who they disagree with and collaborate across difference, it needs to provide students with the opportunity for open dialogue. This could be in the form of discussions during the school day or teach-in days specifically designed to help students engage in civil discourse and learn how to engage across differences.
The solution to the lack of civil discourse at GDS is not bringing in speakers or sending passive emails. My answer to the question “Do you think GDS needs a civil discourse statement?” is no. No, GDS does not need a civil discourse statement; rather, it needs to start actually fostering civil discourse.