One of my earliest memories at GDS is of a conflict resolution tool called the “Peace Rose,” a staple in GDS kindergarten classrooms. In my kindergarten class, students passed around a plastic rose during an argument, and only the student holding the rose was able to speak. The rose allowed for each of us to both advocate for our positions and hear our peers’ perspectives.
“Rather than relying on adult intervention,” a GDS blog post said about the Peace Rose, “students are given responsibility for constructively resolving their own conflicts.”
I was thinking about my kindergarten Peace Rose experiences during the Feb. 9 Social Justice Teach-In Day, in which students learned mainly about civil discourse.
After a full day of lectures and workshop, Assistant Head for Equity and Inclusion Marlo Thomas fielded feedback from students in the Forum. “GDS spends too much time talking about how to talk,” senior Noah Kolker, who was met with murmurs of agreement and then strong applause, said from the senior corner. Kolker’s short statement matched words to feelings I have had about discourse at our school for ten years.
My parents chose to send me to GDS when I was five years old mainly because they liked that the school taught students to be active citizens who stood up for their beliefs. Since then, I have seen different variations of civic education.
From conflict resolution in lower school to Hill Day in eighth grade, the school’s programs have helped me become a better student and citizen, but they have fallen short recently. The school’s current form of civic education—civil discourse, the practice of respectfully talking to people with whom you disagree—seems to promote the school’s institutional image rather than support student expression.
This year, the office of diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) hosted two different special programming days that focused on civil discourse. On the Oct. 27 “Day of Deliberation,” members of the Close Up Foundation, a civil discourse group, gave long lectures about political polarization and led small-group discussions about AI use in schools for students. The facilitators intended for students to practice disagreement with each other.
However, I, along with many of my peers, found the discussion of AI in schools to be too limited to warrant a lengthy discussion. When students tried to link their discussions of AI in schools to other AI issues like job loss, the Close Up Foundation facilitators often stepped in to move the conversations back to AI use in school.
During the final meeting of the “Day of Deliberation,” students gave feedback to the facilitators and Thomas and said they would have rather talked about beliefs they passionately believed in like the Israel-Palestine conflict, gun violence or transgender athletes.
When not in civil discourse workshops, students participate in walkouts, write opinions pieces and organize advocacy groups. So why did our civil discourse education, at least earlier this school year, move away from students advocating for their beliefs?
The school’s shift toward civil discourse education appears similar to a nationwide reaction to political polarization amid the Trump Administration’s push against DEI and social justice. GDS began to push civil discourse in full force during the months leading into and following the 2024 election. Since then, companies and schools across the country have ended DEI programs. Schools, such as the University of Utah and the University of Tennessee Chattanooga, have instead focused on civil discourse programs. GDS did not end its DEI program, which has been around since 1999.
In light of these national events, the programming days seem like ways for the school to promote its image to applicants, alumni or possible donors. Civil discourse was all over the Fall 2024 issue of the Georgetown Days magazine.
“Controversial topics are important,” Thomas told me in an interview. She said that students should be able to discuss complex topics that students both agree and disagree about.
Thomas said the DEI office took feedback from students on the “Day of Deliberation” in order to refine the Social Justice Teach-In Day, the second day of DEI-led programming this year. The day has historically focused on social justice, but this year there were more workshops about civil discourse than usual.
The start of the Social Justice Teach-In Day on Feb. 9 felt eerily similar to the “Day of Deliberation” because we listened to an hour-and-a-half lecture about talking to people with whom we disagree. But at least that time we heard more of our peers’ perspectives. After the lecture, students could attend different social justice and civil discourse workshops, four of which held discussions about global conflicts, free expression, social media and individual protection, respectively.
The discussion workshops on the Social Justice Teach-In Day were a step in the right direction, but each workshop’s description said students should not debate or take sides in order to encourage listening to others.
In the future, the DEI office could poll all students about which topics they want to deliberate. The office could organize the top topics into lightly facilitated workshops like those on the Social Justice Teach-In Day. Students could choose which workshops they would like to participate in.
Real conversation is spontaneous and messy. Students like to defend their beliefs and don’t need to be told over and over how to talk to each other. At the end of the day, free dialogue is how we wonder, inquire and become self-reliant.