During a high school field trip, I attended the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) in Oxon Hill, Maryland, in March 2023. My progressive New York high school offered a history elective for juniors and seniors called “The Rise of the Right in Contemporary American Politics,” which brought the students at CPAC after learning about the changes taking place in the world. Republican Party dating back to former President Richard Nixon. Accompanied by two professors, we, 28 students, were transported by bus to Maryland for a two-day experience that would leave a lasting impression on us.
One afternoon at CPAC, I found myself facing a gate patrolled by private security guards. Even though this room was located separately from the main conference area and not well advertised, a trail of attendees wearing yellow ribbons filtered through. I had learned in class that these ribbons symbolized individuals’ support for the January 6 insurgents. Curious, I followed the yellow ribboned path. As I entered the classroom-sized room, my attention lingered on the row of five adults. They were of different ages and genders, seated on stools, facing a projector displaying the title of the symposium: “True Stories from January 6: The Prosecutors’ Speech.” It was at that moment that I suddenly became aware of my surroundings: not only was I at a conference promoting the ultra-conservative agenda, but I was also just steps away from individuals involved in what many considered an act of domestic terrorism. .
As much as I wanted to get away from the sea of yellow ribbons and escape the fear of distress I felt, there was something inside me that begged me to stay. Even though it was one of the scariest moments of my life, I relished the opportunity to finally hear people share ideologies that couldn’t be further from my own. Why should I pass up this rare opportunity to hear in-person testimony from and about those who broke into the Capitol on January 6, 2021?
Despite many uncomfortable moments, I am deeply grateful that I decided to stay in the room a little longer and ignore the idea that conservatives and Trump supporters are “bad” people, which left me was instilled growing up in ultra-politics. liberal bubble of Manhattan’s Upper West Side. As a bisexual Jewish daughter of divorced parents, it was understandably uncomfortable to hear someone at CPAC explain the power of the traditional Christian family unit in shaping American society. Still, despite the discomfort I felt repeatedly throughout the weekend, I was forced to expose myself to more perspectives that I wouldn’t find at home.
At CPAC, I chatted with individuals wearing “Trump Forever” hats, “Ultra MAGA” pins, brick suits and more. I challenged myself to engage in as many respectful discussions with participants as possible; instead of trying to change their views on climate change, bodily autonomy, or education, I asked questions. It wasn’t until I learned enough about these people that I discovered I could ask harder, more in-depth questions. My enriching experience at CPAC illustrated the need for Americans to learn to seek discomfort in political conversations – a skill that should be present in academic institutions.
Although I attended a K-12 school and university that claims to prioritize diversity of thought, the only time I learned about right-wing politics in class was in an elective course that I I followed during my last year of high school. Progressive educational institutions are working to increase discussions around identifiers such as race, gender, and ethnicity; however, they hypocritically fail to promote political diversity. Increased education about the history of the Republican and Democratic parties and the evolution of their ideologies could minimize extremist views and lead to more productive conversations instead of worthless debates. Universities and their culture should encourage diversity all areas. Instead, I found that WashU fosters an environment that discourages students from discussing politics with friends of different political backgrounds. Given that WashU students come from all over the country and are therefore raised on a spectrum of political experiences and ideologies, this practice must be broken.
We live in a time where politics can make or break friendships and relationships. The research of Institute of Family Studies demonstrate that there is a downward trend in the number of individuals willing to marry across party lines. At WashU, the Student Life 2024 Election Survey found that when nearly 700 respondents were asked if they would date someone affiliated with a political party different from theirs, 73% responded “Maybe” or ” No “. This survey was conducted internally and some results of this survey were published in the Issues in the 2024 elections of student life.
This is a frightening precedent we are setting – one that emphasizes that there is a “good” and a “bad” political ideology. WashU’s political culture should combat this, but the university’s dominant liberal population and strong far-left community foster a practice where people refrain from discussing nontraditional political views.
Among other things, at CPAC, I listened to political commentator Candace Owens preach about how liberals are “brainwashing” their children and promoting the mentality of a country that needs “fighters,” not people ready to “sit down and break bread.”
What many don’t realize is that this notion of not wanting to “break bread” with those who hold different beliefs is not solely the characteristic of one party. There are individuals on the far left who fight for their beliefs without having any interest in listening to the conservative beliefs that oppose them. Many WashU liberals are unaware of their hypocrisy; they condemn conservatives for their lack of cooperation, even though they would also fail to “break bread” in a respectful and civil manner with their party’s adversaries.
Of the 693 respondents to the recent Student Life Survey, 77.78% of students identified as Democrats, 6.64% as Republicans, and 15.58% as belonging to another party. The predominantly Democratic student body created an echo chamber of political thought, failing to leave room for other political ideologies.
Based on this data, I would guess that most conservatives at WashU do not support the storming of the Capitol. They wouldn’t have a place at CPAC either. It is not fair to our peers for us Democrats to assume that all conservatives are giving way to the far right. Before we can even begin to discuss implementing any change, we must first get rid of the view, which the media and social media have built into it, of what a conservative is and what what he believes. This can start with reading media that we might typically read. I disagree with it — however, since we are at a university, this needs to be posted in the classroom as well.
While many WashU professors aim to diversify their courses by assigning readings to authors of diverse identities, in my three semesters at WashU, I have not read or discussed many non-liberal ideologies. The closest I came to experiencing efficient and effective policy conversations in the classroom was when Assistant Professor Nicholas Waerbury played devil’s advocate in “Supreme Court, Law, and Public Policy,” forcing us to adopt a possible conservative thought process for a given legal case. . Even so, my classmates explicitly and unproductively express right-wing views in these discussions, preventing people with opposing views from feeling welcome in the conversation.
Although nearly 80 percent of WashU students are affiliated with the same political party, according to FIRE Free Speech Rankings 2025, only 9% feel “very comfortable” sharing their views on controversial topics in the classroom, and 13% feel this way when conversing in public spaces on campus.
The problem on this campus is not that people are afraid to discuss their political views because they don’t want to be proven “right” or “wrong.” It is rather the fact that the students are not respected by mentioning or even alluding to non-left ideologies. WashU does not foster a safe atmosphere in which non-leftists feel welcome to share their political beliefs.
Whether or not you agree with someone should have no impact on how you approach a conversation. Two people can disagree and still have a rewarding conversation. The problem only appears the second someone becomes defensive and stands guard: a productive conversation should be centered on mutual respect, regardless of ideological differences. Although it is understandably difficult to listen to oppressive speech, participants in the conversation must nevertheless respect the basic human right to opinion and expression.
WashU Professor John Inazu, the Sally D. Danforth Distinguished Professor of Law and Religion, and Professor of Political Science, recently published a book titled “Learning to Disagree: The Surprising Path to Navigating Differences with Empathy and Respect.” » In a recent interview on ABCInazu said that in difficult conversations, we should focus on our relationship with the human being rather than the argument itself. We must learn to approach political discussions mentally prepared to “take a few hits” so that instead of immediately acting defensively, we can better receive the comment and ask a follow-up question.
WashU’s culture of attacking people’s beliefs instead of thoughtfully listening to them prohibits the existence of a community that truly welcomes civil discourse. In “The vital importance of an open ear and the desire to listen” junior Tim Mellman argues that campus culture should promote diversity of political thought rather than normalizing a specific political vision.
WashU claims to be training the leaders of tomorrow, but how can that be achieved when students are exposed to only one political ideology in the classroom? How can we overcome the bipartisan divide on campus if many professors are content to push anti-conservative ideas to their students?
To properly prepare for a future of complex conversations and nuanced problem solving, students and faculty must more explicitly embrace illiberal ideologies. It’s time to get comfortable with discomfort.