TL;DR
Prime made for students and young adults
- Fast, free delivery for dorm and study essentials
- Prime Video and Amazon Music included
- Member-only deals
A high school senior writing for The 74 argues that young people are inheriting a politically divided society and should practice listening across political differences. The opinion essay recounts a tense exchange at a New Jersey civics event and describes classroom and personal approaches to disagreement; it does not report a new policy or research finding.
The 74 has published an opinion essay by a high school senior arguing that young people and schools should help rebuild civil discussion across political divides. The student draws on a local civics event and a semester studying with peers from across the country to make the case for listening to opposing views rather than treating disagreement as evidence of bad character.
The essay opens with a nonpartisan civics event at a New Jersey library, where attendees discussed voting and ballot access. When conversation turned to ballot translation, a visiting history professor said Republicans were trying to harm people and urged the audience to fight back. The writer says most of the room applauded and the professor’s students cheered. The student, who believed the issue involved more than partisan motives, stayed silent.
The writer explains that ballot language access is shaped in part by Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act, which requires translated election materials when language-minority populations meet specified Census thresholds, as well as by decisions from state and county officials. The essay presents that legal context as a reason to debate the matter on its merits, rather than treating it as proof of a political conspiracy.
The student says a semester at the School for Ethics and Global Leadership in Washington, D.C. brought them into contact with high school students from different parts of the country and challenged views formed in a reliably liberal hometown. The experience, the writer says, made some beliefs stronger and others less certain. The student also reports serving as a representative on a district school board and discussing with administrators how teachers might encourage engagement with opposing viewpoints.
How Schools Can Teach Disagreement
The essay’s central argument is that civil disagreement requires practice; it will not develop automatically in environments where students mainly encounter people who share their views. The writer suggests that schools can give students structured opportunities to listen, represent competing positions accurately and explain their own reasoning.
That proposal matters to students, educators and families because the essay describes a classroom challenge as well as a wider social one. The author says teachers may avoid political topics because they fear backlash, while students may hesitate to speak openly. Regular, carefully facilitated discussion could give students a way to engage difficult subjects without turning every exchange into a test of personal loyalty.
The writer also makes a distinction between listening and agreeing. In the essay, hearing an opposing argument can strengthen a belief or prompt someone to revise it. Either outcome, the student argues, is more productive than assuming that political opponents are morally deficient and refusing to hear them.
Popular right now
Ninja Flip Toaster Oven & Air Fryer, Large Capacity, Stainless, SP151
Bose QuietComfort Headphones (2nd Gen), Wireless Over-Ear Noise-Cancelling Headphones, Hazelnut Taupe
KitchenAid Artisan 5-Quart Tilt-Head Stand Mixer, Almond Cream
As an affiliate, we earn on qualifying purchases.
From a Library Meeting to the Classroom
The essay connects one public encounter to the author’s earlier experience in school. The writer recalls that the last explicit lesson in their district on how to disagree well took place in kindergarten. A teacher asked students to listen to another person’s perspective and feelings, an exercise the author says helped the class act as a community rather than as opposing groups.
The piece also refers to affective polarization, a term for viewing political opponents not only as mistaken but as morally suspect. It says many Americans see the country as deeply divided and that large shares of Republicans and Democrats regard members of the other party as more immoral than other Americans. The source material does not provide survey names, dates or figures for those claims, so they should be understood as background cited in the opinion essay rather than newly reported data.
The author’s suggested responses are both institutional and personal: make structured disagreement a regular feature of civics education, train teachers to facilitate hard conversations, read writers with different perspectives and seek discussions with people one disagrees with. The essay does not present these ideas as a tested program or report measured results.
“Republicans are out to get us. We must fight back!”
— The history professor at the library event, as quoted in the essay
What the Essay Does Not Establish
This is an opinion essay, not an independent research report. The source material does not identify the surveys behind its statements about political division, self-censorship or campus speaker tolerance, nor does it provide data showing how common those experiences are. Its claims about young people’s views and school practices should not be read as findings about all students or districts.
The essay also does not give details of the district discussions mentioned by the student, such as specific proposals, a timeline or any decisions made by school administrators. It does not explain which ballot languages the county may add, or describe a current change to election materials. The library exchange and the later coffee meeting are the author’s account; the source provides no response from the professor.
The Student’s Next Steps
The student says discussions with school administrators are continuing about ways to help teachers engage students with opposing viewpoints. The essay does not announce a policy, training program or implementation date, so the outcome of those conversations remains unknown.
On a personal level, the writer reports having emailed the professor after the library event and meeting her for coffee. They discussed public discourse, nonpartisan education and moral judgment, and the author says they plan to meet again. The essay closes with a broader appeal to students: seek out conversations across political differences and remain engaged when controversial topics arise in class.
Key Questions
What is the opinion essay arguing?
The student argues that young people and schools should make respectful political disagreement a regular practice, rather than avoiding difficult conversations or treating opponents as immoral.
What happened at the New Jersey library event?
During a nonpartisan civics event, discussion turned to ballot translation. A history professor made a partisan statement about Republicans, according to the student author, and most attendees applauded. The student says they did not speak up.
What is Section 203 of the Voting Rights Act?
As described in the essay, Section 203 requires translated election materials in jurisdictions where language-minority populations meet specified U.S. Census thresholds. The author also says state and county officials make relevant choices.
Does the essay announce a new school policy?
No. The student says they are discussing ways to support teachers with school administrators, but the essay does not identify an adopted policy, program or timeline.
What remains unverified or unclear?
The source does not provide the underlying surveys or data for its broader claims about political division and student self-censorship. It also does not give details or outcomes from the district discussions about classroom practice.
Source: the74million.org
