Throughout my life, I have always found ways to build relationships with people who have differing opinions. Whether it’s political, social, or even something as small as a debate over whether LeBron James or Michael Jordan is a better basketball player.
These debates, however, have never interfered with my relationships. And in my youth, I never saw them interfere with the relationships of anyone I knew. I always thought people just agreed to disagree.
This was until the election of 2020.
The terms “snowflake” versus “racist” were thrown around like never before. This was my first year at Haverford, and I was a bit of an outcast when it came to my political views—as I didn’t really have any. At the same time, others had very strong ones.
My family believed that political and religious views were meant to be decided independently and without unfair influence.
Yet I did know that whatever opinions I did have were not going to alter relationships with people close to me. Quickly, I learned that other people didn’t feel the same way.
Two current Haverford students I will not name ended their relationship in a single in-class discussion.
Student One and Student Two had been friends since elementary school. However, their political views differed drastically. Student One aligned more with the views of Democrats while Student Two aligned more with the views of Republicans.
And unless you live under a rock, or you are simply in denial, you know that people who lie on opposite sides of the spectrum typically mix like oil and water.
According to New York Times columnist Bret Stephens, “Our disagreements may frequently hoarsen our voices, but they rarely sharpen our thinking, much less change our minds.” We are rarely able to change people’s minds, let alone mix with their ideas.
Yet the students quickly grew angry toward one another when the topic of the Joe Biden and Donald Trump presidential race was brought up. Within seconds of the conversation starting, the term “racist” flew out of Student One’s mouth, and the term “snowflake” flew out of Student Two’s mouth. Both called one another stupid, said awful things about the political group they supported, and made generalizations about the groups they claimed.
Throughout the following days, the anger faded, but not completely settled. The two students who once ate lunch together no longer even played at recess together. No apologies were made, and no willingness to be the bigger person was shown. It appeared as though the two had hated each other.
And while I cannot speak on behalf of their current relationship, I can speak about what I observed throughout that eighth-grade year.
I observed two individuals who originally spent the entirety of their days together devolve into a relationship where they no longer spoke.
I observed two individuals who were not entirely educated on the topics they spoke of and let feelings without facts alter the way they viewed each other.
I observed two individuals who let the media manipulate their feelings into hating one another.
The truth of the matter is that the media is capable of many things. It can bring people together, make people laugh, make people sad, and make people mad.
But its most powerful capability is its ability to tear people apart.
Millions of people obtain information from multiple news networks that provide information supporting their sides of the political spectrum. It is well-known that CNN and Fox provide information on the same topics, yet they lean toward favoring a certain political party.
Typically, the news network someone has on in the morning before they go to work will give you a good sense of what ideas they agree with. While this is not necessarily problematic, the issues that need to be addressed stem from this idea.
There is a blatant divide between Americans who watch opposing news sources. The words filled with hatred directed toward one another come in all forms.
You see this hateful divide between sixteen-year-olds on Instagram comment sections who obtain their information from TikTok and between 48-year-old dads in Facebook arguments.
“It is extremely rare to see a peaceful argument that comes to a conclusion that lets people agree to disagree.”
Nothing is ever gained from these debates or arguments. No opinion is ever swayed, and it is extremely rare to see a peaceful argument that comes to a conclusion that lets people agree to disagree.
Most of these opinions or arguments are formed blindly, without open minds. According to philosopher and writer Meagan Kohler from Public Square Magazine, when we absorb “a stranger’s thoughts in this manner, without reprieve or mediation, we risk being programmed rather than simply being informed.” We struggle to formulate our own opinions and then let the opinions of others tear us apart.
However, this problem is much less common in real life than through social media. When this problem play out in real life, arguments most commonly stem from an argument over some form of media output.
When respectful individuals with open minds and personal opinions are capable of engaging in civil discourse, a common ground is often found.
In The Haverford School Assembly, a group of high school boys with a variety of drastically different political views were capable of crafting made-up laws and coming to agreements on whether they should pass or not to benefit our society as a whole.
While the students were by no means experts on every aspect of each law that they debated, they were open-minded and informed properly.
This is more than the majority of the media can say.
The students did their own individual research and informed themselves on very important topics in our society today. They were forced to research using unbiased sources and advised not to use sources such as CNN or Fox as backbones for their arguments.
Despite many drastically different political views, they were able to come to conclusions together to help benefit the imaginary country with the imaginary law they were passing.
This exercise was the embodiment of everything that could be right in society today but is not because of the social divides we allow the media to create.
