[ot-caption title= “After taking one year of Government Politics AP, the students in the Seminar course have extensive knowledge of all things politics. (via Julia Karten, sophomore)”]

On Wednesday, November 2nd,  Mrs. Everett invited me to audit the Government Politics Seminar class with the purpose of observing students hold a political discussion. I stared at the circular formation of tables for a few minutes. And let me tell you, sitting in as an outsider on a government and politics class less than a week before the presidential election (specifically this presidential election) is a dangerous choice; choosing a seat is all strategy.  I landed in the back of the room, facing forward.  I gave Mrs. Everett a hesitant glance, imagining all potential outcomes: a class debate results in a Republican’s launching dive across the wooden tables toward a Democrat’s balled fists; binders are thrown; one student recalls his or her knowledge of Brazilian jiu jitsu; another student gets side sweeped. In an alternate unfolding of events, a Libertarian just screeches for 45 minutes, throwing out expletives in replacement for both candidates’ names, offending both the right and left sides, and ultimately resulting in the creation of a terrifying mashup of Gary Johnson sound bites with varying voice changing edits.  All potential scenarios are of mania.  [spacer height=”20px”]

So I stared at my computer screen as the class slowly trickles in.  It’s a larger group than I anticipated, totaling 21 students; my palms started to sweat.  I listened for contentious whispers before the bell rings.  Most just talked quietly about their weekend plans or other classes. I took this as a sign from the cosmos that this discussion will go better than I originally thought.  [spacer height=”20px”]

Mrs. Everett announced that they’ll be discussing current events. She serves as a moderator, introducing topics of discussion and facilitating student involvement.  First up: FBI director Comey sent a letter to House and Senate leadership announcing that they reopened the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s emails after finding more emails in an investigation of Anthony Weiner.  So with this light and extraordinarily nonpartisan icebreaker, we begin.  I click record. There is shifty silence for a few seconds.  But rather like the national presidential discourse, we quickly begin discussing Clinton’s emails. Junior Nikki Kone explains that party loyalties have flipped as a result of Comey’s actions, with Democrats questioning Comey’s actions and Republicans singing his praises. The ultimate conclusion about this act, however, is not a partisan concern at all.  Mrs. Everett sums it up, saying, “The media, more than the people in the campaigns, went bananapants!” [spacer height=”20px”]

“That’s kind of the whole election, though,” senior Lilliana DiSouza says.  [spacer height=”20px”]

Both nationally and in the halls of Pine Crest, there is a great deal of vague conversation about “Clinton’s email scandal.”  The general nature of this discussion is fueled by the media, Everett explains. “There is a difference between the emails on the private server that Clinton was investigated for, and the emails that have been hacked and released by Wikileaks.  But, because they both have the term ‘email’ in them, and then this search also ties into that general anxiety about emails, I think that’s all getting blurred into one issue.”  She later reiterates this point: “Headlines do not lend themselves to nuance.” [spacer height=”20px”]

Before moving on to the next topic, the class questions if Comey’s actions went against the Hatch Act, which prohibits federal employees from engaging in political campaign activities, or “us[ing] [their] official authority or influence for the purpose of interfering with or affecting the result of an election.” Everyone in the Government Politics Seminar class must already have taken a year of AP Government, which greatly affects discussion. “I think the membership in this group is more educated than the general public. They’re very well informed, they’re very well read, they stay current on news,” Everett says.  [spacer height=”20px”]

It would be dishonest to say that there is no tension in the classroom during discussion.  But even when talking politics, there’s a feeling of togetherness among the 21 students.  They’ve created a kind of sub-community. When someone makes a witty remark, they all laugh. They’re fascinated by many of the same things.  Left leaning Evin Rothschild announces that over 4 million people have voted early.  Republican Gabi Meli looks at her from across the table, “Wow, really?” Perhaps this amiable attitude was unique to this class period.  After class, Dani Swords said, “You actually sat through a pretty calm day today. There are days when it’s much more intense.” [spacer height=”20px”]

After a discussion of Leonardo Dicaprio’s environmental documentary Before the Flood, which was released Sunday October 30th, the week before the election, the class moves on to “shy supporters.” The Trump supporters in the room band together to state that social media dissuades people from being open about their political leanings.  “If you say you support Trump, there’s a group of people who are like ‘Oh my God! You’re racist!’” says Nikki Kone.  Senior Brittany Shore sits at the back of the room wrapped in a fuzzy white blanket. She agrees with Kone saying, “If you come out as a Trump supporter on Facebook or Twitter, you get, like, attacked.” Rothschild, who had recently posted an Instagram of herself at a Clinton rally retorts with, “I mean, I also felt pretty attacked on my Instagram.” The class breaks out in loud discussions across the room. This is the closest it comes to getting out of hand, but Mrs. Everett quickly calls decorum, “bring it back guys, bring it back.” Katherine Poppitti sees a simple solution: “People are so oversensitive! It’s known that there’s going to be backlash against your opinion. You just have to be okay with people going against you.” [spacer height=”20px”]

Perhaps part of the problem is that the aim of many conversations seems to be to convince the other side that your opinion is, in fact, right. Or maybe the goal is to persuade them to “convert” to your position. With this aim, it’s almost impossible to have a successful conversation. There’s something about politics that prevents us from seeing past ourselves.  And in this classroom, there is no sudden collapsing of political tension or an absence of frustration. Poppitti busted into the classroom at the start of the period demanding to know “how can people still vote for her [Clinton] after more evidence of corruption has been exposed?” Dani Swords later said, “From what I understand, people support him [Trump] because they don’t think that social issues are important, and therefore accept him for his economics. I just don’t understand how people could brush off social issues.” But the difference in this room is evident. These are people who genuinely want to hear answers to their questions.  They want to explain their own point of view so that another person can better understand why they think the way that they do.  And although this may come as a surprise to many, they want to hear why others’ opinions diverge from their own.  This is how conversations are productive. [spacer height=”20px”]

This class gives students an environment where it’s both cool and okay to discuss politics without the conversation ending in a physical duel.  “I don’t want it to be contentious, but I want kids to feel like they can express their opinions,” Everett said.  We often hear “Don’t talk about religion or politics at the dinner table!” It is true that if no one ever brings up politics, there can never be any issues. But if we never bring it up, we also lose the ability to try and understand other perspectives.  Perhaps that “don’t bring it up” mentality is how we’ve gotten to this contentious point in our political system today where political discourse quickly dissolves into angry rhetoric. [spacer height=”20px”]

On Tuesday, November 8, all members of the seminar class will be volunteering at the voting polls for either Clinton, Trump, or a nonpartisan organization.  These are the young people who will run society in the future, the ones who will be casting their votes to affect change, or maybe even the ones who will be running for office.  So when the bell rings, many students linger after class, still discussing political issues.  And for a minute, they’re not Republicans, Democrats, Clinton supporters, Trump supporters, Jill Stein enthusiasts, Libertarians, etc, etc, ad. nauseam.  They’re just people, having a conversation. [spacer height=”20px”]

Sources: NPR, CNN