Respectful Disagreement: Students Model a Lost Art
<p>Disagreements in America have become… well, downright disagreeable. </p>
<p>Debates about politics and policy often devolve into hostile shouting matches and bitter feuds. </p>
<p>So is it still possible in America to have respectful dialogue, even around issues where people may sharply disagree? </p>
<p>Of course it’s possible. </p>
<p>In fact, through the Bill of Rights Institute’s Think the Vote platform, students are learning (and excelling at) the art of respectful disagreement. </p>
<p>Each week, BRI posts a topic for students to debate – and they even have a chance to win prizes. </p>
<p>But sophistication matters. Students are encouraged to research the issue carefully, develop informed opinions, and engage with each other respectfully. </p>
<p>The goal is to equip students with the skills and information to engage in healthy civil discourse with fellow citizens. </p>
<p>And it’s working. Here are just some of the excerpts from real students debating hot-button current issues. </p>
<p><strong>On whether the Senate should reform the filibuster:</strong> </p>
<p><em>The filibuster should either be significantly reformed or completely done away with. It is not mandated by the Constitution, and as founding father Alexander Hamilton aptly wrote in Federalist Papers 22, “To give a minority a negative upon the majority (which is always the case where more than a majority is requisite to a decision), is, in its tendency, to subject the sense of the greater number to that of the lesser.”</em> </p>
<p>— Lillian, New York </p>
<p><em>“The filibuster is an important part of American democracy, first and foremost because it gives the minority opinion a voice. Many aspects of American political structure are founded on the idea that minority parties should still have some power because they represent a very significant portion of Americans. The Senate itself reflects this idea – it gives equal representation to every state, regardless of population.”</em> </p>
<p>— Natalya, Massachusetts </p>
<p><strong>And whether U.S. Supreme Court should have term limits:</strong> </p>
<p><em>Limiting terms… would not only be unconstitutional and extremely difficult, but would also greatly increase the chance of the selection of justices to be politically one sided… Lifetime tenures allow for the Supreme Court to be made up of justices who were previously selected, so… current presidents have no influence over the court, which is how it is supposed to be.</em> </p>
<p>— Bryce, North Carolina </p>
<p><em>In the United States, the justices of the Supreme Court have historically been given life tenure. It was intended that this would protect the Court from the political influences of the Legislative and Executive branches. However, as the nation has become more and more politically polarized, the Supreme Court is no longer free from the influence of politics…. If Supreme Court terms were limited, then their confirmation would not be such a hotly debated issue in the Senate. This would actually decrease the politicization of the Supreme Court.</em> </p>
<p>— Ella, Virginia </p>
<p>Teaching students to develop well-informed opinions and engage in respectul dialogue is essential to helping build a more civil society. To check out the Bill of Rights Institute’s students in action, <a href="https://www.thinkthevote.com/" target="_blank" rel="noreferrer noopener">visit the Think the Vote website</a>. </p>
<p>And if you know a student who would like to participate, help us spread the word! </p>