By Sophie Gilbert ’19, Editor-in-Chief

Love it or hate it, the Newark Academy community is drawn to controversy.  I’m sure any student could instantly name three or more topics of interest that have taken the community by storm in the past few years. Why is this? Because every incident is mulled over, debated, and fixated on intently before the community moves on to the next topic. Hot topics are discussed everywhere: in the cafeteria, in a distracted classroom, on a Morning Meeting stage. We have a penchant for discussion that sheds light on the opinion makeup of the student body–it’s varied, but separated.

Simply because controversy exists, one could conclude that there is a solid diversity of opinion at NA. And this is true; we wouldn’t be able to debate so many topics if we weren’t a community made up of different opinions created by our cultures, media consumption, ethics, and infinite other factors. However, we usually choose to hang out with like-minded people; there are exceptions, but people are more likely to get along with someone with similar beliefs as your own. Again, these beliefs come through culture, and it’s common to befriend people with similar cultural backgrounds to our own. So this means that when we have sensitive discussions, oftentimes they occur in an echo chamber, with assumptions being made about the opinions existing outside the group.

This separation has been noted by a few members of the NA community. Chris Lightcap ‘20 believes that “Preconceived notions of how the other side might respond [keep] the nature of [conversations] rather insular.” However, he acknowledges that “people who do speak amongst like-minded people don’t do so because they are avoiding a dissenting view; a lot of people do seem to value reaching out, challenging their own ideas.” Aidan Orr ‘20 notes that this insularity occurs “particularly when it’s the administration that’s taking the opposite side–for those that aren’t as well versed, [they are] afraid to speak their opinion out of fear that their teachers will think lesser of them,” and as a result, the “only people emboldened enough to speak are those at the very far right or left.” So it is clear that while we engage in debates frequently, there’s still a separation of opinions occurring. A culture has grown where people are more comfortable talking with those who agree with them, but we shouldn’t settle for that.

When dealing with disagreements, some might lament, “Why can’t we ever just have a conversation?” And that’s where the problem lies: the grating back-and-forth is a conversation, far more so than a group of people agreeing with each other, talking about how much they agree and all the different ways in which they agree. That type of conversation is comforting and cathartic at times, but we shouldn’t venture to call it a productive dialogue. A productive dialogue involves hearing other opinions directly rather than making assumptions about what they are.

One teacher who has witnessed many controversy-laden conversations in the classroom is Dr. DeSanta, who believes these conversations are “part of the nature of teaching and learning literature, especially against the backdrop of a volatile world.” She says, “If we can’t put aside our own anger and biases, even when justified, and force ourselves to listen, we won’t make any progress…the more we fight, the more the resentments will build and the wider and deeper divides will get.” Indeed, as much as we are pulled towards controversy, we push away true discussions about it–writing off the other side and growing irritated with pushback, even though that’s the essence of the topics we discuss. It would be remiss to ignore the nuance involved here; there’s a difference between being open to all opinions and tolerating hate speech. But in the end, hate speech, when it occurs, may come from a lack of open-mindedness in the first place.

We need to start paying attention. Who are we including in our conversations–and who is left out? Which voices are absent? I’m not asking that everybody stop what they’re doing and assemble a panel of diverse opinions every time they stumble upon a controversial topic at the lunch table. However, there are steps that can be taken in order to counteract the blind spots created by lack of opinion diversity in discussions. I believe issues arise when people try to speak for anyone other than themselves. If an opinion besides your own isn’t represented, that means you should try to seek out more points of view and hear them out, rather than try to fill in the gaps yourself. When people make assumptions about other groups rather than trying to seek out and understand their opinions, it only further widen the divisions between groups.

Dr. DeSanta adds that “we…need to work a lot harder at listening to each other, asking each other honest and heartfelt questions, and looking for the best in each other – and allowing ourselves to be vulnerable.” Dialogues about tough topics aren’t easy, but in a culture that is as opinionated as it is polarized and insular, especially when controversial topics come up, they are exactly what we need. We have the varied opinions; all that’s left is to take advantage of them by listening with open minds.