Beyond the Divide: Finding Common Ground Through Campus Dialogue
Bridging Campus Divides
The New Jersey College Civility Tour is a statewide dialogue series that aims to bring students together across political differences, encouraging civic engagement and respectful discourse on college campuses. The tour was inspired by a Civility Tour event held last year at Eagleton, where New Jersey State Senators Jon Bramnick and Joseph Cryan came together to promote respectful political discourse and demonstrate that political disagreement does not have to be hostile or toxic.
The College Civility tour event, hosted at Eagleton, featured four panelists. The event was led by Andrew Lamonte, Vice President of the College Democrats of New Jersey, and John Rendzia III, Chairman Emeritus of the New Jersey College Republicans. These two were accompanied by Alice Merolli, the current President of the Rutgers Democrats, and Andrew Joseph, the current President of the Rutgers Republicans. The conversation was moderated by Talking Across Difference (TAD) fellows Varshini Rajanikanth and Alvin Mak.
Navigating Political Differences
Walking into the Eagleton Institute of Politics on September 30, we were eager to see how panelists with opposing political stances would discuss the issues facing America today. As Talking Across Difference fellows, we had been doing exercises and activities in the classroom to facilitate such conversations, so we were excited to see it play out live. The discussion covered a wide range of topics, including political polarization, artificial intelligence, immigration, and the future of democracy. What stood out to us most was that throughout the entire conversation, the panelists with such different political stances were able to find common ground. They all seemed to recognize the issues facing our country, but their disagreements centered more around how they believed those problems should be addressed. We learned a lot from watching this discussion, especially about the nuance in political beliefs, realizing they are not so black-and-white and can evolve when exposed to others' experiences or opinions. It also showed us that productive conversations can be successful and reveal commonalities when all parties are dedicated to creating that environment, which the panelists did a solid job of curating this environment.
One of the most memorable moments of the night was when the panelists were posed with questions regarding immigration. When Mak asked the panelists what they thought an ideal immigration system would look like and what values should guide it, all panelists agreed that our current system has many flaws. However, their solutions to the problems differed tremendously. These differences became extremely apparent when an audience member asked about the violent outbreaks involving Muslim and Christian communities in places like Dearborn, Michigan. Joseph kicked off the conversation by stating that he believed that immigrants involved in the violent crimes between the two groups should be deported. He continued to express that America was built by and for white people and suggested that Muslims and immigrants in general were displacing white citizens. Merolli and Lamonte strongly disagreed with the statement, emphasizing that Muslims are not automatically criminals and deserve due process, which is the constitutional guarantee of fair legal procedures before depriving anyone of life, liberty, or property.
Listening to the back-and-forth between panelists made us think about the limits of political disagreement and how our opinions can lead the conversation into uncharted or uncomfortable territory. Additionally how our values guide our conversations about sensitive topics like immigration. Creating spaces for different perspectives is incredibly important; however, we must recognize when a person’s statement disregards the rights and dignity of others. Simply allowing everyone to speak is not enough, and as Talking Across Difference fellows, it is our responsibility to encourage panelists and audience members to listen critically, question their assumptions, and consider how their beliefs can affect others in the room. This part of the event reminded us that while we engage in conversations across differences, we must be willing to listen and be considerate of others, even if we strongly disagree with the other party.
To conclude the main discussion, Mak asked the panelists why Gen Z deserves a seat at the table when determining the country’s political future. Lamonte said a striking quote surrounding Gen Z’s engagement in politics and their general apathy towards it: “If you don't want to do politics, politics is going to do you!” We found this statement particularly powerful because it challenges the idea that avoiding politics means you remain unaffected by it. At the end of the day, politics is constantly influencing our daily lives through education, opportunities, and our basic human rights. We found the emphasis on getting involved in local politics extremely important because it reminded us that politics is about much more than presidential elections.
Reflecting on Civility
At the end of the event, we left the Eagleton with a much greater appreciation for safe spaces where people can engage in difficult conversations while maintaining mutual respect and productivity. With the recent hyperpolarization of political parties in the media, it was encouraging to see our peers discuss complex issues directly, allowing room for nuance and understanding. As TAD students, we saw the event as a perfect example of the kind of dialogue our initiative hopes to foster.
Tania Saravanakumar and Brigette Thompson are 2026-2027 Talking Across Difference Student Leaders.
