Walking into John Louis after a long night, I stumbled into a room full of uncomfortable faces, debating whether or not transgender athletes should be able to compete in leagues with the gender they identify as. While I appreciate discussions about culturally taboo topics, I left the room feeling drained; most of the arguments relied on biases, half-stories, and semantic slanting. No one was lying, attacking anyone’s identity, or even being passive-aggressive, but the fundamental lack of nuance stuck with me. 

All too often, I hear students falling into black and white—or rather, red and blue—ideologies about how the world works. Not every argument needs to reach the intellectual caliber of scholarly debate, but Deerfield should still be doing more to encourage political literacy. We, as a student body, need in-class opportunities to have arguments that are both passionate and compassionate. We need to use our many newspaper subscriptions to stay updated on current events, not just ace a research project.

In my experience, Deerfield promotes political literacy when it is convenient. Deerfield promotes political literacy when it knows the week will be dull and when it has the ability to control the narrative. The newly instituted Deerfield Forums prompt conversation for a few days before it inevitably becomes less important. Whenever the school tries to bring up hard-hitting topics for a brief period of time, students invariably develop surface-level, single-faceted opinions. 

A two-hour-long forum creates two-hour opinions. Today, it is crucial for young voters to form complex, well-informed opinions instead of simply following one particular political ideology, especially as those ideologies become increasingly radicalized. Short forums that follow the form of an unusually courteous two-party debate only encourage, not lessen, the “this or that” political mentality. To create a politically literate graduating class, Deerfield must integrate deliberate, long-term strategies into its core curriculum. 

At my past school, my sixth grade history teacher had each of his students do a “current event” every week. We were required to explain in detail the who, what, when, where, why, and how of a singular event, analyzing multiple sources and sharing its significance with the class. I am often shocked by the degree to which Deerfield history and English courses simply don’t make time to engage with current events. We could improve on the status quo by, for instance, structuring significant time for weekly news catch-ups into all humanities class.

Currently, if or when political topics are brought up, it is at the discretion of a teacher, which inherently allows individual biases to pervade the conversation. I have loved the few talks my English class has had about climate change, for instance, but if we do not institutionalize learning about political topics, we as a community fall risk having all of our conversations shallow and unlearned.

When I say political literacy, I am referring to the ability to recognize bias, emotional factors, semantic slanting, different value orientations and ideologies, stereotypes, and clichés. In other words, political literacy is the ability to identify how media is used to advance partisan or ideological interests. Students will only be able to refine this skill through consistent scholastic engagement with modern events and controversies, having students research first and form opinions afterwards or even argue from the opposite point of view of their personally held beliefs. 

Here is an example of political literacy: being able to read these two headlines – “More green investment hasn’t softened red resistance on climate” (CNN, May 2) and “Only 32% of Americans think Biden mentally fit to serve” (FOX, May 7) – and recognize the different assumptions each one capitalizes on to influence their target audience. That requires keen source analysis skills, as well as a complex understanding of today’s partisan politics.

Passionate and compassionate political discussions have a place at Deerfield. Unmoderated and unfiltered political discussions have a place at Deerfield. But they have a place in the Deerfield academic curriculum. We as a community  need to make space in our humanities classes to engage with the most pressing issues of the day.

Even when I hold drastically different opinions from my peers and teachers, my interactions with them can be amicable, interesting, and constructive. But nuanced conversations can only hapenn when we are politically literate, and can recognize the validity, as well as the underlying values and assumptions, of each other’s opinions.