The event that I attended last Wednesday was a noticeable departure from the usual format of the Rose Cafe lecture series. Students attending the event were inviting into professor Blalock’s apartment and were offered to sit on the sofas throughout the room. As a result, the whole affair felt much more informal and more conversational compared to the other Rose Cafes I have been to. I felt that the informal setting was much more conducive for natural conversation to flow, especially with regards to controversial issues, namely the president of the United States and his barely constitutional immigration policies.

Throughout the evening, even though we discussed many issues surrounding President Trump’s polarizing policies, there was a common thread that ran through the conversations I had with the other students in the room. That common thread was finding ways to bridge the gaps of understanding to people with opposing perspectives and the ways in which we can create dialogue, not conflict. The biggest takeaway from this evening was the method of convincing someone of a different perspective of a particular idea which was taught to us by professor Enns. The professor said that the goal of a conversation is not to prove that you have “won”, but to have subconsciously implanted an idea into someone’s mind through careful use of words and through logic. While the other person might not agree with you initially, as long as you have explained your idea thoughtfully with evidence to support your perspective, the idea will eventually take hold in the other person’s mind and will grow on them as time goes on.

In a world divided by politics and ideology, learning how to converse with someone that might have a different perspective is key to creating an environment of tolerance and understanding. Only after we have learned to converse with our minds and not our impulse can we hope to understand how this election came to be.