The SIPS DEI Council is open to anyone in the SIPS community who would like to participate in building a diverse, equitable, and inclusive community in our school through monthly online meetings and working groups on various topics.  New voices, viewpoints and energy are always welcome.  The council has been on hiatus over the summer.  But if you’d like to learn more about the council or receive the Zoom link for our next meeting, email: sips-dicouncil@cornell.edu. Visit the SIPS Diversity, inclusion, & accessibility webpage.

Deconstructing political stereotypes through political conversations

What follows is from the Cornell AgriTech DEI Bulletin.  Many thanks to our colleagues Anna Katharine Mansfield and Amara Dunn-Silver, Cornell AgriTech DEI Council co-chairs, who are taking such a strong lead with their DEI efforts. They write, “Like any group, DEI practitioners use jargon as a shortcut to convey specific meanings that may be unclear or confusing to anyone unfamiliar with the terms. As part of our DEI Bulletin series, we are exploring some key terms, concepts and practices that are important to DEI.” If there’s a topic you’d like them to explore, contact Anna Katharine or Amara, or you can submit a suggestion anonymously.  This issue of the bulletin is especially timely, given the approaching election.

“Never talk about religion or politics” is a familiar maxim in the U.S., but one that may not serve our best interests in these unprecedented times. In the past 40 years, the U.S. has seen a greater increase in political partisanship than any other country, accompanied by increases in animosity towards the ‘other side.’

We aren’t immune here at Cornell AgriTech. In the 2023 DEI survey, ‘political affiliation’ was the identity that respondents felt they most often had to hide, and the identity that they had heard the most disparaging remarks about.

Most of us aren’t enjoying this. A majority of Americans say that thinking about politics makes them exhausted and angry. And for the first time in history, more of us may be voting against the other party than voting for a candidate we like.

Ideological differences are necessary for a functioning democracy. But the current level of polarization is disrupting personal, public, and political life.

The problem: Political and social scientists have found that we’re more segregated along partisan lines than we’ve ever been, with many Americans reporting that they rarely or never interact with their political opposites. Instead of talking to individuals, we learn about ‘their’ political beliefs from media (both social and mainstream) that thrives on controversy and airs the most extreme partisans from each side. This obscures the fact that despite our differences, American voters overwhelmingly agree on more than 200 policy positions. We also overestimate the degree to which the ‘other side’ dislikes us by as much as 50-100%. That presumption of aggression naturally leads to a self-righteous feeling of being attacked, increasing ill-will. It’s becoming a self-fulfilling cycle.

The good news is that a majority of Americans, regardless of political leaning, think that extreme views are getting too much public attention and that political discussions should be more civil and respectful. Across the political spectrum, Americans feel that their side is well-informed and votes logically, while the other side is less intelligent, is just following the party line, or is being tricked by the media. Despite Charles Krauthammer’s famous quip, we overwhelmingly believe that the other side is more misguided than evil – which is an excellent excuse to respectfully ask others how they’ve come to their opinions.

This is where conversations can help. When we talk to one another, we can dispel extremist stereotypes and find areas of agreement. These conversations can be formal, with groups like Braver Angels, or informal, with your family or coworkers. Cornell’s Intergroup Dialogue Project has resources for using the LARA method of communication across difference and fostering dialogue on civic engagement.

Tips for constructive conversations about politics: 

• Examine your own stereotypes. Polarization starts with individuals, so the first defense is challenging your own perceptions. When you find yourself thinking in absolute terms, like ‘all members of party X think Y,’ take the time to fact check. Nonpartisan organizations like the Pew Research Center offer robust public opinion reports showing where Americans stand on current issues.

• Don’t assume that the views of prominent political voices are the views held by the average party member. Politicians and party newsmakers get attention and acclaim for pushing ideological purity and extreme views, but most voters (regardless of party) are more moderate. If you start with the knowledge that most of us are in the ‘mushy middle,’ it’s less scary to share your beliefs and ask others to do the same.

• Seek balanced news sources. Avoid media echo chambers by intentionally consuming news from highly factual, low-bias sources, and by comparing coverage across platforms. You can assess media factuality and bias at websites like Media Bias/Fact Check, or take advantage of sites like Allsides or The Flip Side that present news topics from Left-, Right-, and Center-leaning media.
• Lead with curiosity and listen for understanding. Constructive conversations require mindfulness and listening skills which can be learned and practiced. Berkeley’s Bridging Differences Playbook provides clear steps for discussions that promote understanding and put people before politics.
• Look for shared values. Two people who espouse different political ideologies likely can agree on some very important values, like caring deeply about the safety of their families, even if they don’t agree on the policies that will promote that safety. Finding this sort of common ground reinforces our shared humanity.
• Accept that all conversations won’t end with closure. Disagreement is, ultimately, an essential part of our government- we’re all individuals with different needs and motivations. Make it a goal to disagree better.

At AgriTech (and in the School of Integrative Plant Science), we grow things — including the skills needed for civil conversations.

References:

• Hartman et al. 2022. Interventions to reduce partisan animosity. Nature Human Behavior.
• Moore-Berg et al. 2020. Exaggerated meta-perceptions predict intergroup hostility between American political partisans. PNAS 117(26)