ÀÏÅ£Ó°ÊÓ

Justin Greenberg is a Duke sophomore studying public policy and economics -- fields that these days can elicit a great deal of polarizing commentary and disagreement. He spoke to Duke Today about the political climate on campus and associated Duke efforts to promote civil discourse.

Are you and your peers aware of polarization? Is it something you think about and discuss?

Absolutely. In my Bass Connections course, "Political Polarization in North Carolina," we've discussed the issue of polarization extensively, including its presence on Duke's campus. Many students feel hesitant to express their views if they don't align with the prevailing opinions, which fosters a reluctance to engage in meaningful discussions. This avoidance only deepens the divide. I believe most students are acutely aware of this polarization, and instead of confronting it, they often choose silence, which only perpetuates the problem. 

Did you come to Duke expecting an environment where polarization wasn’t so significant? Has it met your expectations?

Not exactly. I knew Duke was a diverse place, not just in terms of geography, but also political beliefs and ideologies. That was part of its appeal to me — I wanted to experience the broad spectrum of thought that Duke offers. However, I understood that such diversity could lead to polarization.

In some ways, Duke has exceeded my expectations. My friend group is incredibly diverse in their backgrounds and perspectives, which constantly challenges my own views in constructive ways. That said, it’s easy for students here to stay in their comfort zones, surrounding themselves with those who think and act like them. I’ve made the conscious choice to seek out different perspectives, but it’s not something everyone here chooses to do.

How do your instructors create an environment where students feel free to speak their mind?

The professors bring an incredible depth of knowledge and expertise, which builds trust among the students. Their ability to approach sensitive topics with nuance and without promoting a specific ideology is remarkable. They critique various perspectives in the field, encouraging us to understand different viewpoints rather than pushing us toward any particular belief.

The environment feels open and safe because the goal is to explore ideas and challenge assumptions, not to assert a singular "correct" way of thinking. This approach allows for authentic and respectful dialogue, which is essential when tackling heavy topics.