Topics like the Seattle mayoral election, the most recent No Kings protests on Oct. 18 and decisions by the White House administration sparked political conversations across UPrep.

While some feel safe expressing their views, others worry that differing opinions could lead to judgment or ostracism.

An anonymous poll of 102 UPrep students, conducted by The Puma Press, asked whether or not the school was a safe space to share different political opinions. 40.2% of respondents said no, 25.5% of respondents said yes and 34.3% of respondents chose the ‘other’ option and wrote their own response.

A Divided Political Climate

Some students feel that sharing different views is difficult at UPrep.

“I think there are people with opinions who don’t feel like they can express them,” Junior Beckett Vernon said.

Vernon is the leader of UPrep’s Conservative and Centrist Discussion Club, which typically meets every other Community Time and includes about 30 members. The group is a space for students and teachers to talk about issues within the school and in country. In meetings, Vernon prefers to let club members discuss anything on their mind, instead of planning or structuring the conversation. Their recent topics include homelessness, Seattle’s mayoral election and the future of Washington State and the nation.

“We try to have a space where everybody can share their opinion free of judgment,” Vernon said. “We definitely hear a lot more centrist, a lot more conservative, but the libertarian side is always pretty strong. And we also have some awesome legal viewpoints that are really fun to hear.”

Despite the variety of political opinions of club members, Vernon makes sure that disputes do not escalate or extend beyond the discussion space.

“I think one thing I love about our club is we can disagree, but we don’t see each other as any less because of it,” Vernon said.

One member of the Conservative and Centrist Discussion Club, senior Avi Kunins, sees the group as a unique space where students can comfortably share their political views.

“I can say with strong certainty that it’s the only space at UPrep where people leaning to the right can actually talk and not get harassed for their opinions,” Kunins said.

Kunins has seen this dynamic often outside the club. At a past club fair, he noticed students reacting negatively to the club’s announcement, sighing or laughing.

“It is great that the school allows us this club,” Kunins said. “But subconsciously most people view it as weird and bad.”
He feels unable to share his own political views for fear of social backlash.

“I tend to hide my political beliefs from teachers and students to avoid being ‘canceled or hated’,” Kunins said.

Vernon believes that the Conservative and Centrist Discussion Club is open-minded to a range of political views and believes that the school in general can improve its acceptance of these views.

“I think we need to work as a community to become a little bit more accepting of other’s opinions,” Vernon said. “If we’re limiting our perspective to only hearing one, I think we are truly missing out on some great wisdom and some great debate.”

Controversy in Context

Navigating politically charged national and global events has become especially challenging considering the Israel-Hamas war and the recent assassination of right-wing political activist, Charlie Kirk.

“When the events of Oct. 7, 2023, happened, I hesitated to talk about [it], because it’s such a hot button issue,” Sokoll said, “I didn’t want my classroom to become just embroiled in debates and very strong passions.”

After reflecting on that decision, Sokoll chose to address it directly with his students.

“I told my classes a couple days later, I was wrong. I should not have done that. I should have opened the class up to talk about that,” Sokoll said.

He said the class later discussed how to process global events without criticizing individuals. When Kirk was assassinated earlier this year, Sokoll again opened his classroom for conversation.

“I set some parameters around how to talk about it that day,” Sokoll said, “which was to be respectful of the fact that Charlie Kirk was a human being and had a family, whether or not we agreed or disagreed with Charlie Kirk in his political viewpoints.”

Some of the reactions at UPrep to Kirk’s death disturbed Kunins.

“I think it’s fine for people to have their own opinions, but that’s just such an insane opinion to me, to cheer for somebody’s death,” Kunins said. “It was really hard for me to think about at the time.”

Senior Keston Gruhl agrees that some reactions to political violence crossed a line, though he saw many students later reflect on their behavior.

“I feel like the reactions at UPrep were initially to clown him for dying, which I think people kind of came back on,” Gruhl said. “The people who actually watched the video and saw it happen were more [like] … ‘This is not a good thing to celebrate.’”

Classroom  Discussion

When political conversation spill into classrooms Kunins has noticed that some students hesitate to share their political.

“I feel like there’s a lot of people leaning on the right who have to hide their opinions,” Kunins said.

In classes where students are graded on their writing, students like Kunins feel the need to alter the way they write, believing that doing so will mean they get a higher grade.

“In English class, on every essay, when it comes to pushing a certain agenda or certain ideas, I do have to switch my opinion because I am worried about getting doxxed off,” Kunins said. “Whether that’s true or not, that’s just the way I feel. I know that’s really true for a lot of other people.”

Gruhl shares his experience as a more liberal student.

“I don’t feel silenced or anything,” Gruhl said. “There are some spaces where some opinions may not be as accepted as other opinions, but I feel like that’s just the reality of going to a liberal high school in Seattle.”

In classes like Civics, where discussion is a large part of the course, Sokoll has noticed that students with more conservative views avoid sharing their beliefs in these class conversations.

“That’s problematic, because people should be able to voice their opinions,” Sokoll said.

Gruhl agrees that a diversity of voices is essential for productive discussions.

“You need to have some political division in order to have good conversations,” Gruhl said.

Despite his efforts to make students feel more comfortable with sharing their views, Sokoll admits that it can still be difficult to navigate.

“I try to make it so that my classes can be a little more open, but I still struggle to figure out how to do that in a way that will actually draw out more opinions,” Sokoll said.

He does this in his classes by setting standards of behavior meant to encourage respect and politeness.

“I instruct students to hold each other to the same expectations of evidence-based reasoning,” Sokoll said. “Honoring the dignity of each person, acting in good faith, and assuming the good faith of others.”

LEAD and Listening

Each semester, the Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging office organizes schoolwide conversations through the Listen, Engage, Acknowledge, and Discuss program. DEIB Special Programs Coordinator Obse Dinsa and student LEAD executives plan the topics of each conversation.

According to LEAD executives, one of the most difficult parts of planning these conversations is finding topics that encourage differing viewpoints without spiraling into an argument. A debate seeks to win, while a conversation looks to understand.

“We don’t want to turn LEAD into a debate, because LEAD isn’t a debate. But we do want topics where people have different ideas so that they can actually be engaged,” Junior and LEAD exec Ezra Kahn said.

In LEAD exec Molly Hwang’s experience, LEAD conversations can quickly spiral into debates.

“I think what happens often is that someone says something like, ‘I think this book should be banned,’ and because we don’t have exposure to people with other ideologies, we have been conditioned to believe that this opinion is immediately invalid and evident of the person’s lack of belief in education or freedom of expression,” Hwang said.

She believes that it’s more productive to ask questions and understand where someone’s reasoning comes from rather than jumping to conclusions.

“I think the most effective response would be, ‘Why do you think so?’ with the expectation that this person developed this opinion from a rationalization,” Hwang said. “It’s easy to shut down opinions right away … but I think it’s important to remember that these concepts and words we’ve developed are not all-encompassing.”

Hwang believes that personal conversations are also important in understanding different views.

“I wish I had that more because I would learn a lot more about why opinions are the way they are,” Hwang said.

Kahn welcomes discussion that includes differing opinions, as he does not want students in these conversations to agree with everything that is said. This happened in LEAD conversations last year, according to Kahn.

“Everyone had the same thing to say, and therefore no one had anything to say,” Kahn said.

This year, Kahn is embracing disagreements in LEAD conversations, as he wants to make sure everyone feels like their voices are heard.

“Leaning into discomfort can feel unnatural or wrong, but the best quality of a leader is providing space for the sharing of views that would otherwise be shut down,” Kahn said.

The first LEAD conversation of the first semester is scheduled for Nov. 19 and will focus on affirmative action.

“The great thing about LEAD is that there isn’t anything necessarily that I want to avoid,” Dinsa said. “I obviously want to make sure that leaders are keeping everything as respectful as possible and being considerate in what they decide to talk about.”

In LEAD conversations themselves, Kahn wants to ensure that all students feel comfortable enough to voice their beliefs, as he understands that a variety of viewpoints makes for a more interesting conversation.

“I don’t want anyone to feel like an outsider,” Kahn said. “I don’t want anyone to feel like they can’t share their opinion for the purpose of conversation because they’re worried that someone is going to try to explain to them why it’s wrong.”