If you are a part of the UPrep community, you know the school preaches inclusivity. We pride ourselves on being accepting of individuals with diverse backgrounds and interests. We are intentional about the way we approach conflict and disagreements. LEAD conversations are in place to facilitate a safe space for all voices. Discussions during humanities classes are prefaced with notions like “attack ideas, not people” and “make space, take space.”

As demonstrated in this issue’s feature story, we’re not as accepting of people with different viewpoints as we might think. We share stereotypes about people who identify as conservative and assume their political views are aligned with offensive ideals and discrimination. 

As a school with a majority liberal student body, it’s easy to fall into a mindset where anything other than that is wrong or dangerous. In reality, being conservative does not mean you’re racist, sexist or homophobic. 

Still, there are boundaries to belonging.

Opinions that derive from discrimination can not be tolerated. No one should be subjected to an opinion that offends a part of their identity that can’t be changed. When people are born, they earn a right to be respected and safe in this country. The same goes for our community.

As of right now, the “Upper School Discipline” section of the Family Handbook condemns any form of discrimination, and there are consequences for violating this policy. However, there’s only so much the administration can do. Students create the school’s social atmosphere. We may have rules during LEAD and socratic seminars, but faculty have little power over the conversations that take place outside of the classroom. Real, unfiltered dialogue happens in the hallways, at lunch tables and in the Commons.

Everyone knows we could be putting more effort into LEAD conversations. Until that happens, it’s up to us to make an effort to truly listen to each other instead of just hearing what someone says and judging it. Take time to understand people’s viewpoints and think about what they actually believe versus what you think they should believe because of their political alignment.

Approved by 8/8 members of the editorial board.