In a winter quarter course, Stanford undergraduates learned another way to disagree: by learning why people hold the positions they do.
Approaching difference through curiosity was at the center of an optional, peer-led discussion seminar for undergraduates enrolled in Democracy and Disagreement, the popular course taught by Debra Satz, the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S), and Paul Brest, professor emeritus (active) and former dean at Stanford Law School (SLS). The course features scholars with opposing viewpoints modeling meaningful conversations on contentious topics such as hate speech, presidential immunity, the composition of the Supreme Court, and reparations.
This year, the course introduced peer-led discussion groups moderated by students in the Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Program (ICDP), a year-long fellowship that trains students in constructive dialogue. These groups provided students an opportunity to explore class topics in greater depth and engage in meaningful discussions with their peers.
The seminars grew out of Satz’s work as university liaison for ePluribus Stanford, a provostial initiative that collaborates with partners across campus to promote critical inquiry and constructive dialogue.
“The ability to talk with others who disagree with us in terms of mutual respect is a ‘muscle’; it needs to be exercised or it can atrophy,” said Satz. “Paul and I have felt that there was an important benefit for the students in the class not just seeing how this is done, but doing it themselves.”
Each week, three different sections of 8 to 12 students engaged in discussions, eager to talk about the arguments raised that week and learn from one another.
Question everything
Students discovered that disagreement can lead to a better understanding of complex issues.
“We’ve created an environment where we encourage everyone to try and view arguments in their full complexity,” explained ICDP fellow Shreya Mehta, ’26, who is co-facilitating a discussion group with Ryan Loo, ’25.
“One thing we really emphasized is asking clarifying, or dialogic, questions,” Mehta added.
While students agreed on a problem or issue, they found they often disagreed on solutions. Probing questions helped uncover nuances and dig deeper into issues.
For example, in one session, the topic of fair labor conditions arose. One student asked what makes a policy just.
When student Caleb Janowski, ’25, encounters disagreement with a classmate, depending on the person, he might pose it as a probing question instead.
“If I were to give a more direct answer, that might have made them more hesitant or uncomfortable,” Janowski said. “First of all, I will validate that ‘yes, of course, there are unjust conditions.’ And then after that, I will raise a question that can build on that issue in a productive way, rather than just saying, like, ‘Oh, you’re completely wrong.’ Because, if you don’t acknowledge what was said, you’re not going to get anywhere.”
Upholding the values of civil discourse
Satz and Brest remind students weekly that disagreement is a feature of democratic societies, not a bug. However, not all disagreements are productive – loud voices and incivility can drown out meaningful discussion.
The course aims to model a culture of civil disagreement: showing humility, listening carefully, and asking thoughtful questions to better understand opposing views rather than shouting down others. The goal is to advance discourse, not suppress it.
The ability to talk with others who disagree with us in terms of mutual respect is a ‘muscle’; it needs to be exercised or it can atrophy.”Debra SatzThe Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean, School of Humanities and Sciences
This distinction became clear on Feb. 25 when, for the first time in the course’s two-year history, several individuals who were not Stanford students disrupted a session featuring former Treasury Secretary Larry Summers and economist Emmanuel Saez, preventing Summers from delivering his opening remarks for about 12 minutes.
Frustrated, students attending the course asked the demonstration to stop so they could listen to the speakers. Afterward, Brest addressed the class, noting that this was the first disruption in 18 sessions on controversial topics, including one featuring politicians from Israel and Palestine.
“The fundamental purpose of this class is to have an academically rigorous and vigorous discussion of issues,” Brest said, adding: “We are deeply apologetic for what’s happened to our guests, especially to Larry Summers and also to our students who have come to hear a discussion.”
The class rebounded quickly, and in their peer-led discussion groups, students reflected on the disruption. Many saw it as contradicting the course’s values of respectful discourse.
“It goes against the whole point of class,” one student said. Another agreed: “It was ineffective, given the audience is a group of people who want to hear a debate.” Some noted that a more constructive approach would have been to challenge Summers with questions during the discussion portion of the class.
Loo also invited students to consider protests and disruptions more broadly. “What do you think is the point of protest?” he asked.
Students discussed how protests can raise awareness or mobilize actions versus when they backfire, as seen in the Democracy & Disagreement class that week.
Indeed, at Stanford there are a variety of permissible ways to protest that are subject to time, place, and manner restrictions.
Satz later reiterated, “There are many spaces on this campus available for protests and other kinds of action, but this space is not one of them.” Satz said she and Brest were “heartened” by how students wanted the speakers to have their discussion.
Analyzing the argument
Each week, Mehta and Loo also ask the class to analyze the arguments presented: Was the logic sound? Was the framing persuasive? How were the issues defined?
“We look at what could have improved from the discussion and how to bring that into our own space,” Mehta said.
For Stella Vengelis, ’28, approaching arguments in this way has led her to reflect on her own beliefs.
“It’s made me a more critical thinker,” she said. “Do I believe this just because I read it somewhere? Am I taking the time to draw my own conclusion? Am I giving it a fair shot? Am I being too biased, or am I being illogical? Do I really believe what I think?”
Vangelis values exploring alternative perspectives with classmates and testing new ideas.
“I always walk away thinking, ‘What a great discussion that was,’” she said.
How worldviews are shaped
As students learned, behind every belief is a life experience that shaped their political identity.
ICDP fellows also invited students to present their civic self-portraits – a single slide with images representing the forces shaping their values.
For some, it was a person, such as a family member, friend, teacher, mentor, or public figure. Others cited global events, religion, migration, extracurricular activities, clubs, sports, hobbies, studying abroad, or travel. Influential books, television, and movies were also included, such as George Orwell’s 1984, Ayn Rand’s Atlas Shrugged, Homer’s The Odyssey, and Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky’s Manufacturing Consent.
This exercise also helped foster trust.
“After people present their lives, members of the class are given the chance to ask questions like, ‘Why do you think this?’ or ‘Why is this so important to you?’ I think that has been really good in grounding people all together,” Janowski said.
For Vangelis, the course was enriching because of the mutual respect and good faith shared among students.
“It’s been very honest and driven by curiosity, because I think at the heart of it, we’re all curious students. It’s made me a more curious learner,” Vangelis said.
For more information
ICDP is run through the McCoy Family Center for Ethics in Society.
Satz is also the Marta Sutton Weeks Professor of Ethics in Society and professor of philosophy in the School of Humanities and Sciences.