Categories: GSI Online Library, Teaching Effectiveness Award Essays
By Matthew Easton, Political Science
Teaching Effectiveness Award Essay, 2025
Political science naturally lends itself to debate, disagreement, and even argument — it’s part of what makes the discipline so engaging. However, when I learned I’d be a GSI leading discussions on American politics during the Fall 2024 semester — right in the middle of a polarizing presidential election — I felt nervous. I worried less about disagreement itself but more about how quickly those disagreements might escalate. Within the first two weeks, my fears proved valid: tensions were already flaring between students with opposing views and I found it difficult to manage the conversation. How could I create a discussion space that was meaningful and welcoming, without letting heated arguments sour the room?
Rather than shy away from conflict, I decided to lean into it — but with structure. Whenever an election-related topic came up, I asked students to first discuss it from a specific perspective. For example: “Imagine you’re a political consultant for the [Trump/Harris] campaign. How would you advise them to address this topic? Is their current strategy working, and how? Where are they vulnerable and how would you strategize against their opponent?”
This approach gave students permission to explore ideas from multiple sides without feeling personally attacked or defensive. To my surprise, many of the sharpest criticisms came from students analyzing their own partisan side — demonstrating both political literacy and a literature-backed technique for reducing polarization. Throughout the semester, I rotated the perspectives students were asked to take: campaign managers, middle-class voters, Southern Christians, environmentalists — sometimes even the classic “devil’s advocate.” The latter in particular became a class favorite. By channeling the kind of person who might troll an online comment section or stir debate at a family dinner, students learned to argue playfully but skillfully — engaging in critiques without targeting their peers.
I measured success through classroom atmosphere: Were discussions thoughtful? Were students listening, responding, and building on each other’s points — without tension shutting the conversation down? The real test came after election night. Despite some students feeling elated and others disappointed, our conversation remained civil, reflective, and lively. Students analyzed the results through the roles we had practiced all semester — as consultants, pollsters, and marginalized voters — bringing thoughtful analysis without personal animosity.
Teaching politics during an election year is not easy. By asking students to step into someone else’s shoes — even just for a discussion — we can lower the temperature, deepen critical thinking, and create a space where everyone feels more comfortable engaging. Perspective taking won’t eliminate polarization, but in the classroom, it’s a powerful tool for keeping debate constructive, curious, and human.