We want to provide announcements, events, leadership messages and resources that are relevant to you. Your selection is stored in a browser cookie which you can remove at any time using “Clear all personalization” below.
A week after the politically divisive U.S. 2024 presidential election, Stanford students living in Arroyo house gathered in their dorm lounge with Stanford political scientist Didi Kuo to explore factors driving polarization in America.
Kuo, a center fellow at the Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies (FSI), began with an explanation of historical forces before having an interactive conversation with students and their resident fellow, Jill Patton.
Students peppered Kuo with their most pressing questions: Has the country always been so polarized? What is the biggest internal threat to democracy? How did each political party contribute to partisan animosity? Now that the election is over, what can they do to still be involved in American politics?
The gathering was part of “Pizza, Politics, and Polarization,” a series organized by ePluribus Stanford, a new campus-wide initiative that fosters constructive dialogue and democratic engagement on campus. Throughout fall quarter, different political scientists – Adam Bonica, Alice Sui, Jonathan Rodden, and Mo Fiorina – met with Stanford undergraduates at their residence halls for dinner to discuss polarization, partisanship, and political gridlock in America.
The concept for “Pizza, Politics, and Polarization” began with Dan Edelstein, who co-directs ePluribus Stanford with Stanford Law School professor Norman W. Spaulding. Edelstein also leads Stanford’s first-year undergraduate requirement program, Civic, Liberal, and Global Education (COLLEGE), where he has pursued opportunities to connect classroom learning to their broader campus experience and has worked with Patton before to create residential programming.
Edelstein knew that the election would be on students’ minds and he saw a chance to bring the shared goals of ePluribus Stanford and COLLEGE together.
“We thought it would be a good opportunity to organize events in the dorms that gave students a chance to talk around the election, if not directly about it,” said Edelstein, the Nehal and Jenny Fan Raj Director of COLLEGE. “This is a strategy that we employ in the COLLEGE winter course, Citizenship in the 21st Century – rather than confronting a policy issue head-on, we invite students to ask what makes certain issues contentious, what are the pros and cons of each side, and what do we need to know to think about these issues, rather than trying to solve them.”
Patton finds that when scholars like Kuo visit the dorm, it can draw out a different side to students’ curiosity.
“One, it’s not for credit – it’s optional,” Patton said. “They choose to come because they are genuinely interested in the topic. They don’t have to try to impress the professor, because it’s not for a grade. It’s not for anyone else; it’s just for themselves.”
The familial atmosphere of the residence hall lends itself well to collegial conversation. “Being around their own friends, roommates, and neighbors creates a warmth that makes it easier to speak up,” Patton said.
The supportive environment was something Peter Bennett, ’28, valued about the evening with Kuo. In particular, Bennett appreciated seeing a new side to his housemates and discovering mutual interests.
“There are a lot more people interested in public policy than I realized,” said Bennett. He found the conversation with his peers rich and engaging. “I liked hearing the questions they asked,” he added.
Bennett also appreciated the opportunity to take a step back from the political fray and learn about some of the structural forces that led to politics becoming so fraught. Kuo outlined a number of trends, such as the rise of economic inequality resulting from neoliberal fiscal policy and how consolidation of power in the executive branch contributes to democratic backsliding.
Their conversation extended beyond its scheduled time, with students eager to talk amongst each other. Jonathan Rodden, a professor of political science and a senior fellow at the Hoover Institution, spoke at Donner house as part of the same supper series and had a similar experience.
“I think the event went well beyond the planned time frame and the RF eventually had to call the meeting to an end,” Rodden said. “I stayed for another 30 minutes and spoke individually with a number of students. I enjoyed the event, and was impressed by the energy and positive attitude of the students, even during a stressful time of year.”
Rodden also asked students about the types of conversations they have amongst themselves.
“Many students agreed that late-night conversations in the dorm were not boiling over with hostility and rancor about controversial political topics,” Rodden said. “Rather, students reported a strong disinclination to offend one another – this was especially the case among first-year students.”
Arroyo resident Stella Vangelis, ’28, appreciated the overview Kuo offered, especially her balanced approach.
“She was really helpful with explaining the nuance,” Vangelis said.
As Kuo outlined, there are different ways to understand polarization.
Kuo explained how there is more consensus between the two parties than people realize. Surveys show that when people – and even the political parties themselves – are asked about policy preferences, there is not a huge area of disagreement. Rather, what some scholars see happening is a rise in partisan animosity toward the other party, or what they call “negative partisanship” or “affective polarization.”
The discussion also showed Vangelis that political conversations don’t have to be adversarial.
“There can be disagreement but there doesn’t have to be an argument,” Vangelis said.
One topic that Vangelis found interesting was Kuo’s analysis of how neoliberal policies contributed to polarization. Kuo described that while those policies were associated with economic growth, there were also trade-offs; for example, workers felt left behind by globalization.
Vangelis sought out further clarification from Kuo and tested out an idea that came to her from the discussion: Did neoliberal policies contribute to homogeneity between the two parties?
Here too, Vangelis appreciated Kuo’s effort to keep the discussion open-ended. It also showed her the value in not taking a position and instead being curious about the causes and consequences of a topic or trend.
“She spoke to both sides and critiqued them equally,” she said. “She left it up to me to draw my own conclusion.”
For Vangelis, having an open mind is what being a university student is about.
“You don’t have to have all the answers, because the point is we’re supposed to learn,” Vangelis added.
ePluribus Stanford, which formally launched in 2024, plans to support more events like “Pizza, Politics, and Polarization” to cultivate meaningful discussions across differences.
Edelstein and Rodden are faculty members in the School of Humanities and Sciences.
Rodden is also a senior fellow at the Stanford Institute for Economic Policy Research.
Patton is the senior editor of STANFORD magazine.
News, insights and events delivered to your inbox each weekday morning.
©CopyrightStanford University. Stanford, California 94305.
