Our Wildwood, Volume 52

Felix recalls one student telling him, “I have to say the name of someone my family really dislikes. That’s going to be hard.” “I told them, ‘Yes, and that’s why we’re here to practice,’” Felix said. Practice was also a key skill gleaned from the 8th grade Bill of Rights Debate Project, an annual classroom exercise that took on even more significance in an election year. Led by humanities teachers Alex Cussen and Sam Lyons, the purpose of the project was to introduce students to Constitutional rights and debates, and practice debate, public speaking, and civil discourse in a structured format. The project involved three phases–research, essay writing, and debate–surrounding three highly controversial and unsettled topics: locker searches, the regulation of fake news, and the privacy and protection of web browser history. To inform their opinions, students reviewed legal texts, logs, and transcripts of Supreme Court cases. “This essay was different and more complex than any essay I’ve ever written,” said Nico G. ‘29. “I had to consider both sides before forming my own stance.” Interesting enough, Nico found that his initial stance on his researched topic shifted as he gathered more facts and evidence. The ability to make such a shift, of course, is precisely the point. “The goal of this debate project wasn’t just to win—it was to learn how to engage in difficult conversations thoughtfully,” Sam said. For Wildwood seniors, who will soon find themselves on college campuses with varying degrees of civil discourse policies and attitudes, the topic of civil discourse became even more personal. Inspired by Wildwood’s Position Statement and national conversations on college protests, they engaged in a student-led Contemporary Multicultural Issue (CMI) workshop focused about campus free speech policies. Organized by Kate E.-D. ‘25, students acted as college administrators responding to real-world campus incidents, comparing Wildwood’s values and Position

Statement with policies from universities such as University of Chicago, Wesleyan, and Columbia. The exercise was guided by two questions: First, how might the values of civil discourse at Wildwood have translated to those college campuses? Second, how might the skills students have been been developing since kindergarten at Wildwood have de-escalated polarization in those spaces? “By stepping into these roles, students saw how context shapes policy decisions,” Kate said. “Some students preferred Wildwood’s structured approach, while others valued universities that allowed more open ended free speech, even at the risk of discomfort.” Most importantly, Kate said, the exercise emphasized the challenge of balancing safety with free expression and demonstrated how Wildwood’s civil discourse values translate to real-world situations. One of the trickiest aspects of civil discourse is determining the line between disagreement and harm. Speaking to upper school students at a panel this winter, Associate Head of School Jaimi Boehm offered a suggestion for navigating challenging scenarios. Rather than dismissing with a quick judgement when they hear something offensive, Jaimi says, “Ask the person, ‘What did you mean by that?’ or ‘Tell me more.’ You might learn something—even if you still disagree.” This principle also guides Wildwood’s Diversity, Equity, Inclusion, and Belonging work. “Our increasingly diverse community requires us to examine how we engage with different perspectives,” said Karen Dye, director of equity and inclusion. “Civil discourse isn’t just about speaking—it’s about listening. It’s about valuing different perspectives, even when they challenge our own.” W BALANCING FREE SPEECH AND RESPONSIBILITY

OWW WINTER 2025

19