In today’s political climate, it’s extremely hard to meet in the middle. Controversial issues often divide communities, exacerbating conflict and increasing tension. While the bubble of Loomis Chaffee may shelter students from harsh political realities, the truth is that even the Loomis campus isn’t free from the difficulty of political discussion that characterizes today’s world.
Many Loomis students believe that while spaces for political conversation exist, they aren’t always used to their fullest potential. As Grace Sauer ’27 explained, “There is space, but we don’t use it because that’s just our culture.” Grace’s comments point to a larger truth: students are often afraid to discuss their political opinions or views on global issues because it feels uncomfortable and risky. Grace added that “It’s a… norm to isolate political discussion,” meaning that many pelicans prefer to keep these topics within clubs or friend groups that share similar views. While that may feel safe, it also limits exposure to diverse perspectives. Still, Grace believes Loomis provides opportunities to engage with important current events in a thoughtful way.
Sophie Singer ’26 shared a similar perspective, saying, “When October 7th happened, it was handled really well—both under Ms. Soja and Dr. Culbert.” She emphasized that Loomis leadership works hard to create spaces for discussion during major global events. Sophie also highlighted that “Ms. Soja has done her best to keep Loomis from leaning toward one specific side of the conversation.” This neutrality is especially important in a school where various political ideologies coexist. Loomis’ ability to host balanced discussions helps ensure that everyone’s voice can be heard.
Faculty members recognize this challenge as well. History Department Head Eric LaForest stated, “The encouragement for truly open dialogue from school leadership is genuine, yes, but the impediments to dialogue are both numerous and enormous.” His words capture the ongoing difficulty of fostering open conversation in a world where polarization often discourages engagement.
Meanwhile, Millen Berglind ’27, a member of the Schultz Fellowship, reflected on how political discussion operates within the school. “The Schultz Fellowship has an incredible situation where we’re able to have political discourse without judgment,” he said. “However, it’s a highly selective, exclusive, and small group.” Millen also acknowledged that “Even though I’d like everyone to be involved, that isn’t feasible especially when politics are so polarized right now.”
These perspectives highlight a key issue: Loomis provides meaningful spaces for discussion, but not everyone feels comfortable or even welcome to participate. The problem isn’t that the school discourages dialogue; it’s that our culture of caution and polarization makes students hesitant to engage.
Loomis does a commendable job creating forums for difficult conversations, especially around major world events. But for open dialogue to truly thrive, we as students need to take responsibility for using those spaces. If we continue to “opt out” of tough discussions, as Mr. LaForest put it, then we lose the chance to learn from one another. The real question isn’t whether Loomis provides the space, it’s whether we’re willing to step into it.
