










































ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

59 
 

 

Philosophical Dialogue and the Civic Virtues: 

Modeling Democracy in the Classroom 

 
 

Zachary Odermatt, and Robert Weston Siscoe   
 

Abstract: Political polarization is on the rise, undermining the shared space of public reason 
necessary for a thriving democracy and making voters more willing than ever to dismiss the 
perspectives of their political opponents. This destructive tendency is especially problematic 
when it comes to issues of race and gender, as informed views on these topics necessarily 
require engaging with those whose experiences may differ from our own. In order to help our 
students combat further polarization, we created a course on “The Philosophy of Race, Class, 
and Gender” that incorporated intergroup dialogues—small, diverse, semester-long discussion 
groups—that focused on building the civic virtues of toleration, egalitarianism, and solidarity. 
In this article, we describe our approach, including the evidence that intergroup dialogue can 
act as a catalyst for democratic dialogue. We hope that the practice of intergroup dialogue can 
help other instructors cultivate the civic virtues in their philosophy classrooms as well.1 
Keywords: Democratic Dialogue, Political Polarization, Intergroup Dialogue, Philosophy of 
Race, Philosophy of Gender 

Introduction 

oters in the United States are becoming increasingly polarized along political lines. Americans 
strongly distrust those who vote for the other party (Pew Research, 2019a), a crisis which 
shows no sign of abating, as younger generations are even more likely to harbor attitudes of 

distrust towards their fellow citizens (Pew Research, 2019b). This lack of trust is reflected in sharply 
divided opinions on a number of important issues. Two areas where this increasing polarization is 
particularly evident are attitudes concerning race and gender. In 2016, 57% of Hilary Clinton 
supporters said that it is a lot more difficult to be a Black person in the United States than it is to be a 
white person, with that number increasing to 74% of Joe Biden supporters in 2020. The number of 
Donald Trump supporters, however, who thought that it was a lot more difficult to be Black, actually 
shrank from 11% in 2016 to 9% in 2020. A similar dynamic has occurred with gender issues as well. 
Only 26% of Clinton supporters agreed that the obstacles that once made it harder for women than 
men to get ahead are now largely gone, a figure that then decreased to just 20% of Biden supporters. 
For Trump supporters though, the percentage that agreed such barriers were largely gone increased 
from 72% in 2016 to 79% in 2020, making the issues of race and gender marked illustrations of the 
increasing divide between liberals and conservatives (Pew Research, 2020b). 

 
1 All study questions and methods used in this paper were approved by the Institutional Resource Board at Florida State 
University. 

V 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

60 
 

Extreme polarization can have a number of deleterious effects on a political culture. One of the 
most worrisome effects is polarization’s impact on how citizens form their political opinions. Citizens 
of sharply divided polities are less likely to engage with those on the other side of the aisle, looking 
instead to partisan endorsement to form their political views. This, then, has the effect of 
simultaneously making voters more ignorant of the evidence that might support their favored policies 
while increasing their confidence that those policies are correct (Druckman, Petersen, and Slothuus, 
2013). This is especially concerning when it comes to the topics of race and gender, two areas where 
there are already significant barriers to understanding the personal experiences of those who claim a 
different social identity. Nestled within the larger crisis of political polarization is thus a crisis of 
dialogue and empathy on issues surrounding race and gender, a crisis that presents even more serious 
challenges than the polarization surrounding other political issues. 

In order to combat this crisis of political polarization, we designed a course on “The Philosophy 
of Race, Class, and Gender” that incorporated intergroup dialogues to help students develop civic 
virtues. Intergroup dialogues—small, diverse, semester-long discussion groups—have been shown to 
help students develop a number of skills crucial to democratic dialogue,2 but they have rarely, if ever, 
been used in the philosophy classroom. With an Innovation in Teaching Grant from the American 
Association of Philosophy Teachers, we designed dialogue groups meant to bring these benefits to the 
philosophical context, helping students to develop the civic virtues of toleration, egalitarianism, and 
solidarity. In §1, we discuss the civic virtues that can serve as an antidote to polarization, showing the 
link between these virtues and intergroup dialogue in §2. We then provide an overview of our course, 
a lower-division elective with no prerequisites, and the results for our students in §3 and §4, 
considering some potential concerns in §5. We hope that our approach can help other instructors 
provide students the opportunity to cultivate the virtues necessary for healthy democratic dialogue. 

§1: Civic Virtues as an Antidote to Polarization 

Without the continued support of its citizens, it is difficult, if not impossible, for a government 
to rule effectively. One important way that citizens can support their governing bodies is by 
developing the civic virtues, the habits and dispositions that underwrite a healthy, well-functioning 
political community. These virtues are especially critical for liberal democracies, as democratic nations 
depend most strongly on the political engagement of their citizens. In this section, we will outline 
three civic virtues that play a role in overcoming political polarization—toleration, egalitarianism, and 
solidarity—setting the stage for showing that intergroup dialogues help citizens cultivate the virtues 
necessary for a thriving democracy. 

At its worst, political polarization alienates people from their civic rivals, encouraging them to 
view the other side as ignorant, evil, and not to be associated with. The virtues that combat 
polarization, then, attempt to broker a gradual rapprochement between so-called political enemies, 
helping them to connect over their similarities rather than disengage due to their differences. The first 
virtue that helps initiate this process is toleration. A tolerant person accepts the beliefs or practices of 
others even though they view those beliefs and practices as objectionable (Forst, 2001 and 2018). This 

 
2 See, for example, Nagda, Gurin, and Lopez (2003), Biren, Gurin, Sorensen, and Zúñiga (2009), Gurin, Nagda, and 
Zúñiga (2013), and Schoem and Hurtado (2001). 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

61 
 

acceptance does not require that the tolerant person takes on these beliefs and practices as their own, 
but only that they permit others to continue with their ways of life. 

Such toleration includes, of course, not attempting to use political power to punish others for 
their beliefs and practices. With political polarization, there is often an increased willingness to 
circumvent democratic processes, whether that be through intimidation, excessive gerrymandering, or 
other forms of voter suppression. After all, if the other side is not to be trusted, then why allow them 
to take part in the political process? The virtue of toleration prevents the subversion of the political 
process, allowing others the full practice of their civil rights even in the midst of differing views. Even 
though citizens might disagree with one another, toleration encourages them to live and let live when 
it comes to their political differences. 

The next step in the process of curbing political polarization is cultivating the virtue of civic 
egalitarianism. Toleration merely requires refraining from coercing and controlling others, but 
egalitarianism calls people to a deeper respect and appreciation of their fellow citizens. Civic 
egalitarianism is the disposition to regard others as political equals, to see them as “deserving of all the 
rights and privileges of a citizen of one’s polity, such as political expression, political participation, 
having one’s voice heard and taken seriously in appropriate civic venues, the right not to be 
discriminated against in education, housing, and other basic domains of social existence, and so on” 
(Blum, 2007, p. 239). While this is similar in some ways to toleration, it also requires more than 
avoiding violating the rights of others. A person does not possess the virtue of egalitarianism simply by 
not holding negative attitudes towards other citizens. Rather, they must also have positive attitudes, 
like seeing others as important members of the political community. 

Because egalitarianism emphasizes mutual respect and appreciation for one another as citizens, 
it can go a long way towards combating the negative feelings and perceptions that arise from political 
polarization. As polarization becomes more entrenched, political opponents increasingly see one 
another as not worthy of respect, either because they question their intelligence or their intentions 
(Hartman et al., 2022). Egalitarianism undercuts this tendency to see the other side as either ignorant 
or evil, encouraging instead a desire to understand why other citizens might disagree about the best 
political policies. Because egalitarians view all citizens as having something valuable to contribute to 
political discourse, they not only tolerate their political opponents, but see them as valuable and 
worthy of respect. 

The final virtue that can help fight political polarization is solidarity. With toleration, we 
considered the importance of citizens not interfering with one another, while with egalitarianism, we 
emphasized the importance of viewing other citizens as political equals. The civic virtue of solidarity 
takes us one step further, calling citizens to stand with those who are struggling and oppressed. A 
commitment to political solidarity builds on the virtue of civic egalitarianism, making one “disposed 
to protest against injustices committed against one’s civic equals, to sympathize with their plight, to 
feel indignation and anger toward the perpetrators of discrimination, and the like” (Blum, 2007, p. 
239). Political solidarity calls us to confront abuses of political power and advocate for the 
disadvantaged, putting our own political rights and freedoms on the line for the sake of others. 

Solidarity also undercuts the tendency to polarization because it emphasizes what citizens have 
in common. As Rippe (1998) points out, solidarity takes us beyond standing with others just for their 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

62 
 

sake, which might be better described as charity, but standing with them because we are part of a 
shared community, in this case a shared political community. Our solidarity with others is based, not 
on our differences, but on our common identity as citizens and as opponents of political oppression. 
This then completes the turn from polarization, making what were once political enemies into allies 
and friends. 

§2: Intergroup Dialogues and the Civic Virtues 

One promising method for combating political polarization is the practice of intergroup 
dialogue. In 2008, a group of nine universities set out to explore whether intergroup dialogue could 
help students have conversations about controversial issues across different social identities, a project 
known as the Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Research Project.3 In particular, the project 
focused on differences in social identity, including differences of race and gender, which have often 
led to conflict. The dialogue groups used in the study were diverse (made up of men and women of 
varied ethnicities), small (including between twelve to sixteen students), and sustained (meeting for a 
period of ten to twelve weeks), allowing participants to interact with those of different social identities 
over the length of an entire semester (Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga, 2008). 

Because they bring together diverse citizens from all parts of the political spectrum to discuss 
controversial issues, Schoem and Hurtado (2001) compare intergroup dialogues to “mini 
democracies,” arguing that they give participants the chance to engage in democratic practice. And 
through the multi-university project, as well as through trials of intergroup dialogues at a number of 
other universities, several democratic benefits of intergroup dialogue have become apparent. By 
confronting challenging topics like race and gender, such groups have been shown to help students 
develop skills that are relevant to the civic virtues of toleration, egalitarianism, and solidarity: 

• Toleration – Intergroup dialogues help students manage conflict more effectively. Nagda et al. 
(2003) and Nagda (2006) have shown that intergroup dialogues provide students with the 
opportunity to learn strategies for conflict management and resolution, and dialogue 
participants have more positive views of conflict (Gurin et al., 1999, and Nagda and Zúñiga, 
2003) and show an increased willingness to hear other’s views, share their own views, and 
respectfully disagree (Wayne, 2008). 

• Egalitarianism – Intergroup dialogues allow students to build respect for those with differing 
political views. Dialogue participants show measurable increases in empathy (Gurin, Nagda, 
and Zúñiga, 2013, Ch. 5), a rise in positive intergroup relationships (Gurin, Nagda, and 
Zúñiga, 2013), increased awareness of social identities (Alimo, Kelly, and Clark, 2002, and 
Nagda and Zúñiga, 2003), and a greater openness to learning about those from different social 
groups (Gurin, Nagda, and Sorensen, 2011, and Nagda, Kim, and Truelove, 2004). Dialogue 
groups support this growth in intergroup understanding particularly because hearing stories 

 
3 Participating institutions included Arizona State University, Occidental College, Syracuse University, the University of 
California, San Diego, the University of Maryland, the University of Massachusetts at Amherst, the University of 
Michigan, Ann Arbor, the University of Texas, Austin, and the University of Washington, Seattle, enrolling approximately 
1,500 students in intergroup dialogues during the course of their respective academic years (Sorensen et al., 2009). 
 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

63 
 

from students of other social identities is an effective way to teach about potentially divisive 
issues (Keehn, 2015, and Nagda et al., 2009). 

• Solidarity – Intergroup dialogues provide students opportunities to become allies. Dialogue 
participants are more likely to become advocates against racism (Alimo, 2012), demonstrating 
an increased willingness to raise issues of race and gender outside the classroom (Gurin-Sands 
et al., 2012, and Nagda et al., 2009), to defend others against inappropriate remarks (Nagda, 
Kim, and Truelove, 2004), and to be civically engaged after graduating (Gurin, Nagda, and 
Sorensen, 2011, and Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga, 2013). These effects are not just limited to 
dialogue participants, as dialogue facilitators are also more likely to engage with issues related 
to social identity in both their personal and professional lives (Clark, 2005; Ford, 2017; Ford 
and Lipkin, 2019; and Maxwell et al., 2011). 

All of these potential benefits of intergroup dialogue are enough to independently recommend 
the practice, but these student outcomes are especially encouraging in the face of increasing political 
polarization. As students form close relationships in their intergroup dialogues, they not only learn to 
have a good relationship with those who have different political views, but they also come to respect 
and empathize with them. This lays the groundwork for productive political dialogue, allowing 
students to practice the virtues in the midst of their “mini democracies.” For this reason, intergroup 
dialogues are apt for confronting the challenges raised by political polarization. 

§3: Designing a Course to Build the Civic Virtues 

In the Spring of 2021, we taught a course called “The Philosophy of Race, Class, and Gender” 
that focused on cultivating civic virtues. The course was an elective with no required prerequisites, so 
many of our students came to the class with a strong desire to learn more about these issues, and 
because many of them had never taken a philosophy class before, our course was an exploration of 
how an emphasis on philosophical dialogue impacts students who have not encountered philosophy 
before.  This came through in our pre-course survey, as students overwhelmingly thought that it was 
important to be able to discuss issues related to race, class, and gender: 

 

Figure 1: Importance of Discussing Race, Class, and Gender 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

64 
 

To help our students combat the polarization surrounding these issues, we created a course that 
incorporated intergroup dialogues to help them build the civic virtues of toleration, egalitarianism, 
and solidarity. In this section, we will describe how we constructed these dialogue groups, paying 
special attention to the design elements that were intended to create an environment conducive to 
building civic virtue. 

Small, Diverse Groups:  
         Lectures for our course were held on Mondays and Wednesdays, with dialogue groups held on 
Fridays. Our total course enrollment was 120 undergraduates, so we divided students into six dialogue 
groups of 20 students each. Dialogue sessions were led each week by two students from the group, 
with each student in the group serving as a discussion leader once during the semester. These leaders 
held the “co-facilitator” role displayed in Figure 2. 

Because we could not attend all of the dialogue group sessions, we appointed four experienced 
primary dialogue facilitators to supervise the groups—two graduate students and two advanced 
undergraduate students, with the undergraduate students funded through an Innovation in Teaching 
Grant from the American Association of Philosophy Teachers. These four primary dialogue facilitators did 
not lead the dialogue conversations themselves, but instead supported the co-facilitators (more on this 
shortly). For those who have smaller classes, it may be possible to supervise all of the dialogue groups 
without any extra help from primary dialogue facilitators. 

 

Figure 2: Course Structure 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

65 
 

Practicing civic virtues requires interacting with others who hold a wide range of political views. 
Intergroup dialogues are also typically diverse, as many of the original intergroup dialogues with the 
multi-university project had four women of color, four men of color, four white women, and four 
white men (Gurin, Nagda, and Zúñiga, 2008). One challenge we faced was that we did not have access 
to demographic information about our students, preventing us from explicitly sorting them according 
to race or gender. In our case though, we were still able to create a suitable distribution through 
random assignments, as our university is already fairly diverse. According to demographic data 
collected in 2020 about the entire student body, approximately 42% of students identified as male 
and 58% of students identified as female, while approximately 58% of students identified as white 
and 42% did not identify as white.4 Due to our course being an elective, the students interested in the 
course were already interested in the subject matter and representative of our campus diversity. For 
other instructors that do not have access to demographic information, another strategy for sorting 
students would be offering a brief survey of political views and arranging students into diverse groups 
based on their responses. This method ensures ideological diversity, which by itself can help students 
confront political polarization, but it might also, indirectly, create groups of diverse social identities. 

PWOL Dialogue Practices:  
         The Philosophy as a Way of Life Project (PWOL) at the University of Notre Dame has mounted 
an ongoing effort to develop the practice of dialogue in the philosophy classroom, producing a 
number of guides meant to train dialogue leaders.5 Instead of leaving philosophy as a bunch of 
abstract conceptual puzzles, the PWOL approach is meant to help students think about and apply 
philosophical theories to their lives. Though the PWOL project has not explicitly attempted to 
support the practice of intergroup dialogue, their approach allowed us to create diverse dialogue 
groups that were distinctly philosophical. Along with being intergroup dialogues, they also 
incorporated many aspects of PWOL dialogues as well. 

Peer Leadership:  
         One aspect of PWOL dialogues, and a practice that helped our groups model “mini 
democracies,” is giving students the opportunity to take an active role in leading the dialogue 
conversations. Each week, the two student co-facilitators prepared a lesson plan on how they would 
conduct the dialogue, preparing icebreakers, discussion questions, and group activities. In this role, it 
was their responsibility to help their peers develop toleration, egalitarianism, and solidarity. One of 
the tasks of dialogue leaders was enforcing the group norms, creating an open space of toleration for 
discussion. Dialogue leaders were also assigned to make sure everyone’s contributions were seen as 
valuable, planning activities that solicited feedback from all members of the group. Finally, co-
facilitators were responsible for advocating for positions that were not represented, raising questions 
and concerns from other points of view that were not considered in the discussion. Students were 
thus encouraged both to grow in civic virtues and help others do so as well. 

 
4 Of the students who did not identify as white, approximately 19.9% identified as Hispanic, 9.3% identified as Black, 
2.9% identified as Asian, 0.2% identified as American Indian, 0.1% identified as Native Hawaiian, 4% identified as multi-
race, 4.6% simply reported that they were non-resident aliens, and a final 1.3% did not respond. For full demographic 
data, see https://ir.fsu.edu/. 
5 All the dialogue resources produced by the PWOL project, including the Dialogue Facilitator Training Manual and 
Workbook, can be found at https://bit.ly/3rVMAcH. 
 

https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=https%3A%2F%2Fir.fsu.edu%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ccaec00bca7944f6e4ccc08dbf2afd778%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C638370609297521123%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l7h7PT4%2BUVVdMvr8AxQ1%2BdSLQRxUSotUmvpk2ckmuII%3D&reserved=0


ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

66 
 

There was a degree of freedom in the topics discussed in the small groups. As long as the co-
facilitators could make a good case that their chosen topic was inspired by the reading for the week, 
the primary facilitators would work with them to bring it in line with the material. This helped 
broaden the nature of questions addressed, improve co-facilitator engagement, and decentralize the 
authority structure of the classroom. If the co-facilitators were not sure what they wanted to discuss, 
the primary facilitators would be prepared to help them brainstorm which aspects of the class that 
week they wanted to address. The resulting dialogues included conversations on gender norms, the 
relationship between culture and race, and the impact of political polarization, amongst a number of 
other topics. In general, the topics became more challenging as the semester progressed and students 
became more comfortable with one another. 

Conversational Norms:  
         Another way students took an active role in leading the conversation, and a practice inspired by 
the PWOL approach, was by creating their own conversational norms. These norms served as a kind 
of constitution that unified and set expectations for members of the group (Gurin, Nagda, and 
Zúñiga, 2013). At the first dialogue meeting, the primary dialogue facilitator led students through the 
norm creation process, with the group deciding on everything from the hand-raising procedure to how 
to make sure everyone is comfortable sharing. Developing their own conversational norms both 
increased student buy-in and ensured that participants were able to create an environment where they 
are willing to contribute. Possible group norms include the following: 

• Names Stay, Ideas Leave - Continue discussing interesting ideas outside of the classroom but 
do so without attaching participants’ names. 

• Charitable Listening - Always assume that group members mean well when sharing and allow 
them to clarify if misconstrued. 

• Open-Mindedness - Try to empathize with and understand the viewpoint of the person 
speaking, especially if you disagree. 

• No Spokesperson - Everyone should be treated as an individual with their own unique 
perspective and not as a spokesperson for their particular social identity. 

• See the Other Side - Think of how advocates of a particular position might respond, even if 
you disagree with their position. 

• Who is Missing? - Consider and advocate for perspectives that might not be represented in the 
group 

Each of these norms can be seen as directed towards particular civic virtues. The first two norms 
promote a basic form of toleration, allowing students to clearly state their views without the 
potential threat of being chastised outside the group, while the third and fourth norms encourage 
students to make an effort to understand and empathize with the reasons that other students have 
for their beliefs. The final two norms then push for an initial form of solidarity, urging students to 
not only defend their own views, but also to speak up on behalf of others. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

67 
 

Strong Questions:  
         Dialogue co-facilitators were also trained to ask strong questions. Strong questions invite reflection 
and promote deeper conversation and understanding, while weak questions have obvious answers, 
stalling the conversation and, in the worst-case scenario, requiring just a “yes-or-no” answer. Consider 
a few examples.  

Weak Questions 

1. Have you ever considered how your gender affects your life? 
2. Should we stereotype others because of their race? 

Strong Questions 

1. How have traditional gender norms affected how you live your life? Do you feel like you 
typically accept or challenge gender norms? 

2. Has anyone ever made any assumptions about you because of your race? How has this 
impacted the ways you treat others? 

This first group of questions is relatively weak. Even though they might help get a discussion 
started, they all have “yes” or “no” answers that might halt the discussion. The strong questions, on 
the other hand, are open ended and are far more likely to spark conversation and help students 
engage more deeply. Co-facilitators were responsible for preparing a number of strong questions 
before leading their respective dialogue sessions. Their dialogue lesson plans included at least four 
strong questions, and once co-facilitators had planned their strong questions, they then received 
feedback from their primary facilitator before their dialogue session. 

To help students create strong questions, the PWOL dialogue materials offer a number of 
suggestions. To begin with, co-facilitators should start with what dialogue participants know. What 
subjects have recently been discussed in class, and what topics are students likely ready to discuss? 
Questions might also try to draw connections between a philosophical topic and an everyday 
experience. For instance, if the dialogue session is considering the metaphysics of gender, then the 
dialogue facilitator can initiate the conversation by asking whether participants have ever been 
uncertain about their gender and how that uncertainty affected their everyday lives. Another key 
factor in asking strong questions is by asking from a place of genuine curiosity. If the dialogue leader 
thinks that a question is interesting, there are likely others in the group that will find the question 
interesting as well. 

 
Engaging Activities:  
         Alongside their strong questions, dialogue leaders also created a number of engaging activities 
that were integrated into their lesson plans. Dialogue facilitators should feel free to be innovative, 
designing activities that they think will spark a productive conversation. Because it is not always easy 
to plan engaging activities, though, the Dialogue Facilitator Trainee Manual contains over twenty-five 
activities that can be adapted for many different conversation topics. Here, for example, is an activity 
from the Trainee Manual that our dialogue co-facilitators adapted for their dialogue group: 

 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

68 
 

Take a Stand Activity – One wall of the room represents “Strongly Agree,” the opposite wall 
represents “Strongly Disagree,” and the room is a spectrum between the two. The dialogue co-
facilitator reads a statement, and the dialogue members stand in at the location in the room that best 
represents their perspective. The co-facilitator can then direct questions to group members, asking 
them how they chose their position. The co-facilitator can also ask strong questions at this point, like 
“How do you think your friends and family would respond to this statement? Would their perspective 
be the same as yours?” or “Are there any particular experiences that have influenced your reaction to 
this statement?” After allowing time for discussion, the facilitator can then allow group members the 
chance to adjust their positions in the room if their opinion has changed. 

 
How did we adapt this activity for our course? After a class session on the metaphysics of race, 

the dialogue co-facilitators used the Take a Stand Activity to explore whether group beliefs have an 
impact on a person’s race. The co-facilitators described a number of scenarios, followed by the 
question, “In this instance, society’s view about their race has an impact on what their race actually 
is,” and after students chose a spot in the room, the co-facilitators gave group members the 
opportunity to defend their position. This activity served as an opportunity to discuss the metaphysics 
of race, including strong questions like “Did anyone change their opinion about what race is based on 
the discussion?” Thus, not only did the dialogue co-facilitators adapt the Take a Stand Activity for a 
conversation about race, but they also incorporated a number of strong questions into the activity as 
well. 

§4: Student Growth in the Civic Virtues 

By the end of the course, students reported being excited for their dialogue groups and were able 
to discuss exceedingly difficult issues in a civil and composed manner. In this section, we will consider 
how successful the dialogue groups were in building toleration, egalitarianism, and solidarity, drawing 
from quantitative student responses from pre- and post-course surveys and qualitative reports of their 
experience of the course. 

4.1 Toleration 

Coming into the course, our students already recognized that the highly politicized nature of the 
course topics made it more difficult to have productive conversations. In order to gauge where our 
students were at the beginning of the class, we asked students in our pre-course survey what they 
thought was the most challenging aspect of discussing race, class, and gender, and many of them cited 
political polarization: 

• “I believe the politicization of these ideas makes it tough to discuss them because they can be 
so polarized.” 

• “The political aspect. I think that when people come into discussion with politics as the 
forefront of their argument, they are less likely to hear an opposing view.” 

• “Probably when politics is involved, many people are not open to views that are not their own 
and it makes it difficult to talk about.” 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

69 
 

The first step in overcoming this polarization is using the dialogue structure to build the virtue 
of toleration. In their dialogue groups, students have the opportunity to build camaraderie with one 
another. They hear, through sustained, sympathetic engagement, that their peers have thoughtful and 
insightful things to say. Once they realize this, they are more willing to hear the reasons and 
experiences that lead their peers to hold opposing views, recognizing that other students do not easily 
fit the caricatures they have of their political opponents. They may not be convinced, of course. 
Indeed, they need not be, as the point of toleration is simply to recognize that those with opposing 
views should be included in the conversation. 

In order to gauge how successful our course was at building toleration, we asked students at the 
end of the course whether they are more or less likely to hear someone out who holds opposing views 
on race, class, or gender. The majority of our respondents (73%) reported that they were more likely 
to do so, while 23% reported no change and 4% reported that they were less likely. Full survey data 
can be found in Figure 3: 

 

Figure 3: Listening to Political Opponents 

 

Many of our students attributed their newfound willingness to listen to their ideological 
opponents directly to the dialogue groups. When asked how the course affected their willingness to 
discuss these hot-button issues, students said that the dialogue conversations helped them to realize 
that there are a variety of opinions, making it easier to discuss even highly politicized topics: 

• “I think it has pushed me to discuss issues surrounding race, class, and gender more with my 
peers. It can be difficult to discuss issues about these topics with your peers due to the 
polarization in our country at the moment, but this class has shown it is not as difficult as it 
seems.” 

• “I would say that I am much more open to have these conversations, in part to it being 
necessary for positive change, but also in learning (through this class) that there are multiple 
viewpoints on certain social issue and that that is OK.” 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

70 
 

• “By understanding how to hear an opposing opinion and disagree with dignity. Also learning 
to not make generalizations or assumptions about someone’s character depending on one 
opinion that they make but instead understanding that people are made up of multiple 
complex layers that make us act the way we do.” 

• “Before I took this class, I never wanted to express the way I felt about these topics. However 
now, I feel confident to share them. I have learned that we are all gonna have different views 
and that’s okay. I have also learned to respect the views of others.” 

This final response hints at our next civic virtue, which learning about the views of others not 
only promotes toleration, but also the respect that is integral to egalitarianism as well. 

4.2 Egalitarianism 

One worry that many of our students had at the beginning of the course was that their views 
would not be respected. This concern went beyond mere toleration—students from underrepresented 
social identities were concerned, not that they would not be listened to, but that they would not be 
taken seriously or treated with equal respect and consideration. In the pre-course survey, one student 
said they feared that others would “disregard [...] my personal experiences as a member of a 
marginalized community and form opinions without listening to people who are hurt and face real 
consequences,” while another student was worried that their opinions would be “considered moot 
due to my race, sex, and perceived class standing.” There were thus a number of students from 
underrepresented groups who came into our course with concerns about how they would be treated 
when covering topics related to race and gender. This comes as no surprise, as many of these students 
may have already been subject to microaggressions (Sue and Constantine, 2007, and Sue et al., 2011) 
or other negative instances of conflict over social identity on campus (Hurtado, 1992). For this reason, 
our course attempted to build the virtue of egalitarianism alongside toleration, making our classroom 
a place where underrepresented students were assured, not only that they would be heard, but that 
their voices, experiences, and concerns were taken seriously. 

After taking the course, students overwhelmingly reported being more comfortable discussing 
race, class, and gender with their peers. In the post-course survey, over 80  of students said that they 
were more comfortable having conversations about these topics, while only 5  said that they were less 
comfortable. Full survey results can be found in Figure 4: 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

71 
 

 

Figure 4: Listening to Political Opponents 

 

Students became more comfortable having conversations about these controversial subjects 
because they felt respected by their peers, with one student describing the dialogue groups as 
providing “a safe space to talk about these issues.” Another student said that they were “not afraid to 
state my opinion because of the norms we have to go over. I feel like the class being emphasized as an 
open safe place for opinion has been very helpful.” 

Along with helping students feel that their perspectives were welcome, the dialogue groups also 
helped students come to value the input of their peers. When asked how the course impacted their 
willingness to discuss race, class, and gender, students said that they realized that the views of others 
were not only tolerable, but also potentially insightful as well: 

• “I think by hearing so many different opinions on topics I not only learned more about other 
people’s perspectives, I was also able to adjust my own. This class allowed me to see other 
people’s struggles and their reasoning for thinking the way they do.” 

• “I think that, for a while, I have been pretty outspoken on my beliefs surrounding race, class, 
and gender, particularly in high school when I was president of the feminism club. What I 
struggled with most throughout this time was understanding other viewpoints and having the 
maturity to discuss them without being insulting or dismissive. After taking this class, my 
appreciation for other viewpoints does not come from a place of agreeing with them by any 
stretch; in fact, I feel even more strongly about my opinions. However, I am more intrigued by 
the possibility of other viewpoints–their validity, morality, basis, and most importantly, why 
they aren’t sound to me and the potential flaws they present in my own arguments. Overall, 
this class has encouraged me to think deeper about why people believe what they do and why 
opinions can differ so greatly.” 

• “This class has impacted my ability and willingness to discuss the issues surrounding race, class 
and gender by opening up my eyes to different viewpoints and seeing the reasoning behind 
them. I am able to see multiple views on situations which allows for better dialogue.” 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

72 
 

A willingness to learn from others is one of the most important marks of egalitarianism. Instead 
of merely tolerating others’ beliefs, being open to their contributions demonstrates that students view 
their peers as important members of the political community. Sustained conversations can not only 
help students become more comfortable participating, but can reveal the reasoning underlying 
different positions, helping students to see that others might hold views for reasons that they had not 
previously considered. 

4.3 Solidarity 

Not only do intergroup dialogues increase the amount of respect that participants have for each 
other, but they also make students more likely to engage in these issues and advocate for one another 
outside of the classroom. Research shows that intergroup dialogue participants are more likely to 
engage with issues of race and gender once they leave the academic context, and we saw this same 
tendency in our students. Over 70  percent of students said that they are now more likely to initiate 
conversations regarding race and gender outside of the classroom: 

 

Figure 5: Beyond the Classroom 

 

This increased willingness was also accompanied by a desire to advocate for others. When 
reflecting on the class, one student said that “this course has allowed me to view society from a 
different perspective [...] I feel as though society has undermined transgenders and Black individuals, 
and we should be able to take actions to benefit these individuals instead of suppressing them.” Some 
of our students even reported that their dialogue groups continued to meet even after the semester 
concluded, demonstrating their continued willingness to have conversations that they might not have 
sought out previous to taking our course. Thus, as the research on intergroup dialogue has shown, our 
students were more willing to engage with issues of race and gender once our course concluded, 
continuing the conversation and advocating for those whose voices are neglected. 

Not only were students more likely to initiate conversations on race and gender, but they also 
overwhelmingly thought they were better prepared to do so. After taking the course, 90% of students 
reported being better prepared to have constructive conversations about race, class, and gender: 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

73 
 

 

Figure 6: Beyond the Classroom 

 

When asked to explain the impact that the course had on them, many students emphasized how 
much better prepared they were because of what they had learned from other participants: 

• “I believe that diving deep into the issues [...] has made me feel more confident in my 
knowledge of them. I believe I can have a very educated and mature conversation now that I 
know so much more than I did prior to taking this course. If anything, it makes me want to 
discuss these issues even more than before.” 

• “I feel more confident and comfortable having an educated, productive conversation.” 

• “I feel as though I am much more educated and prepared to have these type of conversations. I 
have found it enlightening to hear other people’s opinions, and I believe it opened me up to 
be more willing to understand and hear others.” 

§5: Potential Concerns 

Even though including intergroup dialogues in our course gave students the opportunity to 
develop civic virtues, instructors might still have some reservations. To begin with, our class focused 
on the topics of race, class, and gender, so it might be asked whether this methodology is useful 
outside of classes centered on these issues. Fortunately, there is good reason to think that dialogue 
groups can be used to combat polarization when discussing a range of other topics as well. As we saw 
in our introduction, views on race and gender are some of the most polarized, providing reason to 
think that, if intergroup dialogues can help build the civic virtues when discussing these issues, then 
they can have this effect when discussing other controversial topics as well. Fitting topics occur 
frequently in political philosophy and applied ethics courses, including classes that discuss injustice, 
free speech, capitalism, Marxism, sexuality, feminism, abortion, affirmative action, euthanasia, or the 
death penalty, amongst other issues. 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

74 
 

Another concern might be that, given the relative freedom that dialogue participants have in 
structuring and setting group standards, individual dialogue groups could undermine rather than 
promote the civic virtues. What is to stop a particular group from choosing norms that increase 
polarization instead of ameliorating it? It is first helpful to note that this sort of issue is relatively rare, 
as many students desire to have healthy conversations about important topics. If this kind of problem 
does arise, however, it makes the value of having a primary dialogue facilitator clear, as they can help 
lead dialogue groups through their norm-setting conversations. They are in a position to notice if such 
sectarian issues arise, gently guiding the group away from such developments. In the event that they 
cannot promote healthy dialogue, they can then report to the instructor if a greater intervention is 
necessary. 

How should dialogue facilitators handle conflict and disagreement when they do arise all the 
while making it clear that everyone’s contribution is valued?  This is a question that is addressed in 
detail in the PWOL dialogue training materials which we drew from in planning our course.  The first 
thing that dialogue facilitators should do is remain calm. Disagreement is unavoidable, and dialogue 
members will take their cues for how to react from their facilitator. If the facilitator treats the 
conversation like any other, then students know that they are allowed to explore potential 
disagreements. 

The second thing that the PWOL approach emphasizes is reiterating the goals of the dialogue 
group. The group’s purpose is to learn about the perspectives and viewpoints of others, not to 
convince anyone that one position is correct. Articulating that it is okay to disagree will help students 
have less apprehension about potential conflicts. It may also help facilitators to revisit the group 
norms. Having a list of conversational rules, agreed on in advance by all participants, can go a long 
way towards lessening any conflict that might arise. While participants might not agree at the end of 
the day, they have already agreed to treat one another in a way that embodies civic virtues. 

Thirdly, the facilitator should ask clarifying questions to better understand what speakers are 
saying. In some cases, students may believe that they are disagreeing even though they may ultimately 
share the same common ground. Asking further questions to determine whether the disagreement is 
genuine or illusory is an important step for discovering where the disagreement ultimately lies. In the 
midst of clarifying what speakers are saying, the dialogue leader should then look to diversify the 
voices that are sharing about the question at hand. Instead of allowing one or two people to dominate 
the conversation, the facilitator should call on a number of participants to have them weigh in on the 
topic. 

And finally, the PWOL training materials encourage facilitators to not feel the need to spend an 
inordinate amount of time on themes that bring up disagreements. After they have concluded their 
planned questions or activities, they should feel free to move on to the next discussion topic. This will 
reinforce that differences of opinion are normal, not out of place, and should be expected in the 
course of the dialogue group. 

Even though the above suggestions will resolve most potential conflicts, if tensions linger after a 
particular dialogue session, it may help to briefly revisit the topic at the next dialogue meeting. 
Referring to the previous session, the facilitator can ask if there is anything that anyone would like to 
clarify about what they said at the previous meeting, or whether they had any thoughts that came to 



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

75 
 

mind after the conversation had concluded. Again, the dialogue facilitator need not spend too much 
time on this, but giving participants a chance to clear the air or clarify some misunderstandings may 
be helpful for the group moving forward. Finally, if there are still issues that cannot be resolved within 
the dialogue group time, facilitators should have those involved in the conflict stick around after the 
group to give them a chance to resolve their differences. Any issues that remain should then be 
reported to the course instructor. 

Conclusion 

In this paper, we have seen reason to think that intergroup dialogues can help students to build 
the civic virtues necessary for navigating politically divisive topics. Dialogue participants showed 
marked improvements in their willingness to listen to their ideological opponents, engaging in 
practices related to the civic virtues of toleration, egalitarianism, and solidarity. Alongside these 
virtues, Nancy Snow (2018) has argued that hope is also a civic virtue. It is easy to become discouraged 
in the face of extreme political polarization. Polarized citizens are more distrustful of, and less likely to 
engage with, those from the opposing ideological camp, making political discourse frustrating and 
unproductive. If citizens allow political polarization to drive them to despair, however, this can 
prevent them from engaging with others. Hope, on the other hand, can inspire citizens to take part in 
long-term projects like intergroup dialogue that heal and strengthen their political communities and 
institutions. 

References 

Alimo, Craig. 2012. “From Dialogue to Action: The Impact of Cross-Race Intergroup Dialogue on the 
Development of White College Students as Racial Allies.” Equity and Excellence in Education 45.1: pp. 
36-59.  

Alimo, Craig, Robert Kelly, and Christine Clark. 2002. “Diversity Initiatives in Higher Education: Intergroup 
Dialogue Program Student Outcomes and Implications for Campus Racial Climate. A Case Study.” 
Multicultural Education 10.1: pp. 49-53.  

Blum, Lawrence. 2007. “Racial Virtues.” In Working Virtue: Virtue Ethics and Contemporary Moral Problems. 
Edited by Rebecca Walker and Philip Ivanhoe. New York: Clarendon, pp. 225-250.  

Clark, Christine. 2005. “Diversity Initiatives in Higher Education: Intergroup Dialogue as Pedagogy across the 
Curriculum.” Multicultural Education 12.3: pp. 51-61.  

Druckman, James, Erik Peterson, and Rune Slothuus. 2013. “How Elite Partisan Polarization Affects Public 
Opinion Formation.” American Political Science Review 107.1: pp. 57-79. 

Ford, Kristie. 2017. Facilitating Change Through Intergroup Dialogue: Social Justice Advocacy in Practice. Taylor and 
Francis.  

Ford, Kristie, and Heather Lipkin. 2019. “Intergroup Dialogue Facilitators as Agents for Change.” New 
Directions for Student Leadership 163: pp. 47-56.  

Forst, Rainer. 2001. “Tolerance as a Virtue of Justice.” Philosophical Explorations 4.3: pp. 193-206.  

Forst, Rainer. 2018. “Toleration, Justice, and Reason.” In The Culture of Toleration in Diverse Societies. Edited by 
Catriona McKinnon and Dario Castiglione. Manchester University Press, pp. 71-85.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

76 
 

Gurin, Patricia, Biren Nagda, and Ximena Zúñiga. 2008. Multi-University Intergroup Dialogue Project 
Guidebook.  

Gurin, Patricia, Biren Nagda, and Nicholas Sorensen. 2011. “Intergroup Dialogue: Education for a Broad 
Conception of Civic Engagement.” Liberal Education 97.2: pp. 46-51.  

Gurin, Patricia, Biren Nagda, and Ximena Zúñiga. 2013. Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research 
on Intergroup Dialogue. Russell Sage Foundation.  

Gurin, Patricia, Timothy Peng, Gretchen Lopez, and Biren Nagda. 1999. “Context, Identity and Intergroup 
Relations.” In Cultural Divides: Understanding and Overcoming Group Conflict. Edited by Deborah Prentice 
and Dale Miller. Russell Sage Foundation: pp. 133-170.  

Gurin-Sands, Chloé, Patricia Gurin, Biren Nagda, and Shardae Osuna. 2012. “Fostering a Commitment to 
Social Action: How Talking, Thinking, and Feeling Make a Difference in Intergroup Dialogue.” Equity 
and Excellence in Education 45.1: pp. 60-79.  

Hartman, Rachel, Neil Hester, and Kurt Gray. 2022. “People See Political Opponents as More Stupid Than 
Evil.” Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Online First.  

Hurtado, Sylvia. 1992. “The Campus Racial Climate: Contexts of Conflict.” The Journal of Higher Education 
63.5: pp. 539-569.  

Keehn, Molly. 2015. “‘When You Tell a Personal Story, I Kind of Perk Up a Little Bit More’: An Examination 
of Student Learning from Listening to Personal Stories in Two Social Diversity Courses.” Equity and 
Excellence in Education 48.3: pp. 373-391.  

Maxwell, Kelly, Roger Fisher, Monita Thompson, and Charles Behling. 2011. “Training Peer Facilitators as 
Social Justice Educators.” In Facilitating Intergroup Dialogues: Bridging Differences, Catalyzing Change. 
Edited by Kelly Maxwell, Biren Nagda, and Monita Thompson. Sterling, VA: Stylus, pp. 41-54.  

Mellon Initiative Team. “PWOL Dialogue Facilitator Training: Instructor Manual,” 2021. 
https://bit.ly/3rVMAcH. 

Mellon Initiative Team. “PWOL Dialogue Facilitator Training: Trainee Manual,” 2021. 
https://bit.ly/3rVMAcH. 

Mellon Initiative Team. “PWOL Dialogue Facilitator Training: Trainee Workbook,” 2021. 
https://bit.ly/3rVMAcH. 

Nagda, Biren. 2006. “Breaking Barriers, Crossing Borders, Building Bridges: Communication Processes in 
Intergroup Dialogues.” Journal of Social Issues 62.3: pp. 553-576.  

Nagda, Biren and Ximena Zúñiga. 2003. “Fostering Meaningful Racial Engagement Through Intergroup 
Dialogues.” Group Processes and Intergroup Relations 6.1: pp. 111-128.  

Nagda, Biren, Chan-woo Kim, and Yaffa Truelove. 2004. “Learning about Difference, Learning with Others, 
Learning to Transgress.” Journal of Social Issues 60.1: pp. 195-214.  

Nagda, Biren, Patricia Gurin, and Gretchen Lopez. 2003. “Transformative Pedagogy for Democracy and Social 
Justice.” Race Ethnicity and Education 6.2: pp. 165-191.  



ANALYTIC TEACHING AND PHILOSOPHICAL PRAXIS VOLUME 43, ISSUE 2 (2023) 

  
 

77 
 

Nagda, Biren, Patricia Gurin, Nicholas Sorensen, and Ximena Zúñiga. 2009. “Evaluating Intergroup Dialogue: 
Engaging Diversity for Personal and Social Responsibility.” Diversity and Democracy 12.1: pp. 4-6.  

Pew Research Center. 2019a. “Partisan Antipathy: More Intense, More Personal.” 
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/partisan-antipathy-more-intense-more-personal/.  

Pew Research Center. 2019b. “Trust and Distrust in America.” 
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/.   

Pew Research Center. 2020a. “America is Exceptional in the Nature of Its Political Divide.” 
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-
political-divide/.  

Pew Research Center. 2020b. “Voters Attitudes About Race and Gender.” 
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/10/voters-attitudes-about-race-and-gender-are-even-
more-divided-than-in-2016/.   

Rippe, Klaus. 1998. “Diminishing Solidarity.” Ethical Theory and Moral Practice 1.3: pp. 355-373.  

Schoem, David Louis, and Sylvia Hurtado, eds. 2001. Intergroup dialogue: Deliberative Democracy in School, College, 
Community, and Workplace. University of Michigan Press.  

Snow, Nancy. 2018. “Hope as a Democratic Civic Virtue.” Metaphilosophy 49.3: pp. 407–427. 

Sue, Derald Wing, and Madonna Constantine. 2007. “Racial Microaggressions as Instigators of Difficult 
Dialogues on Race: Implications for Student Affairs Educators and Students.” College Student Affairs 
Journal 26.2: pp. 136-143.  

Sue, Derald Wing, David Rivera, Nicole Watkins, Rachel Kim, Suah Kim, and Chantea Williams. 2011. 
“Racial Dialogues: Challenges Faculty of Color Face in the Classroom.” Cultural Diversity and Ethnic 
Minority Psychology 17.3: pp. 331-340.  

Wayne, Ellen Kabcenell. 2008. “Is It Just Talk? Understanding and Evaluating Intergroup Dialogue.” Conflict 
Resolution Quarterly 25.4: pp. 451-478. 

Address Correspondences to:  
Zachary Odermatt 
PhD Student, University of Wisconsin -Madison 
email: ztodermatt@gmail.com 
 
Robert Weston Siscoe 
Postdoctoral Fellow, University of Notre Dame 
email: rwsiscoe@gmail.com 

https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/10/10/partisan-antipathy-more-intense-more-personal/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2019/07/22/trust-and-distrust-in-america/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/
https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2020/11/13/america-is-exceptional-in-the-nature-of-its-political-divide/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/10/voters-attitudes-about-race-and-gender-are-even-more-divided-than-in-2016/
https://www.pewresearch.org/politics/2020/09/10/voters-attitudes-about-race-and-gender-are-even-more-divided-than-in-2016/
mailto:ztodermatt@gmail.com
https://nam02.safelinks.protection.outlook.com/?url=http%3A%2F%2Frwsiscoe%40gmail.com%2F&data=05%7C01%7Cjjhoward%40viterbo.edu%7Ccaec00bca7944f6e4ccc08dbf2afd778%7C6b9fc982e8d74958976cb08441cc9b0b%7C0%7C0%7C638370609297521123%7CUnknown%7CTWFpbGZsb3d8eyJWIjoiMC4wLjAwMDAiLCJQIjoiV2luMzIiLCJBTiI6Ik1haWwiLCJXVCI6Mn0%3D%7C3000%7C%7C%7C&sdata=l7B7geAZnBxRvrIpO56tzklYU06sCue3LTK4EOp91VY%3D&reserved=0

