�պ�����

A few years ago, a promising student confided to David Jenemann, dean of the Patrick Leahy Honors College, that she was thinking about transferring. She wanted to have big conversations with her peers, and she wasn’t sure she could find this at �պ�����.

“We were going to lose a really good student,” says Jenemann.

This prompted him and �պ����� President Suresh Garimella to develop the Presidential Leadership Conversations—a non-credit class they have co-taught since 2022 for students who want to thoughtfully debate contentious issues of the day. 

For Garimella, it’s an exercise all of us could probably use. Whether you are a person who leans to the political right or left, from the North or the South, personal success—not to mention successful democracy—depends on an ability to have healthy dialogue with people who have different perspectives, Garimella says. “I think it’s a bit of a lost art. I believe disagreeing thoughtfully and respectfully is important to be able to do.”

Garimella sees the course as one way to respond to a world where people often limit their social networks and sources of information to those that simply confirm what they already believe to be true.

“It’s a somewhat lazy approach,” he says. “You don’t have to think very much if everyone around you agrees with you.”

The course creates a pathway for students to explore ideas they are passionate about and truly deepen their knowledge. They discuss topics such as the sometimes-dirty side of clean energy development, the benefits and harms of social media, the complexities of affirmative action, and the consequences of legalizing illicit drugs. 

“One of the things that I have been touched by, and excited about, is the students really do crave opportunities for nuance,” Jenemann says. “The class is a judgment-free zone and a place to luxuriate in ambiguity.”

“

The most important thing was to hear each other … and not being too quick to respond and form an opinion”

Each year, 12 high-performing sophomores and juniors are admitted to the class out of more than 100 who apply. The aim is to have representation across academic disciplines, gender, social and geographic backgrounds, and political opinions. All participants must abide by the Chatham House Rule, which creates trust in the group through its simple, direct guidance for the way their discussions extend beyond the class.

“All it means is ‘Learn from this class. Talk about what you learn from this class with others, but don’t attribute anything to an individual,’” Garimella explains. “It suddenly opens up the conversation… and I myself am very open with them, which I think sets the tone.”

That is something Nicole Eaton ’23 noticed during the first iteration of the course. At the time, the temperature on the �պ����� campus was high, with rallies about sexual violence prevention and outspoken views on Covid-19 vaccine requirements, she says from a conference room in the Vermont Center for Emerging Technologies, where she works as communications manager. “There was so much tension.”

For Eaton, this class was a welcome relief. 

Watching Garimella and Jenemann share their personal views and model respectful disagreement created an atmosphere of trust. Everyone shared their perspectives. But for it to really work, everyone had to learn to listen to one another, too. 

“The most important thing was to hear each other … and not being too quick to respond and form an opinion,” Eaton says.

Her senior year, she implemented the same openness and civility while conducting meetings of �պ�����’s Academic Research Commercialization program, which she co-founded. 

“It was something I copied immediately,” she says. 

Eaton majored in public communication. She understands the power of stories, and how they can be a driving factor of success in business. But stories can prove harmful too, particularly when the versions we tell ourselves just aren’t true. There are often real reasons people have for believing what they do that stem from their lived experience, Eaton explains. “With all the political polarization, it’s super easy to just judge—regardless of what side you’re on.…There is more to the story.” 

Remi Savard ’23 first heard about the Presidential Leadership Conversations as a junior, through a mass email he promptly ignored. He wasn’t sure he had time for it. Then he found out he was nominated for a seat. 

“I felt I at least owe it to them to write a little application,” he says from Seattle, where he is now a doctoral student in immunology at the University of Washington. “It ended up being a really good experience.” 

The first thing he learned was that the class wasn’t really a class, in the traditional sense.

“We don’t get grades and we don’t get credits,” Savard says. “But that was actually the best part of it.”

The students were free to be vulnerable with their peers, and with Garimella and Jenemann, who engaged with their ideas and pushed back on them—forcing the students to improve their arguments or rethink them altogether. 

“I was probably intimidated the whole time, probably still am intimidated,” Savard says with a laugh. “… But what was fun was trying to shape logical arguments that they couldn’t poke too many holes in.”

This skill proved valuable when applying to graduate programs and being interviewed by experts in a field he was hoping to break into. 

“That was kind of a similar position to debating with David and Suresh,” Savard says.  

It also prepared him to be a better scientist.

“If your lab is watching your peers present their data, the best thing you can do is have critiques for them,” he says. 

Senior Zach Pedowitz was drawn to the idea of being in a group with “like-motivated people.” In political science, his chosen field of study, the idea is to listen to various perspectives and build towards a consensus, he says. He liked being able to test out ideas in class without fear of repercussions. 

“We learned how to develop—and change—our opinions,” Pedowitz says. “I think the course also helps you draw from your own life/professional experience to see how you can contribute to a conversation.”

Having people with different perspectives in the room helps sharpen your thinking, so you don’t just repeat ideas you know little about, but actually step back and question what you know and how you know it, he says.

Pedowitz is working towards his master’s degree as part of �պ�����’s Accelerated Masters Program in Educational Leadership and Policy Studies. He recently helped plan the university’s 2024 Janus Forum—one part of �պ�����’s Presidential Leadership Series—which brings thought leaders to campus to respectfully debate two sides of a proposition. 

The Presidential Leadership Conversations and the Lecture Series are part of a broader �պ����� effort to scale up opportunities for students to wrestle with complexity— “with more to come,” Garimella teases. “Students are capable of thinking well beyond what we give them credit for, and I think we should encourage that.”   

 �պ�����'s Janus Forum Offers Constructive Debate

“The forum is dedicated to what sometimes seems, at least today, like a rather audacious proposition. And that proposition is simply this: That thoughtful, engaging, engaged, rigorous, and respectful debate remains possible even in this era of intense partisanship.” With those words, �պ�����’s Dean of Libraries Bryn Geffert introduced the first Janus Forum, a new component of the university’s Presidential Lecture Series that debuted before a packed audience on February 7 in the Grossman School of Business Keller Room. 

The debate resolution was simple, powerful, and relevant: social media should be more regulated. Arguing “for” was James Steyer, Stanford University professor and founder and chief executive of Common Sense Media, a non-partisan organization dedicated to providing trustworthy information and education and advocacy to families. Speaking “against”–John Samples, vice president at the Cato Institute and director of the institute’s Center for Representative Government.