Last November, SGA voted down a divestment bill. For many Jewish students, “winning” the vote felt like the closing of a chapter, and many looked forward to leaving the tension behind them. But in its aftermath, an op-ed in Mitzpeh explained that the future was not that simple. The SGA vote, according to the article’s anonymous author, left only more work to be done, not less. 

Advocating against the bill may have felt like a necessary step in ensuring the safety and legitimacy of Jewish and Israeli students on campus. But it did nothing to repair–and if anything only deepened–the hostility between Muslim and Jewish students, and it nearly extinguished any hope of overcoming it. 

As disheartening as this whole ordeal was, though, the op-ed laid out a vision for moving forward that was both encouraging and demanding: rebuild relationships rather than dwell in the ruins of polarization.

Over a year later, the dust has settled, but nothing has really changed. Even during “quiet” times, campus is still riddled with fault lines that we don’t dare to cross. It is easier to retreat into our own rooms, group chats and institutions, and tell ourselves that separation is simply the cost of conviction.

Time may have dulled the intensity of that week, but it should not obscure what it revealed: the path we are on is not one that leads toward peace or improved relationships. 

The recent referendum calling for the renaming of campus buildings associated with defense contractors is only the latest iteration of the pattern of mobilization, resentment and exhaustion that we have seen unfold semester after semester.

We would be remiss if we let the fault lines harden into permanence, if we treated the hostility among our fellow students as inevitable. Our commitment to the values of higher education and of our Jewish community demands more from us.

As Jewish students, we ask that our grief, fear and attachment to Israel be approached by our peers with nuance and dignity. We ask not to be reduced to caricatures and to be heard in full. If we want to change the trajectory of our campus, we must offer the same.

I am not advocating that we weaken our convictions or forget about real disagreements. I hope, though, that we can hold them with humility and approach our fellow students as worthy of listening to, even when we believe their views are misguided. I hope we can remember that empathy does not require endorsement.

Polarization is loud, and dialogue is quiet. But dialogue is always happening even when nobody hears about it. In small tabling events and one-on-one conversations on campus, I have seen students who hold opposing political commitments engage in conversation without microphones or cheering audiences, and without ‘gotcha’ statements. These conversations demonstrate that the divide is not unbridgeable. They show glimpses of what this campus could look like if we cultivate and nurture dialogue.

These seeds of healing are encouraging, but they are too few and far between. If we truly want to be known not only as the community that fought against BDS, but as the community that turned tension into growth, then we need more spaces where this type of conversation is encouraged. The invisible wall in Stamp, described in the op-ed, is not immovable. But it will not disappear on its own.

It will require us to sit down, engage with, and listen to one another as individuals, not as representatives in a ballroom.

I deeply admire last year’s writer’s call to action. But good intentions alone are rarely enough. If we want dialogue to be more than an aspiration, we need not only conviction but a safe space where it can actually take root. 

This motivated me to start a dialogue initiative grounded in a simple premise: meaningful connection begins with conversation, not in large rooms with hundreds of students sitting in front of SGA, not through chants over loudspeakers or chalk on Hornbake Plaza, but through approaching one another as individuals. 

The project hopes to address this issue by matching dialogue partners who can have one-on-one conversations over the course of several weeks. Participants will complete a brief form outlining their views and goals for dialogue and pairs will be matched intentionally to foster thoughtful, good-faith engagement. Each pair will receive guiding questions designed to encourage curiosity, respect, and reflection. I hope that this will cultivate conversations centered around trust and the ability to disagree without dehumanizing one another. 

I truly believe that polarization is not inevitable, but alternatives will not materialize on their own. My hope is that this project can serve as a catalyst for what the op-ed charged us with: “turning tension into growth and opportunity.”

We can choose to live in perpetual brace for the next clash and, when it surfaces, sigh the familiar sigh and ask how we ended up here again. Or we can ask ourselves a harder question: if nothing is changing, what are we willing to do differently? Even if campus does not change overnight, what kind of atmosphere are we willing to help create?

If you are interested in getting involved, you can sign up here. If you have any questions or would like to learn more, please feel free to reach out to me at ylevisoh@terpmail.umd.edu.