United we stand. United, we are not.
As tensions have flared over events ranging from the 2020 murder of George Floyd to the recent assassination of Charlie Kirk, our nation’s divisions seem to grow more and more stark. Against that backdrop, Berkeley’s new course “Openness to Opposing Views” aims to foster dialogue across ideological divides.
The asynchronous, self-paced course launched in the summer with just 50 enrollees. Since then, it has grown to roughly 700 students, with thousands more Cal faculty, staff, and alumni taking advantage of the free, non-credited version of the course offered this fall. Moving forward, faculty and staff can continue taking the course through the UC Berkeley Learning Center, and the general public will be able to register for it in Summer Sessions.
The curriculum blends academic research with real-world strategies for engaging ideas we may find antithetical to our own. Weekly modules cover topics such as critical thinking, moral reasoning, political identity, free speech, and conflict navigation. Students watch short video lectures, complete guided self-reflection exercises, and hear from guest speakers.
In our current political environment, says Jennifer Johnson-Hanks ’94, co-creator of the course and professor of sociology and demography at Berkeley, people “feel scared, angry, alienated, even desperate. For many, it feels like an existential fight for survival—of their way of life, their group, their values. That is an incredibly difficult context in which to try to be open and curious. Yet, as educators we can’t just give up—we have to start somewhere, and one place to start is building some small-scale habits and skills around listening. It is obviously not going to end political polarization, but it is one modest piece.”
Just from its title, sociology major Kaelyn May Santelices ’26 expected the course to follow a standard debate format. “I saw it more as opposing views going at each other,” she said. What she experienced instead was an environment that emphasized dialogue over debate. She appreciated how the course challenged her to critique arguments rather than the people making them, and to listen in a way that prioritized understanding over simply responding.
Johnson-Hanks said, “This isn’t about trying to prove that someone else is wrong. It’s about trying to get less wrong over time ourselves. To do that, we have to choose to listen with curiosity, rather than try to win the debate.”
While the asynchronous format may seem counterintuitive for a course focused on dialogue, Santelices sees it as a positive. “I love the fact that it’s asynchronous. I think, when it’s in person, a lot of times … it’s people attacking people versus their argument, and it gets really personal.”
Santelices said she has already benefited from what she has learned. “Every time I go back home, it’s very emotionally charged, and that’s something that I always dread, but with this class, I think I’ve learned how to separate that for myself. I just have a better understanding of how to approach these conversations.”