Butterbach’s path to research started in a cell biology course taught by Assistant Professor of Biology Efrain Rivera-Serrano, where she consistently asked questions and engaged deeply with the material. This curiosity led her to join the interdisciplinary project.

“It was a very ‘right place, right time’ circumstance,” Butterbach said. “This research was exactly the sort of thing I was looking to get involved in.”

Through her Lumen Prize, Butterbach is working alongside two faculty mentors from different fields of study, Associate Professor of Mathematics Hwayeon Ryu and Rivera-Serrano, to study viral myocarditis, or heart inflammation, that occurs during the infection of many viruses. Her research is focused on examining the pathways that lead to excessive inflammation and how inflammation can be reduced without compromising the immune system’s ability to clear the virus.

“My research focuses on creating math out of biological reactions,” Butterbach said. “Ultimately, the goal is to create a framework that helps us better understand and predict how cardiac inflammation progresses.”

Viral myocarditis occurs when inflammation damages heart tissue, sometimes leading to long-term complications or sudden cardiac failure, particularly in young, active individuals. Although inflammation is a natural immune response, Butterbach’s research is exploring what causes that response to become excessive.

Butterbach uses mathematical modeling to integrate biology and immunology into a modeling framework to identify factors that most strongly drive harmful inflammation, revealing pathways that could be therapeutically targeted.

“It’s a balancing act to use equations to model what’s happening,” Butterbach said. “If the model is too simple then it is not realistic to the human heart, but if the model is too complex, it becomes difficult to work with.”

Taking an interdisciplinary approach

This research project’s strength lies in its collaboration and intersection between mathematics, biology and engineering. Mathematics offers the language and tools to create the models, while biology provides the foundation for understanding the disease. Engineering ties it together through design, problem-solving and a systems-level mindset.

“This project works precisely because it sits at the intersection of all three areas,” Rivera-Serrano said. “Elise is especially well suited for this work because she is genuinely interested in connecting these disciplines rather than treating them as separate silos.”

Ryu echoed this statement on Butterbach’s interdisciplinary approach.

“Elise approaches research with a rare combination of intellectual curiosity, maturity and persistence, and she is genuinely committed to understanding how mathematics and biology inform one another,” Ryu said. “Her ability to engage across disciplines and contribute thoughtfully at that intersection is what makes her such a strong and promising researcher.”

Butterbach, Rivera-Serrano and Ryu meet weekly to refine their model, troubleshoot challenges and discuss literature.

“The steady back-and-forth is one of the strengths of the project,” Rivera-Serrano said.

For Butterbach, working across disciplines has shaped how she approaches problems.

“I’ve always found that when different disciplines collide, it actually becomes easier to understand complex concepts,” Butterbach said. “Working across engineering, mathematics and virology is fascinating because each discipline approaches the same problem in a completely different way. Learning to think adaptively across disciplines and translate between them has been one of the most valuable parts of this experience.”

Butterbach is motivated by the possibility of using interdisciplinary research to better understand human disease.

“The interdisciplinary nature and the way the team bring together mathematics, biology and engineering is not always easy to achieve, but Elise has embraced it fully and become an essential part of that process,” Ryu said.

Collaborating on this research has been rewarding not only for Butterbach, but for her mentors as well.

“Working with Elise has been incredibly rewarding,” Rivera-Serrano said. “She approaches a difficult project that requires her to be conversant in multiple disciplines with curiosity, maturity and persistence.”

One takeaway she learned from working in disciplines outside of her major is that discoveries in one field almost always influence others.

“By learning how to think like a biologist, a mathematician and a physicist, I have become much more comfortable applying ideas from one subject to another, even when they seem unrelated at first.”

She also values the work with her two mentors, Rivera-Serrano and Ryu, as they have helped her grow as a researcher.

“Dr. E spends a lot of time looking for resources that I can use to calculate the values of different parameters,” Butterbach said. “Similarly, Dr. Ryu works tirelessly to not just improve my mathematical skills but also teaches me how to see mathematical theory working in the real world. They’re not just dedicated to this project; they’re also thinking about what comes next for me.”

Expanding her research

Butterbach was recently selected for a competitive Physical, Engineering and Biology Research Experiences for Undergraduates program at Yale University, focused on physics, engineering and biology. Butterbach hopes to expand her research on the cardiovascular system.

“Elise’s acceptance is especially meaningful because it reflects national-level recognition of her promise as an undergraduate researcher in an interdisciplinary space,” Rivera-Serrano said.

For Butterbach, the opportunity was surprising and motivating.

“I tried not to set any grand expectations for myself, so when I received the email I was genuinely surprised to be selected for the program,” Butterbach said. “It felt incredibly validating of the hard work and dedication I’ve put into my studies.”

At Yale, the program, like her research, is interdisciplinary covering biology, physics and engineering. She will expand her experience in computational and biological modeling while working alongside researchers.

“To me, this program represents the opening of new doors,” Butterbach said. “It’s an opportunity to continue growing as a researcher, meet people working at the forefront of interdisciplinary science and explore new directions that I may not have encountered otherwise.”

��too often poisons the air we breathe as we think about climate change. This is particularly true when it comes to understanding the����by the��U.S.��Environmental Protection Agency to repeal the Greenhouse Gas Endangerment Finding established in 2009.

Climate regulation might lose its teeth due to the EPA’s decision, but politically viable climate solutions remain possible.

Many Democrats see climate change as an existential threat. To them, the recent actions of the EPA confirm their pre-existing belief that Republicans actively deny science, and that under Team Trump the��United States��is powerless to fight climate change.

Meanwhile, many Republicans are yawning over breakfast. The day after the endangerment finding was repealed, the top headlines at��foxnews.com��described various criminal investigations, gerrymandering by Democrats, and a tantalizing story about a NASCAR driver. The EPA story was nowhere to be found.

Lawyers on both sides are steeling themselves for a bitter fight over the science behind the endangerment finding. Lawyers who chant “We Love Trump” are correct that CO2��is not a local pollutant and that breathing it in does not endanger anyone. Lawyers who chant “We Hate Trump” are nevertheless correct that climate change has negative effects on the health of Americans, which means CO2��can be considered a��global��pollutant.

It remains unclear who will win the legal fight, but to some extent these legal battles are a sideshow. What we really need in our toxic political environment is for partisans to learn from each other.

Republicans need to question their assumption that climate change is a trivial issue. President��Donald��Trump is correct that climate regulations sometimes present infuriating problems for business, and he is amazing at controlling the media narrative. But Trump is also an old man who will become irrelevant within just a few years. Just like the nation’s debt, climate change is an ongoing problem, and forward-thinking Republicans cannot dodge the issue forever.

If Democrats stopped treating Republicans as enemies, then conservatives might care more about the climate concerns of liberals.��. Younger Republicans know this, and they take the issue much more seriously than their elder colleagues.

Just as the Democratic Party became less relevant by ignoring border problems, the Republican Party will become less relevant if they continue to ignore the importance of climate solutions. In the long run, anyone who agrees with Trump that burning lots of fossil fuels is our best long-term strategy will likely become ostracized in global, business, and even political circles.

Democrats need to question their assumption that the loss of EPA climate regulation means all is lost.��. Our contribution is not trivial, but the world does not depend exclusively on the US to fix climate problems. Furthermore,��, including under Trump’s first term.

Even under Trump 2.0,��. The rest of the planet is also onboard. Just last year, for example,����– roughly enough to power the entire East Coast.

Democrats also need to learn that��, not by their hatred of science.

A more productive strategy for climate-motivated Democrats would be to seek climate solutions that rely on markets rather than regulation and minimize the role of the federal government.�� For example,��.��.

Ultimately, EPA regulation is just one of many tools that belongs in a modern environmental toolkit. In a divided society, the most sustainable climate solutions will be tolerable to both Democrats and Republicans.

Community-based learning (CBL) gives students opportunities to address real-world challenges by partnering with local community organizations. Through their experience leading a community-engaged unit in environmental studies, Merricks and Bitting recognized that little research directly examines how CBL affects students from historically underrepresented STEM backgrounds (e.g., women, students of color, and first-generation college students).

Working with Akman, an expert in systematic reviews, the team analyzed existing research on whether CBL experiences influence students’ pursuit of STEM majors or minors, their career intentions, and their sense of belonging in STEM fields. From more than 500 publications published between 1999 and 2024, the authors identified nine studies that met the criteria for inclusion.

Their analysis revealed a major gap in the literature. Few studies systematically examined the impact of CBL pedagogies in STEM. Most did not compare CBL with other teaching approaches, making it difficult to draw strong conclusions about its effectiveness. In addition, only a small number of studies analyzed outcomes across demographic groups such as race/ethnicity, first-generation status, or gender. The authors conclude that more rigorous research is needed, including studies that compare CBL with other pedagogies and systematically examine outcomes across different student populations.

Since his 2023 arrival at ������Ƶ, Kelly has hosted a ‘listening tour’ and spent time with each department to hear directly from faculty and staff about what they value. Kelly said that common themes soon emerged from those conversations and the new statement reflects dozens of discussions.

������Ƶ College, the College of Arts and Sciences new vision statement reads: “The Heart of an ������Ƶ Education: Ignite Curiosity, Engage Challenges, Transform Worlds.”

The mission statement then declares:

“Upholding the centrality of the liberal arts, we explore and apply disciplinary and interdisciplinary knowledge for inquiry, creativity, discovery and problem solving in a complex and changing world.”

The statement lists core values that include accessibility, belonging, critical thinking, diversity, equity and inclusion, integrity, intellectual curiosity, problem-posing and respect for human dignity.

Community Reflections

• “There were several opportunities for different groups, departments, branches, interdisciplinary programs, to discuss versions on the table. It was in those conversations where we might learn how a word or phrase was heard within and across disciplines; where we found convergence, deeper awareness, and respect. The both-and of this process modeled what we value and genuinely captures our shared identity as ������Ƶ College.” – Caroline Ketcham, associate dean of ������Ƶ College, the College of Arts and Sciences and a professor of exercise science
• “It was always important to us that this wasn’t a process where faculty were just asked to weigh in at the end, after the real decisions had already been made. From start to finish, it was grounded in listening to what faculty across the college say we do well and what values they believe guide our shared work. Our task wasn’t to invent a mission, vision and values, but to clearly articulate what faculty are already living and leading with. I think that’s why faculty can so readily see themselves and their departments represented in the final statements.” – David Buck, associate dean of ������Ƶ College, the College of Arts and Sciences and an associate professor of psychology
• “Having shared goals and articulated values helps everyone in the college feel connected as a community, value each other’s work and prioritize our energies on initiatives that matter to us.” – Shannon Duvall, interim associate dean of ������Ƶ College, the College of Arts and Sciences and professor of computer science
• “I appreciated the collaborative nature of it all, not just between the dean’s office and department chairs, but also extending to faculty members across ������Ƶ College, the College of Arts and Sciences. It really did involve all of us. What particularly stood out to me were the conversations in our chairs’ meetings with the dean where we came to agreements on core values. It’s inspiring to see that distinctly different types of disciplines uphold the same core values.” – Joel Karty, chair of the Department of Chemistry and ������Ƶ’s Sydney F. & Kathleen E. Jackson Professor of chemistry
• “I appreciated being part of a process that felt genuinely collaborative. Our participation was not merely symbolic. It felt meaningful, and I experienced the dean’s office as truly listening. The process itself was also inspirational, and I feel bolstered in leading my own department through similar work. It was powerful to see such a broad, collective effort take shape into something tangible.” – Samantha DiRosa, chair of the Department of Art and a professor of art and environmental studies
• “The process of creating a new vision statement, mission statement and core values for ������Ƶ College, the College of Arts and Sciences was both thoughtful and deeply collaborative. Over many months, department chairs worked together to reflect on what makes us distinctive and how best to express those qualities in guiding statements. The process intentionally sought input from across departments, ensuring that everyone in the college had the opportunity to contribute their perspectives. Personally, the time spent reflecting with fellow chairs on what makes each of our departments special fostered a deeper sense of shared purpose and collective commitment.” – Carrie Eaves, chair of the Department of Political Science and Public Policy and associate professor of political science and public policy

Kelly said he was pleased the final language resonated with the faculty in the college.

“The true measure of a successful attempt to lead a group or an organization towards a renewed vision, mission and core values is whether the words and sentiments ‘sound like us’,” he said. “When I heard that some faculty believed my presentation of our vision, mission and core values at our spring faculty meeting ‘sound like us,’ I knew that our work together in small and large group settings was a huge success. It means that stakeholders were heard and that the words resonate so much so that the tune or melody is familiar. The vision, mission and core values reflect truly who we are and where we are going with much intention.”

Led by Parker and Gammon, the team created a 100-person simulation to help students re-trace the footsteps of ancient human populations as they migrated within and out of Africa, eventually becoming the indigenous populations around the world. Using a large chalk-drawn map, students “walk the path” used by humans over the past 100,000 years, while tracking changes in DNA sequences relative to modern human DNA. By the end of the simulation, students can use genetic evidence to identify major migration routes of humans.

In addition, the simulation offers opportunities to learn the difference between genetic features that relate to biological traits (e.g., genes that determine traits like blood type or eye color), and those that do not (e.g., ancestry-informative markers or AIMs). Finally, instructors guide students through reflective prompts and discussion about the diversity of modern human populations and race as a social construct.

The published case study provides the materials needed to recreate the simulation, including a customized card deck representing snapshots of the geographic movements and genetic changes of human populations over the last 100,000 years, and detailed teaching notes to support the accurate teaching of these scientific concepts.

“” is available for download now. Viewers can access the student-facing case study materials for free, but membership is required to access the teaching materials.

“There’s a continuum from the very beginning, and we are a part of it,” Touchette said. “And we have a role that will now influence the future of this direction of the planet.”

The Distinguished Scholar Award is given to ������Ƶ faculty members recognized by the ������Ƶ community and the larger community in their discipline for excellence in scholarship. Touchette earned the award in Spring 2025.

In the hour-long lecture, Touchette discussed Earth’s many eras, stretching from the Big Bang all the way to the modern-day Anthropocene, or human-dominated era, that we are currently living in. He described the conditions, species and eventual mass extinctions of each period, placing emphasis on how climate change has the power to completely alter life on Earth.�� “We see this pattern a lot,” Touchette said. “You change the climate, you’re going to lose species.”

Touchette joined ������Ƶ’s faculty in 2001 and has made many contributions to ecological science. With the goal of discovering how plant communities react to stressors such as drought, pollution, salinity and climate change, he has created a research program that combines fieldwork, laboratory science and environmental policy. Besides advancing ecological science, this program has also framed conservation practices and fostered student research.

During the lecture, Touchette explained his research on dodder, a parasitic plant that looks for a host to latch onto when it germinates. He and his team of student researchers found that dodder only chooses to parasitize plants that are most beneficial to it. These findings were corroborated by the results of other research projects, affirming the plant’s ability to choose and control its own host.

“It’s just a remarkable creature in terms of what it can do,” Touchette said.

Besides revealing the amazing aspects of Earth’s species, Touchette’s research has brought up a question: what can humans do to protect them from extinction?

“Climate change is one of the bigger risks we have for biodiversity,” Touchette said. “This is one of the number one concerns scientists have in terms of life on this planet.”

Touchette explained that extinction is a normal process, with 10 species naturally disappearing from our planet each year. Because of natural speciation rates, however, the Earth ��also gains 10 species each year, effectively replacing the lost. Humans have completely upset this balance, causing Earth to lose between 27,000 and 30,000 species each year instead of just 10.

“80 species a day,” Touchette said.“Four species have disappeared while I’m up here talking to you about species disappearing. That’s tragic.”

He also highlighted that climate change is not just impacting plants and animals, but humans as well. Statistics from his research reveal that 2 billion people on Earth do not have access to clean drinking water, and that 1,000 children under the age of 5 die each day from consuming contaminated water.

“More people die each year from unsafe drinking water than all other forms of human violence, including war,” Touchette said.

Other concerns relate to air pollution. According to Touchette, 8.1 million people die prematurely from inhaling polluted air, making it a more ruthless killer than tobacco.

When talking about the value of plants, the biology professor brought up the important point that many of our medicines are derived from their properties.

“We have to recognize that 25% of all medicines come directly from plants. Fifty percent of our medicines have at least some compound that has been dried from plants,” Touchette said. “And that’s in developed countries. In countries that are developing, 80% of people use plants for medicine.”

Touchette concluded his Distinguished Scholar Lecture with an inspiring call to action. Besides explaining the importance of passing legislation that will reduce emissions, protect endangered species and get people closer to relying on cleaner energy sources, he left listeners with a few questions to think about.

“How can we coexist with other living creatures? How can we manage a planet for the betterment of future generations and the natural environment?” Touchette asked the audience. “And finally, how can we preserve these wonderful creatures, these arrangements of stardust, that began when the universe was started?”

Touchette earned the Distinguished Scholar Award,��������Ƶ’s top faculty research award, in Spring 2025,��acknowledging the “scope, impact and continuity” of his scholarship.��In his��Distinguished��Scholar��Lecture, Touchette will share the main themes from his research findings and the vital role of collaboration with both colleagues and students that have helped shape his research career.

His recommendations for the Distinguished Scholar Award came from colleagues at institutions across North Carolina, including North Carolina State University, the University of North Carolina at Wilmington and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte.

Over more than two decades, Touchette has developed a research program that bridges fieldwork, laboratory science, and environmental policy—exploring how plant communities respond to stressors like drought, pollution, salinity, and climate change. His work has not only advanced ecological science, but also shaped conservation practices and mentored a generation of student researchers. He will share insights from this rich body of scholarship and discuss how the study of aquatic and wetland plants can inform broader environmental resilience in a changing world.

Touchette, who joined ������Ƶ’s faculty in 2001, has authored or coauthored 33 peer-reviewed scientific journal publications, 10 book chapters and proceedings, 20 technical reports, along with more than 75 professional presentations, seminars and guest lectures. Of these presentations, 23 included published abstracts at regional, national and international conferences. He has also received 20 external research grants and contracts, along with 14 education grants.

Fulbright grantees are not just funded to teach or research—they are expected to serve as valuable cultural ambassadors in their respective host countries, both representing the United States and learning about their new communities.

Fulbright grants are awarded on the basis of academic and professional achievement, as well as demonstrated leadership potential in their fields. As semifinalists, these ������Ƶ students and alumni have been recommended by the National Screening Committee of the Institute of International Education for final consideration by review panels in their respective host countries. Semifinalists will be notified of their final award status this spring, beginning in late March, barring any delays or disruptions at the federal level.

This year’s Fulbright semifinalists are:

Azul Bellot ’26

• Psychology and Sociolinguistics
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to Spain

Jo Bogart ’26

• Creative Writing and Classical Studies
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright study/research grant to the United Kingdom

Anya Bratić ’26

• International & Global Studies and Public Policy
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to Vietnam

Rony Dahdal ’26

• Computer Science, Math, and Philosophy
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright study/research grant to Sweden

Jubitza Figueroa ’21

• Political Science
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to Spain

Alex Fleischmann ’26

• Psychology
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to South Korea

Rebecca Lovasco ’26

• Psychology
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright study/research grant to Taiwan

Caroline Mitchell ’26

• Middle Grades Math and Special Education
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to Bulgaria

Molly Moylan ’26

• Biochemistry
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to Spain

Madison Powers ’25

• Journalism
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to Spain

Aryanna Vindas ’25

• Dance Performance & Choreography
• Semifinalist for a Fulbright English teaching assistantship to South Korea

������Ƶ students and alumni interested in the Fulbright Program or other nationally competitive fellowships are invited to contact the National and International Fellowships Office. To begin the Fulbright application process, please visit the Fulbright Application Process page to register for one of the following virtual Fulbright information sessions during the spring semester:

• Wednesday, March 11 at 4 p.m.
• Thursday, April 9 at 4:30 p.m.
• Thursday, May 21 at 12 p.m.

“������Ƶ, overall in my experience, is very good at helping students find opportunities to explore their interests and involve community members within that,” said Baker, a biology major.

In their class, students analyze live and dead specimens of mites, scorpions and spiders. Using stereoscopes, students study the behavior of mites when light and heat is applied, as well as observe the fluorescent natures of smaller scorpions. From there, students discuss their preconceptions of these animals and how seeing them in person has changed their perspectives.

Burst the Bubble sessions are free, non-credit sessions that aim for students with niche interests and new perspectives to have a space where they can share with others and engage with unfamiliar topics during Winter Term.

Nix Viscomi ’26 is not a biology major but does have a common fear of spiders. She observed the wet specimen of a tarantula and drew conclusions about its exoskeleton.

“I was inspired to go to this class because I don’t really like spiders, but thought you need to confront that fear and get over it or work to get over it,” said Viscomi, a psychology major.

Baker hosted the class during their first year and decided to bring it back their last year at ������Ƶ with all the new-found knowledge about arthropod biology, the study of invertebrates with jointed legs, for example crabs, spiders and some insects. Their number one passion is teaching, as they aspire to be a professor of arthropod biology. Baker’s Burst The Bubble class gives them a unique opportunity to practice curriculum design as well as open ������Ƶ students’ eyes to species that are misunderstood.

“Anything related to more appreciation towards these species and seeing people say ‘oh that spider is cute’ or ‘this scorpion is pretty,’ makes this class worth it to me,”�� Baker said.

Cooking is Melanie Rogers ’26 passion and her love language. She thought everyone, especially college students, should know how to flavor and season their own food, especially since it is common for college students to be on a tight budget.

Rogers wanted to show people that ramen and pasta does not have to stay on a base level, and seasonings, garnishes, and flavoring can spice up someone’s life. Rogers’s class, Dorm Room Gourmet: Flavors on a Dime, teaches ������Ƶ students how to add easily sourced ingredients like eggs and vegetables into their ramen, use different types of seasonings, like ginger and lemon pepper, on their pasta and design their own signature sauces to add to anything.

Students were able to cook, try new pallets, make mistakes with friends by their side and eat their creations. Rogers, a communication design major with a minor in food studies, chose to teach about ramen, pasta and sauces specifically because they are mainstream food items that many college students will have some experience with, but not always the creativity to make something new.

Noah Raney ’27, a music production & recording arts major, has recently become interested in cooking, but only by following recipes. He saw the Burst the Bubble session as an opportunity to get better at cooking on his own accord and stepping away from the normal ‘boring’ meals.

“I think next time I make packaged ramen, I will put in some seasonings because it takes two seconds, and it will make me feel more adventurous when I cook,” Raney said.

Students were able to save their favorite seasoning combination in their own personal seasoning jar, where they could come up with unique names for their creations.

“People will say that you are born with the talent of seasoning or cooking, and you can not learn it later on. I want to show everyone that regardless of what area of life you are in, you can teach yourself something new and it can follow you forever,” Rogers said.

I teach college freshmen in an interdisciplinary seminar titled “The Global Experience.” I chose to focus on politics because these days it is impossible to understand global experiences without thinking about politics, especially the rise of Donald Trump in the United States. I wanted my students to understand both the attraction and the repulsion of President Trump.

In contrast, decision makers in Washington, D.C. seem more interested in blaming and shaming the other political party. Instead of engaging in dialogue, they circle the wagons, perform for their own party, and pretend that someday the other half of the country will magically fade away.

I believed my students could do better. I had this crazy idea that meaningful conversation about political disagreements is still possible. It certainly beats participating in political echo chambers or contemplating violence.

We began our politics unit with a coin toss. Heads – Republican Week, followed by tails – Democrat Week.

We celebrated Republican Week by reading everything we could find about the motivations and values of that party. Using a Republican lens, we explored foreign policy topics like immigration, border security, alliances, and tariffs. During Democrat Week, we repeated this exercise using a liberal lens.

Each week culminated in a debate between a team of student champions, nominated by their classmates, and a political opponent. I played the role of the opponent, but my arguments changed each week based on whether I wore a blue or a red T-shirt.

The third week, we explored the strengths and weaknesses of each party on major political topics. Then we voted anonymously on who had the stronger position.

Students favored Democrats for some issues, such as climate change and preserving traditional alliances. They favored Republicans for other issues, such as how to secure our southern border and how to achieve peace in Gaza. No clear party preference emerged for some issues, such as tariffs and the treatment of illegal immigrants. Some students favored neither party.

In written assignments on chosen foreign policy topics, students advocated for a variety of perspectives and solutions. Even as Congress failed to perform its basic functions, my freshmen managed to present viable solutions to thorny and pressing issues. None of them presented raw partisan dogma from just one side. Most sought out middle ground by blending ideas and policies from both parties. For example, some advocated for preserving foreign aid, but with greater oversight to ensure tangible benefits for Americans. Others advocated for deportation procedures that incorporated greater compassion.

I learned college freshmen can understand and respect multiple political viewpoints. In doing so, students did not have to sacrifice or water down their own political beliefs. Anonymous polls of my students showed equal levels of support and opposition for President Trump both before and after our politics unit. But encouragingly, my students also reported greater familiarity and less animosity towards the opposite party.

In an age when three in 10 Republicans and three in 10 Democrats agree that Americans may have to resort to violence to get the country back on track, it was encouraging to see students challenge this misguided belief. A negotiated middle ground rarely satisfies anyone, but it sure beats the ‘good guys, bad guys’ mentality that too often dominates our political discourse.

It’s challenging these days for elected officials to serve both sides of the country. Politicians who don’t fit the mold of a ‘pure’ Democrat or a ‘pure’ Republican get vilified by both sides, often leading to dysfunctional government. But my students have shown me that the gap separating Republican and Democratic positions is not as wide as we might believe.

—

Views expressed in this column are the author’s own and not necessarily those of ������Ƶ.