Lessons in Constructive Dialogue From the USG President

Undergraduate Student Government President Avi Attar ’25 was one of several students who spoke in early November to a campus gathering of Princeton donors and volunteers on the topic of “constructive dialogue.” I was so impressed by Avi’s thoughtful observations that I asked him for permission to excerpt and share them with you here. I hope you come away as inspired and appreciative of Avi’s leadership as I did. — CLE

Just last week, my preceptor in AI Law and Policy divided the class into pairs to defend opposite sides of a debate motion. My classmates and I were forced to think on our feet, diagnosing the flaws in our arguments and moving toward a solution. I am happy to report that the thought-provoking, impassioned discussion we had that day is typical of Princeton’s emphasis on constructive dialogue in the classroom.

Constructive dialogue has also been an important part of my Princeton extracurriculars, sometimes in unexpected ways. On the sailing team, for example, our leadership elections can run from 7 p.m. to 2 a.m. Imagine the scene: thirty rowdy sailors wrapped up in seven hours of conversation to pick captains and officers. No matter how heated these meetings get, opinions and ideas are the most valuable currency.

I have even found space for debate in purely social settings. Recently, an impromptu poll in a group chat of my friends asked, “Who was the better president, FDR or Herbert Hoover?” Even when the conventional answer is obvious, there are always plenty of devil’s advocates on campus to spur a fun debate. At our next meal, people took both sides, and we had a great conversation. Indeed, whether it’s a lighthearted topic like Hoover v. FDR or a more serious one, like today’s politics, I have learned at Princeton to cherish friendships with those who think differently from me by supporting opportunities for open dialogue and, above all else, making sure that even the sharpest disagreements do not get in the way of relationships. 

Nowhere have I learned more about how to engage in constructive dialogue than in my role as president of the Undergraduate Student Government. When I joined USG as a first-year, I was as skeptical as I was excited about some of our work. We would debate whether a new committee should be a “task force,” or an “ad hoc committee,” or a “core committee,” and I often struggled to understand why it mattered. To make matters worse, we used Robert’s Rules of Order to structure our conversations; otherwise normal conversations were punctuated by motions, points of inquiry, and other formalities. In these moments, I worried that we were overly focused on the form of the conversation rather than its substance. 

However, I gained a new appreciation for this training last spring, when the campus turned its attention to activism around the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. I, alongside others in USG, navigated differences of opinion between USG members, hosted discussions with community members in conflict, and made tough decisions about statement-making and event planning — which we then had to justify to a range of students.

In these moments, I didn’t always know what to say, but I did know how to have the conversation. Debates in class, with friends, and in student government had taught me the importance of listening to others, being receptive to diverse perspectives, asserting my own views firmly but gently, and finding common ground. And superfluous as they may seem, I even found value in Robert’s Rules as a useful tool for ensuring everyone had the opportunity to share their views. The structure affirmed the importance of creating an environment in which students of multiple viewpoints feel comfortable speaking. 

Last spring at Princeton showed me the importance of constructive dialogue in conflict, and I grew as a result of these experiences. I believe that those around me did too. After summer break, we convened a group of USG members, students, and administrators. What came next was a conversation that I suspect would have been more difficult last spring. Participants found common ground and identified mutually beneficial steps for the future, like updates to the Free Expression website.

Of course, there is work to be done. I have been dismayed by the acrimony on some college campuses outside the “orange bubble” these days, and I’m aware that our community could go down a similar path if we are not careful. I’m proud to say that we are being careful. Constructive dialogue is at the heart of the academic, extracurricular, and social experiences of so many Princetonians because it remains a core value of our community. The efforts of Princetonians to cultivate this value have served us well. Here’s hoping that going forward, we can expect the same and more from our incredible community.