By: Alexis: Jimenez Maldonado
November 15, 2023
This conversation occurred on November 15, 2023. The transcript of the interview has been edited for clarity.
Amy Trask is a pre-law student at Santa Fe College in Gainesville, FL. She is an activist, a freelance writer, a mom, a wife, a philosophy enthusiast, and an avid book lover.
She currently serves as a Landscape Analyst Senior Fellow for the Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Partnership, where she has been a fellow since 2021. She is a three-time captain for Santa Fe’s chapter of APPE’s Intercollegiate Ethics Bowl team and served in Student Government as chief of staff where she successfully passed legislation that allowed for more equitable opportunities in academic teams, while also successfully advocating for more inclusive language and added byline definitions to the Student Code of Conduct.
Amy moderated difficult conversations during multiple Ethics Slams on campus and was a panelist for Santa Fe’s Center for Applied Ethics and Humanity’s Free to Learn initiative. Further, Amy began open conversations on the criminal justice system when she presented her neuroscience research and discussed approaches to reduce recidivism rates at the Florida Undergraduate Research Conference. She is active in the community, being a member of multiple political, academic, community, and activist organizations. She won the “Best Senator” award at the 51st Annual Patrick L. Smith US Model Senate for her effectiveness as a legislator and is currently exploring her own Florida Senate run in 2026.
Professionally, she spoke a few months ago in DC at the Bipartisan Policy Center about challenging cancel culture and the decline of civil discourse on campuses. She was later appointed to the District Advisory Council (DAC) by ACSB member, Dr. Sarah Rockwell, and elected as one of the co-chairs. Wanting to change the tide of the current partisan divide, she is currently running for Florida State House, District 22.
The Intercollegiate Civil Disagreement Partnership (ICDP) is a consortium of five colleges and universities located throughout the United States. The mission of the ICDP is to advance fundamental democratic commitments to freedom of expression, equality, and agency; develop students’ skills to facilitate conversations across political difference; and create spaces for civil disagreement to flourish on college campuses. Learn more about the ICDP here.
Alexis: In your role as a Senior Fellow with ICDP, what are your key responsibilities and contributions to the organization's goals?
Amy: Last year, my role was on campus, facilitating conversations within my cohort and providing real-time feedback during Zoom calls. I also contributed to curriculum development, particularly focusing on intervention techniques. For instance, I proposed a scenario involving a married couple with a dog that disrupted their conversations, creating roleplay scenarios to practice different intervention approaches.
This year, as a Landscape Analyst Senior Fellow, my role has shifted. Since we do not have regular fellows this year and are in a planning phase, my main responsibility is researching various institutes and curriculums nationwide. I've compiled information on community-driven initiatives and those within higher education, examining their methodologies, costs, and key parameters. This extensive research aims to identify potential insights or practices that could benefit ICDP.
After this semester, the plan is to regroup, thoroughly review the gathered information, and collaboratively develop a curriculum. Drawing from my experience as a regular Senior Fellow last year, I anticipate regular collaboration with the pedagogy team to create effective curriculum based on our findings and the needs of the upcoming cohorts.
Alexis: How has your experience with ICDP shaped your understanding of civil discourse and the importance of constructive disagreement in our society?
Amy: It's been transformative. ICDP has reshaped my worldview, my approach to politics, and my understanding of people. Simply put, it has changed my life. Growing up in a deeply divided household, with my dad's side leaning conservative and my mom's side progressive, I was surrounded by conflicting views but struggled to find my own identity. The prevailing message was to remain silent, as I didn't neatly fit into one of the established groups.
Entering college in a predominantly Republican environment in Florida further emphasized this dynamic. However, ICDP became a turning point. The concept of being stewards of peace, introduced by ICDP Lead Maya Cohen on day one, resonated deeply. It transformed the passive idea of peace into an active pursuit, a continuous effort. ICDP provided a safe space for me to learn how to express my views, refine them through exposure to diverse perspectives, and broaden my thought process beyond binary distinctions.
In essence, ICDP equipped me with a new lens through which to view the world. It taught me that political affiliations don't define a person entirely. Every individual is unique, shaped by their experiences. Effective conversations require honoring those experiences, ensuring that everyone feels seen and heard. This approach, essential for collaboration and problem-solving, extends beyond politics to everyday situations like negotiating a phone bill or addressing a noisy neighbor's dog.
In summary, ICDP and the skills it imparted have enabled me to navigate the world with a fresh perspective, fostering effective communication and understanding in all aspects of life.
Alexis: You mention that you've moderated difficult conversations during Ethics Slams on campus. How do you approach facilitating conversations on challenging topics, and what do you believe is the importance of open dialogues in education?
Amy: Facilitating can be challenging, and there isn't a foolproof way to prepare for it beyond having a solid understanding of the topic. Whether you're a participant or a facilitator, maintaining an open mind is crucial. In Florida, where the red versus blue dynamic prevails, discussing controversial topics can be intimidating, given the potential for being seen as the enemy for having a differing opinion. Therefore, approaching conversations with empathetic listening ears is paramount.
A notable aspect of facilitation in such settings is acknowledging the tendency for some voices to dominate while others remain quieter. Ensuring that everyone has an opportunity to speak is vital for fostering an environment where every voice is valued. Techniques taught in the program can be adapted to different group dynamics. For example, employing methods like popcorn-style picking or directly calling on individuals who haven't spoken yet can be effective. Opening the floor for a specific time period to those who haven't had a chance to speak is another approach.
Ultimately, the key elements of successful facilitation involve maintaining empathetic listening and creating an inclusive space where everyone feels their perspective is valued.
Alexis: Is polarization driving our inability to have conversations or is our inability to have conversations driving polarization?
Amy: It's a fallacy to see it as a one-way street because the inability to speak and toxic rhetoric feed off each other in a vicious cycle. This cycle became particularly pronounced after the 2016 election and a shift in the culture of conversation. Rather than addressing disagreements with thoughtful discourse, conversations devolved into name-calling and dismissive attitudes.
The root cause of this toxic dynamic is likely systemic, and overcoming it is essential for coexistence. "We the People" is an inclusive concept that transcends conditional agreements. To make our Constitution and social contract effective, finding common ground is imperative. In states like mine, the partisan rhetoric emphasizes an "us versus them" mentality, entrenched in the red versus blue dichotomy. It's not about arguing which party is better; both extremes need to move toward the center for meaningful dialogue.
The current situation requires a shift from extreme positions to open communication. Instead of demanding the other party concede entirely, fostering understanding through conversation is key. Through dialogue, individuals may realize the validity of certain perspectives, prompting movement toward a more collaborative and less polarized stance. While finding a perfect middle ground may be challenging, even small steps towards mutual understanding represent progress. This is where ICTP plays a crucial role by altering the conversation, emphasizing the importance of coexistence, and finding ways for diverse perspectives to matter in the shared space.
Alexis: What do you say to people who say we are too far gone for these conversations to work?
Amy: That's a fair question, and I acknowledge the significant degradation in our ability to communicate. This concern is particularly relevant to my current role as a candidate for office, where I encounter it daily. The skills I've acquired in conflict resolution and de-escalation demonstrate the potential for improvement. Navigating difficult conversations has shown me that the breakdown in communication is not inevitable. I've successfully brought people to understand my perspective while also being open to changing my own views.
Realistically, achieving better communication requires equipping individuals with the necessary tools. This is where I see immense value in ICDP. Expanding the accessibility of this program to a broader audience has the potential to shift the tide and address the current challenges we face in communication.
Alexis: It feels like we have slid back in our ability to engage in civil disagreements. Is that a fair assessment, or is the ICDP introducing something new to the landscape? Is ICDP trying to recapture something? Was there a shift/breakdown?
Amy: ICDP serves a dual purpose. Recognizing the degradation in our ability to communicate, I would argue that the current division in our nation is reminiscent of the Civil War era, which is disheartening. We've lost the sense of community where neighbors once traded with each other, children played freely until dusk, and the camaraderie extended beyond fences. Today, fear has replaced those experiences, and we hesitate to engage with our neighbors, altering the fabric of the America we once knew and loved.
However, ICDP navigates this challenge admirably by looking backward. The term "civil discourse" itself can be contentious in today's online environment, with some viewing it as a means to silence opposing voices. ICDP reframes the conversation as constructive dialogue, emphasizing the importance of understanding diverse perspectives and the reasons behind them. This involves delving into the past, listening to people's stories, and comprehending their viewpoints. Through this process, we can collectively create something new.
By processing and synthesizing the multitude of perspectives, ideologies, and viewpoints, we can turn the page and craft a new chapter with a more inclusive and understanding mindset. I find this aspect of ICDP truly beautiful.
Alexis: Can you share some successful initiatives or projects that you've been involved with through ICDP that have had a positive impact on fostering productive conversations and disagreement?
Amy: Yeah, as a full group, we haven't initiated many projects beyond participating in panels, although we've been quite active in that regard. However, individually, each of us in our respective institutions has implemented initiatives leveraging the skills acquired through ICDP. For instance, in my role as a Senior Fellow, I collaborated with Kiyohara Stark, a fellow from my campus. Together, we organized ethics labs, providing a platform for students to discuss contentious topics such as free speech and mental health on campus. Kiyohara and I facilitated these conversations, engaging with students and playing devil's advocate to stimulate diverse perspectives.
This year, we continue to apply the skills honed through ICDP to our ethical discussions. Moreover, I had the opportunity to speak about ICDP at the Bipartisan Policy Center in Washington DC in August, addressing the challenges of cancel culture and our efforts to navigate and overcome it. The experience was both enlightening and fruitful, contributing to the broader conversation about constructive discourse.
Alexis: Thank you for your time!