After Vijit Dua published an independent journal piece on political polarization at UC Davis and Joshua Harris reached out to him regarding the points in the article where he disagreed with Vijit. They talked it out civilly — agreed to disagree on some points, but also found overlap on several other points and were better able to understand the premise behind each other's beliefs. They kept coming back to the same wish: that more people on this campus would learn to handle disagreements in the same manner and Common Ground Davis grew out of that conversation. The two still disagree politically, yet they co-lead the club because that is the point.

Political polarization is a growing problem in the United States and at UC Davis. At the extremes of the right wing, empathy and opposing views are dismissed as "woke," "Marxist," "communist," or "mentally ill." On the far left, disagreement is immediately labeled "fascist," "violent speech," "Nazism," or "anti-human rights." Both sides dismiss honest questions from the other with labels that justify ignoring opposing views and keep people from hearing each other out.

We, at Common Ground Davis, want to change that status quo. We start from one belief: everyone has reasons behind their beliefs, and no one is inherently evil. People don't knowingly do something they believe is wrong without a reason. Either they believe it's the right thing to do, or they accept that it's wrong in isolation but justified in the broader context (e.g., breaking a rule to prevent a bigger harm). Everyone's reasons come from their own lived experiences, so the people we disagree with usually have genuine reasons for their beliefs, even if those reasons look flawed to us.

Whether a reason is good is a separate question from whether it exists, and you can't judge it fairly until you understand it. That's why, in our meetings, before a member argues their own side or presents a rebuttal, they must accurately present the strongest version of the opposing argument and explain why a reasonable person might hold it. This is the steelman argument, the direct inverse of the strawman argument. Strawmanning is a tempting shortcut: attacking a weaker / inaccurate version of the other side makes it easy to win a debate, but the victory is illusory and only deepens polarization. At Common Ground Davis, we practice the harder alternative, because understanding is where real conversation begins.

Our goal isn't to get everyone to agree. It's to build a space where members can disagree and still understand each other. Members leave with sharper arguments, a clearer way to say what they actually think, and less fear of political conversations with their peers. And we hold ourselves to the same standard: this club is founded and co-led by two students who disagree politically, who have civil conversations aimed at understanding each other's views, and who want to promote that culture across our campus.