For many liberal Northwestern students, the campus seems to be painted a distinct shade of blue. But, being in the majority doesn’t always mean speaking in unison.
More than 80% of students identified as somewhat or very liberal, according to The Daily’s Spring Campus Poll, whereas only 4.7% of students identified as either somewhat or very conservative. Yet, for members of left-leaning on-campus groups like the NU College Democrats, being in the majority can still mean navigating disagreement.
Policy shifts in the embryonic stages of President Donald Trump’s second term have become major points of contention among club members. Weinberg junior and College Democrats Co-President Emilie Tueting said issues like immigration, recent federal funding cuts and the University’s campus protest response have been at the heart of the organization’s discussions this quarter.
“We’re kind of in a hurricane of bad news right now,” Tueting said. “All the stuff that’s happening with the Trump administration right now has been at the forefront of our minds.”
While the College Democrats hold weekly meetings where members share updates and discuss ongoing political developments, Tueting said for many students — including herself — political conversation can seep deep into everyday life.
Former College Democrats Co-President and Weinberg junior Clark Mahoney said he thinks it’s “easier” for liberal NU students to express their opinions on campus than it is for conservatives.
“There’s safety in numbers,” Mahoney said. “You can say some liberal thing and that’s not really out of the blue, so people aren’t going to jump or attack (you).”
However, there are cases where the left and right-leaning groups can overlap in ideology. Mahoney said he noticed that while a lot of conservative students may like Trump, some don’t favor the policies introduced during his second term.
At the same time, Tueting said campus life can often feel like “a little bit of a liberal bubble.” Conversation has become more complex even within liberal groups, she said.
Tueting said topics like the Israel-Hamas war and last Spring’s Deering Meadow encampment can cast divides even between those within the club.
“It’s the first time there’s been such an obvious split between Democrats on campus, at least in recent years,” Tueting said. “There’s not really an argument that could really be in favor of all this stuff. So it sounds like it’s kind of like an echo chamber, but everywhere.”
Tueting also said some students have been “turned off” by party politics altogether.
As a result, Tueting said some College Democrats executive members have recently been reflecting on how to make the organization more inclusive — especially after a heated May 2 debate hosted by BridgeUSA sparked some controversy across campus.
“I think you run into a problem when some of that free speech starts turning into being really, really problematic speech and harmful speech,” Tueting said.
During the event, President of Young Americans for Freedom and NU College Republicans speaker Caleb Nunes referenced “mismatch theory,” a contested claim that Black students underperform at elite universities, as an argument against affirmative action. Weinberg sophomore Juniper Shelley debated against Nunes, arguing in favor of affirmative action.
Shelley said Nunes’ remarks left her “really surprised,” especially given her own efforts to promote mutual understanding through public discourse.
“I think some of the things that (Nunes) said are rooted in racist ideas,” Shelley said. “I don’t know if that was his intention or not, but that is, in my opinion, how it came across.”
Mahoney said some political topics can become unproductive when they make participants“feel belittled.”
For future debates, Tueting said she would like to limit identity politics. She said she was “disappointed” in the way race and academic performance were discussed from the conservative side, advocating for a clearer line between “free” and “hateful” speech.
“They made it seem like Black people were just not cut out to be at universities,” Tueting said. “To sit there with all that privilege and then to say that students that come from different racial backgrounds or different income backgrounds are somehow less worthy of being here … was really disappointing, and I think, frankly, wrong.”
Both Shelley and Tueting said they believe there are multiple factors that go into academic performance and test scores, such as access to education or resources available to students.
Shelley said admissions at elite institutions — like NU — is competitive regardless of race or background, citing broader social and economic factors that shape academic outcomes during the May debate.
In response to the incident, Tueting and Mahoney said College Democrats are rethinking how future political debates can be structured. Both leaders said they want to ensure that controversial ideas can be addressed — but within formats that allow for both respectful engagement and real-time responses.
Tueting also said College Democrats are considering adding a fact-checking system for future debates.
In the meantime, Mahoney said College Democrats will continue to try to avoid topics that may make participants feel personally attacked or alienated.
“We want people to feel like they’re still welcome and invited in this space,” Mahoney said. “We don’t want to create a space for hatred or hate speech on campus.”
Political science Prof. Laurel Harbridge-Yong, current group faculty advisor for College Democrats and BridgeUSA, said the University’s administration generally supports political student organizations regardless of ideology.
As associate director for the Institute for Policy Research, Harbridge-Yong also previously advised the College Republicans.
When advising both student organizations, Harbridge-Yong said it’s important to encourage open dialogue within and across political groups. She said she tried to be consistent in her advising approach, regardless of whether one group represented the minority or majority perspective on campus.
However, Harbridge-Yong also said the visibility of liberal viewpoints on campus can shape how students respond to conservative ones.
“Political interest is a big factor in how open students might feel in talking about politics,” Harbridge-Yong said. “There’s also social science research that suggests that it can often be easier to share your views when you’re in the majority group than when you’re in a minority group.”
Even though Tueting said she thinks liberal views dominate academic discourse at NU, she also said she believes there is still value in making space for “uncomfortable” conversations.
Mahoney and Shelley both said dialogue shouldn’t be limited only to formal debates. Rather, they said political groups should encourage productive conversation between them.
“We should have Northwestern professors who are conservatives, and Democrats should be taking classes with them,” Shelley said. “We should have students that we don’t even need to be friends with, but that we can talk to that have different political views than us.”
Email: [email protected]
Related Stories:
— BridgeUSA debate sparks sharp divides over education, trade, immigration
— College Democrats and NU Young America’s Foundation co-host open discussion on Oligarchy in America
