Dr. Brammer Visits Stuyvesant

University of Chicago Director of the Parrhesia Public Discourse Program Dr. Leila Brammer visited Stuyvesant on November 14 to discuss the importance of open dialogue in our school and the world during increasingly polarizing times. The Parrhesia Public Discourse Program aims to help students develop effective thinking and communication skills through its undergraduate curriculum, programming, and outreach. Outreach events usually involve workshops or seminars led by Dr. Brammer, with past events covering topics such as civic leadership.

History teacher David Hanna invited Dr. Brammer to visit Stuyvesant after he took her week-long course about public discourse specifically for secondary school teachers this past summer. “She was very effective in providing useful skills to foster open discussion on polarizing topics. ‘Parrhesia’ is a word that comes from ancient Athens; it means the ‘skill’ of free speech as opposed to the ‘right’ of free speech. To exercise the latter effectively, you need to master the former,” Hanna said in an email interview. “I then thought, ‘Why don’t we invite her to speak at Stuy?’ Principal [Dr. Seung] Yu then took the lead and created a really dynamic day-long program.”

The program lasted from periods three to seven. Dr. Brammer started off the conference with an icebreaker and followed with a presentation and discussion. “We began with an icebreaker [where Dr. Brammer] asked that we share something about free speech that currently concerns us,” junior Lucia Robinovich said. “We just kind of got right into it from the start, which I really appreciated, and it really gave everybody in the circle a chance to share and for us all to hear their voice. [...] Then she went ahead with a presentation just explaining [the Parrhesia Public Discourse Program], free speech in this country in general, and the polarization and kind of the science behind it.”

Though there was a presentation, the conference mostly consisted of discussion, where Dr. Brammer asked the students questions. “I liked the format of it being at a round table; everyone was able to share their voice; it just felt more personal; it felt like we were having a conversation with her as opposed to just being lectured to,” Robinovich said.

Students also had the opportunity to engage in individual discussions with Dr. Brammer in a lunch following the conference. “There were a lot of one-on-one discussions with her,” Robinovich said. “There was a lunch afterwards in that same conference room, and I sat next to her; I spoke to her for about an hour.” 

During the event, Dr. Brammer connected what she’s seen implemented at the University of Chicago to a broader strategy that will encourage more student involvement regarding controversial topics. “She described how UChicago sort of takes this neutral stance on [the] war in Gaza, [and] they attempt to give their students opportunities to express their views on the situation,” senior Salioudian Barry said. “That means bringing guest speakers that not only are just there to represent their ideologies but are there to listen to other students when students want to get involved in these conversations. It’s good that colleges and universities in the U.S., such as UChicago, are promoting public speaking in a healthy manner.”

Dr. Brammer also brought up the idea that safe spaces can end up becoming echo chambers. “Conventionally, when you think of safe spaces, you’re like ‘Okay, that’s a good environment for people to discuss things and feel open’,” Barry said. “But [Dr. Brammer] said that certain safe spaces are more open to a certain group of people. It can be counterproductive, because a safe space should be a place where someone should be open to expressing their views.”

Being able to express those views in a way that sparks effective discussion is a part of what Dr. Brammer asserts as the “skill” of free speech. “[It’s] important to have passion and emotion about certain topics, but [Brammer] said it’s good to know how you can phrase that and word it [so] to not offend people and go into certain spaces where you can have a productive conflict,” Barry said. 

The conference left students with many ideas to contemplate. “Honestly, her presentation left me with more questions than answers, and it just left me probably more confused than when I had gone in,” Rubinovich said. “On one hand, you’re like, ‘Okay, so what was the point of all that? If you just were left confused?’ But I think that [...] listening to these complex ideas, just the way that things work, and having it leave you with more questions teaches you how to think; how to form your own ideas; form your own takeaways.”

Overall, the conference appears to have been a large success. Participants found the discussions thought-provoking and informative. “What it did definitely do for me was inspire me to want to learn more, think more, and just pursue more knowledge,” Robinovich said. “I just thought it was great. I would love for it to happen again.”