Williams students can’t talk politics. That’s not to say that we are politically under-informed or uninterested in the system — far from it. Our students are articulate, well educated, and passionate. The problem is that we are stuck in a political bubble which prevents us from speaking about politics in an authentic, understanding way.
Since arriving at the College, I have often heard the phrase “the purple bubble.” Usually used to reference our physical isolation, it also describes our political insulation. According to a 2024 Record survey of the student body, 82.5 percent of respondents planned to vote for Kamala Harris.
Having a large concentration of liberal people is not a problem in itself. I myself am liberal. It is easy to forget that we are surrounded by voices which mirror our own, and lock ourselves in a cycle of political delusion. In my experience, students at the College have a tendency to insulate themselves on the left and refuse to hear alternative viewpoints or arguments.
I understand the propensity to wall ourselves off from opinions which we vehemently disagree with. Every new day seems to carry a news story on an objectionable decision made by the people who run our country. Especially now, when issues of dignity and identity are at stake, it is convenient to write off those we disagree with. Staying in the bubble makes life a lot easier, but it is not the reaction to the constant political chaos of our times that will lead to real solutions.
Conversations across political lines, as well as interpersonal political dialogue, fuel political change. This is not a naïve wish, but an empirical truth. People sympathize more with political causes when they can understand the personal circumstances that underlie those views. Public support for the legality of same-sex marriage increased as people met more gay and lesbian individuals and realized that they were not threats but normal people. In his dissent to the 1919 Supreme Court decision Abrams v. United States, which upheld the conviction of critics of the U.S. government under the 1918 Sedition Act, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. wrote that “the ultimate good desired is better reached by free trade in ideas — that the best test of truth is the power of the thought to get itself accepted in the competition of the market.” When people force their opinions on others, or withdraw themselves from the conversation entirely, they don’t change anyone’s mind.
The College is a bastion of wealth, both as an institution and within its student body, and this is a double-edged sword. As students at an elite institution, we are often not very good at relating to the political needs of people in different socioeconomic positions from our own, even within the College. Our upbringings are very different, and few of us ever try to meaningfully bridge that gap.
I attended a small private high school in New York City. A good friend of mine here attended a large public high school in Texas. In a conversation about the merits of free college for all, my friend spoke about the decisions her classmates made about college: many of them went to community college, trade school, or entered the workforce directly. I realized that no one from my high school did any of those things; hardly any even went to state schools. I am embarrassed to say that this was the first time I had ever considered that those options could be the norm in entire communities.
These lessons can be broadened to issues outside of the College. If students can remove ourselves from our intelligentsia bubble, we can become better, more informed citizens and learn to speak more concretely about issues that lie outside the limitations of our experiences. Something as simple as getting to know the cashier at the grocery store or a person in line at the DMV can be immensely beneficial to this endeavor. Attending jury duty in New York, I was seated next to an immigrant from the West Indies and a student from Brooklyn College who had just finished her night shift. After speaking with them for a few hours, I understood more about lives unlike my own. Though we never learned each others’ names, we empathized over each other’s problems — both political and not.
Students at the College have a tendency to speak cerebrally about problems that we don’t face — especially privileged students. People who cannot make utility payments or put enough food on the table will often prioritize survival over other issues they care about: they will vote with their immediate needs in mind when their circumstances require it. This was evident in the most recent election. Many economists projected Harris’ policies to be better for working-class families, but many of them voted in favor of Trump because they felt the Democrats did not understand their plight. President Biden continually called his economy the strongest ever, which, while true, clashed with the reality that people could not afford basic goods. People choose food on the table over personal freedoms. It is the obligation of the privileged to listen to these people’s concerns rather than deride them for voting against our perception of the right choice.
It is our duty to listen and try to understand, without the intent to persuade, especially to those in our own generation. Men aged 18-24 swung to the right by 14 percentage points in the last presidential election, relative to 2020. Like it or not, a large part of the American population feels something most of us on this campus don’t. By speaking with them in community centers, over lunch, or in high schools, we can begin the arduous process of finally bursting the purple bubble. We can connect with one another, and find out that we have a hell of a lot more in common than we might think.
After much discussion about how to fix this problem of insulation and apathy, we hope to chart a new path forward. This year, Victoria Zhang ’27 and I will be launching a non-partisan initiative for students at the College to talk politics with people outside of our bubble through the Leadership Studies Department and the Center for Learning in Action. Named “Bursting the Purple Bubble,” it will promote discussion across political and socioeconomic lines with the intent to listen and understand. We invite any and all to join us.
Change is effected by listening and avoiding prejudices based on political affiliation or socioeconomic standing. The goals of this project are ambitious but necessary. It is high time to burst that purple bubble.
Bryan DiFebo-Byrne ’27 is from New York, N.Y.
