As I sit in various meetings throughout the year for the junior Civic Lab program, I force myself to keep my hand down and try not to engage in “controversial” discussion. Rather than facing the debate that a topic like immigration can create, the 18 other students in the room are forced like me to remain without their own opinions.

Despite the ever-changing specifics in the Civic Engagement program here at Parker, one thing has always been consistent — the program is supposed to teach students to live and successfully operate in a democratic society. One might assume that as a student travels through each grade, the program builds upon itself to strengthen the skills that Civic Engagement promotes.

Unlike in other grades, all junior year students participate in a Civic Lab group. The focus of these groups range from areas about student leadership, to drug policy, to immigration. Each group is led by a high school teacher or administrator who feels personally connected to or interested in the subject. These groups include the Youth Leadership group led by Dean of Students Christian Bielizna, Migration Story with Director of Civic Engagement Shanti Elliott, Parents Allied with Children and Teachers for Tomorrow (PACCT) with upper school English teacher Mike Mahany, Students for Sensible Drug Policy (SSDP) with upper school history teacher Jeanne Barr, and Creating Alliances led by upper school history teacher Andrew Bigelow.

I spend a few days each semester meeting or traveling around the city with “Migration Story.” This particular group focuses on the experiences of immigrants in the country, but more specifically within Chicago.

As my Civic Lab group met throughout the first semester, we naturally began to talk about what could be considered “sensitive” or “controversial” topics. We regularly talk about the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) program here in the US, deportation laws, and what may unfold in the upcoming presidential term. Unfortunately, Elliot would prefer if we keep all controversial, or “harmful,” thoughts to ourselves. We, as a Civic Lab group, cannot “hurt each other’s humanities.”

The “Migration Story” Civic Lab group often discusses the work that ICE does in this country. We visited an immigration court and watched all different types of deportation trials. But all throughout these experiences, we are to keep our opinions to ourselves.

This conflict first came up before we watched a short documentary following a man who was taking sanctuary in a church in Chicago. After someone made a comment, we were told that we were to keep controversy to ourselves to not “hurt each other’s humanities.” For obvious reasons, the group wanted to discuss what this actually meant– we were told it would have to be at a later time. That time still hasn’t come.

As far as I can tell, my Civic Lab group is full of very intelligent and thoughtful students. Up until the humanities comment, I never felt like we were exchanging debate that could be considered hurtful. What’s worse, we were never even given the chance to fully delve into what “hurting each other’s humanities” even means. I’m sure we all felt frustrated, but talking about this kind of censorship wasn’t an option for the group.

I find the messages of the Civic Engagement program quite compelling. Its facilitators set an example for students to go into their communities, speak out for change, and ultimately take risks that can lead to action. If the core of the program, according to the Civic Engagement website, is to educate “students to think and act with empathy, courage and clarity as responsible citizens and leaders in a democratic society and global community,” then I would think learning to use our voices is a key part of that ideology.

Rather than avoiding anything that might “hurt each other’s humanity,” in order to become a leader in a democratic society, one has to learn to speak out and engage in controversy. I firmly believe that within the walls of Parker, the teachers strive to teach us those difference. If that’s the case, though, then what other place to engage in conversation than the very Civic Lab groups?

I can’t speak for the other three groups, but as I learn more about deportation in this country, or how hard it is to become a citizen, there is huge need to discuss and talk about the information. As students, we’re supposed to take what’s out of our control and try to bring it into our reach.

This country is facing a new presidency where more than ever debate and discussion will be vital. If the Civic Lab group is once again supposed to be teaching us about how to become strong leaders in a democratic society, it seems we should be debating and dealing with controversy rather than hiding from it– because no matter what, the more those conversations are swept away, the more they keep showing up.