In the wake of the historic November 8 upset, the presidential election became the focus of many classroom discussions.

As Freshman Taylor Jordan’s experience in her Nutrition Class shows, students’ focus on the subject may have helped drive the discussions.

“We were all like talking about it before the bell rang,” said Jordan. “And she [the teacher] asked us, would we like to talk about it, and everyone was like, of course, and so we started talking.”

Unfortunately, the conversation got out of hand and had to cease.

“I knew everyone had different opinions,” said Jordan. “But I didn’t think it would get that loud in the classroom, and everybody arguing.”

Jordan doesn’t think anything productive came out of the subject.

“We shouldn’t have discussed it,” she said. “Everybody knew what happened, so it wasn’t going to work. Like of course she [the teacher] was trying to control us and tell us to calm down, but people were too in the moment and kept arguing.”

Madison Trinh, also a freshman, had a different experience with her Geometry class.

“Yes, [the discussion] definitely stayed civil,” said Trinh. “I think all of us got some weight off our shoulders because we were all really stressed on Tuesday night.”

Her teacher had started the conversations with the class opening.

“He showed us the video and we got to have our responses,” said Trinh. “It kind of shifted from that video about the presidency to what’s going to happen next and all that. And at the end he gave his kinda view on it, not really stating his political views, but kind of what he thought about the election.”

Trinh thinks that talking about the election was beneficial.

“I think it kind of clarified how we need to treat people at this school, not changing anything just because Donald Trump won the election,” she said. “It cleared up, kind of, what we think of our country and how this country needs to improve, during this presidency and for many more to come.”

Senior Rowan Kemmerly supports talking about the election in school.

“I think your school is not a place you should just go to go like learn facts and stuff,” said Kemmerly. “It should also be a place that just fosters discussions and fosters creative thinking and freedom of ideas. Completely stopping that would have just halted the learning process in general.”

Kemmerly thinks that teachers were right to hold the discussions.

“I think even in some of my classes, for instance in my economics class, the teacher was able to bring the results of the election sort of into what we were currently learning,” she said. “I also think it was such an important thing and that it shouldn’t just be disregarded, not thought of, everything goes on as normal, because it will affect everyone’s lives that goes to this school.”

Kemmerly admits that not all the discussions were civil.

“Yeah, I definitely did see some first hand, strife between different sides and people were definitely not acting in ways they should,” said Kemmerly. “But these discussions are going to happen, regardless of whether there’s a ban or not, between students. So I think by accepting that and making it okay to discuss those things, there’s a way that the teachers can even help to lead the conversation to make it a more productive place and not just a place of name-calling or hate from both sides.”

Teachers conducted the talks for a variety of reasons.

“A bunch of decisions went into my thinking,” said DeAnn Peterson, who teaches Biology and Environmental Science. “My own mental state needed a little bit of help from my students. When I feel foggy like that I like to talk to my classes. But I also recognized that the majority was also struggling to pay attention. And I felt like if we had a chance to talk just a little bit, it would be a better space for them to learn some biology.”

Peterson led the discussion in her classes.

“It was mostly me just talking to my class, like usual,” said Peterson. “There wasn’t a whole lot of discussion. But I was really cognizant of making sure that I said was fully balanced. And I started it with a conversation to students who were potentially Pro-Trump, and I talked briefly on that, and then I talked to briefly to those that were Pro-Clinton.”

She decided that her usual “soapbox”, or lecture method was most appropriate for the occasion.

“I was not mentally prepared to handle a full blown argument-discussion in my room and keep it cool and calm, because I was struggling personally myself,” said Peterson. And that’s why I kind of made it a soapbox, a balanced soapbox kind of conversation instead. And then we moved onto photosynthesis.”

Carolyn Fraser, who teaches Economics, realized she was going to hold a discussion when she came in on Wednesday morning and saw her first period class.

“First of all, it was hard to ignore,” said Fraser. “Because the students were upset and they were looking to me for some answers. And so therefore I didn’t feel I had a choice but to say something.”

Fraser thinks it would have been difficult to arrange for how teachers should handle the event.

“I think the election just caught everybody flat-footed, and so therefore there was no plan when we came in,” said Fraser. “There just was no time. If I could have done it, I would have not had kids come to school the next day. I think we needed to calm down but that isn’t an option, so, you know the teachers did the best they could, given the situation.”

In addition to economic policy specifically, Fraser has another goal when talking to her students about politics.

“My goal is to educate students to evaluate what’s happening out there, to do it as objectively as possible,” said Fraser. “When you have a stance, can you back it up? Do the arguments that are being put forward make sense? And to try to train some long term thinkers. People that will think about how this will benefit us today, or how it will cost us today, but what’s the long run impact.”

Brian Ely, who teaches AP U.S. History and AP Human Geography, thinks that the election discussions should be confined to relevant courses but sees how it can spread.

“It has really taken hold of people’s minds, conversations, as it typically does, in a presidential year,” said Ely. “This year is even more polarized, and I think it’s just a big topic for people to talk about, just in general. And so sometimes that has the ability to find itself bleeding into other areas.”