Political Science Educator: volume 29, issue 2
Reflections
By Niva Golan-Nadir (niva.golan@post.runi.ac.il)
The classroom can be quite diverse–constituted by students with differing gendered, ethnic, and religious identities. Navigating these multiple identities and fostering an inclusive and respectful learning environment can be challenging for any educator. Even within the bounds of respectful academic discourse, some students may take offense at the course content in class discussions, where they may feel that the instructor or their peers are challenging their deeply held beliefs and threatening their , namely, their ontological security (see in Browning and Joenniemi 2017; Kinnvall and Mitzen 2020). This presents a significant challenge for educators in religiously divided societies like my own, Israel. This essay unpacks these issues and provides some advice for how to address them.
Religion and Division
In societies characterized by varying levels of religiosity, divisions can emerge when political, ethnic, linguistic, or religious affiliations create antagonistic segments within the population (Lustick 1979; O’Flynn 2007; Reilly 2002). A deeply divided society possesses cleavages that hinder its ability to sustain a stable democratic regime, as identity becomes the primary basis for inclusion or exclusion in governance (Fish and Brooks 2004; Horowitz 1993; Lijphart 1984). In democratic states where societal cleavages are rooted in religion, governance exists through power-sharing arrangements among religious sects, a system known as confessionalism (Lijphart 2004; Salamey and Payne 2008). Israel is commonly classified as a case of this kind. In Israel, Judaism is the religion of approximately 76.9%[1] of the population,[2] yet levels of religiosity vary significantly among secular (44.2%), traditional (32.7%), religious (11.5%), and Ultra-Orthodox (10.8%)[3] groups. The first three groups commonly interact within academic settings, whereas the latter follows a separate educational track, institutionalized at the time of state formation, with designated academic programs in certain institutions of higher education.
In religiously divided societies such as Israel, where Judaism serves as a common religious identity, but levels of religiosity range from secular to Ultra-Orthodox, the academic classroom becomes a microcosm of broader societal divisions. Teaching in such a setting involves navigating not only intellectual diversity but also deeply held personal and/or communal beliefs. Classroom discussions, particularly in political science, and from my personal experience in the realm of comparative politics which includes the field of politics and religion, can easily touch upon issues of identity, values, and norms, potentially leading to discomfort, tension, or feelings of exclusion among . In the classroom context in a divided society, one might argue that the student’s ontological security, namely the sense of stability, continuity, and order in their identity and understanding of the world, might be challenged. It describes the feeling of confidence that one’s self-identity and social environment are coherent, predictable, and meaningful over time (see in Browning and Joenniemi 2017; Greve 2018; Kinnvall and Mitzen 2020). For example, in a discussion on religion and state in my undergraduate Comparative Politics course, I presented the French case study, highlighting the ban on religious wear in state institutions as an expression of the Republic’s model of strict secularism. Following this example, some of the more secular students argued that a similar model should be adopted in Israel, replacing its (partially) non-secular framework. This sparked an emotional debate in the classroom, which I needed to navigate with care and sensitivity.
Classroom Advice
What can be done to reduce tensions and foster a respectful, inclusive classroom? Here are several strategies I have found helpful:
- Offer a clear and inclusive opening statement: Begin the course with a short but meaningful disclosure about your commitment to fostering an inclusive and respectful learning environment. Emphasize that discussions are not personal and that all views, if expressed respectfully, are welcome. Make it clear that you are available to address any concerns and invite students to approach you privately if they feel uncomfortable at any . This may be incorporated as a statement in the course syllabus, next to the lecturer’s contact info.
- Keep the terminology professional and theoretical: Use academic and discipline-specific language to frame classroom discussions and encourage students to engage with topics analytically and conceptually rather than normatively. This approach helps depersonalize sensitive issues and maintain an academic tone, even when the subject matter is emotionally or politically charged. In fact, this reflects the very essence of academia: to provide an informed and respectful space for the critical examination of political, social, and cultural . This means that, at its best, the classroom is a space where power dynamics and parochialism recede, allowing the pursuit of better ideas through rational, reasonable, and diverse discourse. A kind of marketplace of ideas grounded in principles of communicative rationality.
- Diversify case studies and examples: Avoid relying solely on local or national examples, such as the Israeli case study, in my context, as doing so may inadvertently intensify existing divisions or lead students to feel personally implicated in the discussion. Instead, incorporate a range of global and comparative examples that highlight similar dynamics in different cultural, political, or religious settings. This approach not only broadens students’ analytical perspectives but also creates a constructive distance, allowing for engagement with complex issues without personalizing the debate. In the field of comparative politics, this strategy fits naturally and enriches students’ understanding of both their own society and others.
- Respect religious sensitivities and restrictions: Be mindful of religious practices when planning both course content and classroom logistics. For instance, avoid scheduling activities that conflict with major religious observances. Even small classroom gestures, such as bringing treats for group assignments, which I occasionally do, can raise important considerations. On several occasions, religiously observant students have asked whether the food was kosher, reminding me of the significance of inclusivity in even the most informal classroom moments. Such sensitivity to religious restrictions, however minor it may seem, plays a crucial role in building trust and fostering a respectful, welcoming learning environment for all students.
- End the course on a positive, unifying note: Conclude the course by emphasizing the collective journey of shared learning, mutual respect, and the intellectual value of engaging with diverse perspectives. Take time to reflect on how students have grown both intellectually and personally, highlighting how constructive dialogue across lines of difference can deepen understanding and foster civic maturity. This approach reinforces the idea that diversity, whether religious, cultural, or ideological, is not a source of division, but rather an opportunity for enrichment. Such a conclusion also embodies the essence of the two fundamental democratic freedoms: the freedom to practice religion and the freedom from religious coercion. Even in deeply divided societies, these dual freedoms are essential to sustaining an inclusive, pluralistic academic environment.
Conclusion
Although the primary focus here is on diversity in levels of religiosity, the conclusions and best practices discussed can also be applied to classrooms characterized by political diversity, particularly during periods of heightened political tension, such as elections or national crises (e.g., violent demonstrations). In such times, political disagreements can easily escalate into emotionally charged debates that disrupt the learning environment. Drawing on the strategies outlined for managing religious diversity may offer a productive framework for facilitating respectful and constructive dialogue around political issues. Applying these practices can help create a classroom atmosphere that encourages open discussion while maintaining mutual respect and academic integrity.
References
Browning, Christopher S., and Pertti Joenniemi. 2017. “Ontological Security, Self-articulation and the Securitization of Identity.” Cooperation and Conflict 52 (1): 31-47. https://doi.org/10.1177/0010836716653161
Fish, M. Steven, and Robin S. Brooks. 2004. “Does Diversity Hurt Democracy”? Journal of Democracy 15 (1): 154-166. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0009
Greve, Patricia. 2018. “Ontological Security, the Struggle for Recognition, and the Maintenance of Security Communities.” Journal of International Relations and Development 21: 858-882. https://doi.org/10.1057/s41268-017-0108-y
Horowitz, Donald L. 1993. “Democracy in Divided Societies.” Journal of Democracy, 4 (4): 18-38. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.1993.0054
Kinnvall, Catarina, and Jennifer Mitzen. 2020. “Anxiety, Fear, and Ontological Security in World Politics: Thinking With and Beyond Giddens.” International Theory 12 (2): 240-256. https://doi.org/10.1017/S175297192000010X
Lijphart, Arend. 1984. Democracies: Patterns of Majoritarian and Consensus Government in Twenty-One Countries. Yale University Press.
Lijphart, Arend. 2004. “Constitutional Design for Divided Societies.” Journal of Democracy 15 (2): 96-109. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2004.0029
Lustick, Ian. 1979. “Stability in Deeply Divided Societies: Consociationalism versus Control.” World Politics 31 (3): 325-344. https://doi.org/10.2307/2009992
O’Flynn, Ian. 2007. “Review Article: Divided Societies and Deliberative Democracy.” British Journal of Political Science 37 (4): 731-751. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123407000397
Reilly, Ben. 2002. “Electoral Systems for Divided Societies.” Journal of Democracy 13 (2): 156-170. https://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2002.0029
Salamey, Imad, and Rhys Payne. 2008. “Parliamentary Consociationalism in Lebanon: Equal Citizenry vs. Quotated Confessionalism.” The Journal of Legislative Studies 14 (4): 451-473. https://doi.org/10.1080/13572330802442857
—-
Niva Golan-Nadir is a Research Associate at the Center for Policy Research, Rockefeller College Public Affairs & Policy at the University at Albany, SUNY, and at the Institute for Liberty and Responsibility, Lauder School of Government, Diplomacy & Strategy at Reichman University. She further teaches Comparative Politics and Research Methods at the Raphael Recanati International School.
[1] This number includes non-Arab Christians (a statistically marginal group) and individuals with no religious classification, often due to the inability to confirm Jewish maternal lineage.
[2] Other religious groups, comprising 21% Arabs and 2.1% foreign nationals, enjoy a significant degree of cultural and religious autonomy and tend to be less prominent in society’s religion-based conflicts. Owing to the extensive communal autonomy granted by the state, and their generally traditional orientation, religion is typically not a subject of public debate within these groups.
[3] Data by the Israeli Central Bureau of Statistics (CBS), 31 December 2024. See in: https://www.cbs.gov.il/he/mediarelease/Pages/2024/%D7%90%D7%95%D7%9B%D7%9C%D7%95%D7%A1%D7%99%D7%99%D7%AA-%D7%99%D7%A9%D7%A8%D7%90%D7%9C-%D7%91%D7%A4%D7%AA%D7%97%D7%94-%D7%A9%D7%9C-%D7%A9%D7%A0%D7%AA-2025.aspx
Published since 2005, The Political Science Educator is the newsletter of the Political Science Education Section of the American Political Science Association. As part of APSA’s mission to support political science education across the discipline, APSA Educate has republished The Political Science Educator since 2021. Please visit APSA Educate’s Political Science Educator digital collection.
Editor: Matt Evans (Northwest Arkansas Community College)
Assistant Editor: Colin Brown (Northeastern University)
Submissions: editor.PSE.newsletter@gmail.com
