Why Engineered Belonging Carries Real Risks
Dear Graham Gardemeyer, I want to begin by commending you. You are a bright young man, and your op-ed in The Union on May 1 shows a healthy kind of civic discourse that is rare on these opinion pages of our local newspaper. As someone who lectures on civil discourse at the university level, I appreciate your willingness to speak up publicly and the personal stake you take as a senior at Nevada Union High. You are still at the very beginning of your education, yet you are already showing the kind of thoughtful participation our republic needs. For that, you should be proud.
Shared Goals and Points of Difference
That said, we agree on the basics: bullying, violence, and hatred have no place in our schools. Every student deserves to feel safe, and clear thinking cannot happen when kids are afraid. Where we differ is in how best to reach those shared goals. You describe ESB and STANDS as simple, limited, and practical steps. You say ESB simply restates existing anti-bullying law and that STANDS is just a narrow advisory committee with clear guardrails. You argue that these structures actually reduce fear and isolation and that they help restore the conditions for independent thought. These are sincere and reasonable points. Yet they do not address the structural critique I made in my original piece.
Lessons from Philosophy and History
My argument was never that ESB or STANDS equals Nazism, nor that anyone involved has bad intentions. It is about structure. I argued that certain institutional designs create psychological and social patterns that have historically led in dangerous directions, no matter how sincere the people who created them or how many guardrails they included. These ideas come from the writings of important philosophers and scholars. Gustave Le Bon, in his book The Crowd, showed how even small groups can turn into “psychological crowds.” People get swept up by emotional contagion, repeated simple slogans like “every student belongs,” and they lose their individual judgment in favor of group feelings. Hannah Arendt, in The Origins of Totalitarianism, explained how well-meaning efforts to give lonely people a sense of belonging and purpose can grow into ideological movements that weaken private life and independent thinking. Mattias Desmet brings these ideas up to date: widespread anxiety and teen isolation get focused by one big story—here, the story of safety through identity-based belonging and organized youth voice. This creates a kind of group hypnosis and makes people intolerant of anyone who disagrees.
Healthy Belonging vs. Engineered Collective Identity
It is important to clarify the difference. Healthy belonging comes from family, faith, real communities, and groups you choose to join. This kind of belonging strengthens you as an individual. It builds your ability to think for yourself and take personal responsibility. The group solidarity promoted by ESB and STANDS is very different. It is an artificial identity created and pushed by the school system itself. It pressures students to set aside their own independent judgment in favor of emotional group approval and a specific ideological story. ESB and STANDS are exactly the dynamic these scholars warn against.
Problems with ESB and STANDS in Practice
Even deliberately limited structures can still create these problems. ESB does much more than simply restate existing law. Its text repeatedly highlights “marginalized and non-marginalized students,” “equitable” environments, “different identities,” and “affirmation” across a long list of protected characteristics. These are not neutral words. They set up a moral framework in which certain viewpoints can be seen as threats to belonging itself. STANDS sets up “systemic advocacy” and “bolstering youth voice” through a formal committee that has elected leaders, subcommittees, and required projects. The charter may say it is neutral, but the structure itself organizes students into a collective political group. Paper guardrails have historically been too weak against peer pressure and the school’s desire to celebrate “youth voice.”
You are correct that fear and isolation are dangerous, but ESB and STANDS do not simply reduce them. Instead, they direct that anxiety into one specific story that says safety comes from collective belonging and advocacy. When that happens, disagreement stops being an intellectual discussion and becomes an emotional attack on the group. We have already seen the early signs right here in our community: student walkouts with anarchic and anti-authority themes, reports of conservative students being told to “kill themselves,” and a clear shift away from academics while CAASPP proficiency rates stay very low. These outcomes are not accidental. They are predictable results of the particular structures that were chosen.
Call for Independent Thought and Caution
Your op-ed dismisses these concerns as “cynical Status Quo” attacks on “effort itself.” That rhetorical move—pitting unified youth against cynical adults—actually shows the very dynamic I am warning about. It replaces careful discussion of trade-offs with emotional group feeling. The real questions are: Does heavy identity language actually reduce bullying, or does it deepen division? Does “youth voice” as systemic advocacy strengthen democracy, or does it train students to treat disagreement as harm?
Graham, you are at the beginning of your education. Read the philosophers and scholars that I mentioned. They warn that structures like ESB and STANDS which put collective belonging ahead of individual reason carry real and predictable risks. My critique is not against your good heart or your effort. It is simply a call to examine whether these particular structures will help create the critical, independent citizens our republic needs—or whether they point us toward the kind of conformity that has threatened self-government in the past.
