The Institute for Advancing American Values hosts Bronco Convos again this Spring 26 semester. Join us to discuss hot button political topics in a neutral space. The eight events will feature facilitated conversations, trainings from mediators, and a brave space to explore, discuss, and hear different viewpoints on a range of important issues. These conversations are open to all Boise State students, staff, and faculty. Check this webpage in advance of event dates for topics and readings that provide context for the discussions.
Spring 2026 Bronco Convos
Note: All events start at 12:00pm
- January 16, Student Union, Trueblood (topic, readings and discussion questions below)
- January 29, Student Union, Farnsworth
- February 11, Student Union, Farnsworth
- February 24, Student Union, Alexander
- March 10, Student Union, Trueblood
- March 27, Student Union, Bishop Barnwell
- April 10, Student Union, Trueblood
- April 23, Student Union, Trueblood
Bronco Convos Ground Rules
Our campus community is made up of people from a wide range of backgrounds, disciplines, and perspectives. As would be expected in such a diverse group, participants will hold different views on virtually any topic of discussion. We prize pluralism and value constructive disagreement.
The purpose of our gatherings is not to “win” arguments, but to deepen our collective understanding, build trust, and create spaces where all voices can be heard. To foster a respectful and inclusive environment, we ask all participants to uphold the following guidelines:
Speak from your own experience – Use “I” statements. Avoid generalizing or speaking for others. Your story matters—and so does everyone else’s.
Make your case with evidence – Whenever possible, connect your contributions to credible sources. Statistics, quotes, or facts should have clear origins.
Listen to understand – Be fully present. Practice active listening, especially when you hear something you disagree with.
Respect differences and discomfort – Challenging topics can create discomfort. Lean into it with curiosity, not judgment.
Be intellectually charitable – Try to acknowledge, when possible, the ways in which the actor or idea you are criticizing may be right — be it in part or in full. Look for reasons why the beliefs others hold may be compelling, and assume that others are roughly as reasonable, informed, and intelligent as you.
Share the space – Be mindful not to dominate the conversation and make room for quieter voices.
Ask questions to explore, not just to challenge – Disagreement is welcome, but do so in ways that invite dialogue rather than debate.
Be intellectually humble – Take seriously the possibility that you may be wrong. Be open to revising your views and acknowledge the limits of your own arguments and evidence.
Be constructive – Focus on building understanding and identifying solutions. Offer positive alternatives, explore new possibilities, and avoid sarcasm, hostility, or dismissiveness. Critique ideas, not people.
Thank you for your commitment to these shared values. By practicing them, we create a space for genuine connection, reflection, and growth.
Bronco Convo – April 10
12:00 – 1:00pm, Trueblood Room, Student Union
Political Partisanship: Can America be united?
For the April 10 Bronco Convo discussion, we will examine if the United States can recover from partisanship and, if so, how. Attendees are encouraged to review this PBS Newshour story, and the Disagree Better website.
Discussion Questions
- How has partisanship affected you, your college experience, your family, or relationship with your community more broadly?
- Do you think there is a future where Americans can put partisanship behind us, at least the worst of it, and work together to solve our problems?
- How do you think polarization will play out over the next 10 years?
- Does one ‘side’ need to win, or can we make a culture of compromise part of America’s future?
- How do you think deep polarization influences how Americans respond to current issues, such as climate change, crime, or public health?
- If you had a million dollars, how would you spend it to reduce “affective polarization” (affective polarization is the dislike and distrust the opposing party, while feeling stronger positive emotions toward one’s own party), assuming you think it is a problem that can be solved and is worth solving?