 I try to create space for my students to develop new ideas by, first of all, making a safe space for people to offer ideas. By serving as devil's advocate, I think students start to recognize that it's okay to offer ideas even if they are not one's own. You know, we'll, typically in a class, offer multiple competing narratives to explain a given case study. If my students are all seemingly on board with one of those narratives, I'll take it on as a task to undermine that narrative, to challenge the basic assumptions of that narrative. Just to make sure that my students are fully understanding the complexity and, you know, especially in some of the earlier classes, occasionally they'll switch, you know, switch their orientation or switch their understanding of the situation based on my prodding. And if that's the case, then I'll start arguing against whatever their current new understanding is. And I think there are several benefits to doing this. Number one, keeps students guessing as to what my personal preferences are so they don't feel that they have to, in my assessments, they don't feel that they have to answer the way that they think I'd want them to. And number two, it really directly models that four of my students, or demonstrates four of my students, that these are complex situations and that reasonable people can and do disagree on how to understand a policy dilemma. But there's a certain protection that they have in that no one's going to assume, for example, that they offer an opinion that seems to come from a different political orientation. The rest of the class is not going to assume from a comment or from a small set of comments that this person's politics are fundamentally different from one's own. I would say I also try to create a classroom environment where it's okay if people's politics differ, and the way I model that is by trying to give true voice to those multiple competing understandings of a given policy dilemma and present that reasonable people do disagree on what appropriate policies are. There is the risk, though, that when we present multiple competing narratives about a policy dilemma, that can look like the top of a very slippery slope down to the world of relativism where your facts are as good as my facts. That is a real risk, especially given our current political climate where we're having Twitter arguments about how we legitimate facts. The way I try to counter that slippery slope problem is just by creating repeated opportunities for students to engage with these critical thinking ideas and to do so in a supported way, starting with a full class exercise where we're developing case studies from multiple perspectives that are from multiple political lenses. And then repeating that process several times over, but with slightly less support each time. Slightly less support as they're doing the work, but then also always with the opportunity for them to get feedback, whether that's on a graded essay or feedback on an oral presentation.