Answer me honestly: why are we here? Not as in, why are we on the planet, but why are we here at NYU Abu Dhabi? Of all the places in the world to work and study, why did so many of us pick this tiny little campus in the middle of the desert?

For me, it is the sheer diversity of thought and experience. It is unparalleled and invaluable. Yet, more frequently, I feel that engaging in controversial topics is becoming harder, and those that can provide tremendous insight within our sphere are beginning to be shunned. Not because of what they have to offer, but because of their previous escapades.

I take you back to when former British Prime Minister Tony Blair visited us on campus during January Term 2018. Or more recently, when U.S American Secretary of State, Mike Pompeo, gave a talk in the following year. Both of these figures are highly controversial, drawing criticism from all corners of the world. Accused by some of being a war criminal, Mr. Blair is frequently condemned for his role in the 2003 invasion of Iraq, while Secretary Pompeo draws an abundance of criticism for dismissing the alleged torture allegations against the CIA and taking a highly charged Trump-esque stance towards foreign policy.

However, simply inviting these people onto our campus has sparked a phenomenon that I had never witnessed before. The sheer outrage caused by allowing these figures to set foot in the place in which we work, live and study manifested in a radical change of attitude towards learning. The suggestion that we should not allow these highly controversial figures to speak on campus has marked a change in ethos, one counter to that of NYUAD. The thought of denying people the right to speak, purely because of actions that they have committed, was confusing to me.

I fully understand how these people have caused both injury and pain to so many, as the actions that ripple out from their offices in London or D.C. can have catastrophic effects in other regions. But does that mean that we should not listen to them at all?

As academics, we should always be practicing how to negotiate with those that are in positions of power. And, although I would never choose to justify their actions, I will always be sensitive to what they have to say, because we have an obligation to learn. I do not want to belong to an institution that cuts out any opposing view, just because it is not the view of the majority.

I bring this to your attention because this summer, I, along with 13 other NYUAD students, took a course with Professor Frank Luntz. Over the 15 days, we travelled to four major U.S cities, met with journalists, politicians, entrepreneurs, social activists, religious leaders and countless other influential minds. We presented talks at the Nixon Library, watched a live broadcast in a news network studio and even took a midnight tour of the Capitol building. The things we learned and saw, I could never expect to experience without Professor Luntz.

Not only did he take us on one of the wildest rides through U.S politics, but he also taught us invaluable skills that we would struggle to acquire in a conventional classroom. Throughout the duration of the course, we learned how to focus on the crux of modern political debates. We learned when to delay voicing a disagreement in order to assert a rebuttal at a more significant time, and how to play the devil’s advocate with delicacy and nuance. We learned the importance of projecting ourselves in a crowded room, and how to spot the most influential person sitting at a table. There were also times when I felt exhausted, but Professor Luntz kept pushing us. I have never seen someone show such investment in a class.

Professor Luntz himself is confronted with extreme hostility because of his previous occupational endeavours, and, on occasion, I can see why. Yet, he has provided me and countless other NYUAD students with the learning experience of a lifetime. Although people always arrive to our campus with mixed agendas, there are opportunities to learn and grow around every corner, most commonly from those that sit on the opposite side of our ideological see-saw. These challenges are far too valuable to miss, and his willingness to provide students with life changing experiences is born from his belief that our university is truly phenomenal. So I urge you not to deny these people the opportunity to offer their experiences, but instead to go talk to them and engage. It will make you much stronger.

Now imagine, for example, if people didn’t want certain philosophies on our campus. Do we have the right to prevent those from voicing their opinions if they do not align with the ethos of our community? Or if certain individuals have engaged in certain actions that could be in contradiction with our university’s agenda? Any form of tension in beliefs has the ability to derive hostility, and no one enjoys hostility.

This is not a brag, or even a promotion, but rather an appeal of appeasement for all of those in disagreement with certain aspects of a person’s career decisions. Some of my fondest moments in life were born from disagreements. As we choose to voice our opinions, step away from the plate, listen and then step back up as a better informed opponent. I speak from experience when I say that doing this in a controlled manner is extremely difficult. More often than not, I find that I fail. My emotions get the better of me, the kettle boils over, things get messy and our primarily platonic conversation turns into a full-scale battle. However, this is never a complete failure. We grow, we learn and we improve. I now enjoy these differences in ideologies.

Of all the reasons why we have chosen to come here, let us not forget the most important one: the opportunity to actively engage with difference. It is the diversity not only in our origins or our languages, but in our philosophies, that makes our campus truly exciting and enriching.