View interview on the Vigilant Positivity YouTube channel.
___
I’m always on the prowl to interview a wide variety of people within the Common Ground Movement to get perspectives I haven’t heard. When I was referred to Jason Vadnos, I leapt at the opportunity to talk with a college student who eloquently tuned me in to what he’s seeing and hearing regarding Gen Zers’ worries about—and hopes for—the future.
Jason is a junior at Vanderbilt University. Passionate about strengthening youth interest in civic engagement, he’s the campus leader for Let’s Be SVL,a pilot program launched this year by More Like US, a national nonprofit that works to close the change — for the better — the way people on different sides of the political spectrum look at one another. After college, he hopes to continue his work on depolarization and civic engagement through a career in either higher education or the nonprofit sector where he can provide students with the skills and knowledge they need to revitalize our democracy. Currently he’s both an Obama-Chesky Voyager Scholar for Public Service and a Riley’s Way Foundation Call for Kindness Fellow.
___
Martha Engber: I recently interviewed James Coan, the co-founder and executive director of More Like US. When did you get connected to the organization, and why?
Jason Vadnos: Great question, and thank you again for inviting me, Martha. I first met James two summers ago, in 2023. I was spending the summer in Washington, D.C., where James is based. At the time, I was interning with my university’s Office of Federal Relations, essentially our lobbying arm for the national government.
I’d developed an interest in civil discourse and dialogue after getting involved in a Vanderbilt initiative called Dialogue Vanderbilt, which helps students build the skills they need for productive conversations. So I started looking for DC-area organizations committed to productive dialogue and reducing political polarization. I came across James, we met that summer, and we’ve stayed in regular contact for the past two years. That relationship led to the launch of this new initiative.
fgen z
Martha Engber: As mentioned, the organization is piloting a program called Let’s Be SVL. SVL is an acronym for Stories, Values, and Listen. As the campus leader, can you tell us how it works and why it’s necessary?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Let’s Be SVL was co-designed by James and me, and draws from a wide range of research on psychology, politics, and conversation. It’s essentially an easy, memorable framework people can use when they’re having contentious conversations or conversations across difference: use stories, connect through values, and listen.
We wanted to bring this to higher education, which in recent years has faced tough challenges, from the Israel-Palestine protests to concerns about a lack of conservative viewpoints being uplifted on campuses. Universities are launching dialogue programs, including the one at Vanderbilt, but those initiatives often have limited scope. They tend to involve long workshops, attract only a small segment of students, and require sustained commitment.
We asked ourselves, “What’s an effective way to teach many students how to have better conversations?” Let’s Be SVL became that framework. Our main investment is in mass media and messaging campaigns—social media, flyers, tabling in public spaces—ways to reach large groups of students at once. Students don’t have to self-select into workshops; the tools simply meet them where they are.
Martha Engber: So if programs are too involved, they attract only people who already have the time or interest. You’re trying to reach a much wider population.
Jason Vadnos: Precisely.
Martha Engber: And what kinds of messages are you putting out?
Jason Vadnos: Let’s be civil is the core message. It embodies the strategy: use storytelling as a point of connection, relate to shared values, because to have a persuasive conversation, you need to know what the other person cares about. And, of course, listen. Truly listening helps you understand and show respect for the person you’re engaging with.
On social media and flyers, we’ll have a big graphic that says something like, “Having a difficult conversation? Be SVL,” followed by prompts to use stories, values, and listening. We also share related messages, such as “The other side is more civil than you think,” or “People are more curious and open to common ground than you assume.” But Let’s be SVL is our anchor.
Martha Engber: What changes have you been seeing, if any?
Jason Vadnos: We’re in the middle of studying that. As part of the pilot, we’re running surveys to understand the dialogue environment at Vanderbilt. We’ve launched a pre-test measuring dialogue skills, habits, attitudes, and levels of affective political polarization. As our messaging rolls out, we’ll conduct a post-test to see how exposure to the campaign affects students’ willingness to talk across differences, actual behavior—whether they’re engaging more with people from the other side—and whether they’re feeling less fear or hostility. We don’t have analysis to share yet, but the process is underway.
Martha Engber: Have you personally shared stories? Are there videos circulating of people talking to each other?
Jason Vadnos: Yes. Instagram is one of our primary tools. It’s the dominant youth platform and widely used at Vanderbilt for news and updates. We’re building content that includes man-on-the-street–style interviews about politically divisive topics, modeled using the SVL framework so both people feel respected and productive in the conversation.
We also have videos explaining what Let’s Be SVL is, why it works, and the research behind it. We’re actively expanding that social media presence.
Martha Engber: Have you seen any anecdotal evidence of people changing their perceptions? Maybe a roommate or someone down the hall? What transformations have you witnessed?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. Universities are hotbeds for contentious issues. Most recently, Vanderbilt was one of nine universities selected by the federal government to potentially sign a proposed compact that would change university policies in exchange for preferential access to federal grant funding. The moment this became public, campus reaction was fast and intense. Some students said, “We must reject this.” Others said, “Let’s negotiate.” Some thought the compact sounded great. It quickly split the student body, sparking protests and marches.
We used the SVL framework to help students talk through their perspectives on the compact and explore what a productive university response might look like. We brought students with a range of views into conversations—sometimes at events, sometimes informally outside the main cafeteria—and gave them a simple structure for discussing a politically divisive issue.
Afterward, students reported that they better understood how someone could hold a different perspective. They gained insight into how people’s backgrounds shaped their views and felt less immediate hostility toward one another. Suddenly, someone who supported the compact wasn’t “evil,” and someone who opposed it wasn’t “ignorant.” They were simply fellow students trying to figure out the best path forward.
Martha Engber: That leads into the perception gap, which you touched on. Many people don’t know that term. Can you explain what the perception gap is and give an example?
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely. The perception gap is central to the work of More Like US. It describes the tendency for people to assume that those on the other side of the political aisle hold more extreme beliefs than they actually do.
For example, there are lots of studies—and on the More Like US website there’s a whole list of topics—showing where the perception gap appears. Take gun control. Many Democrats believe that around 80% of Republicans oppose all gun control laws. But in reality, it’s closer to 40–50%. I don’t remember the exact number off the top of my head, so definitely check the More Like Us website for specifics. But the point is that only about half of Republicans believe gun control should be very limited, and most actually support common-sense measures like safe ammo storage.
That’s the perception gap: one side assumes the other holds far more extreme views than they really do.
Martha Engber: And I don’t think people believe that until they see the statistics, do they?
Jason Vadnos: Right. We’re all stuck in our own partisan echo chambers where we’re told, “Everyone on the other side believes X.”
Without actual conversations across the aisle, it’s easy to assume the worst—that the other side is more extreme, more unanimous, more rigid than they truly are. But the data doesn’t support that, and when you do talk to people with different viewpoints, you see the gap for what it is.
Martha Engber: Have you ever experienced a perception gap yourself? And if so, what changed your view?
Jason Vadnos: I think everyone experiences it because none of us have perfect information. One example for me in the last couple of years involved institutional neutrality. This is the policy where universities say they won’t take public stances on political or social issues not directly tied to their mission.
I’ve always had some qualms about that. I thought that some supporters of institutional neutrality were simply trying to platform divisive or even hateful viewpoints. But I had the chance to sit in a dialogue circle with about 20 other students, and we spent 90 minutes talking about why we did or didn’t support the policy and what our concerns were.
I realized most people had much more nuanced views than I expected. And I saw that most of them were approaching the issue with good intentions. We all wanted to improve our community; we just had different ideas about how to do that. They had facts, experiences, and data that informed their views. I didn’t necessarily change my own position, but I came away with a much better understanding of why others believed what they did.
Martha Engber: And having that information makes you better able to negotiate solutions?
Jason Vadnos: Exactly. You need at least some common ground to work together.
If you assume the other side is extremely far from you, why even try? But once you understand the perception gap—and see that it doesn’t reflect reality—you’re able to collaborate toward solutions that actually work for everyone.
Martha Engber: I was curious—how do you think your generation differs politically from others?
Jason Vadnos: Gen Z is fascinating, and there’s lots of reporting on this because everyone wants to know: What is Gen Z thinking? What’s the future of democracy?
Personally and anecdotally, I think Gen Z is just as passionate—if not more passionate—about public issues, community problems, and global challenges as older generations. But the kinds of action we take look different.
Historically, civic engagement was measured by things like voting rates, and youth voting has been low for decades. Sometimes fewer than 40–50% of students vote even in national elections.
But while we may show up less at the ballot box, we’re creating change through social media activism, community problem-solving, and issue-based organizing. We’re deeply engaged—we’re just engaging differently.
Martha Engber: Is that passion driven by being confronted with so much more? Maybe like the 1960s, when there were many hot-button issues?
Jason Vadnos: That’s part of it. Climate change, for example, looms large for our generation. But I think the bigger factor is access to information. With the internet and social media, we constantly see everything that’s going wrong in the world. Historically, you might hear about major issues on the evening news, but your awareness was rooted in your local community. Now, information moves instantly. That makes Gen Z far more aware of global issues—and, as a result, more motivated to address them.
Martha Engber: Are they also aware of how that information is spun depending on who puts it out?
Jason Vadnos: Yes, though it’s a big challenge. Media literacy is essential, and young people know that.
Most Gen Zers are skeptical of anyone claiming to provide purely “fact-based” news. We understand that everyone—news outlets, influencers, commentators—has an agenda or narrative they’re trying to advance.
Gen Z has a pretty strong awareness of misinformation and disinformation, especially now with AI and deepfakes. Most young people know these things exist and feel we have to be critical and cautious about the information we consume.
Martha Engber: As someone who listens well and works on these issues, what worries do you hear most from your generation?
Jason Vadnos: We have a lot of worries. One major concern is that democracy isn’t working and hasn’t worked for us. We grew up in an era of extreme political division, minimal bipartisanship, and constant political conflict. And government has been less effective. Congress, for example, is passing historically few bills.
So many young people feel government isn’t serving us, and that we need to take action ourselves. That’s where community problem solving and mutual aid come in.
Another worry is about the survival of the American Dream, especially economically. Youth homeownership feels almost impossible. Compared to 50 years ago, it’s incredibly expensive and unrealistic for many my age.
And of course, global crises like climate change weigh heavily on us. People are thinking hard about what the world will look like in 40 or 50 years.
So yes, there’s a lot on our minds. But I’m hopeful because we’re working to change things.
Martha Engber: I’d love to communicate more regularly with people of your generation and younger. Do you have ideas about how to improve intergenerational discourse?
Jason Vadnos: Great question. And there are some people doing fantastic work on intergenerational connection. From our perspective as Gen Z, I think a few things need to happen.
One big issue is the narrative that Gen Z is apathetic—that we don’t care or we’re disengaged. Most young people know that isn’t true, but we hear it constantly from the media and from older generations. So if someone comes to the table saying, “Your generation doesn’t care about what’s happening in the world,” why would we want to engage or work toward solutions with them? Breaking down that narrative of apathy is really important.
It’s also essential to understand that Gen Z grew up in a radically different environment—technologically, socially, economically—than past generations. There have been plenty of reports claiming Gen Z is impossible to work with. People say, “We can’t get through to them,” or “They have different habits.”
But that doesn’t mean Gen Z is worse at working. We’re just different. Coming into conversations with a sincere desire to understand, recognizing the distinct challenges we’ve grown up with, and saying, “We value your voice and want to work with you,” is incredibly important. A lot of young people feel unheard.
Especially when we look at government and see leadership dominated by people in their seventies and eighties; people who don’t necessarily represent youth perspectives. All of these factors shape intergenerational dialogue.
Martha Engber: If you ever develop a program around this and get involved in that work, please let me know. I think it would be fascinating.
Jason Vadnos: Absolutely.
Martha Engber: What do you think would greatly decrease polarization in America? You must have ideas, since you’re so immersed in this.
Jason Vadnos: That’s a big question. I think there are three things worth highlighting. First, the work More Like US is doing on the perception gap shows that we’re not nearly as divided on issues and policies as we think we are. What we do have is a lot of affective polarization, the belief that the other side is evil, the enemy, ignorant, or totally unreasonable.
How we solve that is complicated. There’s no single solution. We need multiple interventions at different scales and in different places. But one of the most important foundations is education. That’s why I’m so passionate about Let’s Be SVL on college campuses.
We have to teach people how to engage with those who are different from them. Affective polarization grows from a lack of meaningful interaction with people who have different backgrounds, identities, lived experiences, and perspectives. The only way to bridge that gap is to give people the skills and knowledge to do it. We need to teach how to engage across difference productively, how to have better conversations about hot-button issues, and how to walk away feeling heard rather than angry or discouraged.
Education is at the heart of combating polarization. And it doesn’t only happen in schools. I’m a student, so I focus on my campus, but this learning can happen in workplaces, homes, churches, community centers—any communal space.
We should invest in programs that teach people how to have better conversations, how to engage across difference, and most importantly, why it matters.
If people don’t believe that conversation can lead to meaningful change, they won’t engage. And polarization won’t lessen. We have to show examples of people working across difference to create something positive in their communities.
Martha Engber: Do you think that effort would be enough to push back against the overwhelming negative messaging from conflict entrepreneurs?
Jason Vadnos: That’s a major challenge. In an ideal world, if we could reach all Americans at scale and depolarize through education, that would be a strong solution. But we know that’s not how reality works. Conflict entrepreneurs and political elites drive much of the narrative. They model our behavior.
So another thing we must do is change the incentive structure. Social media algorithms need to reward content that shows productive engagement across division—people working together—rather than hateful or spiteful rants. We also need our political leaders to model working across the aisle and to invest in bipartisan collaboration instead of calling each other evil. That kind of shift is critical. And it reinforces what I said earlier: there won’t be a single answer. We need multiple solutions working together.
Martha Engber: How hopeful are you that your work will have an impact? And what gives you that hope? You have a naturally positive attitude. But beyond that, what fuels your optimism? What have you seen or heard?
Jason Vadnos: What gives me hope is the everyday interactions I have with my peers on campus and beyond. Having the kinds of conversations I want others to have across the aisle, and seeing that young people who disagree with me or come from totally different backgrounds still want to improve the world. We’re all working on this together.
Those day-to-day experiences of working across differences are meaningful. They show me that if I can collaborate with someone I radically disagree with to solve a problem in our community, anyone can.
And in the past few months, there’s been great reporting showing that Gen Z truly does care deeply about our communities.
I mentioned the narrative of Gen Z apathy earlier, but now we’re seeing the opposite: clear evidence that young people are passionate about public issues and want to improve the world.
Knowing that people across the country—not just on my campus or in my hometown—are engaging with these issues gives me hope. We’re seeing youth-led solutions, youth-led projects, and initiatives that are improving communities every day. Reading about those efforts and seeing them firsthand gives me so much optimism.
And conversations like this give me hope too; knowing there are people everywhere who value youth voices and want Gen Z to help build a better world.
Martha Engber: I’ve really enjoyed talking with you. And again, if you develop an intergenerational program, put me on the list. I think you’re right—it’s incredibly important for us to talk to one another. One of the biggest things I’ve seen is the lack of youth voices in the programs I’ve been part of. So good on you for advancing that.
And thanks to those who listened to this episode. You can find a post and transcript of today’s interview on my blog, vigilantpositivity.wordpress.com. Please join our cause.
Join the Common Ground Movement!
If you’ve found this post helpful, please subscribe below and share with others. Please also join the Vigilant Positivity Facebook page and YouTube channel.
Definition of Common Ground Movement: placing your loyalty with other Americans, rather than any political party, and embracing the fact we have more in common than not.
Vigilant Positivity 