After 13 years of schooling, I’ve learned to ignore the subtle hints of political opinion that often taint my teachers’ lessons. Eye rolls may be shared among students, but for the most part, these brief breaks from impartial education are tolerated.

Lately, however, I’ve noticed that political rants have become more common in my classes, the subjected students held hostage by the ring of a bell.

Perhaps this increase is due to the presidential election. But regardless of current events, personal opinions should always remain opinions, and not be presented as historical fact.

Recently, my classmates and I were subjected to a substitute’s lecture so transparent it was impossible not to tell which party he supported – and which he expected his students to support.

Rather than use the period for test prep as our teacher had intended, the substitute spent the last 10 minutes of class “teaching” about politics. He separated seven past presidents into two columns, claiming that those in the left column had done the least damage to the federal debt, and those on the right had done the most.

After pausing for dramatic effect, the substitute asked us if we noticed any patterns. When met with a silence generated only by students who are paying no attention, he pointed out that the presidents who had supposedly done the least damage were all

Democrats, and those who had done the most were all Republicans.

While his observation may or may not be true, one thing is certain – there is not, and never will be, room for the imposition of teachers’ ideals on students.

Is it asking too much to expect teachers to allow, if not encourage, students to discover their own views on the world? Teachers are entrusted with the malleable minds of youth, and should accept whichever political party with which their students affiliate.

Teachers should be proud of the fact that their students have diverse views, because this means that they are teaching impartially and showing all sides to every argument. Diversity within the classroom fosters deeper discussion, but only when an opportunity for discussion is provided.

The desire to share personal opinions on the central topics that consume society’s conversations is understandable, and of course one of those topics should be politics. But to expect others to conform to one way of viewing the world — and beyond that, tobelieve that those who don’t share one’s opinions are somehow less intelligent — is unfair and wrong. There are millions of incredible people in the world who see life from millions of different perspectives. Those differences don’t make people lesser..

Despite its homogeneity, Marin acts as a safe haven for the socially alternative, welcoming people of every race, religion, and sexual orientation. Why is it, then, that when it comes to politics it is acceptable to become unaccepting? Intolerance of varying political views is just another form of narrow mindedness.

If people are unwilling to see issues from other perspectives, how can they expect Congress, who represent them, to be any better? We demand representation in government that accurately reflects our views, and then become indignant when that representation is just as bad at compromise as we are.

In short, open mindedness creates a more efficient and effective government, and as cliché as it may sound, the youth are the Congressmen of the future.

For teachers, to inhibit the development of tolerance in the country’s future leaders is perpetuating the impasse that the government has reached.

Through education students mature and evolve, part of which includes learning to appreciate diversity.

With the whole world pressuring teenagers to hurry up and figure themselves out, it is essential to individual development that teachers create a pressure-free environment, because outside of the classroom high school is the last place that originality is embraced.