The Cassandra Voss Center’s Olive Branch Initiative is an ongoing effort aimed at bringing people with various perspectives together to share stories and engage in authentic critical dialogue. The initiative is inspired by the sustained, charitable dialogue Kurt and Cassandra Voss practiced from their distinct vantage points and diverging convictions. The centerpiece of the Olive Branch Initiative is the Olive Branch Peace Meals.

Olive Branch Peace Meals

Each Spring twenty-five competitively selected Olive Branch Student Fellows gather for four Peace Meals aimed at generating substantive discussion about issues that divide communities. These discussions aim to furnish students with the skills necessary to have productive dialogue across difference, so that meaningful inquiry deepens community bonds rather than breaks them.

The '25-26 Olive Branch Peace Meals series included:

(1) Olivia Hanson '22 and Frater Gregory Johnson '21 led a workshop on how to disagree well, discussing the various cognitive biases & heuristics we're subject to, and detailing ways to train reason to act more like a scientist than a lawyer in examining our antecedent commitments instead of merely advocating for them. (Feb 17)

(2) Dr. Andrew O'Connor (SNC) led a discussion about interfaith relations (Mar 10)

(3) Dr. Daniel Jacobson (University of Colorado, Boulder) led a discussion about freedom of speech (Apr 7)

(4) Dr. Miguel de la Torre (Illif School of Theology) led a discussion about the ethics of immigration (May 8)

Testimonials from our Spring 2026 Olive Branch student fellows:

“The Peace Meal program vastly improved my senior year here at SNC. I was able to engage with people that I never would have been able to engage with before since we all had different majors! We had a lot of hard conversations that are typically not something that college students talk about.”

“One insight that was very helpful from the opening workshop was the importance of viewing discussion as a means of exploration rather than a competition to be won. I was able to implement this view by reminding myself to be curious and ask questions to learn more about the other members of the discussion. For example, when someone once brought up the importance of their religious beliefs in the context of ethics, rather than going into my own beliefs, I asked them about their own tradition to gain a better understanding of their viewpoint. Another insight that was important to my view of discussion was the importance of knowing when a conversation has become too personal or heated. Beliefs can be very personal to people, and if one's beliefs are under question--or even if they are presented with a view they disagree with, they may take it as a personal attack. This effect is highly detrimental to the educational value of discussion and can lead to harm outside of the discussion as well, such as breaking up an otherwise friendly group of people. As such, recognizing when a discussion has become too personal through identifying behavior changes or noticing when a discussion has deviated from its goal of learning is crucial to good discussion. In discussions of my own, I have been able to implement this skill by refocusing discussions, breaking tension with humor, or even wrapping up the discussion if it gets too intense. I hope to find more strategies that can help mediate these situations as I move on to graduate school.”

“I think my biggest takeaway from session #1 of the Olive Branch series was exploring how individual's personal experiences often influence and dictate ones opinions and identity. The tool that helped me through each Peace Meal and outside in the real-world is knowing that the goal of discussions shouldn't be to win or be right, but to understand another's perspective and experiences that contribute to their ideas and mindset. This is a tool I used the most in the free speech discussion and trying to be open about the implications others may have faced as a result of free speech that differs from my experiences.”

“The tools that I used the most were based on the skill of keeping the dialogue a discussion and not a competition. I found that when the goal is to win the argument, no ground is made to understand or make new discoveries.”

“I will say that I have learned a lot from the example of others during the discussions. My table was always very respectful of each other's opinions, and we focused more on getting to know each other and understanding each other's perspectives than on "being right." It was very refreshing to dialogue with others in a way that felt productive and even fun!”

“One insight I gained from our first Peace Meal Discussion was that the goal of a conversation does not always have to be about changing someone’s mind. In the past, I was very headstrong and would not listen to people I didn't agree with, especially if I couldn’t change their perspective on a particular topic. However, through the Peace Meal discussions, I feel I have taken a step back to really listen to what people say and why they believe what they do. The tools I used most were active listening and keeping an open mind during discussions. Moving forward, I hope to continue using these skills and become even better at engaging respectfully with every person.”

“The discussion we had regarding free speech was a big challenge to my previously held views. I am very sympathetic to utilitarianism; as such, I do not tend to think that there is an intrinsic value to freedom. But our discussion of freedom of speech helped me reevaluate the importance of freedom in the context of free speech. Mainly, I was able to see how freedom of speech can be crucial to utilitarians as well, as the happiness derived from free speech is often worth the occasional harm it can cause. Engaging with that topic also helped me see how different have, in a sense, different "axiom sets" of ethical principles that can affect their beliefs. Some people inherently find freedom to be of intrinsic value, perhaps of the most value. While I don't feel the same sentiment, I can recognize that some people do, and by recognizing that, I can follow their reasoning through various cases.”

“The Free Speech topic was the most challenging to me because our table had varying opinions and brought many previous insights and experiences to the table. I found it engaging that one individual introduced the idea of censoring hate speech, which is a good a idea; however, I struggled with the logistics of this censorship and coming up with a system that can regulate what is considered hate speech verses what is not. It was a very productive dialogue and it was definitely challenging due to our varying experiences and opinions.”

“I think one of the most memorable conversations was from that religious dinner, in fact! Everyone had such different perspectives on religion. One person's dad is a pastor/minister, one was raised as a methodist/catholic but sees no need to label their religion, one was a pagan, one was an atheist, one is from a cultural background Dr. O'Connor mentioned (though they didn't share their religion), and I am agnostic (with a particular affection for the Jewish approach to religion). That conversation was quite fascinating, as I was raised with the belief that discussing religion is a taboo--something one should never do if they wish to be polite. It was so refreshing to have such candid and down-to-earth conversations about this.”

“During our discussion on interfaith dialogue, my table had a really fruitful discussion. I am Catholic and have strongly-held Catholic beliefs, and often during these types of discussions, those beliefs are challenged and usually criticized. However, our table didn't argue about religious doctrine; we talked about our experiences with religion. It especially stuck with me when someone said something along the lines of "No one casually brings up religion in a conversation." I realized that I in fact do casually bring up religion in conversation, because my faith is a part of my casual everyday life. This made me recognize that I have a totally different view of what religion is because it is so important to me, and others who are not religious don't necessarily consider religion as a whole to be an important topic of discussion. Seeing this perspective and hearing why people were not religious (which usually was not because of some deeply held atheistic belief, but rather that they just weren't interested in religion or had never considered it important) allowed me to better understand the perspective of others. Oftentimes people who are not religious aren't necessarily critical of religion; they are just uninterested”