In a recent reflection on his first semester at Hopkins University, freshman student Bryce Leiberman examined the complexities of identity and bias in relation to American foreign policy. As he drafted a paper on the Iraq War, a conversation with a friend prompted him to reconsider his use of the word “we” when discussing the United States, leading him to a deeper understanding of his own beliefs.
Leiberman described how, while discussing the Iraq conflict, he inadvertently associated himself with the nation, despite not having lived through the events he was analyzing. His friend’s comment about his potential bias struck a nerve, making him reflect on the implications of identifying with a country’s actions, especially when those actions resulted in significant tragedy.
December 22, 2025, marked a pivotal moment for Leiberman as he grappled with the notion that pride in one’s nationality can blur the lines between personal identity and national actions. He recognized that being proud of American citizenship does not equate to endorsing all aspects of American policy or history. This distinction is crucial, particularly in academic settings where diverse perspectives are essential for enriching discourse.
Leiberman acknowledged that identity is formed through a combination of physical, psychological, and social factors. The tendency to say “we” in reference to America led him to feel a connection to events like the Iraq War, despite his distance from them in time and experience. This realization highlighted a broader issue: the ease with which individuals can slip into a tribal mindset, dividing the world into in-groups and out-groups.
At Hopkins, which boasts a diverse student body, Leiberman encountered perspectives that challenged his previous understanding of American identity. He emphasized that pride in one’s country should not come with an uncritical acceptance of its policies. The stigma associated with being on “Team America” often conflates national pride with a blanket endorsement of government actions, creating a dangerous narrative that can sideline critical dialogue.
Leiberman further explored the implications of forming groups based on identity, noting that while such affiliations can foster community, they can also lead to exclusion and simplification of complex issues. He argued that while individuals are not responsible for decisions made by past leaders, understanding how these decisions impact global relationships is essential for informed discourse.
The Iraq War serves as a backdrop for this exploration of identity and bias, highlighting the need for individuals, particularly students, to engage in self-reflection about their perspectives. Leiberman articulated that recognizing one’s own biases is not merely an academic exercise but a fundamental step towards fostering genuine understanding in discussions about international relations.
In closing, Leiberman’s insights underscore the importance of acknowledging the intricate relationship between personal identity and national history. He advocates for a more nuanced approach to discussions surrounding American foreign policy, emphasizing that while individuals may feel a connection to their nation’s actions, critical examination of those actions is vital for understanding their broader implications.
As Leiberman continues his studies in Political Science and Philosophy, his reflections serve as a reminder of the ongoing journey toward authenticity and self-awareness in an increasingly interconnected world.
