Like millions of other Americans, I watched the Grammys this year.

I was sitting on my couch, all cozy and enjoying the show, while listening to the host’s opening speech. This year, Trevor Noah hosted the Grammys, and was funny, as all award show hosts are expected to be, making jokes about celebrities and what not until suddenly, he started talking about the Trump administration.

Noah joked, “We’re going to be honoring the best in music as voted on by the 13,000 members of the Recording Academy, and 20 million illegal immigrants,” and it didn’t feel like a joke. Noah used a mocking tone towards the Trump administration and lacked respect; his “joke” was a dig. It didn’t stop there. Noah made three more digs at the new policies enacted by the Trump administration throughout his opening speech. 

After listening to Noah’s speech, I wondered: Are award shows a place for politics? How did political discussion, once taboo, start appearing in award shows?

Political discussion is like argumentative writing: no argument is technically wrong, but there are good and bad arguments. One could technically discuss politics anywhere, but execution and context matter. Award shows are only a place for political discussion if it is executed properly.

In kindergarten, I was taught to use my words and be respectful. Then, in seventh grade, I was taught about civil discourse and how to have a polite conversation with other people. Now, ever since high school started, I have been taught to broaden my perspective, to listen and try to understand other people’s thoughts and opinions, and to be okay with my political views being challenged. 

Using all of these skills is essential for having a healthy political conversation with someone from another political party. While Noah’s speech did demonstrate his knowledgeability on current events, he executed these skills poorly and did not promote a healthy political conversation. 

The main flaw of Noah’s speech was that it lacked respect. Noah used digs in his speech, which are tools used to make fun of people and usually make their targets feel disrespected. The targets of Noah’s speech, the Trump administration and their supporters, got angered, and posted hate comments under a trending Trevor Noah category on X, instead of feeling a healthy uncomfortability that leads to self-reflection and a better understanding of themselves and their political views. Noah’s speech created negativity instead of a healthy political environment.

Ever since President Trump’s first term, the U.S. faced deeply polarizing events, such as the rise of MAGA, the insurrection of the Capitol on Jan. 6, the indictment of President Trump, and the 2024 election, which not only divided the country between people who are unhappy versus happy about the political situation, but shifted political conversations from a taboo to a commonly discussed topic. The only way to fight political polarization is by promoting an environment in a political conversation where having an opposing opinion isn’t disrespected but sought to be understood, which Noah’s speech didn’t achieve. 

I normally support using a platform to promote something as long as it’s positive. However, while Noah’s speech reflected his own, and millions of others’, discontent with U.S. politics, it did not reflect the millions of American citizens who are happy about the political scene, and were angered after hearing his speech. By doing so, Noah’s speech further polarized U.S. politics by creating two clear sides between its listeners: opposition or agreement, and no potentially unifying factor. 

On the other hand, one award show speech that was executed well was Jessica Chastain’s speech at the 94th Academy Awards. After winning the best actress in a leading role category, Chastain approached the stage to give an acceptance speech. In her speech, Chastain addressed two difficult topics to talk about: the recent discrimination of LGBTQ+ people in legislation while also discussing suicide.

Chastain addressed each topic respectfully and spoke eloquently, minimizing any anger over her speech just from execution. Handling each topic with respect, Chastain created a healthy political environment that encouraged political opposers to gain new perspectives and question their political ideology to better understand themselves. By creating a healthy political environment, Chastain’s speech contributed something positive to U.S. politics. 

In her conclusion, Chastain said “[Love] connects us all in the desire that we want to be accepted for who we are, accepted for who we love, and to live a life without the fear of violence or terror,” Chastain’s words were an attempt at unification between each party because love has no political bias. By giving viewers an opportunity to find unification, Chastain gave viewers an opportunity to broaden their perspectives. Instead of creating something negative with her political speech, Chastain discussed politics with respect which is a step towards fighting political polarization.

Chastain’s political speech is the kind I believe belongs at award shows. It created a healthy political environment, it broadened perspectives, and it attempted to unify instead of divide U.S. politics. 

Although Noah’s speech needed improvements, it did reflect U.S. politics needing to change. In order to fight political polarization, people need to start having healthier political conversations in order to understand themselves and the other side better. Even by using a simple skill such as respect in political conversations, society could become a better, more welcoming place.