How can universities cultivate students' capacity to learn across political divides? While many universities affirm the importance of open exchange between people who hold different views, it is unclear whether, what, and how students learn through such conversations. This article draws on observations of a deliberative dialogue between college students who cast a presidential vote for Trump or Clinton as well as on interviews with those students to identify what and how they learn through the conversation as well as what supports that learning. Recent political theorists have argued for including diverse forms of speech in order to expand what deliberation can accomplish. This inquiry suggests, first, that diversifying speech within deliberation can also strengthen traditional forms of deliberative learning (such as the willingness to listen to each others' reasons). Moreover, deliberative speech as it has been traditionally conceived can also accomplish some of what theorists hope alternative speech forms could cultivate, such as shifting relationships between interlocuters. Finally and most simply, the study shows that it is possible for students to learn from politically diverse peers even during a one-time event that occurs outside of the classroom. Three forms of content learning were identified: learning that is 'hermeneutic' deepened students' understanding of other people; 'deliberative' learning increased understanding of political issues and views; and 'process' learning honed students' capacity for these conversations. Learning also varied in quality: it was 'additive' when students added to their existing framework of knowledge or entailed 'new insight' when students shifted in their relationship to a person or idea. These forms of learning are interdependent and provide important support for each other. In particular, universities may enhance students' capacity for hermeneutic and deliberative learning by intentionally combining elements of both in academic settings.