Everyday ethics: Finding dialogue amid disagreement

I survived free-speech battles when I taught at the university level. These struggles were at least as heated as those today on college campuses.

What I learned was that sometimes the so-called bastions of reason and dialogue could be every bit as parochial and illogical as some political discussions. When differences devolve into name-calling or physical threats, all semblance of an academic environment of reasoned dialogue departs. And when the same atmosphere permeates the halls of Congress, inaction is the rule rather than the exception.

I also learned how important it was to promote fair and free dialogue continuously over an academic year so that when crises occurred, good practices were in place, and members of the community had been taught how best to deal with emotionally charged issues.

Real dialogue is not only required in academic circles but in democracies. But alas it is often missing in each.

I’ve often contrasted what happens in the real world with the differences between discussion and dialogue. Discussion is throwing ideas at one another, as if engaging in a verbal tennis match. It’s interesting that the same root for “discussion” is also one for “concussion” and “percussion,” perhaps with the same impact on people. Dialogue means seeking meaning between ideas, with shared understanding being the hoped-for result.

Learning how to think is supposed to be a major goal of education.

When I was teaching philosophy I had students get into small groups and use a method of engaging in dialogue over often contentious issues, using a four-part process designed by Daniel Dennett, then philosophy professor at Tufts University in Massachusetts.

Here is what Dennett suggested for helping individuals in a small group learn to engage in dialogue.

1. You should attempt to re-express your target’s position so clearly, vividly and fairly that your target says, “Thanks, I wish I’d thought of putting it that way.”

2. You should list any points of agreement (especially if they are not matters of general or widespread agreement).

3. You should mention anything you have learned from your target.

4.  Only then are you permitted to say so much as a word of rebuttal or criticism.

This process did not always yield consensus, but it did increase a better understanding of the issue. And, over time, when used often enough, this approach yielded more appreciation of ideas different from one’s own and sometimes even consensus.

Obviously, such a process cannot be adopted in situations where millions of people are involved, but it could be a strong requirement of every institution of higher learning. It could be the major mission of every college and university, permeating the educational environment.

If a quarter of the money spent on sports or recreational facilities at the university were directed toward this mission, everyone would benefit, not just current students but future citizens as well.

Vanderbile University Chancellor Daniel Diermeier says: “The academy might be the last, best place where American citizens can learn to coexist, converse and cooperate with people whose views differ from their own.”

John C. Morgan is an author and former teacher. His columns appear weekly in the Reading Eagle and other newspapers.