Civility At Exeter: How to Deal with Disagreement

Many people on campus complain about widespread political incorrectness in our society, specifically its impediment on honest, straightforward communication. For example, Donald Trump promised to end “radical Islamic terrorism” in his Inauguration speech. For years, Democrats like Hillary Clinton have been adamant on refraining from using the term “radical Islam” to describe Muslim terrorists, because the terrorists’ beliefs do not represent the modern Islamic religion. Democrats fear that further associating the terrorist’s actions with Islam will result in rampant Islamophobia and will inadvertently legitimize the terrorists’ actions and further their goals. Republicans were fixated on this phrase, with complaints that the Democrats fail to identify the terrorists’ ideologies because of petty political correctness. Both sides have substantial arguments, and chances are that you have an opinion on this singular issue.

We tend to always have the impression that there is either a right or wrong answer.

        So how do we resolve these conflicts? And how can we do it in a peaceful and respectful manner? Or should we even be peaceful and respectful in addressing this? This example shows that words are important, and it raises key questions about civility and disagreement.

   Often people have such a strong opinion about something that they will dismiss all other viewpoints. We tend to have the impression that there is always a clear right and wrong answer. The problem is, however, that sometimes dissenting arguments are the most effective and the only way to get the best resolution. The most relevant example of this is our democratic process. The United States does not have a homogenous population. There is a myriad of small groups of people around the country who have different views on national and global issues. Their opinions don’t come from thin air. A person’s opinions are shaped by their beliefs, which come from their experiences and their surrounding environment. The only way we can represent the population equally is by considering each argument. Then, it is through public debate and objective analysis that we arrive at a resolution that the majority can agree on. This ensures that everyone has a voice. So silencing your opposition is not the answer, and neither is remaining silent yourself.

Another example of beneficial disagreement is the scientific process. The scientific community encourages questioning preconceived concepts and assumptions. Scientists recognize that careful experimentation in controlled environments does not remove the possibility of bias and error. Even in our science labs at Exeter we always reflect on possible sources of error. Some of the most transformative discoveries made in the scientific field have been in direct contradiction to previous widely accepted ideas.

So now you may say, “sure, I’m all for disagreement, but I don’t care about politeness and pleasantries. If you’re offended, too bad!” You are free to behave however you wish, but you must accept the consequences. Understanding the problem with incivility requires understanding the psychological dynamics within a community. By offending others, you essentially devalue your argument. If you offend someone, you incite an innate emotional response in him or her. Now he or she does not try to understand your point, but rather responds with reciprocal offensive language. This results in a cycle of useless discourse that stymies progress in any direction.

The other negative aspect of uncivil dialogue is that it ostracizes you from your community. Every community relies on trust within its members. This human response is embedded in our biology and goes back to prehistoric times. If the people in your own tribe are hostile towards you, you can’t trust them to have your back in times of danger. If you make a comment on campus attacking someone’s identity, you create a small divide between you and this person. When we have an entire culture of such comments on campus, the small divide becomes much larger and our trust erodes.

So the next time you find yourself in a disagreement, remember to think objectively and inhibit your raw emotions. Have an open mind and give credence to the other person’s view. When great scientists disagreed with each other in the past, they didn’t go on to offend their opponent’s personal character or point out their intellectual inferiority. This is because they understood that all of them had a basis for their claims.

In the end being civil is not about using politically correct terms. It is about living by the principles of kindness and respect, such that you always try and understand the other person’s viewpoint. In To Kill a Mockingbird, Atticus advises his daughter that “you never really understand a person until you consider things from his point of view...until you climb onto his skin and walk around in it."