Building disagree-ability: Courage, silence, action
Laura Yoder, Ph.D., Director and John Stott Chair of Human Needs and Global Resources;
Professor of Environmental Studies
Thoughtful questions arose in the 2024 CACE seminar “Political polarization and the university classroom” as we considered how to foster civil discourse in disagreement, particularly in the context of Christian higher education.
- How does political polarization affect our campus community?
- How do people know that we are Christians by the way we have difficult conversations?
- How does ‘Who has the most to say?’ compare to ‘Who’s doing most of the talking?’
- Do we practice courage in our conversations?
- How do we build these skills for ourselves and others in the classroom and in the public square?
As socio-political polarization has increased in the U.S. context and many places worldwide, having a complicated conversation can seem risky. New students coming to campus bring their own backgrounds in having seen or experienced – or not – models of productive, charitable disagreement on topics about which people of good will might reasonably disagree. Campus personnel may calibrate our own approaches to engaging contentious topics based on our observations of how such scenarios play out in the higher educational setting, as well as in our families, churches, and neighborhoods.
We discussed the practicalities of classroom conversations. One colleague suggested that before entering into a topic which will likely surface strong responses from multiple perspectives, it is useful to consider our own and others’ expectations of how offenses and misunderstandings should be addressed. Would conversation participants hope that such incidents be addressed immediately or later, publicly or privately, involving everyone or a group subset, and initiated by a leader/authority figure or by anyone present? Beyond knowing the array of preferences and expectations in the room, what norms govern how disagreement is handled, and who gets to set the group practices around that?
Our seminar readings also addressed the common response of silence when facing disagreement. We self-censor and tiptoe around contentious topics when we feel unequipped for conversation across difference. Reasons for remaining silent are many: avoiding the friction of differing opinions, a desire to escape past patterns that may have led to violence or abuse, cultural courtesy, extending hospitality to a guest, not having a fully formed view, uncertainty or hesitancy in how to express a still-forming opinion, fear of near-term or later repercussions, exhaustion, image management, or safety concerns. Often the people with the most at stake are not the ones who feel free to speak up on an issue. Sometimes we choose silence in order to prioritize listening or to restrain our conversational dominance; as one stated, “Sometimes courage is to be silent, and sometimes it is to speak up.” It takes intentionality to establish a classroom and institutional culture where all members are confident that they will be valued, no matter what their perspective. One author’s counsel: “We need to practice non-defensively meeting serious disagreement—and proceeding to the rest of the human being” (Jedediah Britton-Purdy, “We’ve Been Thinking About America’s Trust Collapse All Wrong,” 2024).
Another author notes that non-verbal actions often occur when “[c]ivil discourse simply did not get adequate results” (Amy Aldridge Sanford, “Confrontation and avoidance: Alternatives to civil discourse,” 2018, 4). On university campuses, groups may disrupt public celebrations, go on hunger strikes, organize boycotts, opt out of athletics, and other acts of resistance when facing administrative non-responsiveness, or when groups lose patience with the “neater, quieter, and more comfortable” (4) modalities of civil discourse preferred by institutional leadership and held up as appropriate for academic contexts. Confrontational actions can be more interested in outcomes than in persuasion. Another strategy is avoidance: enduring indignities or discrimination in silence, often due to unresolved generational trauma and resulting fatigue that can impact engagement in civil discourse.
Finally, the seminar helpfully included role plays. Working through scenarios encouraged us to consider an array of possible positions, interests, and responses of various actors in a contentious situation, and also to develop multiple options for a script. Playing assigned roles that were unsavory to us was difficult, but a colleague noted that “the work of the actor is always to find commonality” which also challenged us to build empathy. From the role playing, I hope to remember this: unique characters each bring distinctive contributions to a disagreement, and involved individuals have a range of choices and behaviors available in a given situation that will affect interactions and outcomes. We can be mindful to pursue a wider menu of response options than what immediately occurs to us, opening the door toward a span of possible outcomes that we may not have imagined possible.