* From an educational blog: Write 6x6
As we head into the future, there are many topics that cry out for consideration within the context of higher education. One particular urgency is how our campuses will handle the increasing challenges of the political and ideological conflicts that continue to divide Americans. Academics are not immune from this deepening division. A recent article in Perspectives on Psychological Science articulates some of the damage done among academics in our culturally divisive moment but it also mentions a way forward.
Cory J. Clark is the lead researcher for “Taboos and Self-Censorship Among U.S. Psychology Professors.”
This article details the results of a 2021 study of qualitative interviews of psychology professors regarding their beliefs and values. These professors were asked to give their assessment to ten “taboo conclusions” by describing, “How confident are you in the truth or falsity of this statement?” A small sample of the questions include:
- “The tendency to engage in sexually coercive behavior likely evolved because it conferred some evolutionary advantages on men who engaged in such behavior.”
- “Biological sex is binary for the vast majority of people.”
- “Racial biases are not the most important drivers of higher crime rates among Black Americans relative to White Americans.”
- “Transgender identity is sometimes the product of social influence.”
The participants were also asked:
- “If the topic came up in a professional setting—for example, at a conference—how reluctant would you feel about sharing your beliefs on this topic openly?”
- “Should scholars be discouraged from testing the veracity of this statement?”
The researchers documented that “for nearly all taboo conclusions, scholars who believed the statements were true self-censored more.” This was due to the fear of consequences; professors were concerned about (1) being attacked on social media, (2) being ostracized by peers, and (3) being stigmatized or labeled pejorative terms.
A recent Inside Higher Ed/ Hanover Research survey further documents this tendency. The researchers state: “The feeling that it has become riskier to speak freely has led many faculty to censor themselves. Nearly half of respondents somewhat or strongly agreed that they were refraining from extramural speech due to the situation on their own campus and/or the broader political environment. More than a third said they weren’t communicating with students in or out of class about things they previously might have.”
This tendency toward fearful self-censorship is not good for the academic environment. It is here that Clark, et al. articulate one way forward using the concept of adversarial collaborations. They write:
“Adversarial collaborations might reduce interpersonal conflict by turning adversaries into sparring partners who improve one another’s science. Adversarial collaborations can also reduce the use of inflammatory modes of dispute resolution—such as straw-manning and ad hominem attacks—that contribute to a needlessly hostile scientific climate and may contribute to professors’ fears of social sanctions.”
Even on heavily contested social and cultural issues, those on divergent sides can work together and in the act of adversarial collaboration can overcome unhealthy biases.
As we consider adversarial collaborations it is helpful to find models of this. I was recently invited to present a talk at ASU on the topic of abortion and the personhood of the fetus. I began my lecture with a reference to the book Civil Dialogue on Abortion by Bertha Alvarez Manninen and Jack Mulder, Jr.
Manninen and Mulder are long-time friends who find themselves on opposite sides of one of the controversial conflicts today. They manifest a high-level of argumentation with a simultaneous level of evident respect. They outline four needed traits and dispositions needed for fruitful discussion:
- Humility
- Solidarity with our conversation partners
- Avoiding dismissive words and phrases
- Leading with what we are for instead of what we are against
They also list out some basic rules for dialogue when they write:
“Thus, we might say that civil discourse occurs when people of sincere conviction (a subjective condition) who are willing (also subjective) to submit their opinions to the (metaphorical) court of argument and rational discourse (this is at least more objective in the sense that we can agree on certain logical rules that can be articulated for any debate) are therefore invited to the table of conversation and not disinvited unless they refuse to make their case in such a fashion.”
Our students and the larger culture desperately need to this kind of dialogue on critical and controversial issues modeled for them. The future of education—and our culture—depends on this!
