Respect Diversity of Views
More from this column:
Diversity is a word that slips easily off the tongue of today’s college denizen, but rarely do we give it the scrutiny that it deserves. While academics will argue about nearly anything, one sees little evidence that there is much argument over the virtues or vices of diversity.
A Diversity Initiative is currently underway at Georgetown, in which it seems that there is widespread agreement that diversity is desirable and that we need to explore ways of promoting tolerance and respect of the many varied people and cultures on our campus. The various committees were not formed to debate whether we should acknowledge diversity and encourage toleration and respect, but rather how to reach these ends.
A peculiar logic lies behind current discussions of diversity: While it begins by appearing to affirm diversity, more fundamentally we are encouraged to adopt a homogenous and identical stance toward the fact of diversity. While diversity appears to be celebrated, our first and foremost requirement is to exhibit toleration and respect toward differences among people.
A curious outcome seems to be the result: In response to diversity, we are all to become identical. Whatever our many differences, what is to be more basic and fundamental is our commitment to toleration and respect. Our liberal toleration is to trump our diversity.
Such an outcome actually renders our diversity secondary and even tenuous. If our first commitment is to a form of liberal toleration, then the forms of diversity that can be sustained are only those that can be reconciled to our primary stance of liberal toleration. This means, in effect, that we should expect to see an overall diminution of substantive diversity and instead a broader uniformity of outlook and disposition. An actual diversity in which liberal toleration is potentially confronted is to be trumped by the uniformity of toleration.
One expected outcome of a campus-wide — and globalized — commitment to liberal toleration is a decrease in substantive commitments to views and beliefs that cannot be reconciled with liberal toleration. We learn to be wary and suspicious of commitments that could substantively trump our primary commitment to liberal toleration, especially cultural and religious commitments.
A legitimate concern is that certain substantive commitments could manifest themselves as vicious forms of intolerance. Of course, there should be no place for hateful or violent denigration of difference. But what of respectful but serious disagreement? Is there room for viewpoints and perspectives that do not, strictly speaking, seek to tolerate difference, but whose commitments may consist in judging other beliefs or ways of life to be wrong?
The dominant form of toleration implicitly recommends indifference or apathy toward different ways of life. Yet many cultural and religious traditions are not indifferent to the question of how we should live — they are, to use an unpopular word, judgmental. Can an overarching culture of toleration in fact tolerate a judgmental stance?
From the perspective of the person whose worldview is defined by liberal toleration, those who judge certain behaviors and ways of life to be praiseworthy and others to be wrong would appear to be intolerant. Rather than to debate the substance of the difference, the tendency is to accuse a judgmental person of intolerance, and thus seek to end the dispute. But this is simply to say that such a stance of toleration seeks the evisceration of the beliefs that define a rich tapestry of cultural and religious traditions. This form of toleration is actually hostile toward true diversity.
In other words, the dominant expression of toleration has difficulty making space for cultural and religious traditions and beliefs that are not indifferent to every way of life. Among other consequences of this dominant view, one result is that every college and university (indeed, every institution, and eventually every individual) in America and beyond become more identical. Those who refuse to sanction every way of life are condemned and pressured to become tolerant.
For instance, on Friday, Oct. 2, in this newspaper, an editorial excoriated The Catholic University of America for refusing to recognize CUAllies, the university’s LGBTQ student group, as a student organization. In the name of diversity, however, isn’t there a compelling argument to be made that the religious commitments of that institution should be permitted, even accorded, respect? In a free society such as ours — where one can freely choose which institutions to join and which ones to eschew — isn’t there room for a rich diversity of institutions, some which will embody diverse faith and cultural traditions?
Doubtless, hard questions about intolerable intolerance need to be explored, but as part of that conversation it should also be discussed whether there is also an intolerable form of tolerance that is hostile to actual diversity, and an attendant danger of a globe of indifferent liberal individualists in which everything is permitted, but nobody really cares.
Patrick Deneen is an associate professor in the government department. He can be reached at deneen@thehoya.com. Against the Grain appears every other Tuesday.
To send a letter to the editor on a recent campus issue or Hoya story or a viewpoint on any topic, contact opinion@thehoya.com. Letters should not exceed 300 words, and viewpoints should be between 600 to 800 words.
Oct 20 2009 at 3:02 a.m.
"Can an overarching culture of toleration in fact tolerate a judgmental stance?"
Yes, we tolerate your intolerance, Patrick Deneen. Now go back to your little corner while we enjoy being tolerant of and sharing life with one another.
Oct 20 2009 at 7:05 a.m.
Really fantastic article. We can't let our commitment to liberal toleration become a monolithic force used to preclude debate.
Oct 20 2009 at 10:34 a.m.
Great article, Professor Deneen.
It's high time we stop kow-towing to "tolerance" as the overriding value.
It's alright to criticize a person for his stance on taxes or his favorite baseball team, but somehow this culture of "tolerance" has put up a barrier on many issues that are of fundamental importance in today's society. These include sensitive religious or cultural issues.
We should be intolerant! How's that for a view. LGBTQ and the Hoya is just as right to excoriate CUA as CUA is to assert its religious beliefs in denying LGBTQ groups benefits. Indeed, I think the attack should be more forcefully made on religions themselves -- the last real 'taboo' topic. Accept their judgmental stances and debate and engage them -- not meekly lie down and sing kumbaya.
True toleration should be in respecting the group's ability to freely advocate its beliefs. The Catholic Church and the Nazi Party should be allowed to trumpet their anti-gay beliefs. We don't have to accept them, and indeed if you disagree you shouldn't. That's toleration that fosters true debate.
Oct 20 2009 at 12:15 p.m.
Professor Deneen, I think you frame the issue of diversity in the wrong way. The purpose of the campus-wide drive toward diversity, and others like it, is not to preclude serious disagreement about the good life. Nor do I believe this will be a likely, if unintended, consequence.
Rather, such an initiative aims to promote inclusion, recognition and ultimately justice. There are members of our community who, by virtue of their identification with a particular mode of being or status group, cannot take part in campus life on an equal footing with those who subscribe to more orthodox or mainstream views (the LGBTQ community is an obvious example, though there are others). They face routine harassment, systematic denigration and (in the most extreme cases) physical violence. In addition, they are made to feel that their identity is not worthy of respect, and that their projects and commitments do not carry value. When these patterns of misrecognition are institutionalized, we fail to grant others the moral respect that they deserve. As I'm sure you know, the presumption of moral worth in way of life that is different to our own is what Charles Taylor calls a "starting hypothesis." It might be displaced upon closer inspection - but it is a useful and morally attractive starting point nonetheless, from which conversation amongst equal partners can proceed.
But under the current circumstances, individuals who are members of maligned or subaltern status groups on campus must either display their affiliations proudly, and bear the costs of marginalization and disrespect, or suppress their sense of self and live inauthentically. In either case, they face unacceptable burdens not shared by their fellow Hoyas. For these reasons, I fully welcome the university’s Initiative on Diversity and Inclusion.
Oct 20 2009 at 12:21 p.m.
Professor Deneen, I think you frame the issue of diversity in the wrong way. The purpose of the campus-wide drive toward diversity, and others like it, is not to preclude serious disagreement about the good life. Nor do I believe this will be a likely, if unintended, consequence.
Rather, such an initiative aims to promote inclusion, recognition and ultimately justice. There are members of our community who, by virtue of their identification with a particular mode of being or status group, cannot take part in campus life on an equal footing with those who subscribe to more orthodox or mainstream views (the LGBTQ community is an obvious example, though there are others). They face routine harassment, systematic denigration and (in the most extreme cases) physical violence. In addition, they are made to feel that their identity is not worthy of respect, and that their projects and commitments do not carry value. When these patterns of misrecognition are institutionalized, we fail to grant others the moral respect they deserve. As I'm sure you know, the presumption of moral worth in way of life that is different to our own is what Charles Taylor calls a "starting hypothesis." It might be displaced upon closer inspection - but it is a useful and morally attractive starting point nonetheless, from which conversation amongst equal partners can proceed.
But under the present circumstances, individuals who are members of maligned or subaltern status groups on campus must either display their affiliations proudly, and bear the costs of marginalization and disrespect, or suppress their sense of self and live inauthentically. In either case, they face unacceptable burdens not shared by their fellow Hoyas. For these reasons, I fully welcome the university’s Initiative on Diversity and Inclusion.
Oct 20 2009 at 1:53 p.m.
The late great Archbishop Fulton Sheen once said that we "must be tolerant towards persons but we must never be tolerant about ideas."
That gem was on one of his YouTube videos.
If you believe something, you defend your belief regardless of who is debating you. If you don't defend your beliefs, then you don't really believe them. If you are a catholic student facing off with a liberal professor in defense of your faith, don't let them draw you into the "defend all ideas" schtick. You can't defend all ideas.
Contradiction is part and parcel of liberal tolerance.
Tolerance today means compromising truth. Intolerance means standing firm in the truth. So be intolerant where your beliefs are concerned. The world has way too much "tolerance" sloshing around.
If anyone accuses me of intolerance I will happily reply, "Darn straight! If you don't like those apples, then go find your own bushel."
Fiat Voluntas Tua
Oct 20 2009 at 2:16 p.m.
@Craig
Without accepting the premise of your argument, couldn't that same idea be applied to those whose points of view are excluded by a overly expansive demand for toleration. The language of toleration argues that people who hold longstanding opinions about sexuality for instance are outside of the realm of what a person can reasonably think. People holding to the Catholic position are then pushed outside of the discussion and face (while not physical violence) social stigmatization and other forms of exclusion.
Oct 20 2009 at 3:35 p.m.
Craig, if only anon's comment didn't completely undermine your own, then maybe we could believe your claims.
Oct 20 2009 at 5:43 p.m.
Whew, finally found that awesome quote I mentioned above from Archbishop Sheen.
"There is no other subject on which the average mind is so much confused as the subject of tolerance and intolerance. Tolerance is always supposed to be desirable because it is taken to be synonymous with broadmindedness. Intolerance is always supposed to be undesirable, because it is taken to be synonymous with narrow-mindedness. This is not true, for tolerance and intolerance apply to two totally different things. Tolerance applies only to persons, but never to principles. Intolerance applies only to principles, but never to persons. We must be tolerant to persons because they are human; we must be intolerant about principles because they are divine. We must be tolerant to the erring, because ignorance may have led them astray; but we must be intolerant to the error, because Truth is not our making, but God's. And hence the Church in her history, due reparation made, has always welcomed the heretic back into the treasury of her souls, but never his heresy into the treasury of her wisdom."
Oct 21 2009 at 10:14 a.m.
Congratulations on being intolerant. You seem to be very proud of that intolerance, and in a way, I respect your...
Nope, sorry. I can't do it. You get to be intolerant of others. And I get to completely lose all respect for you as a human being.
That's the trade-off. Good luck in life with a whole lot of people thinking less of you for your "standing firm in truth." Now MY truth is that intolerance is not a virtue, and you're woefully misguided and probably a cruel person. I'll stand firm in that.
Oct 21 2009 at 5:09 p.m.
The case is made.
See, the problem with "tolerance" as it is used today especially in academia,is that those who believe in God are expected to renounce God by renouncing His laws.
We can accept the persons so afflicted without their sins and yet our enemies declare that the sins must also be accepted as well. Too many bad catholics have indeed caved into this pressure and given the enemies of the Church ammunition to redouble their efforts to drive more into this lamentable sin of human respect.
There is no common ground between those who believe and those who refuse to believe. Why "dialogue"? Those who believe can only pray to God for the conversion of those poor souls who don't feel they need it.
Fiat Voluntas Tua
Oct 21 2009 at 5:58 p.m.
to "@barb": you yourself sound like a very tolerant person. And if "intolerance is not a virtue" you might want to look at your own intolerance of the people right here on this board. Disagree with, be intolerant of ideas (as Barb said, quoting the Archbishop) but when you start making ad hominem attacks (calling people "cruel" and losing "respect" for them as "human beings") then you have, in fact, become intolerant, not of ideas, but of people, and that is intolerable in any form of civil discussion and debate.
Now a word on truth: you mentioned "your truth". Truth is not yours to be had. You may have an opinion, but Truth is a universally applicable reality. (The TRUTH that the world is round is not, mine, it simply is reality)
Prof. Deneen- great article, we need more voices like yours here on the hilltop.
Oct 21 2009 at 6:25 p.m.
Mr. Deneen is confused. Here's what's happening:
The GU editorial is saying CUA is morally wrong to exclude gay groups. CUA is saying they believe it's morally wrong to include them.
Deneen is attacking Hoya's moral denunciation as being intolerant to those that "judge." Does he not realize the Hoya editorial is communicating exactly what he says they are squashing, moral judgment? The Hoya editorial never mentions diversity, nor do they suggest CUA should allow the gay group on campus for a difference of opinion (or any other difference).
Maybe Mr. Deneen read a different editorial. Either way, his feelings of being squeezed out of the debate is accurate, but "diversity" is not the culprit, moral condemnation is.
Oct 21 2009 at 9:58 p.m.
Professor Deneen was right on. As a Catholic, one should be loving towards all and respect the humanity of all people. That does not mean one should be tolerant of encouraging sodomy at a Catholic school, just as Georgetown should not encourage any sex outside of wedlock. Beginning last year, Georgetown dedicating major efforts to an LGBTQ center. It sold it as a way for caring for the spiritual needs of some of its students. It's already becoming apparent much of that endeavor has gone astray. Instead, it's being used to condone or promote cardinal sin.
Professor Deneen, you're easily the best political philosophy professor here.
Oct 22 2009 at 6:08 p.m.
"Beginning last year, Georgetown dedicating [sic] major efforts to an LGBTQ center. It sold it as a way for caring for the spiritual needs of some of its students. It's already becoming apparent much of that endeavor has gone astray. Instead, it's being used to condone or promote cardinal sin."
Give us some specific examples, Michael Scheuster, about the sinfulness of this Center. Throw all the stones you got.
As a gay Catholic, I can tell you that the recent progress on LGBTQ issues (including work being done by the new center for students of faith) has actually helped me to return to the faith. Previously, the marginalization that I had felt in general at GU tended to mix with the outright ostracism coming from the Church hierarchy towards gay people. That process created a strong desire for me to give up on my faith entirely. Now, instead of sneaking into the back of Fr King's (God bless him) late night Mass so no one would see me, I'm not afraid to take a seat alongside my fellow Hoyas on a bright Sunday morning.
Open up your heart, brother. I'm telling the truth about the love in my life. I'm not hiding my light under a basket anymore.
Oct 22 2009 at 7:14 p.m.
This is a wonderfully written article, and I agree with it. I find that many people who claim to be very tolerant are intolerant of anything that doesn't agree with their views of tolerance. People who have views contrary to today's liberal perspectives are seen as judgmental and intolerant by the people who themselves claim to be tolerant. That never really made much sense to me. How can people who claim to be tolerant be so against anything that disagrees with their views?
Oct 25 2009 at 5:18 p.m.
It seems the distinction between toleration and condoning or accepting something has become blurred. I may tolerate something that I don’t agree with or condone. There are also some things I can neither tolerate nor condone. I may be tolerant of gay/lesbian lifestyles, but that shouldn’t require me to agree with or condone it. Is it a question of tolerating or accepting the purely sexual nature of homosexuality, or the broader description of the lifestyle? Can the two be separated? Is it being suggested that a school tolerate the sexuality or lifestyle, or accept it? Georgetown has demonstrated toleration for gay/lesbians, and even extended an open hand of tolerance and love by initiating the LGBTQ Center. But that’s not really what this is about is it? It’s about demanding that gay/lesbian behavior be approved of. The Church will never condone or approve homosexual behavior any more than it will abortion. Advocates of the behavior know that, but it gives them a venue to be a victim. Homosexuality is openly and freely practiced now, and there are laws to protect those who embrace the lifestyle; the same laws that protect the so called ‘straights’. Congress can pass a new law everyday but that is not going to guarantee protection for anyone from hate. Hate is a vile and repugnant emotion that has always existed and probably always will exist. To continue to force opinions on people and charge them with being intolerant because they don’t agree with a behavior or lifestyle is intolerant or worse. Does anyone really expect a religion to accept and condone homosexuality? There are religions that reject homosexuality and impose severe penalties on those who practice it. All things considered, I think Georgetown has provided an exemplary model of not only tolerance of those who embrace gay/lesbian behavior but exhibiting love for them as well. What else can it really be expected to do?