Heterodox Academy Offers Suggestions on How to Disagree Civilly

Heterodox Academy was founded in 2015 by Jonathan Haidt, Chris Martin, and Nicholas Rosenkranz

in reaction to their observations about the negative impact a lack of ideological diversity has had on the quality of research within their disciplines. What began as a website and a blog in September of 2015 — a venue for social researchers to talk about their work and the challenges facing their disciplines and institutions — soon grew into an international network of peers dedicated to advancing  the values of constructive disagreement and viewpoint diversity as cornerstones of academic and intellectual life.

All members of Heterodox Academy embrace a set of norms and values that they call “The HxA Way.”

“I support open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement in research and education.”

HxA offers a tipsheet on how to how to approach moral disagreements in constructive ways. HxA encourages us to "engage in open inquiry and constructive disagreement can use these strategies to build mutual understanding and have better conversations on difficult issues."

I highly recommend visiting this entire article, but in this short article I'm setting out the basic ideas:

  • Lower the perceived state of the disagreement or conflict
  • Don’t sling pejorative labels or assign bad motives
  • Agree upon facts first ("Then talk about what to do about it or how best to address it. Start small and build out.")
  • Lower a disagreement’s visibility ("In public environments, including digital forums, there is much more pressure to conform to one’s group and to virtue signal. It is also far more embarrassing to admit you were wrong to the whole world than to a single person. People are generally much more reasonable in more intimate settings.")
  • Don’t demand too much from the conversation ("In cases of deep disagreement, the initial and primary goal should be simply to clearly understand where the other is coming from and to be well-understood oneself.")
  • Appeal to identity, values, narratives,and frames of reference
  • Speak to people in their own language ("people become much more willing to reconsider or even change their views and to accept controversial facts when presented to them in terms of their own values, commitments, and frames of reference")

The final point of this HxA tip sheet is to "Understand that it’s worth the effort." HxA elaborates:

If you do a deep dive into a radically alternative worldview with an open mind – that mind will be blown. The exploration might, at times, be disorienting, frustrating, or triggering – but you will learn a lot. You might not abandon your own commitments, but you’ll definitely come to see things in a dramatically different way. At the very least, you will discover that your rivals have legitimate reasons for holding the positions they hold on many issues. That in itself – really internalizing that – can be huge.

HxA position is that they prize pluralism and value constructive disagreement. They offer these additional five bullet points for accomplishing these goals:

  • Make your case with evidence.
  • Be intellectually charitable ("However, one should always try to engage with the strongest form of a position one disagrees with (that is, ‘steel-man’ opponents rather than ‘straw-manning’ them). One should be able to describe their interlocutor’s position in a manner they would, themselves, agree with (see: ‘Ideological Turing Test’)")
  • Be intellectually humble ("Take seriously the prospect that you may be wrong")
  • Be constructive.("The objective of most intellectual exchanges should not be to “win,” but rather to have all parties come away from an encounter with a deeper understanding of our social, aesthetic and natural worlds.")
  • Be yourself. This is a critically important point. Standing up to outgroups, in-groups and organizations sometimes takes considerable courage:

At Heterodox Academy, we believe that successfully changing unfortunate dynamics in any complex system or institution will require people to stand up — to leverage, and indeed stake, their social capital on holding the line, pushing back against adverse trends and leading by example. This not only has an immediate and local impact, it also helps spread awareness, provides models for others to follow and creates permission for others to stand up as well. This is why Heterodox Academy does not allow for anonymous membership; membership is a meaningful commitment precisely because it is public.

HxA offers many additional Tools and Resources for engaging in Heterodox Conversations. This is an excellent site to visit to prepare for conversations that might turn contentious.

Continue ReadingHeterodox Academy Offers Suggestions on How to Disagree Civilly

Professor Dorian Abbott of the University of Chicago Threatened for Expressing Dissent over DEI Policy

What is a hero?  There are many types.  One type of hero is someone who steps up to do what is right and say what is true knowing that the consequences will be painful and potentially damaging to one's livelihood.  The scene is the University of Chicago, which issued the strongly worded "Chicago Statement" in 2015. Here is an excerpt:

“Because the University is committed to free and open inquiry in all matters, it guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn . . . . [I]t is not the proper role of the University to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”

I learned of the story of Geophysics Professor Abbott through a series of tweets by Colin Wright. Abbot's crime was to question his department's DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) policies. His concerns included the following:

My basic points are: (1) We need to think through the consequences of DEI efforts to make sure they aren’t hurting promising scientists of all demographics, (2) There are major societal problems that we should try to fix as a society as well as by giving our own time and money off campus, but adjusting departmental ratios at elite universities does not really address them, and (3) the current academic climate is making it extremely difficult for people with dissenting viewpoints to voice their opinions.

Abbot's concerns resulted in a letter to Geophysics Department signed by 130 graduate students and post-docs demanding that Abbott be stripped  of all titles, courses, and privileges. Those signing the letter claimed that Abbot's opinions "threaten the safety and belonging of all underrepresented groups" and are "an aggressive act." They issued 11 absurd demands that, again, include a demand that the University ruin Professor Abbott's career. Here is the starting point (click on this link to jump in):

Professor Abbott detailed events of Mid-November in this document.  Here's an excerpt from his report:

On Saturday, 11/14/20, friends started telling me that there were a large number of people on Twitter misrepresenting what I was arguing, saying untrue things about me, and even demanding that I be fired. One friend noted that there were a number of tweets using the logic: “I don’t feel safe when you object to my premises, therefore you cannot object to my premises on campus.” I found this very upsetting because it confirmed my fear that certain people are exploiting the language of personal trauma to silence anyone with dissenting opinions on these issues.

Analysis: I believe that this situation was caused by the collision of two different strongly held worldviews. I subscribe to the traditional University of Chicago perspective, as outlined recently in what has become known as the Chicago Statement. In this view academic freedom and the tolerance of dissenting views are given prominence. The reason for this is that it is important for promoting the discovery of new knowledge, which is the main purpose of a modern university. I and many other faculty specifically chose to work at the University of Chicago in part because it has always affirmed this attitude. The alternative viewpoint is that certain groups feel inherently threatened on campus, and need to be protected from anything that might make them feel unsafe or happy to pursue their work. I am sympathetic to this viewpoint and agree in some cases, such as general department and classroom climate, but I feel that it cannot be applied to intellectual discussions. The reason is that it is associated with the type of logic noted above, in which the position is taken: “I don’t feel safe when you object to my premises, therefore you cannot object to my premises on campus.” This is similar to what philosophers call “begging the question,” or “assuming the answer,” and obviously is not an effective way to resolve an intellectual dispute correctly.

I invite you to click on these links and to keep following this story to see whether the University of Chicago will honor its stated principles that universities must always be places where dissent will always be invited.

Continue ReadingProfessor Dorian Abbott of the University of Chicago Threatened for Expressing Dissent over DEI Policy