As a student in a prestigious American university majoring in the social sciences, you would think I am well-versed in argumentative conversation. You might imagine that our classes and lectures stir up fact-heavy debate and the free flow of ideas, with our professors acting as sage and impartial referees, prioritizing learning rather than sectarianism.
Unfortunately, if this is your image of higher academia, you are drastically mistaken.
No longer can students vary on viewpoints and positions; there are no more multiple schools of thought, encompassing thousands of different combinations of arguments with countless different folds regarding millions of subjects. They have now been replaced with only two sides: The Good vs. the Bad.
Today, any opinion not included in the canon of tolerable opinions in the American classroom is classified as bad. Not wrong, not logically fallacious or uninformed, but morally repugnant. This strategy of demonization is quite an effective one. It brands anyone in disagreement with you on any topic hateful and bigoted and by doing so automatically grants you the moral high ground.
This raises serious issues when anybody can be called a racist, homophobe, sexist, or newly coined “islamophobe” simply for disagreeing with you. Mostly because when name-calling begins, it is almost impossible to be retracted, and any sort of rational, intellectual debate is thrown out the window.
This is now the crushing norm on the majority of American college campuses, and it has terrifying, and incredibly violent repercussions, regarding both the victims and the perpetrators of this system. While the victim is cast out, silenced and wrongfully accused of crimes he is innocent of, the perpetrator is denying himself the opportunity to hear a voice different than his own, furthering his closure of mind and reinforcing the idea that his opinion is the only one that deserves a hearing. The result? Healthy disagreement and conversation is now a fossil of the past.
To an outsider, this environment feels more like a fringe political rally than a higher learning institution. Among other absurdities, statements like “Communism is not that bad,” “The founding fathers were white supremacists,” or “The American justice system is worse than the Gestapo” are repeatedly pronounced by either the professor or her pupils, facing little to no opposition. The rest of the class nods in quiet agreement. Those daring to voice a modicum of opposition, myself included, are quick to experience the hammer of the politically correct.
The mildest resistance to any of these talking points is met with name-calling, or even physical intimidation that can very quickly escalate into something reassembling Cersei’s walk of shame in “Game of Thrones.” Social cohesion is torn, intellectual arguments are traded for moral grandstanding, and the few students who thought they were going to get anything of value out of the tens of thousands of dollars in tuition are left wondering how they stumbled into a CNN or Fox News talk show.
I, for one, am left wondering, what ever happened to disagreement? Granted, I don’t recall a time where politics was any less divisive, but the sheer hollowness and virulence of the “conversations” I have experienced convinces me that this is not business as usual. Today, any disagreement on any issue means all out war. Not mere ideological opposition, but all out moral and ethical warfare that necessitates humiliation, scare tactics, and reprehension. Social media mobs submerge your accounts in hate messages, students yell at you in unison, and you are now officially considered a bigot among your peers.
Because of this, we have lost a huge part of what makes academic social interactions so profitable. Healthy disagreement is more than two people not seeing eye to eye, it embodies the exchange of ideas upon which the western world is built. It requires each party to properly defend his or her point of view with rigor, consistency, elan, and knowledge. It takes people out of their comfort zone and thrusts them into an intellectual arena in which values are formed and brandished. Productive disagreement is not a synonym of hatred, nor should it be shunned or avoided. It is what makes our minds develop. It should be sought out and recommended as a tool to further one’s character.
Nothing truly negative can come as a result of healthy and honest disagreement. After a lengthy discussion, either you are proven right by your intellectual rigor, general knowledge, and logical affinity, and are therefore better prepared for your next confrontation; or, you are proven wrong, and are forced to change your mind or adapt your position to a more intellectually or morally sensible one.
Fellow students, our characters are formed in opposition to what they are not. It is in these moments that our identities develop more nuance, more flexibility, and the ability to see other points of view. Gravitate towards disagreement and disputation and meet it with a kind heart and a firm intellect, but do not shun it and surround yourself only with those who echo your own opinions. Picture all who disagree not as enemies, but as pupils in need of further information. With this mindset, not only are you likely to elevate others, you might just let them elevate you.
Louis Sarkozy is a contributor to the Washington Examiner’s Beltway Confidential blog. He is a student in philosophy and religion at New York University. He is the youngest son of former French President Nicolas Sarkozy.
