"Diversity of ideas"

So, in Spring of 2017, I attended a writing workshop at Columbia University taught by journalists about how to write OpEd pieces. In the course of the seminar they espoused the need for openness to the diversity of ideas, and that it was fine to disagree with ideas but never to disrespect the person... Then they talked about how it's okay in this current political era to be intolerant because what happened in the election is unacceptable.

I was a bit shocked by this hypocrisy and wrote my OpEd exercise piece about this intolerance being practiced by people claiming to respect diversity of ideas while teaching how to express unheard opinions, which mine widely is in the campus environment. While the instructors seemed to be a bit troubled by what I wrote, every colleague, most of whom were humanities professors at Columbia, agreed emphatically with the position I took in my OpEd, and many later told me they had exactly the same initial reaction even as they agreed with the political position of the instructor.

What I want to say is how proud I am of the faculty of my "coastal elite" university for agreeing that my position was completely valid and they added that they were also largely troubled by the very same intolerance to different opinions on campus... Here is a draft of what I wrote trying to be provocative....

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The Public Voices program of the OpEd Project, in which I am excited to participate this year, has been billed as a "diversity of ideas project", which "was founded to ensure that all human beings have a chance to be heard". Furthermore, in the ground rules, it is clearly stated that "we believe in a wide range of ideas, including ideas we may disagree with", and it was suggested that "it is rare that we can have an open, frank discussion about what we think...but take care to be respectful. Disagree with the idea, not the individual." And ground rule 3 explicitly is entitled "everyone is welcome".

Despite this statement, during the first day of the workshop, it was repeatedly alluded to that this class is more important now than ever because of what happened in the recent election. At one point the lead instructor went so far as to say it is okay to be intolerant. I fail to see, however how intolerance is compatible with "diversity of ideas" and "respect for the individual".

Surely among an audience of twenty Columbia professors, it may be unlikely to expect significant degrees of support for President Trump. But those individuals who do support him would seem to be the people whose voice is most strongly silenced by the current political climate, not the opposite. The recent election's results came as a shock to many people largely because people who do support the president often felt inhibited from speaking openly for fear of of being attacked as an individual, rather than for the ideas about which disagreement may exist. In context of this workshop and the desire for open, frank exchange of ideas, this strikes me as a direct violation of Ground Rule number 3.

Personally, I am a libertarian, not a Republican. I was a delegate at the Libertarian National Convention, and helped Governor Gary Johnson in his presidential campaign and even helped write his science policy over the past year. I live in New York, where the election was not competitive, and as such I saw no downside to working for the Libertarian party during the election cycle. That said, Donald Trump was the first mainstream political candidate I was excited about since Pat Buchanan's primary campaign in 1992 which led to the unseating of George H.W. Bush. I agree with President Trump on about 70% of issues which is far more than any candidate offered by either main party since Ronald Reagan. To this end, I donated to Mr. Trump's political campaign, and am very satisfied that the efforts of the Libertarian party to get out the vote for Governor Johnson in swing states helped elect our new President.

I entered this program with much optimism to learn how better to express myself in writing, and learn to better make a visible and open-minded argument for what is a minority view among "the coastal elites", as the instructors called us on Friday. Obviously I realize my political views are the minority view among Columbia faculty, but I was encouraged to participate in your workshop because I believed that diversity of ideas includes everyone, as the ground rules state, "regardless of which side of the aisle you come from, you are welcome."

When instructors openly suggest it is okay to be intolerant of the ideas that won the recent election, or that the people who elected him are just misinformed or ignorant, somehow I am forced to question what was meant by celebration of the "diversity of ideas". I work as a professor at Columbia, as a free lance musician, and am actively engaged in diplomatic outreach in such diverse places as North Korea, Iran, Venezuela, Afghanistan and other troubled areas of the world. I am able to do this because I treat everyone with respect, engage them politely, and celebrate their diversity of opinion. Obviously very few people in my professional or personal life agree with my political views, and yet I have always engaged them with respect and never disparaged anyone for their political views, including my friend North Korean leader Marshal Kim Jong Un. But today, hysteria over the election, and the coming changes to American political life has created an environment where it has somehow become acceptable to attack the individual by openly calling people racist, misogynist homophobes just because they didn't vote for Hillary Clinton. That is not "tolerance" or "celebration" of diversity of opinion by any definition.

I must say that during Friday's presentation, I frequently felt attacked personally not because the instructors disagreed with me about politics, but because of the frequent allusion to it being okay to be intolerant of those who disagree, implying that President Trump and his supporters are horrible people who disparage elites and are destroying American values. In this era, perhaps it is wiser to encourage us to stop being silent and speak up to encourage people to understand and respect that diversity of thought on our campus. I would suggest that this lack of respect creates an environment that silences the frank discussion that the ground rules state are to be encouraged. To this end, I suggest the instructors answer their own question of "whether the ground rules are unacceptable to you". Perhaps it is time for a re-evaluation of what it really means to you to celebrate diversity of ideas, and to respect those who disagree as individuals...