Up for Debate
In the Spring issue, we asked what you’ve learned from a constructive disagreement. Here’s a sampling of your responses.
When I lived back East, I met a friend at Starbucks several times a month, where we agreed to disagree. She was Jewish and I Catholic; she was a Democrat and I a Republican; she came from modest means, and I was more fortunate. We both loved our discussions because we listened to each other, learned an opposite viewpoint on numerous topics, and challenged our own thinking and beliefs.
Sandra Stefanisin Berris, ’67
Carmel-by-the-Sea, California
Several years ago, a friend and I started a “salon night.” The purpose was to discuss difficult topics the way our founding fathers did—argue and then have a smoke. We had the spectrum of political backgrounds, viewpoints, and varying economics. The discussion got lively, then we all enjoyed dessert. The group grew from 12 to 28 people, all remaining friends despite our differing views. Our salon nights were a victim of COVID, but now, another group of us with extremely different views is beginning monthly meetings to study the Federalist Papers. With all that is going on in our political arena, we felt that having a great understanding of the Constitution would make our discussions more informative and interesting. I am fortunate to have found a group with whom I can disagree and argue, then sit and enjoy chocolate cake.
Heatherly Vandeweghe, ’83
Los Angeles, California
A family member (I’ll call him Chuck) and I get our news from different sources. He from Ben Shapiro, Joe Rogan, Fox News. I from Bloomberg, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, the New York Times, Iowa Press. However, Chuck is remarkably good at focusing on public policy instead of politics or sound bites. The whole family groans when he starts one of these conversations. But I’ve always felt OK with the way he approaches the dialogue. He’s warm, down-to-earth, and thoughtful. I feel welcome to share my perspective, and I’m naturally inclined to look for a solution that utilizes all ideas. They’re some of my favorite conversations.
Lisette McCracken, ’89, MS ’94
Clive, Iowa
Say What You Will
Our Spring cover story chronicled campus efforts to foster the skills of constructive dialogue.
I was encouraged that Stanford students are learning those critical thinking and communication skills. I just wish that was a requirement for the population of the whole country. The last paragraph reminded me of an old saying I try to emulate, which goes something like this:
“Dumb people don’t learn from their mistakes. Smart people learn from their mistakes. Really smart people learn from the mistakes of others.”
David Westmoreland, PhD ’73
Hillsborough, California
Jill Patton tells an excellent story, all the more so if you read subversively. Take the bit on Stanford’s Democracy and Disagreement course, which invites speakers to debate and disagree constructively. The speakers are chosen with great care, we’re told, and that’s apparent from what follows.
The first session debated reparations. On one side, a law professor argued for race-based reparations. On the other side, a law professor argued for . . . class-based reparations, a large new scheme of income redistribution. These may be the two poles of the debate in academia, but not in the rest of the country. I suppose that’s one way to keep disagreement civil: Talk only to your fellows on the left.
The other major example we’re given is a debate on the Israeli–Palestinian conflict. On one side was former prime minister Salam Fayyad, the most moderate possible Palestinian representative—so much so that he could command only 2 percent of the vote when he had to face the Palestinian electorate (rather than accept an appointment). On the other side was visiting fellow Alon Tal, an Israeli environmentalist who apparently still speaks of the two-state solution as an “existential need” for Israel, not merely a death wish.
I’m not surprised the events were polite; Stanford elided the real debate.
Elliot Kaufman, ’18
New York, New York
The format of discussion whereby the leader simply tosses out provocative questions and then relies on the participants to do the full work of drawing out and debating the nuances was the hollow hallmark of “discussion” throughout my secondary schooling. So you can imagine how I enjoyed my halcyon days at Stanford, where debate was so much more organic. To see it now, then, as the format for the cover story of the very magazine I rely on to make me feel like I’m at Stanford again, is troubling.
Dave Halsted, ’98
Madison, Wisconsin
This article purports to address problems with civil disagreement on campus by focusing almost exclusively on ways to teach students how to disagree properly.
Jill Patton [’03, MA ’04] mentions virtually nothing about how much the adults in these classrooms have enabled or even promoted cancel culture on the Farm. The Stanford faculty and administrators pride themselves on leading by example, but in this area, they haven’t done a very good job. The incident involving the Stanford Law School administrator and a conservative guest speaker (a federal judge, no less) and the attacks on professor emeritus of health policy Jay Bhattacharya [’90, MA ’90, MD ’98, PhD ’01] when he correctly contradicted the prevailing narratives about COVID are some of the worst examples. Conservative faculty are a distinct minority across the country. They face more blowback for exercising free speech than do liberals—including at Stanford—and the same is that much truer for students. To its credit, the new administration seems genuinely interested in a healthier environment for free speech, but it’s unfortunate that an article that spent so much time talking about the importance of civic discourse said virtually nothing about educating the educators.
Bernie Lahde, ’72
La Quinta, California
|
|
Read the Fine Print
A Winter-issue story covered the ways 3D printing is advancing medicine, from painless microneedles for vaccines to lab-grown organs.
It is truly tantalizing to think that we are going down the road to being able to re-create and implant many of our body parts—presumably to extend and improve life as we know it and live it. Seemingly not part of the dialogue, however, is the larger philosophical issue of why and of how far we go in developing the technology. Of course, it is the standard and perhaps reasonable assumption that medical science and research should be continued and supported robustly and indefinitely. All well and good, I’d say. But let’s also push ourselves to be always asking the large questions about life, its purpose, its reasonable length, and how we deal with inevitable late-life deterioration and declining quality. One other thorny issue: The latest and most expensive new technologies always will be available first—or perhaps only—to the wealthiest and better educated among us.
Bill Burley, ’63
Mount Vernon, Washington
|
|
