Let Us Agree to Disagree

We've all had the experience; that one person with whom we simply cannot agree. We argue, we reason, we cajole, we expend vast amounts of energy and hot air, and yet we cannot make any headway. Try as we might, we cannot turn that person to our point of view; we cannot bring that person to our beloved world view.

Disagreement over world view is a common phenomenon at Eastern Mennonite. While some might suggest that harmony is bliss, I contend that it is only through vigorous discussion and civil disagreement that ideas are properly considered, positions tested, and plans prepared. In fact, I would go so far as to say that academics without dissent, disagreement, and discussion is not learning, but instead indoctrination. Therefore, little is more important at EMU, an institution striving to be "a learning community marked by academic excellence, creative process, professional competence, and passionate Christian faith" as dialogue and discussion.

However, the ability to engage in dialogue and disagreement brings with it responsibilities. Too many times we forget this. We forget, for example, that our opinion is our interpretation of the facts, and does not carry the weight of fact itself. Even more grievous, in my opinion, is our tendency to express our opinions in ways that are disrespectful of other positions. And far too many times we assume that our opinion is the only right one, leading to our talking past the disagreeing party. Unfortunately, I've seen all of these problems at EMU.

An excellent example of what I'm talking about was seen in the Weather Vane recently. A college student, dissatisfied with the political opinions regarding the US involvement in Iraq expressed by columnists, wrote in and protested, at times in a quite angry tone. Her views were, needless to say, quite different from the traditional EMU/Mennonite views, which are based on a different understanding of Jesus' teachings. The next week, the paper was bombarded by letters to the editor, replying (again at times in quite angry tones) to her protests.

While I support discussion and disagreement, and while I believe something as complicated as war must be discussed strenuously, I don't agree with the tone of the exchange in the example above. My guess is that, were the above exchange actually carried out in person, the only noises louder than the voices would have been the sounds of the opposing arguments flying past the opposing party.

I especially extend an appeal to those of you who have made the peace position your own; think about how you argue your topic. You are the highly vocal majority on this campus. A dear friend of mine, who does not share the peace position, once said to me she wished pacifists would "Not be so stuck-up." Whether or not you agree with her is immaterial and not the subject of my opinion; the tone of argument that caused her to come to this position is.

How then are we to discuss? How are we to harness the great diversity of opinion on this campus and distill truth? I hope that a few of my observations might be of help in this situation. We must first recognize what we hold in common. Too many times, we have disagreements over minutiae that are not central to the topic. A recent Simpsons episode saw Bart and Homer join the Catholic Church over the protests of Marge, the Simpsons' pastor, and Flanders. Finally, the opposing sides came head to head, as Flanders and the Pastor on one side and Homer and the Catholic Priest on the other side prepared to do battle. And then Bart stood up. "People!" he yelled, "It's all Christianity!" How many times do we disagree over small details, while forgetting the bigger picture? Second, we must realize that, no matter how much we disagree, all viewpoints are valuable, and all people have the right to express their opinion. The French philosopher Voltaire once said "I might disagree with what you are saying, but I'll fight to the death for your right to say it." In my opinion (and because this is my opinion I have labeled it as such) EMU should adopt this view. While this does not mean every opinion is valid, we must base that validity not upon our feelings on hearing the opinion, but on facts.

Finally, we must make a commitment not to attack the person, but instead to dispute the opinion. Ad hominim ("Attack to the Man") is totally unacceptable in my opinion. Personal attacks and anger during discussion do nothing but push a debate to the point of conflict. Growth occurs not through challenges to one's person but through challenges to one's ideas and ways of thinking. By all means argue passionately for your opinion, but do so respectfully.

We at EMU are proud of our diversity. We come from many countries, and we also come from many faith traditions. Just as we accept our physical and faith differences, and in fact, just as we have made them a point of pride, so should we accept and cherish our diversity of opinion. We cannot elevate our opinion above another's opinion, and we must discuss our opinions in a spirit of love.