Mutual respect is essential in discourse


Here at USC, we know what it means to have an academic demeanor. Arguments in academic work are evaluated on their merits. Maintaining academic honesty, originality of thought and respect for arguments on both sides of an issue are expected in the work that Trojans do on a daily basis. How we interact with each other on- and off-campus, however, is in stark contrast to this established scholarly custom. Oftentimes, when conflicting opinions clash in public discourse, the merits of those views are not debated — they are labeled and categorized. Unfortunately, as seen here this past spring in the David Horowitz controversy, a fellow student who holds a particular opposing opinion can likewise be labeled. Refusing to give proper and respectful consideration to someone of a divergent viewpoint blind to the potential merits of that perspective. Doing so also forges an atmosphere not of dialogue, but of conflict. As a result, the merits of positions are not always debated; rhetorical appeals about them dominate instead. This trend is deeply concerning for those who hold scholarly atmosphere and academic custom in high regard.

In a community as large as USC’s, individuals often span the entirety of the political and social spectra. Inevitably, students will encounter others who do not share their views, background or core beliefs. This is normal and to be expected. Indeed, the purpose of a university is to foster discussions among such disparate groups in order to advance student understanding of each other and knowledge of the world. Taking the position that someone who does not conform to one’s expectations is necessarily wrong, though, threatens that objective. Such a hostile position does not inspire rational thought or well-balanced discussion; it engenders fear and anger. It goes without saying that these emotions do not lend themselves well to objective analysis of opinion.

For example, this past year, USC hosted a few controversial speakers, perhaps most prominently Conservative Writer David Horowitz. Students engaged in public and private discourse about the various speakers’ qualities and reliability, and although few perspectives were likely changed given how polarizing his presence was in particular, adequate respect was largely given to Horowitz’s views and supporters. So it should be at a university. However, there were some students who made comments that could be best described as anything but respectful towards their classmates, both privately and publicly. Ad hominem attacks, deliberately misstating the opposition’s views and logical fallacies have as much place in an academic setting and civil discourse as they do in scholarly work — none. At times, it appears as if there is a perennial race to the bottom — labels like sexist, racist and accusations of phobia are rampant in contemporary criticisms of opposing views. Sound logic, even-handedness and proof, however, are comparatively lacking.

This is not to say that all perspectives are equally valid, or that one should give as much credence to a well-supported position as to, say, the theory that the world is flat. Just as one would in an academic paper, however, a student ought to evaluate that position as fairly as they can and rely on their logical reasoning to guide their response to it. Doing so will invariably lead to a stronger refutation and a better presentation, especially to observers, who rightly expect civility and respect in academic discourse. If a position is in fact faulty or unsound, that will be laid bare as a result of thorough critical analysis. Making unwarranted claims or demanding that the opposition cease engaging in discourse is counter-productive and anything but appropriate as an academic.

Even if students disagree on a fundamental level, that does not mean that they ought to resort to irreverent conduct. Students should instead seek to inquire about why their colleague maintains their beliefs, and they should likewise be introspective and ask themselves the same kind of questions. Certainly, a student presenting their own views in a favorable light is to be expected, but understanding why they believe what they believe is critical to formulating the best defense of those convictions. Many times, fundamental beliefs rest upon imperfect assumptions. Refining these assumptions with knowledge gained during study and peer interactions ought to be the goal that students pursue when engaging in discussions of all kinds in all settings.

Academic discourse is a constant back-and-forth mental sparring session. Like a sparring match, the goal is not to cause harm to one’s opponent, but to highlight their weaknesses so that they may identify them and address them. Students should walk away from academic discourse much like they would a martial-arts tournament: with a deeper understanding of their faults, a greater appreciation for their strengths and an intense desire to improve. This is the core of what it means to be an academic.