Search Results

Aspen Marshall, Undergraduate, University of Utah When thinking about tolerance, I thought about how the world is painted in a black-or-white lenses. If you have an opinion, it must be on one side of the issue. It can’t be a mix of both sides. Obviously, that immediately presents a huge issue. Life is a lot more complicated than opinion A or opinion B. A specific issue that I think of at this time is the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, which has recently become intense. People I follow on social media post about the conflict, but it’s either pro-Israeli or pro-Palestinian, nothing in the middle. I believe that you can find a middle ground, a tolerance, in regards to this conflict. As a Jewish student here in Utah, a lot of people automatically assume that I must be pro-Israel in regards to the conflict. I wouldn’t be surprised if they thought that I had a shrine to PM Netanyahu in my dorm room. At the same time, Muslim students are expected to support Palestine. This causes people to think that the conflict isn’t just Israeli/Palestine, but Jew/Muslim. This, of course, puts both Jewish students and Muslim students in danger. As public opinion of Jews and Muslims are already low, this conflict can cause an increase in hate crimes against Jews and Muslims. I believe that people should seek to find a common ground when thinking about the conflict. Perhaps it’s possible to support Palestine but denounce Hamas killing Israeli civilians. Maybe it’s possible to support Israel but denounce Israel killing Palestinian civilians. Why can’t we find a moral common ground? I believe it’s possible to denounce the killing of innocent civilians on both sides. I believe it’s possible to be both pro-Israel and pro-Palestine. Both countries deserve to exist and their citizens deserve to live in peace and prosperity. To compare the Israeli-Palestinian conflict to American politics, we see a lot of controversial topics, such as: abortion, gun control, the border, healthcare, and LGBTQIA+ rights, that come up in political debates, Senate and House sessions, and the Supreme Court itself. Yet, these topics tend to be quite polarized and often result in heated debates and a clash of views. I feel like a lot of people can agree on the same thing, if they just take time to listen and tolerate the opinions of others. In elections, we often vote based on name and face recognition, without paying attention to who they are as a person. If you took statements and quotes by politicians on both sides and asked random Americans if they agreed or disagreed, I feel like there would be a blurring of party lines. We, as human beings, have a lot more in common than we realize. This is why toleration is important to talk about. Toleration means that we must seek to find a common ground, a gray area, and not be blinded by the false dichotomy of things being black or white that is often portrayed in the media.

RKeavius Barnes, Graduate, Benedict College Tolerance is a word that is broadly defined. But it is truly through lived experiences from individuals that provides perspective. As a student-athlete, I have had to navigate what tolerance means. I have learned to understand that my tolerance does not necessarily equal that of others. I have a high tolerance of pain, that has evolved over the years. I have been injured and torn my meniscus, (more than once). Walking from the field after a two-hour practice, straight to my class at eight in the morning, and walking up three flights of stairs seemed normal. But until Professors or peers ask me how I was able to persevere – I felt it was normal. Attending Historically Black Colleges thus far, I have learned a lot of tolerance. Tolerance can bleed into perseverance. Our institutions are sometimes viewed as having less resources, less-qualified students, and definitely not a top landing spot for students. But after experiencing the HBCU life for my undergraduate experience, I yearned for it at the graduate level. I am proud to see people who look like me trying their best to change their circumstances. I am proud to see people who look like me break generational curses. I am proud to see people who look like me take a chance on themselves. It is not easy. After all, in a society that idolizes everything about culture except the people – I understand why students want to give up. I am often asked by peers how I balance playing football and keeping a solid GPA. The reality is I do not have a choice. Some perceived me to be a hothead, but in reality – I do not want to be misunderstood. Pursuing my graduate degree helps me learn to communicate and organize my thoughts and feelings with the world. I am used to being sleep – deprived, but my scholarship depends on my football skills. That does not mean that I cannot sharpen my toolkit in the meantime. I like meeting new people. I like experiencing new things. I love professors from various cultures who share why they CHOSE to teach at a HBCU. One of my favorite professors was a Ghanaian professor, who would always leave us with a proverb before we exited class. He was hard on us, and never lowered his expectation. But he explained how he came to the United States with $25, and a brown paper bag with one change of clothes. He earned his Doctorate, and feels he owes the United States such gratitude for changing his life. He could teach anywhere in the world, but he chose to teach us. My hope is fight for my dream as he did. It is not easy, but I know it will be worth it. I have a lot to prove this season, as a transfer, and recovering from what some consider to be an insurmountable injury. But I will persevere. I will not let my Mother down, let alone myself. There are so many who tolerated discomfort in order to survive. I cannot tolerate failure; and it is a must that I thrive. It is in my DNA to win.

Thomas Spencer, Graduate Student, Cambridge Union The word tolerance is associated with the verb to tolerate. This provides images of an ideal epitomised by putting up with something and accepting the world and others for the way they are. However, it is wrong to see tolerance as a selfless ideal, rather it represents a necessary extension of one’s own self-interest. Adam Smith in his Wealth of Nations argued that by encouraging competition between religions you will later see an increase in religious tolerance, because this creates a situation where no single religion is capable of disturbing “the public tranquillity”. Yet this is not the reason why tolerance will be embraced to Smith, rather because it makes the religious practice itself better in order to compete with other faiths. By this he is referencing the reality of how toleration came about. Like the competition Smith described, tolerance was not made commonplace by people simply choosing to passively accept other people, it was delivered by a practical requirement to resolve disputes between opposing social groups. When people began to join differing socio-political groups it became a necessity for people to embrace them to avoid the discord of the century before. In turn when people begin to tolerate others, then the extremism of others tends to dwindle. As Henri Grégoire, the French revolutionary noted, “When we persecute people… we isolate them, we make those opinions dearer to those who hold them”, resulting in a reduction in the likelihood of them tolerating others. Today we’re seeing an unfortunate rise in cases of intolerance actualised by our increasingly pluralised societies. Whilst human history is multicultural, greater mobility of labour spurred by reduced travel costs and increased connectivity have intensified this reality more rapidly. These prejudices are not new, and empirical evidence shows that people are much less bigoted than they were in the past. However in a homogenous society, bigotry against the other that does not exist, is less problematic than an actualised bigotry towards a group that one shares a society with. Multiculturalism has thus been a spur of an increase in actualised tolerance and an increase in actualised intolerance. However, the less stratified a society becomes the less the incentive to actualise bigotry becomes, and therefore tolerance spreads as a necessity. Tolerance may be an ideal for some, and I would agree it is, but that is not what all it is. Tolerance, fundamentally, is a necessity. As human beings we are fundamentally motivated by our self-interest and our self-interest, rationally thought out, commands us to be tolerant. This means conducting friendly relations with all people, since this will lead to the largest measurable increase in one’s self-interest and make the lives of them and who they care about better. If someone is tolerant because they view it to be deontologically right, then that’s great, but ultimately what tolerance means to me is that one has settled upon the fact that cordial relations with all people will make their life better than remaining intolerant.

Hugh Jones, Undergraduate Student, Cambridge Union John Stuart Mill is a giant of liberal philosophy, and perhaps his greatest contribution to the field was the ‘harm principle’, explained in his book, On Liberty. It refers to the idea that governments should only be able to coerce their citizens when their citizens’ actions are harming others. It is often summarised with the quotation “your right to swing your fist ends at my face”. This summary is telling; Mill never put it that way – and almost certainly wouldn’t have done. Mill was concerned with restraining government interference with individual liberty. For him, it would not have been “if your fist hits my face, then I can get the government involved”, but “unless I hit you, I can swing my fist wherever the hell I want.” This distinction matters. Mill made sure to point out in On Liberty that the harm principle was a necessary – but not sufficient – criterion for governments flexing their police powers. He outlined several harms which do not warrant government intervention – one person outcompeting another in a business setting, for example. If you and I are both going for the same promotion at work, and you get it instead of me, I might consider myself harmed – but I don’t get to have you locked up. So – what does any of this have to do with tolerance. The answer is that tolerance is the other side of the harm principle. Democratic governments are, in certain circumstances at least, all too willing to over-police harms that ought to be overlooked. We shouldn’t be surprised that they are – that governments tend to prioritise popularity and policy over liberty is exactly why Mill felt the need to articulate the harm principle in the first place. We see this dynamic playing out in the most contentious political issues in the West – especially in the Anglosphere, where Mill’s ideas about liberty are politically foundational. Britain’s chronic inability to build new housing stems from homeowners unwillingness to tolerate small harms – loss of green spaces, lowered house prices – to facilitate construction that would boost the economy and help young people get on the fabled housing ladder. Similarly, British conservatives’ unwillingness to tolerate inconvenient but peaceful protests by groups like Extinction Rebellion has led to a crackdown on the freedom to demonstrate. On the other side of the political spectrum, leftists’ unwillingness to tolerate speech which they regard as violating taboos about race, sexuality, and gender (amongst other concerns) has led to prison sentences for teenagers sending ill-advised tweets. So what does tolerance mean? Well, to put it bluntly, it means recognising that if you’re only free as long as you don’t piss anyone else off in the process, you aren’t really free. So, next time your housemate is blasting music at 1am the night before your exam, don’t call the college porters on them. Grab a pair of earplugs and go back to sleep – it’s what Mill would have wanted.

Katie Marshall, Undergraduate Student, Cambridge Union We live in an age in which diversity in social and political thought are more visible to us than ever before. Through social media, debating panels and real time news, every day we are confronted with views and opinions that we may strongly disagree with and equally those that affirm our own beliefs. Often, we struggle to comprehend how someone could hold an opinion so polarised from our own worldview. How we react when exposed to challenging opinions or behaviours differs from person to person: whilst some people take a more reactionary approach, others are more inclined to accept that truth, for a variety of reasons, manifests as something very different for everyone. The meaning of tolerance comes from the Latin root denoting the ability to ‘endure’ something painful, either physically or mentally. I would argue, however, that this rather negative definition of the original root does not accurately represent what we should be striving for when we speak of tolerance in public discourse today. I believe that we are more likely to be ‘intolerant’ of something we do not fully understand, so we must address our ignorance before we can be fully tolerant of an opinion. By exclusively exposing ourselves to views and opinions that agree with our own long-held belief systems, we can never expect to be a tolerant society for, when only exposed to one side of an argument, hatred and resentment of ‘others’ will always find a way to prevail. To achieve genuine tolerance, we must be willing to listen to people who have opposing views with true curiosity and openness. In essence, tolerance does not mean that we must agree and approve of everybody’s views and opinions, as this would be impossible, but that we develop the ability to disagree respectfully. Tolerance through the lens of considering concepts outside our own way of thinking can only enrich and, possibly, affirm our own beliefs on a more meaningful level. For it is our diversity of opinion which enriches our collective understanding of the world. However, tolerance does not mean that we must always remain neutral to challenging views, as this would lead to a dangerous and unjust society. Instead, tolerance should mean that, if there is no risk of harm, we are willing to offer people of differing beliefs the same right to their opinion and way of life. Often, intolerance stems from insecurity and insecurity from misunderstanding. We tend to demonise people whose opinions differ dramatically from our own as a way of increasing a sense of our own worth as citizens. Frequently, however, we are basing our opinions of others upon assumptions which might so easily be changed were we to engage in respectful discussion and debate. Too often, we find ourselves living in a world which feeds off polarisation and encourages division and intolerance. Paradoxically, I would argue that we need more disagreement - but of the agreeable sort which leads to discovery, compromise and, above all, tolerance.

Nataly Obando Rozo, Graduate, University of Illinois Chicago It is an unusual occasion when we take some time to think about the meaning of values defining us. It is a paradox when everybody might agree we live in an intolerant society, yet anybody will accept being intolerant. According to Oxford or Cambridge dictionary, tolerance is “the ability to tolerate (…).” Not a helpful definition but in another common source, Wikipedia, tolerance is defined as “allowing, permitting, or accepting an action, idea, or person with which one dislikes or disagrees.” Notably, three important action words in this definition: Allowing, permitting, and acceptance. I notice a sense of superiority in these words, ‘I allow,’ ‘I permit,’ and ‘I accept.’ I believe these words are indeed rooted in intolerance, the belief that ‘I am right, and you are wrong’; ‘I am normal, you are different,’; ‘I am an adult, you a kid’; ‘I am an artist, you a craftsman’; ‘I have a religion, you a cosmovision.’ Therefore, I allow, permit, and accept you. We have learned that a coin can be seen from two sides, but we need to see it from more angles. For some, a coin could be the day’s goal; for others, it is a dirty object to get rid of, a means to bring food to their families, or a way to show a country’s presidential history. All are valid, true, and important reasons. I think it is what tolerance is about, the idea that different meanings exist and coexist. We don’t need to allow, permit, or accept others’ ideas. Instead, we need to understand that my idea is one in millions. Empathy, the ability to understand each other, should be the first intentional step in the tolerance conversation; even when barriers separate us, if we try to see the other’s struggle, I believe we can break down the wall that separates us. Unfortunately, the path of tolerance is not a fairy tale. It is uncomfortable, painful, and a never-ending story. Tolerance needs brave warriors; sadly, some of them are no longer with us. I am a Colombian woman living in the United States with the benefits of being a documented student. Still, my heart struggles with those leaving everything behind because of their countries’ economic, political, or conflict situations; for those sons and daughters unable to see their parents; and for grandparents without seeing their grandchildren. This is the coin with which I struggle. As tolerance requires warriors, I invite you to think of which coin you struggle with; I believe the lack of empathy is related to our ignorance of these societal problems and, subsequently, the origin of intolerance. I invite you to think of which coin you struggle with. To consider all possible ways you could be wrong as all possible ways others could be right. To think that the kindest in the room is as essential as the smartest because values such as tolerance could also lead us as humanity.

Eunice Cho, Undergraduate, University of Illinois Chicago To the politically unengaged, discourse is something to be avoided at all costs. The presidential debates run every four years, for example, and anyone with a certain innocence puts it on the television, watches it, and understands quickly to never put it on again. Upon witnessing the premier politicians of our nation resort to logical fallacies and insults in a last-ditch beg for votes, it is easy to understand why the typical American keeps their head down and avoids protests, rallies, and even ballots. The debates, and similar examples on mainstream media channels, constitute an embarrassing refutation to the thesis of American democracy: discourse promotes functional government. It seems as if discourse, rather than create solutions, begets hatred. At the macro level, politics is devoid of tolerance. Politicians prioritize approval by their constituency, personal reputation, and profit over any acts of tolerance that would be seen as betrayal of their political party, whose policies they express indefinite support for. At the micro level, however, discourse is possible if tolerance is practiced actively. Tolerance is the practice of placing a person in the context of individual ideals and intentions. A person’s political identity is derived from their upbringing, community, religious and/or cultural identity, so on and so forth. It is entirely intentional on behalf of the greater players in politics – those with power and money, in other words – that we are told to view one another as somehow less than we are. For example, conservative pundits like to construe liberals as mindless “sheep,” and likewise, liberal pundits conclude that conservatives are uneducated. The subscription to such a mindset allows one to be easily controlled by their hatred. The reality is that politics is not as simple as, one idea is more intellectually developed as another. The typical American votes for the safety, well-being, and prosperity of themselves and their family. Tolerance requires one to come to the uncomfortable conclusion that most of us share common intentions, and have come to our respective political ideals logically rather than randomly. It is important to note, however, that the practice of tolerance in discourse, although valuable, is not infinitely so. For one, the practice of hatred is a literal exit from conversation. When a particular belief, rhetoric, or policy is inherently opposed to the existence of a person on the basis of identity, discourse is not possible, as the act of hatred is itself the nuclear option. It is quite easy to proclaim the rejection of hate. In this political climate, institutions of all kinds like to publicize that their practices are sensitive to every minority under the sun. In practice, however, it is another thing entirely to tolerate, to consciously view one another as human and enact practices to ensure common well-being. It is uncomfortable, and difficult, yet necessary. At the end of the day, it comes down to humanity. Tolerance is the understanding that we are all human. In order to avoid the political reality promoted on television, and to ensure liberty and justice for all, we must practice tolerance.

Jamin Enquist, Graduate, Hofstra University I see tolerance as the ability to listen to ideas and beliefs without immediately accepting or rejecting those ideas or beliefs. It is a curiosity for knowledge outside one’s worldview and humility that recognizes no one person has the monopoly on truth or morality. I see tolerance as a means by which I have encountered life-changing perspectives and embarrassing ignorance. I grew up in a household that prescribed a very narrow worldview for how life is to be lived. My parents’ standards of morality, subjective as they were, became the first lens through which I saw the world. This lens taught me to listen for what was “wrong” in the ideas that conflicted with my beliefs. It was not until undergrad, when I abandoned the narrow beliefs of my parents, that I began to "really" listen to real people. I began seeking to understand before being understood. I learned that when you stop and listen to perspectives that you are uncomfortable with, one of two things generally happens: One, you realize you are wrong and change your views or beliefs, or two, you realize you still feel confident in what you believed before the encounter. Regardless of which side you come out on, you will likely walk away from the experience better off than before. My personal experience has shown this to be true. I believe one of the worst feelings in the world is admitting that a belief you once adamantly held was wrong or mistaken. But every time I have experienced a major shift in my thinking and worldview, it has reinforced just how important the practice of tolerance is and the power it can have to make a person more loving and compassionate. However, tolerance is not a justification for ignoring injustice. I believe there is a difference between allowing someone the freedom to live and express their worldview and allowing someone to practice a worldview that inflicts harm on the life, liberty, or happiness of another human. And in this sense, true tolerance may be a rather idealistic concept. The challenge is figuring out where the line is for where the practice of tolerance is helpful and where it is damaging to people suffering under extreme ideologies. This difficulty is exasperated by the fact that it takes a significant amount of tolerance even to debate where that line should be. But even if tolerance is more idealistic than practical, the benefit of embracing the humility that tolerance requires will always leave a person, or a society, better off. Lastly, I see tolerance as vital to the function of democracy in the form of compromise. The very concept of democracy recognizes that there will always be competing perspectives among people on how to live life, practice religion, and define the purpose of political structures. Without tolerance, the ability of people to compromise is significantly undermined, and political instability is inevitable. Thus, if American democracy is to be saved, I believe each of us needs to practice the curiosity for knowledge outside of our worldview and be humble enough to recognize that no one person has a monopoly on truth and issues of morality.

Ferida Osman, Graduate, Hofstra University Tolerance. Webster’s Dictionary defines tolerance as “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.” This is the definition most people veer towards when speaking of tolerance, especially religious tolerance. But Webster’s dictionary provides additional definitions, such as “capacity to endure pain or hardship,” “the allowable deviation from a standard,” and my personal favorite, the “relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor.” Growing up as a daughter of Muslim Afghan immigrants in a post-9/11 world, these are the definitions of tolerance that I have understood to be the true meaning. After 9/11, Muslims have become the deviants of a standard and have had to learn to thrive in unfavorable environmental factors. Tolerance. My father shaved his beard to be more tolerant. My brothers changed their names to be more “American.” My sisters ran from the beautiful and inspiring words of Islam. I was called Bin Laden’s daughter. I was accused of a bomb threat in the third grade because I was the only Muslim in my grade who fit the description of wearing “a pink sweater and black pants.” I grew up in Suffolk County. There, tolerance was more of a fallacy that people used to cover their true intolerance, hiding behind their belief in the First Amendment. Tolerance. I once wore a hijab. I started wearing it when I was 16 years old. Then one day, in Penn Station, in the center of one of the world’s most “tolerant and diverse” cities, I was spit on and told to go back to my fucking country. This is my country. I was born and raised here. I only knew this to be my home. But that day, as I stood looking down at the spit on my chest, tears were slowly streaming down my face, and tracks were being called; I no longer felt this was my home. Every day since I shook in fear putting on the hijab. Tolerance—that is what made me take off my hijab. Tolerance. My favorite definition, as I stated earlier, was the “relative capacity of an organism to grow or thrive when subjected to an unfavorable environmental factor.” I hope to live in a world where this definition of tolerance won’t be my favorite. A day where I can put my hijab back on without the fear of assault. A day where a Muslim Ban, a terrorist attack, or a war on terror doesn’t have to equate to the social persecution of my beliefs. A day where I do not have to say, “I’m Muslim, but I’m not a terrorist.” A day where I don’t have to defend my beliefs because two minutes of inaccurate reporting from FOX News and CNN force me to. For me, tolerance is a fallacy I’m subjected to live under. Tolerance. Sometimes, just like the definition, everything is not the way it seems.

Meredith Frank, Undergraduate, Hofstra University In my first year at Hofstra, I learned three unexpected lessons: My sociology professor never intended for anyone to relate to the article about the run-down public school, talking about my experience applying for scholarships somehow made me brave, and taking the free Hofstra Shuttle was uncool. While toiling away at my impoverished Metro Detroit public school, I knew a better life rested upon a 4.0 GPA and high SAT score. My mother warned me that Hofstra students came from a different tax bracket, and therefore, a different set of values than my Midwestern, working-class heart could compute. I spent my freshman year wishing that my differences were tolerated by my classmates, but now I’ve learned I must also be tolerant of them. In a dialogue on tolerance, both parties must approach the table with a recognition of their differences, but leave emotion behind. This is easier said than done. Looking around my lectures, I see students around me predisposed with texting, online shopping, and general antipathy towards the lesson. I cannot help my jealousy. I am jealous that they are fourth-year students, a milestone I fear finances may prevent me from reaching. I am jealous that they can afford to put their grades at risk. But most of all I am jealous that they don’t see how fortunate they are to be in the classroom. The Constitution protects my right to equal educational opportunities, but it didn’t mandate my public school to have hot water or soap. After entire semesters without a teacher in multiple classes, I view the caliber of Hofstra’s education as a privilege, not a right. Sharing my experience has more often resulted in pity than tolerance. It seems that both sides believe they are correct. Those who don’t worry about making the next payment view me as an outlier who snuck into their world. Whereas I have an unwarranted belief that I should be held in higher regard than other students because of my struggles. Neither argument is one of tolerance, and both are blatantly incorrect. I have learned that I should feel grateful and proud to receive an education, instead of holding my fellow students in contempt. I did not choose my disadvantaged upbringing, but they also did not select the advantages of theirs. Although they are different than me, I can work alongside my peers to create an atmosphere of tolerance. I can begin a dialogue about the barrier to higher education, introducing them to the unanticipated problems people in my world face when they are at a financial disadvantage, and they can provide the resources and connections to solve the problem. To me, tolerance is not just reluctant acceptance, or a pitying understanding. It is two sides coming together to make a difference. 0 Likes

Kaitlynn Borik, Graduate, Saint Louis University To me, tolerance is a continuous journey of learning to be comfortable with the uncomfortable. We live our lives seeking out similar people; people that have the same views, race, religion, or culture because it is comfortable and familiar to relate to their experiences. But as our current methods of stratification and the resulting systemic and institutional biases convey—we need tolerance to truly grow as a community and live in this world harmoniously. I grew up in Belleville, a close-knit, majority white Catholic southern city in Illinois. As part of the majority, I had little experience interacting with people of backgrounds different than my own. This changed when I entered college; I realized how little I knew outside of my hometown. Reflecting upon how my upbringing impacted my beliefs and values, I wondered how others’ backgrounds have shaped them. I delved into this interest and began studying sociology. As a pre-medical student, I was especially interested in investigating how beliefs outside of traditional Western medicine impacted patient access to care, treatment, and outcomes in America. In my classes, I learned about the specific struggles many refugees and immigrants face. Equipped with this knowledge, I desired to learn more about the diverse patient populations in St. Louis and began volunteering with Christian Friends of New Americans, a local organization that assists recent refugees and immigrants become acquainted with America’s healthcare system. After four years of volunteering at Christian Friends of New Americans, I have realized that being open to learning about others’ perspectives and cultural beliefs has made me a better health screener and prepared me to be a culturally competent physician, cognizant of how beliefs and circumstances may affect a patient’s preferred treatment. I connect with my patients on a deeper level and ask about their experience living in America. Educating myself on the needs of my patients motivated me to find resources to help the future immigrants and refugees that I serve. The lessons I have learned through sociology and volunteering with diverse patient populations cultivated my personal growth and passion for cultural humility in daily life as well as healthcare. Through these experiences, I challenged and checked my own personal biases, many of which were fostered through a lack of previous knowledge and misunderstanding. I am incredibly grateful for this journey, which taught me the value of not only understanding but appreciating our differences and unique perspectives. Our current circumstances call for drastic change in our standards of acceptance and respect for others. When we work to understand and appreciate people for who they are, the journey toward tolerance can begin. We need to be open to exploring our differences—in other words, become comfortable with the uncomfortable.

Madison Szell, Undergraduate, Saint Louis University I hear it before every major holiday: “Don’t bring that up;” “Don’t say anything about it;” “Don’t ask about that-- you’ll start a huge fight at the dinner table!” In this time of unprecedented division and animosity between opposing views, certain topics in family conversation (or perhaps in any conversation) are more taboo than ever. We fear disagreeing with those we love. We fear disagreeing with those we do not want to alienate. Simply, we fear disagreeing, because what do we see when disagreements happen in the world? Catastrophe. Pundits yelling at each other. Angry and hurtful words written on social media. The only argumentative discourse we see is inflammatory, from zero to one hundred in the blink of an eye, and with no room for any semblance of understanding or compassion. Obviously, this is not what we are meant for. We are meant for connection and empathy. But our culture’s ruthless pitting of one belief against another makes us afraid to even attempt this kind of understanding. And in this fear and its silencing of conversations, we forget that our “opponents” believe just as firmly and deeply in their beliefs as we do our own. We forget that just as our life experiences have informed our rigid beliefs, those on the other side of the issue are just as informed by their experiences. We forget that we all come from different backgrounds-- different places, different people, and different circumstances. Clearly, we are bound to come to different conclusions! This is not to say that there are no wrongs. Some people have certainly come to harmful conclusions-- of course there are wrongs. But the way in which those wrongs are righted is the key. Changing someone’s belief is a matter of gentle non-judgment rather than harsh shame. No one wants to be yelled at. No one is going to be embarrassed into a different way of thinking. No, the only way to successfully express and convince someone of a new paradigm is by understanding the place and paradigm from which they come. In other words: listen first, talk later. If we truly, actively listen to a person’s story and understand how and why they reach their personal conclusions, we are far better equipped to change minds and hearts. Essentially, it comes down to this: in trying to achieve tolerance, do we go to war with the weapons of shame, anger, and judgment? Or rather, do we go to work with the tools of understanding, non-judgment, and empathetic listening? I propose this: at the next family gathering, when everyone sits down for dinner, lay down your weapons. Pick up your tools. Get to the work of listening. This work may seem fruitless; it may only be the planting of seeds. But I believe only one thing can grow from the seeds planted by the tool of empathetic listening: tolerance.