Search Results

Exeter College hosted a Tolerance Means Dialogues panel focusing on the impact of intersectionality on laws. The event followed an essay competition inviting reflections on living together amidst differences. Panelists, including scholars and essay competition winners, discussed the importance of recognizing diverse experiences to craft effective laws. The dialogue underscored the need for a nuanced understanding of identity and its influence on legal frameworks, highlighting stories of personal discovery and legal philosophies that advocate for tolerance, solidarity, and dialogue in addressing societal issues. Read the full article here

Robin Fretwell Wilson spearheads "Tolerance Means Dialogue," an initiative aimed at advancing LGBTQ+ inclusion within the legal profession and society at large. By fostering open discussions on the convergence of faith, sexuality, and family, Wilson encourages participants to consider diverse perspectives. Her work extends across universities nationwide, offering a platform for students to contribute to a more inclusive and respectful society. Wilson's roles and accomplishments, including directing the Fairness for All Initiative, highlight her commitment to finding balanced solutions that respect both LGBT rights and religious freedom. Read the full article here

Tolerance Means Dialogue event hosted by the Utah State Capitol on Monday, October 30th, 2023. Featuring: Dialogue Catalysts: Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois, William N Eskridge Jr. of Yale Law, Representative Mike Petersen of the Utah House of Representatives, and student winners of the Tolerance Scholarship. Moderated by Elizabeth A. Clark, Associate Director of the International Center for Law and Religion Studies at Brigham Young University and Jason Perry, Director of the Hinckley Institute of Politics and Vice President for Government Relations at the University of Utah. Opening Remarks by Utah Governor Spencer J. Cox Closing Remarks by Utah Senate President J. Stuart Adams. Co-Sponsors: Brigham Young University Law The University of Utah Equality Utah 1st Amendment Partnership Fairness For All Initiative BYU Law Federalist Society The S.J. Quinney College of Law Federalist Society

Tolerance Means Dialogue event hosted by the Cambridge Union on Friday, April 28th, 2023. Featuring: Dialogue Catalysts: Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois, J. Stuart Adams, President of the Utah Senate, Representative Kera Birkeland of the Utah House of Representatives, Shannon Minter, legal director of the National Center for Lesbian Rights, and student winners of the Tolerance Scholarship. Moderated by Holly Sheridan, Equalities Officer of the Cambridge Union Society, and Emma Munday, Chair of the Cambridge University Liberal Association. Co-Sponsors: Cambridge University Liberal Association The Cambridge Union Society 1st Amendment Partnership Fairness For All Initiative

Alexander Lingle, Graduate, University of South Carolina Karl Popper’s book, The Open Society and its Enemies, outlined the paradox of tolerance; he stated that the tolerant society is only intolerant of intolerance itself. Popper argued that intolerance poses a threat to the foundations of free society and that there were two primary methods available to combat it. First, the tolerant society should not suppress the speech of the intolerant, but rather, should use reason and fact to educate the intolerant on the potential harm of their rhetoric. Second, if the intolerant have been deceived to believe that rationality and reason should be forsaken, then intolerance should be treated similarly to other behaviors that fall outside of established justice (Popper, 232). As a burgeoning law student, conversations continually invoking the Constitutional right of freedom of speech in the defense of dangerously intolerant rhetoric follow me throughout my academic, professional, and personal life. I once placed great faith in Popper’s first method of rejecting intolerance: education. However, a distribution of whitewashed history, politicized education, and online misinformation has effectively enabled and emboldened the intolerant to isolate themselves intellectually from reasonable thought. As a transgender man, I have watched as the intolerant in our country have continually passed legislation that restricts access to life-saving and scientifically supported medical care on the basis of nonfactual stereotypes. It is the effects of intolerance such as this that Popper rightfully addressed as falling outside of defendable behavior due to the threat it presents to the marginalized society member’s natural rights such as life, liberty, and happiness. A tolerant society cannot exist in the face of one intolerant member if that member is permitted to exercise the harms of their beliefs unto others. An ocean of tolerance is poisoned by one drop of intolerance. A desire for the ascension of tolerance over intolerance is what ultimately led my academic career toward the University of South Carolina’s School of Law. I believe a society characterized by tolerance can be actualized through the continual pursuit of justice, righteousness, and knowledge. Legal studies place a high priority on the application of justifiable rules and precedents in a fair and equitable manner. When the law is applied inequitably, the unfairly treated party is entitled to appellate courts hearing their case. Consequently, under Popper’s paradox of tolerance, the judicial system is a perpetual cycle of the first step in fighting against intolerance: a continual rational reapplication of reason and logic to the facts of a case to ensure equity. Further, in jurisprudence, when reasonability fails to squander intolerance, Popper’s second step in fighting against intolerance suggests it be treated as other criminal mens rea such as the conspiracy to commit a crime or the attempt to incite another individual to commit a criminal action (Popper, 232). Popper, Karl R. The Open Society and Its Enemies: The Spell of Plato. 1st ed., vol. 1 2, George Routledge & Sons, LTD. Broadway House, 1945. 2 Likes

Madaline Allen, Undergraduate, University of South Carolina Tolerance often holds a negative connotation, denoting feelings of frustration, misunderstanding, and anger. One might ask why they must restrain what they know and feel, all to forcibly “accept” the views of another. A step above ignorance, but a step below progress, though tolerance can display a beneficial degree of patience, it is not a solution. Tolerance is not enough to handle high tension problems society faces on a regular basis. It is rather through considering the context, history, and power dynamics a given issue is situated within that solutions can be brought forth, and healthy and educated disagreement–rather than unsettled hate–can thrive. By avoiding mutual exclusion and understanding the differences between emotions, facts, and beliefs, decision makers can clear-mindedly consider the larger picture of an issue and come closer to a solution. With many of the most heated issues seeming to run along lines of foundational values, this mutually exclusive approach is destructive. The either/or fallacy raises stakes, swells emotions, and prevents the openness, creativity, and collaboration needed for new outcomes and solutions to arise. Modern politics tend to pit core values against each other, but this sensationalized conflict goes against the root of democratic values. Democracy hinges on balance through rational, healthy, and open disagreement, which necessitates the coexistence of many principal values at once. These values may hold different weights depending on context, especially when considering the dynamics that have led an issue to where it currently stands. Decision makers of democracy, from the quietest citizen to the most powerful politician, must learn to never mistake the heated emotions of argumentation for fact, or dispel the validity of fact on the basis of belief. When conflict is viewed in an exclusive way, emotions rise and begin to cloud judgment. While the feelings one has towards a situation are very real and part of an issue, those feelings do not justify acts of hatred or violence, and are often only heightened to that extreme by seeing an issue as unsolvable. Instead, one can best communicate why they feel such dissent by returning to the root of an issue, considering the context and information surrounding that situation, and using that knowledge to practice healthy, open disagreement. By opening up to discussion and understanding a problem in a holistic frame, progress can follow. Conversely, healthy disagreement is unable to occur when there is an imbalance of power for a voice in the argument. “Tolerance” quickly becomes oppression when the playing field is unequal. Considering tolerance to be the pinnacle of resolution only sets progress further back, creating a false veil of understanding and acceptance, while resentment bubbles beneath the surface. Though tolerance may be the acknowledgement of both the black and white of an issue, progress can only come through willingly choosing to see the myriad of gray found between the two extremes.

Alexus Morton, Undergraduate, Benedict College Tolerance, in its essence, transcends mere acceptance; it embodies a profound respect for the richness of human diversity and the willingness to coexist harmoniously despite our differences. To me, tolerance means recognizing that every individual is entitled to their beliefs, values, and perspectives, and it is our collective responsibility to create a world where all voices are heard and valued. In today's world, marked by an array of cultural, religious, and ideological differences, the importance of tolerance cannot be overstated. It serves as the cornerstone of a just and inclusive society, where everyone, regardless of their background, is afforded dignity and respect. Tolerance fosters an environment where individuals can express themselves freely, share their unique experiences, and contribute meaningfully to the collective tapestry of humanity. Tolerance is not a passive acceptance of differences, but an active celebration of them. It involves the willingness to engage in open dialogue, to listen and learn from one another, and to challenge preconceived notions. Through tolerance, we create spaces where individuals feel safe to be their authentic selves, free from judgment or prejudice. Furthermore, tolerance acts as a catalyst for societal progress. It empowers us to work together towards common goals, leveraging the strengths that arise from our diversity. When diverse perspectives converge, innovative solutions emerge, and we are better equipped to tackle complex challenges that affect us all. Tolerance is not merely a moral imperative but a practical necessity for building a brighter, more inclusive future. In my personal journey, I have been fortunate to witness the transformative power of tolerance. Exploring many multicultural communities exposed me to a rich tapestry of traditions, languages, and beliefs. This experience instilled in me a deep appreciation for diversity and a curiosity to learn from others. It taught me that embracing our differences creates an environment where everyone feels valued and included. Moreover, my academic pursuits in psychology have further reinforced the importance of tolerance. Through studying human behavior and cognition, I have come to understand that our capacity for empathy and understanding is at the heart of fostering tolerance. It is through education and self-reflection that we can dismantle stereotypes and biases, paving the way for a more tolerant society. Tolerance is the cornerstone of a thriving, inclusive society. It calls upon us to not merely accept, but to celebrate our differences, recognizing that they enrich the fabric of humanity. Tolerance empowers us to work together towards common goals, leveraging the strengths that arise from our diversity. As we embrace tolerance, we pave the way for a brighter, more inclusive future for all.

It was a historic day in the fight for marriage equality when the Respect for Marriage Act garnered bipartisan support and passed in the House of Representatives. With the bill making its way to President Biden’s desk, leading religious liberty scholars whose expertise influenced the legislation, including Professor Robin Fretwell Wilson of the University of Illinois College of Law and the Institute of Government and Public Affairs, have been invited to attend the signing ceremony at the White House on Tuesday, December 13. The contributions of Wilson and her colleagues Douglas Laycock (University of Virginia), Thomas Berg (University of St. Thomas), and Carl Esbeck (University of Missouri) proved to be quite influential, as a co-authored letter by the law professors to Senators Collins and Baldwin urging Republican support was quoted from and cited on numerous occasions during the Senate floor debate Read Full Article

The Tolerance Means Dialogues event highlighted the importance of fostering conversations between religious and LGBTQ+ communities. Held at the Utah State Capitol, the event featured speakers including Utah Governor Spencer Cox and essay competition winners, emphasizing the need for tolerance and understanding to address societal issues. The dialogue stressed universities' role in promoting civil discussions and the critical need for engaging across differences to prevent the escalation of conflicts and misunderstandings. Read the full article here

Pedro Prola, Graduate, NOVA School of Law November 28, 2023 The concept and practice of tolerance have flourished in the field of Religion, in a time when faith assumed a role so important as divisive in life and society. Tolerance meant a choice for coexistence among people of different religions. Latter, tolerance developed into something more – something political, cultural and social. Today, one might refer to tolerance of different world views, different ways of life, different cultural and artistic expressions, as well as tolerance of different religions and belief systems. Tolerance is a relative, moral and political concept. As German philosopher Rainer Forst explains, tolerance is a decision you make relative to a conduct of another person – a belief, action or practice you do not agree with and which you might even consider to be deeply wrong; but, for some reason, you choose not to condemn nor repress it. You might even consider it wrong not to tolerate it. And you might actually encourage a conduct you personally disagree with. So, talking about tolerance, there are always two components: objection and acceptance. For that reason, tolerance should not be misjudged as moral cowardice, relativism or skepticism. It should be noted that prejudice is never a component of a tolerant conduct. Someone cannot be tolerant (or intolerant) towards black people – expressing such “tolerance” actually constitutes racism. The same way, someone cannot be tolerant (or intolerant) towards LGBT people – expressing such “tolerance” actually constitutes LGBTphobia. The way to overcome prejudice is not tolerance, but rather knowledge and recognition. Tolerance always demands a previous reasoning about a conduct rationally valued either as wrong or negative – not color, gender, or sexual orientation. Reasoning is essential for tolerance. It means you think about the things you don’t agree with. Instead of simply rejecting them, you reflect on the fact you disagree with them and why you do. The reasons for tolerance are moral and political: you valuate positively the right to think or act in different ways. This separates tolerance from indifference. One might say there is an inclination for tolerance or a tolerant environment in a society. However, tolerance is always based on concrete decisions and reasonings related to the conduct of other people. In a democratic society, tolerance does not mean agreement. You may express disagreement with political views you object to – and yet tolerate them, because you believe other people have the right to disagree with you. By disagreeing, you are not suggesting the ideas you contest should be forbidden. A contemporary defence of tolerance as a means to foster social cohesion in a pluralistic society must reject a merely passive conception of non-interference, which would be compatible with discrimination. In that sense, tolerance must be understood in connection with difference and recognition. It is not enough to know that people are different – it is also necessary to recognise them as subjects and respect them as human beings. In that sense, tolerance is an essential element which operates in the context of human diversity and equality.

Patrícia Tiago, Undergraduate, NOVA School of Law November 28, 2023 "We cannot solve problems with the kind of thinking we employed when we came up with them" is a quote from Albert Einstein, known for his knowledge, and it seemed a good source to start my consideration of the topic of tolerance and dialogue. Tolerance and dialogue are undoubtedly two interdependent concepts. Dialogue without tolerance becomes an argument that bears no fruit, just as much as tolerance without dialogue becomes a precious quality without being at the service of the community, which also bears no fruit. From this perspective, "Tolerance means Dialogue" reflects the importance of the relationship between the two. Although I agree with this perspective, it does not reflect the reality we live in today. Taking Albert Einstein's quote again, I believe the attempt to solve this problem can be changed. This is because those who try to create initiatives that promote tolerance are tolerant people who do so intending to bring intolerant people to their senses. This leads me to make a practical reasoning that if we want to try to reason with people who devalue human rights, and discriminate against minorities, among other actions, we should not try to promote a solution based on our point of view, but on the point of view of those same people. The best way to counter populist speeches, a lack of knowledge, or even an unwillingness to embrace differences from the standards that are considered acceptable, is to understand the root of these beliefs. In other words, thinking differently from the way that created the problem. Why do people find it difficult to accept someone different from themselves? If we imagine asking intolerant people this question, I believe their justification would be rooted in cultural beliefs, political reasons, or even a lack of knowledge. Guiding this reflection towards the creation of bridges that minimize the division between people, I believe that we will mark the difference in future generations by learning from the mistakes of the past. We cannot erase the History of the world, but we must use it to improve it. We must stop speaking in complicated words and speak in the language of the people. Demonstrate the need to recognize and accept the existence of difference and pluralism which enriches our lives and not the other way around. I believe that education, from school to college, on topics that can give rise to intolerance; the promotion of a safe space in the workplace for anyone to express themselves; and the role of the media and social networks in relativizing "difference" are all very effective strategies when used in the right way and with the right purpose. To finish, it is my true conviction that profound change comes first through personal reflection, which becomes personal change in the simple actions of everyday life, and only then through our witness, since tolerance is not a requirement concerning the other, but an internal discipline.

Salomé Alexandre Lourenço, Undergraduate, NOVA School of Law November 28, 2023 The person who most taught me how to be tolerant is my older sister, Leonor, who has autism. Growing up with her and living with her now, means that a lot of times I have to try really hard to understand her, to figure out why, when confronted with a certain situation, she acts in such a different way than my other siblings or I would. It means that I have to accept that for my sister, it is really important that she always eats dinner with the yellow plate and not the blue one. It is accepting that moving her things out of place causes her to be angrier than my other siblings, because she memorizes where everything was placed in her bedroom. It is not judging her, but instead putting myself inside her head and trying to think like her for a moment. And for me, this is what tolerance is. It is having empathy, stepping on someone's shoes and really asking ourselves, why does this person think like this? It is understanding that people are a combination of nurture and nature, which means that our different backgrounds and our genetic makeups influence our beliefs and the way we think. And most importantly, being tolerant means talking and listening to those who think differently. It is asking them what makes them have a certain opinion with the ultimate goal of understanding instead of trying to convince them of our beliefs. It is realizing that difference is not only not threatening but beneficial and should be able to coexist. Unfortunately, I think that this tolerance is very much lacking in today´s society. I see it in the Israel and Palestine War, I see it in the hallways of my university where different friend groups don´t talk to each other because they have different political and ideological orientations, I see it on Twitter, where people start insulting each other just because they are different sport teams´ fans. I see it, I feel it and it saddens me. But I also believe that tolerance can be taught. It can be taught in families, schools and universities. It can become part of each of us, a way of living that sets us free from prejudice and from judging people before trying to understand them. It can also be practiced by our governments and politicians on a national and international level, it can make room for a more peaceful coexistence between different social, economical, religious and political groups. The paradigm of this are intergovernmental organizations, such as the UN or the IMF, where different countries from all around the world come together and surpasse their differences in the name of the common good. Or the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, ratified by 193 countries, which all agreed to respect these universal human rights. So, I take this and other examples and find peace in the fact that if it is true that throughout history a lot of intolerance has taken place, it is also true that countries and people have shown an enormous capacity of mutual respect and acceptance of each other´s differences. 1 Likes