Dr Leslie Cannold used to present Both Sides Now, but now she’s cutting to the chase: what’s the right way to go? In Everyday Dilemmas, Cannold brings her ethical training to your problems. Send your questions to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line. She might even reply…
Dear Leslie,
I have so far avoided protesting about Dan Andrews’ approach to the pandemic, but having just read the ombudsman’s report on border closures with New South Wales last winter, I’m disgusted. How can I vent my rage and frustration without looking like an anti-vaxxer nut job?
Reputation to Protect in Melbourne
Dear Reputation,
I hear your dilemma — I absolutely do. But before I respond, I want to draw attention to the sad situation revealed by your predicament.
When a citizen with a legitimate gripe about the functioning of her government — whether she voted for the party in power or not — feels unable to express it for fear of being “othered” by members of one’s own “tribe”, democracy is in trouble.
My question is: who exactly are you afraid will judge you as a member of the other tribe if you speak up? If it’s people you don’t really know and don’t really care about, why allow yourself to be influenced — little less controlled — by them? Life’s way too short, in my oh-so-modest-view, for such distractions.
If they’re people whose opinion you do value, or who make disagreeing with them unpleasant but whose company you’re forced to keep, I’d get out in front of the story by a) shaping your own narrative and b) modelling respectful debate.
Link to the press release that dot-points the key elements of the story on your social media pages and start by asking others what they think. Then respond respectfully and put your own view. Defend your position with those who engage constructively and — this is important — ignore the rest. Denying oxygen remains the only effective way of dealing with trolls and those who act like them.
These same three steps — ask, listen, respond — work in real life too, with a pithy descriptive summary of the ombudsman’s points replacing the press release link.
Daunted? Maybe get some practice first to sharpen your skills at reasoned debate by joining groups or following individuals interested in it online. That will hopefully give you confidence.
But be warned: not everyone is persuadable by rational argument. While bringing others to your viewpoint in a rational debate can be satisfying, remember your objective, which was to find a way to let your ideas breathe and grow.
Best of luck,
Leslie
Dear Leslie,
My mum thinks my decision to rally against a certain anti-feminist speaker coming to campus is totally against the ethos of university life. I think that, unlike her generation, mine pays a fair bit to attend university and shouldn’t have to tolerate misogyny and hate speech. We’ve agreed to let you decide who is right.
Tenterhooks in Sydney
Dear Tenterhooks,
What a wonderful debate for you to be having with your mum! It’s precisely such serious exchanges on critical issues, with each person advancing a reasoned position without name-calling, that makes the civilised world go around. Ideally they can result in consensus, but even when they don’t, having conducted your disagreement so well you can still have lunch and otherwise love each other.
Which is my way of easing into saying that I think your mum is right.
While paying for your education may make you feel like a client paying for services that are to your liking, the value of a university education is to unseat, provoke and challenge; to expose you to a wide range of people and viewpoints, some of whom may provoke feelings of confusion, excitement, curiosity, dismay, upset, solidarity, rage, empowerment — or all these at once.
Learning how to recognise and sort through those feelings, which to challenge and channel and how, is essential maturation work for young people. Especially in an age of (mis)information when established ways of life and of governing ourselves democratically are under threat.
We are going to have to get really good at listening to each other, and making reasoned and evidence-supported points heard if we are to address these collective threats effectively and avoid descending into tribalism and bloodshed.
Indeed, shutting down those with whom we disagree — and by so doing failing to sharpen our reasons for objecting — turns us into warring tribes with no way to reach one another. Why? Because reason and evidence are the universal language of civilisation; the only way we can maintain respect and connection with those with whom we disagree.
Are there exceptions to this rule? Speakers who should not be tolerated anywhere, including on campus? Yes, though the exceptions to the free speech rule should be rare. I’d nominate speakers whose case is predicated on a demonstrable and injurious falsehood for removal from my Christmas card list. But what matters is that the university has transparent and widely agreed bottom lines and a process for enforcing them.
Regards,
Leslie
Send your dilemmas to letters@crikey.com.au with “Dear Leslie” in the subject line and you could get a reply from Dr Cannold in this column. We reserve the right to edit letters for length and clarity.
“who exactly are you afraid will judge you as a member of the other tribe if you speak up?”
Going by the reaction to Bernard’s article on the same topic yesterday, Crikey commenters for one.
More seriously though, two fine answers on two tough topics, really enjoying this version of the column Leslie!
I agree. No topic should be out of bounds (Holocaust denial included) apart from incitements to violence.
The ‘to vax or not to vax’ argument is clearly polarised and a difficult one to have with respect for each individual remaining intact.
It can be done though! I’ve been surprised a few times it’s gone well.
@Tenterhooks based on your letter, it doesn’t appear you are attempting to block the visiting speaker from attending the university, so it’s not stifling this person’s free speech as Leslie implies. By protesting you’re presenting opposition to their abhorrent ideas and showing there are people in the uni who are willing to stand up for women. You should do it!
Could I suggest Dr. Cannold, and your correspondents, that you drop the referencing of those you disagree with as ‘anti-vaxxers’ and ‘anti-vaxxer nut jobs’ as used in the article?
The now derogatory term in no way encompasses the range of people, or the reasons they protest, in regards to issues involved with vaccines. It is a lazy, unethical method to ‘other’ particular people – the very thing you warn against here. It is as much an insult as me referring to Crikey writers and commentators as ‘woke’ ….