Introduction

Developing the skills to engage in difficult conversations with others, especially with those who disagree with us, is sorely needed now, given our extremely polarized and partisan social and political climate.

Any conversation, whatever the topic, can be difficult or controversial. Stated another way, there are no “safe” discussion topics, because we all care about different things, and you never know when someone in the room will disagree with you about something. (As they say, it is only a question of whose ox is being gored.)¹

We could easily add “political” as a modifier to these types of topics. Discussions about race in the U.S. can be difficult, precisely because the topic is often viewed as “political.” Other political topics might include abortion, same-sex marriage (before it was constitutionalized by the U.S. Supreme Court), and LGBTQ rights. But who would have thought that the question of whether people should be required to get vaccinated to reduce the spread of a global pandemic could get political? We humans can politicize anything when it involves something important to us, or when doing so serves our purpose.

That is usually what we mean when we talk about difficult conversations or controversial topics—these are issues on which people disagree politically. Disagreement arises from difference—differences in our experience, in how we do things, in what we believe, and in our perspective. People can do the same thing for different reasons, and can do different things for the same reason.

I enjoy learning why people do what they do and think what they think. But the important question is, given our differences that can lead to heated disagreements, how can we get along with each other? Discussing and debating politically controversial subjects, which could be about anything and arise in any situation, is not just something done in university classrooms, but a skill we all will use in many situations—personal and professional, public and private. It is only after acknowledging our disagreements that we can then try to understand each other better through open and honest, though difficult, dialogue.

Why I Use Difficult Topics to Teach

I like asking provocative questions. I also like challenging people’s assumptions by asking them difficult questions where they must defend, or at least explain, their views. We are usually most honest when we say what we believe to defend what we value.

Using controversial topics is easy for me because most of my classes are about law and the legal system, which often entails reading legal cases that have a dissenting opinion written in opposition to the majority ruling. But every discipline has its internal debates on key issues that can be used to teach students civil dialogue, argumentation, critical thinking, and intellectual openness, among other skills.

Discussing contentious issues usually raises the stakes in a conversation, which then leads to more honest comments. If the topic is viewed as “safe,” either because it seems to carry a consensus in the class, or because people are afraid of how others may react to what they say and thus refrain from speaking their mind, then the comments will tend to be half-hearted. That, however, is not the kind of discussion I want as a teacher, because one’s thinking or beliefs are never challenged, then one has never really learned.

When we care about something deeply, and what we value is threatened or challenged, we naturally get defensive. Even if our defensiveness is not manifested externally through our speech or actions, internally our mind becomes like a fortress to prevent new ideas from breaching its walls. We all like to hear things that we agree with, and it requires extra effort on our part to listen to others who say things that we disagree with. But with a fortress mindset, we listen not to learn, but to refute or reject.

When discussing controversial topics, we must strive to practice the skills for which we went to college to learn—to think critically, objectively, and carefully—and not just about the view we are criticizing, but more importantly, about the view we embrace.

Discussing difficult topics can be exhausting. But I think the benefits of this approach are worth the risk of the conversation either devolving into a shouting match or else into silence because everyone is afraid of saying what they really think.

There are many potential benefits when a controversial topic is used effectively to practice skills for civil dialogue. First, there are practical benefits to doing this.

1. Maintaining our demeanor amid a heated conversation with others.
2. Practicing civil and respectful forms of disagreement with others.
3. Learning to explain ourselves rationally and clearly to others who do not think as we do.
4. Learning to defend our views against others’ critiques.
5. Honing discussion and debate skills, which are essential to participating in public life
6. Engaging in serious thinking when we test our own views against others’ challenges.
7. Reflecting on and rethinking our own position from another’s point of view.

In addition to these practical skills, engaging in difficult conversations, if done civilly and responsibly, can also cultivate positive dispositions that benefit our ability to interact with others.

1. intellectual humility
2. intellectual courage
3. intellectual openness/vulnerability (willingness to change our ideas)
4. generosity (attributing to others goodwill and mutual integrity)
5. truth-seeking (seeing the world more completely; debating not to win, but to clarify and understand)
6. honesty about ourselves, our motivations, our goals
7. respect for others as we ourselves wish to be respected

Practices for Handling Difficult Conversations

People do not usually feel comfortable answering difficult questions in a classroom with others they do not know. Below are some steps that can help prepare a class to engage in difficult conversations that are productive, educational, and even transformative.

1. Set ground rules for discussion to create a formal space to engage in difficult conversations.
2. Cultivate a sense of community and trust among the students.
3. Affirm students who share honestly and courageously.
4. Treat all viewpoints and comments respectfully, and don’t favor any particular views.

Now, I will explore these steps in further detail.

(1) Set ground rules for discussion to create a formal space to engage in difficult conversations.

Years ago, for my legal philosophy seminar I drafted ground rules for civil discussion. At some point, I decided to insert these ground rules into the syllabus for all my courses. I also discuss these ground rules on the first day of every class.

My legal philosophy seminar specifically tackled controversial topics—e.g., abortion, same-sex marriage (before it was constitutionalized), gay rights vs. religious liberty, polygamy, and more recently, assisted-suicide. I warned students that people feel strongly about these subjects, and that it was natural to speak passionately in class about these topics. But I encouraged students to focus on the arguments, rather than on what they thought of the speaker. (If you reacted to a speaker’s comment by thinking that the speaker is stupid or hateful, then you aren’t focusing on the argument itself, but on your perception of the speaker.)

Below are the ground rules that appear in my syllabi.

Ground rules for respectful discussion

Below are some rules that I set in all my classes to frame both in-class and online discussions. Abiding by these rules serves to expand what J.S. Mill, the liberal defender of free speech, called the “marketplace of ideas.”

1. Do not presume or judge others’ personal views based on the argument(s) they offer in discussion, and do not “put words into others’ mouths.” Speakers may not necessarily embrace either arguments they are raising, or arguments that you attribute to them.
2. Seek first to understand others’ views/positions, well enough to restate them, before you disagree with them. You cannot disagree with something you don’t understand.
3. Try your best to support your own views/positions with reasons/arguments (which usually use the words because or therefore) rather than with mere assertions or contested claims.
4. Be willing to concede weaknesses in your own argument/position, and when it is applicable, admit your own ignorance by saying, “I don’t know” (a.k.a. intellectual humility).
5. Be willing to follow where your reasoning/argument leads you, even if you don’t like the implications of your position (a.k.a. intellectual courage).

In my view, the first two ground rules are critical to productive discussion, especially on controversial topics. First, if people are afraid of being criticized for suggesting an argument or viewpoint that they themselves don’t hold, this will discourage people from raising those arguments or viewpoints because of peer pressure. That is dishonest, because then we are willing to say only those things that we think sound acceptable to listeners.

Second, if we are going to discuss something over which we disagree, it is important to first establish whether we disagree about it. But if we don’t understand the position being taken by the other side, then there is no way for us to tell whether we disagree or not. If I don’t understand what someone says, I should not ask rhetorically, “What’s wrong with THEM?” I should instead ask myself, why don’t I see as they do? What prevents me from seeing from their perspective?

The last three ground rules concern using arguments to support our positions, and thinking humbly and courageously about our own views. Taken together, I believe these ground rules help establish a formal space for students to speak their minds while respectfully interacting with others and considering the implications of their own positions. Although these ground rules are intended to facilitate discussing topics on which people disagree, I believe the rules go a long way to fostering respectful dialogue on controversial issues.

Constructive Disagreements

Because I myself want to practice these ground rules, all the while recognizing that I may fall short of doing that in the classroom, I recently added this paragraph to my syllabus:

Prof. Chen is a member of Heterodox Academy, whose mission is to “improve the quality of research and education in universities by increasing open inquiry, viewpoint diversity, and constructive disagreement.” He strives to model the above principles in the classroom, and appreciates students who respectfully point out to him when he falls short of doing so.

I also try to make it clear to students that disagreement in itself is not bad. Disagreement stems from our differences, not necessarily from ill-will or ignorance. Right after listing my ground rules in the syllabus, I print the following paragraph that explains how disagreements are not by themselves disrespectful, but are actually a form of respect.

Respect while disagreeing. It is crucial that students speak (or post in online discussion boards and/or chat rooms) so as to maintain an atmosphere of critical but constructive dialogue. This does not mean refraining from critiquing others’ viewpoints, but it does mean doing your best to give reasons for your critique. Although disagreements are bound to arise, we can and should discuss our viewpoints with respect and civility toward others. Indeed, disagreement itself is a form of respect, because it shows you are taking others seriously enough to engage them and their ideas rather than ignore them. ³

It is easier for people to speak honestly when they know that the listener respects them, even if the listener disagrees with them. Likewise, when students in class have some level of relationship, this fosters trust among the students that enables them to listen to each other and take seriously what each of them says, even if you disagree with it. A student in my legal philosophy seminar once said, “Only true friends can truly disagree [and stay as friends].”

(2) Cultivate a sense of community and trust among the students.

Part of helping students feel comfortable discussing difficult topics is by cultivating a community in which they feel some level of trust toward their classmates.

For difficult conversations to take place, students must feel some level of “safety” to discuss such topics. If they don’t feel safe discussing the topic, so that fear prevents them from speaking sincerely and openly, then their engagement will remain superficial and unchallenging. Although I reject the idea of classrooms as “safe spaces,” where students should not hear things that they disagree with, on a certain level students must feel safe ENOUGH to venture beyond their comfort zones into controversial territory where they will grapple with opposing viewpoints. Safe spaces are not an end in themselves, but a means to achieving intellectual resilience, by making students feel, paradoxically, safe enough to be okay with feeling somewhat uncomfortable when engaging others in difficult conversations.

A simple way that I try to build community is by helping students learn each other’s names. I print the students’ names on regular copy paper and then tri-fold them into name plates. I also try to learn most of the students’ names within the first week or two, and regularly refer to their names after they share in class. For fun, I sometimes label certain positions or views by the students’ names: “the Fred position/perspective.” Eventually, some students start referring to each other in discussion, which helps create a sense of shared purpose, engaging in dialogue to understand the world better.

Prof. Korry Harvey in the Communication Studies Dept. introduced me to the concept of “gradual disclosure” in inter-personal communication theory. While I was not familiar with that theory, it corroborates with my own experience in seminar settings: that over the course of the quarter, students revealed more and more about themselves, their beliefs, and eventually their feelings, even when discussing controversial topics.

A few years ago in a seminar, the depth of honesty between the students was incredible. Toward the end of the quarter, I was taken by surprise when some of the students, on their own without any prompting by me, began sharing their religious backgrounds as a preface to what they said about the topic being discussed. I believe that happened because of a level of trust that the students had built throughout the quarter, and which deepened the honesty of the conversation. Their disclosures helped others understand why they believed certain things or espoused certain views, even if others disagreed with those views.

Cultivating community and trust among students is more easily done in a smaller class with 20 or fewer students. The level of trust and community that I described above may not likely appear in a class of 30+ students by the end of the quarter. The next two strategies can help foster a greater level of trust among students even in larger classes.

(3) Affirm students who share honestly and courageously.

Because discussing controversial topics is difficult in a large group where you don’t know who thinks what, when I sense that a student is answering a tough question honestly, I affirm what they say. I may not say I agree with it, but I will use one of these phrases below:

1. That is a view taken by many others, OR I’m sure many others share your view or concern.
2. People who tend to think about _________ are likely to agree with that perspective.
3. You’re in good company with that position.
4. I happen to agree, but many would reject that view.
5. “That is an excellent question!”

It is important to affirm the speaker’s courage and honesty for sharing their views, especially if it may be an unpopular view in the class. And on the rare occasion when students willingly admit their ignorance on a subject, I thank them for their honesty in admitting that, and ask them a follow-up question that I think they may be able to answer (usually drawing on their own experience).

I sometimes share my own views, prefacing my comments with, “my bias is to see this as…,” which I think helps defuse disagreement. When you say that you have a bias, people seem more likely to accept it as your perspective. Further, I always say that I could be wrong about something, which I mean sincerely.

When students acknowledge a bias that they had previously not noticed, again, I thank them for that. By affirming what students share in response to a difficult question or topic, I want to encourage them to disclose more of their views and even of their feelings. Again, this helps them see that it is safe to speak sincerely in my class because I will protect their freedom to say what they think. I may critique and question, but I will not reject their views, which leads to the next strategy described below.

(4) Treat all viewpoints and comments respectfully, and don’t favor any particular views.

Another key strategy to fostering difficult conversations is treating all viewpoints with respect by taking them all seriously. I try to promote the view that there are no positions that cannot be expressed, and no sacred cows that cannot be questioned. Whether students’ comments in class draw nods of agreement or a collective gasp from others, I usually ask the speaker, “What makes you say that?”

Whatever students may say, I ask questions to make them explain or defend their statement. Or, I will take their statement to a logical extreme to see if the speaker will either continue defending their position or pull back after they see a problem with it.

My intent behind constantly questioning students about what they say, regardless of whether I agree with it or not, is to help them feel safe discussing and challenging not only ideas they disagree with, but also questioning the ideas that they embrace. I want students to question their own assumptions and beliefs. I don’t necessarily want them to reject it, but I want to teach them to exercise critical judgment about others’ views, as well as about their own views, which most of us rarely do. Most of us tend to assume that what we believe is correct without ever questioning it.

I will never forget the time in my legal philosophy seminar when, after getting low scores on their essays, one student asked in frustration, “So what are we supposed to argue, if there are problems with our arguments?” Another student suddenly blurted out, “Don’t you get it? No matter what you say, he’s going to attack it!”

Along with my ground rules for discussion, another principle that I encourage students to adopt in order to help make discussing difficult topics easier is what I call mutual integrity. This is the idea that, first, each of us thinks and acts based on what we think is right, just, fair, good, etc.; and second, that we should presume this of others, even if we disagree with them. I am not so naïve to think that there are no fools or scoundrels in the world; but mutual integrity presumes that most people think and act for the same reasons that motivate us.

Epistemological Excursus

Our epistemological problem, which is really our epistemological reality, is that we don’t know what we don’t know. No matter what we may think we know, we cannot indubitably know (as opposed to believe) whether it is true or correct in any absolute sense. Although this reality could lead us to skepticism about everything, I suggest that it should, at a minimum, lead us to intellectual humility, a posture in which we refrain from dogmatic insistence on the accuracy of our beliefs. This is different from not believing in anything; rather, it entails presumptively believing what we believe is true, but recognizing that what we believe could be false.

That kind of psychological posture may sound crazy and unlivable, but I feel some consolation in standing in the company of others whom I have read or heard say the exact same thing: persons as diverse as Alister McGrath (Oxford), Robert George (Princeton), Cornel West (Harvard/Union Seminary), Jonathan Haidt (NYU), Steven Pinker (Harvard), and Washington Supreme Court Justice Mary Yu. Further, if I hold to the possibility that I could be wrong about what I think or believe, then even that belief—that I could be wrong about what I think or believe—is itself subject to doubt. (I would love to get a bumper sticker that reads: “You don’t have to believe everything you think.”)

Homework: Assignments About Controversial Topics

In this section, I will discuss how I use homework assignments to help students grapple with difficult questions. Over the years, I have focused on different issues in my legal philosophy class: abortion, same-sex marriage, polygamy, gay rights, and just last year, assisted suicide (not for terminally ill patients, but for healthy, mentally competent adults). Regardless of the position students take on an issue, they must always argue both sides in their essays.

My goal is to teach students how to argue different viewpoints, which helps them appreciate that no position is ever without either weaknesses or merits. Arguments and debates are a useful way to think about controversial topics. Nothing helps one understand one’s own viewpoint or position better than seeing it from another’s perspective. As social critic Os Guinness says: “Contrast is the mother of clarity.” To extend the analogy used by writer David Foster Wallace in his commencement speech at Kenyon College—you would never ask a fish what water feels like, because it doesn’t know, since it has always lived in that environment. But pull the fish from the water, and then it will know what water feels like!

In class and on their essays, I have students recite the arguments on both sides of a case (or the topic that we are discussing). It is usually easier to think of arguments against a position that we reject, and we tend to discount or overlook the weaknesses in our own position. When we stand to benefit from taking a particular position on an issue, we are biased to think of that position more favorably. We are all powerful rationalizers for our own position. I want to educate students to be as critical of their own views as they are of others’.⁴

My writing criteria for essays includes discussing the weaknesses in one’s own position. I tell students that if they think their own position has no weaknesses, then they do not really know their position; for every position has weaknesses. Recognizing the weaknesses in our own positions will make us humbler about our own views, rather than make us think that opposing views are irrational.

Nothing warms my heart more than hearing students make an argument that they personally disagree with, and I love it when students acknowledge that they are arguing against their own position. Further, I focus on the arguments themselves, not the students’ conclusion. I care very little for their conclusion, but I care most about the arguments used to support their conclusion. It is like using a calculator: the calculator will give you the correct answer; but if you don’t understand the math that was used to get the answer, then you won’t know why the answer is correct. Students must show their work by explaining to me in their essays how they reached their conclusion, rather than merely showing me their answers.⁵

Finally, as a general practice, I grade essays anonymously, something I picked up in law school. Grading anonymously prevents grading bias in favor of students whom I may think are better or smarter just because they speak up more in class. Because I don’t know which essay belongs to whom, I can only grade based on the content of their writing, not based on who I think wrote the essay.

The goal of learning how to evaluate arguments dispassionately is not just to learn how to critique positions that you reject, but ultimately to critique our own thinking. Learning to argue well means being attentive to your opponent’s arguments, which means being attentive to one’s own weaknesses.

Conclusion

Engaging in difficult conversations in a civil and responsible manner requires students to develop certain skills and dispositions. Examples include:

• Carefully listening to others without jumping to conclusions based on the worst possible interpretation of what we hear them say
• Listening to understand rather than to refute
• Not prejudging others based on their appearance or political affiliation
• Trying to put ourselves in others’ shoes
• Presuming that others want to do what they think is right, just as we do ourselves, no matter how much we may disagree with them.

But, as teachers, we must practice these skills ourselves or else we cannot teach them to others. If we come across in our classrooms as a know-it-all authority, or portray disdain toward certain viewpoints or perspectives, not only will students pick up on that, but worse, they may even copy us.

I must concede my own shortcomings in this regard, and can only try my best to exemplify what I say I want my students to learn. I acknowledge my need for other persons, including my students and even my “enemies,” to point out flaws and blind spots in my thinking, which I cannot deny are there, even if I have a difficult time seeing them. Because our natural bias is to automatically presume that our own view of things is correct, I must conclude, contrary to our human nature, that the last person I should ever trust to give an accurate assessment of either myself as a person or of my views, is me.

Although some of our biases are more apparent to us than others, we can never actually think outside the box(es) of our own biases. Education teaches us to see the world differently from how we saw things previously. One of the most dramatic changes of how we view the world happens when we experience a paradigm shift: when we don’t necessarily add to our knowledge base, but rather see the same thing in a different light, from a different perspective. We may look at the exact same thing, but a paradigm shift enables us to see more. Another filter has been added to our lenses. Education not only gives us different filters to wear, but also teaches us when to choose some filters over others. But we must recognize that we can never remove all our filters and see things “objectively,” no matter how hard we try.

Using difficult conversations gives us opportunities to see things differently through the eyes of others. It opens us up to change based on our desire to understand how things really are, rather than just what they seem to be to us. To have a willingness to have difficult conversations with others, where we sincerely listen to others’ views about things that we hold dear, and to believe those different perspectives help us see the world more completely, is to open ourselves to truth.