Below are notes Carrie took while watching the Roundtable webinar. Think of these as CliffsNotes for the video (something to help you digest the real material – NOT a replacement for watching the video).
PRT’s link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s60SCdbEMo4&feature=youtu.be
Ian Rowe, Resident Fellow, AEI
Runs K-12 schools – wants students to have individual agency. Their personal decisions have an effect on their outcomes. You don’t get grit if you don’t have agency.
George Floyd narratives about structural racism implies white people must give up their privilege in order for blacks to succeed.
Messages of black independence are erroneously labled as blaming the victims–need to talk more about black excellence–people making good decisions and being successful
Believes there is a silent majority that is afraid to speak up. Bravery breeds bravery – will help people develop capacity to speak up
Why moral courage seems to be in such short supply?
How can we be more brave?
Irshad Manji
Director of Courage, Curiosity and Character at Let Grow (promotes intellectual independence, thinking for yourself, and emotional resilience among America’s young people. Works mostly with middle and high schoolers)
Author of Don’t Label Me
How do we communicate against lines of disagreement?
This is really important when the challenges aren’t just domestic and global. They are existential: Mass migration, climate change, unintended consequences of automation and AI.
If the next generation is raised like us, come up with solutions and make them happen then we’re going to be stuck. We need to not just develop solutions – we need to also engage with others and not just IMPOSE ANSWERS ON OTHER PEOPLE. Not engaging creates a hamster wheel of dogma.
Key thing to teaching people to communicate across difference:
Moral courage – doing the right thing in the face of your fears
Today, the hardest and scariest thing to do is to engage with people they disagree with because they are scared of being cancelled, being told they no longer exist and are no longer relevant
Some kids see nuance and are curious. We also need to coach the ones who have strong opinions. Moral courage is enlightenment. If you want to be heard, psychology teaches us that you must be willing to hear.
Ability to listen is the first step.
The quandary, is silence is violence or if I do speak out I’m racist. If I do speak out it’s never enough….when you have to do something but it’s a mind-field. How do you navigate it.
Exercise moral courage. Lay down basic rules of engagement before you begin to engage. If you’re having open to having a discussion with someone who you disagree with you want to lay down some ground rules.
1. No shaming. I am not going to shame you. Can you agree not to shame me for being honest?
2. Listen. I’m going to give you the opportunity to speak your truth first and I’m going to commit to listen first to your truth. Will you then reciprocate by listening to my truth.
Offering up these rules, we find the person who goes first sets the tone and sets the culture of the conversation. Far from giving up power, you are gaining power by setting the parameters of the conversation. Data and evidence, Taking the time to set ground rules steers the conversation to productive and constructive. Doesn’t mean you’ll convince the other person of your POV. You are lowering their emotional defenses allowing them to hear your point of view completely without thinking, “Yes, but…” or “How do I retort that…” Our minds are always working to win and not understand. By setting the rules you are setting up the ability to understand.
Sometimes there is a grain of truth in what they are saying. Are you willing to change your opinion based upon new information?
Manji, was an advocate for reform in Islam. When she was in front of other Muslims to talk about change if wanted to prove that Islam was a religion of peace. She persisted. Rather than make statements and fight. She learned to state case and then say, I’m here to listen to you and say maybe I’m missing something and turning the floor over.
When people learned she was there to engage and not win they trusted her enough to ask question about where she’s coming from. If you’re there to just crush the other side you won’t get invited to engage. You’ll be cancelled. Build trust and you’ll have the opportunity to reach even the most defensive members of society.
What is the role of data and proportionality in debate/discussion?
Ian focuses on teaching the success sequence which is a set of decisions you make in sequence: HS Degree, FT Work, Marriage, then children–that set you up for success. Research demonstrates that when you make that decision sequence, 97% of Americans end up in the middle class.
Having data and evidence and patterns is incredibly important to credibility. But, timing is everything. If you start with stats you won’t get much further because of emotion.
We think emotionally first and foremost. Fear is the easiest emotion to have because our primal brains are scanning for threats. Trust is important to being heard.
So, instead of leading with data and stats, start off the conversation by asking, “What do you think is the role of statistics, data? Do you think research should matter?” Puts accountability in their court and by gleaning where they are coming from you’re able to get more information about what they value.
1. Save stats and data for later. Build trust first.
2. Rather than just state data. Ask first, what role should data play?
Create a bond then get to facts and evidence. It’s a method that was taught by Bruce Lee. Lee would teach students to be like water. Water always gets to where it needs to be not by crashing up against the rock, but by flowing around, over, around. Know the vulnerabilities of the person you’re speaking with so that you can speak to these.
We are human and have egos. It’s easy to say you’re wrong and here’s why and want to win. Moral courage, means you have to acknowledge other person’s circumstances are likely to inform them just as your circumstances inform you.
Issues of Race
Are the rules the same for white people who want to engage in conversations of race? The rules have traditionally been different. But, Manji, thinks we’re in different times. Many argue that black voices must be prioritized. That being said, we should ask, is it possible that you are doing to other people of color and white people what’s been done to you.
For instance, colonization assigned values according to skin. Are you flipping the hierarchy on its head? Does payback equal progress? Some say it’s yes. That’s when to listen and engage further. As opposed to yelling hypocrisy, tame ego, and give someone a hearing and that will begin to lower the temperature.
Q: What if we disagree with the solution?
We’re seeing some pretty radical solutions on the table from abolishing and defunding police to creating an autonomous zone. What if what you believe will hurt what we’re advocating for? How do you demonstrate that you concur but you think there’s a better solution?
You can’t win them all. Neither can they. Before you know who is worth your time to engage you have to first engage. If you’re assuming they are kooks, etc. that’s an assumption and you might be wrong.
Ask first, “tell me how this makes you feel.” Start with a question from the heart. By engaging you can get people to care about you versus digging in on an issue. It would have been easy to make a judgement about that person but give them the ability to explain.
Q: How to have discussions online when social media devolves?
Ian tries not to engage in Twitter and tries to find other ways. He writes essays and lays out his nuanced argument. He also brought a group together to have a real conversation about what are we telling our own children? What can we do in our own community that’s real? Now he has a group meeting regularly.
Online only for these conversation is really debilitating. Find in person solutions.
Irshad, disagrees, she works with kids and engages in social media a lot. She has found that some of the lessons applied to the online world works in person. If she encounters something rude on Twitter or FB. She responds first with, “Thank you for asking. Great question…” and then gives answer and asks a question of the person blasting her. She gives the attacker two rounds to engage. If it’s going well she suggests going offline for a call. Other times, when not going productively, she’ll say, “I’ll give you the last word, make it good.” End with saying thank you for engaging. It matters for people to hear that. They are expecting a counterpunch. Dignity makes their emotional defenses go down.
Don’t engage in tit for tat. Read nuanced explanations for the other side. Why do others believe what they believe? You can be pleasantly surprised by what you can get from that engagement.
Q: Did you adopt BLM hashtag?
Ian did not. He runs charter schools. It’s an important tool for creating opportunity for young people of all races. BLM wants to initiate a moratorium on charters. He’d like to have a conversation with them since there are 5k families in the Bronx who want into the schools and are waitlisted. The majority are black and hispanic.
The slogan is easy to sign onto. But the platform is not in line with what he’s working to do.
Irshad agrees, many BLM promoted policies tend to be dead enders for the people they want to help. However, she did adopt the #BLM because she wants to reach those people in BLM. Her postings are counterintuitive for what most of the BLM hashtaggers will see. She’s signaling she’s watching and holding them accountable. She wants to keep them thinking and gets engagement with provocative posts.
Q: Is there a fair/polite way to engage the groups that go to cancel?
Let’s first challenge the ideas of “groups.” When you’re engaging with an individual you’re not engaging with the entire group. It’s important to understand. Try to appeal to an individual of the group. They might not be actually representative of the group. Don’t think it’s the entire group you’re engaging when you’re interacting with someone from that group.
When hit with rhetoric and talking points by someone who is trying to paint your with the same brush they think applies to everyone in your “group.” Ask, who are you talking to right now? Are you talking to me or to people who you think I’m aligned with. Don’t assume you know all of my nuances. Give them the same courtesy.
Then the question becomes, “Should I self censor?” No. Put pen to paper. Where is your point of agreement? Where is your point of departure? Then lay out your prescription and the why. Most people are operating under assumptions and you can best realign their thinking by fully thinking out and sharing your point of view. It’s important because often we can’t make sense of things until we’ve challenged ourselves and put pen to paper.
You don’t have to accept cancel culture. You can cancel cancel culture and get your viewpoints out there. Don’t cede your power. They win when you allow them to cancel you.
Q: How do you respond to assertions of systemic racism?
Ian as a black person shared his encounters with racism. Get back to the idea of agency. Recognize that you’re going to face barriers. We all face some sort of barrier even if it’s not as serious as racism. What can you learn from others who have faced barriers. What decisions did they make to get beyond? There are millions of people who encountered them and succeeded. This is why he pivots from discussions of systemic racism which takes away power to the idea of the success sequence which is about agency and having some control of your life. Systemic racism implies that the oppression cannot be overcome because the power does not lie within.
You might be less powerful but it’s not the same as powerless. That’s why agency really matters. Of course there’s systemic racism but, let’s question what is a system? Systems aren’t abstract meaning that there’s nothing we can do except tear down the country. Systems and institutions are no more than the people who inhabit them. These things don’t speak for themselves. We, the people who inhabit systems and institutions speak for systems and institutions. Which is why how we treat each other matters when it comes to challenging a system. Working with other individuals and engaging in understanding is what digs the rot out of any system. The system is not an abstraction it is us.
Q: How can we have diversity in the philanthropic sector? Is it an important metric?
If we presume this is about racial diversity. There are benefits to have economic and racial diversity. But, it’s viewpoint diversity that’s really missing.
The problems we’re working on are extremely complex and the solutions are equally complex.
What you don’t want is a move like when universities create offices of diversity and inclusion, assign some staff and resources, and results don’t play out. Don’t focus on superficial changes like that.
Viewpoint diversity is the most constructive thing foundations can focus on. What are your core values? What do you believe?
Is hiring someone who is racially diverse going to change your mode of giving? Maybe. However, it’s important to ask, do their arguments align with your values? Do their prescriptions actually represent the long term interest of the people you advocate for?
Right now we’re not seeing solutions that are proven to be successful. So, being able to hear viewpoint diversity is more important that racial diversity.
Irshad, addressed this in depth for the PRT Magazine. We need to distinguish between honest diversity and dishonest diversity. Dishonest diversity slices and dices people and assigns them to categories as if to say, “Welcome to your assigned place.” Honest diversity engages individuals and engages them not as mascots of a tribe.
The next time someone challenges you about your engagement on diversity ask, what kind of diversity are you talking about? Do you mean honest diversity? Because, I’m in favor of that diversity. If you mean dishonest diversity, you mean labeling. I’m not for it and you shouldn’t be either.
Two other quick take aways:
Moral Courage means not being immediately offended by ideas that you don’t believe in. Democracy can’t be deepened or restored without being able to engage on highly emotional issues.
de Tocqueville, “The greatness of America lies not in being more enlightened than any other nation but, rather in her ability to repair her faults.” America is always in pursuit of becoming a more perfect union. While the founders laid out the ideals we’re in a constant effort as a country to live up to them. It’s dependent upon civil discourse and constructive disagreement. Need understanding of those we disagree with. Speak your truth. Live your values.