Orchid of the Day goes to the University of Michigan Board of Regents and President Santa Ono for their approval of new guidelines for the university as it relates to the freedom of speech.
Per the Detroit News, The University of Michigan Board of Regents on Tuesday unanimously approved a new statement on free speech during a special meeting, with President Santa Ono calling it a historic vote and saying it was more important than ever to “come together.”
“No matter the problems in the day, it is vital that we remain fully committed to freedom of speech and diversity of thought,” Ono said before the board voted. “At this time of great division, it is more important than ever we come together in a shared commitment to pluralism, mutual respect and to freedom of speech and diversity of thought.”
This is an important statement that I hope the University follows consistently from here on out. It will be tested on a regular basis over the next few years. There can be no exceptions to the policy based on who said what or what political party controls the board of regents. President Santa Ono needs to set the standard to insure it is ingrained into the culture of the university.
Stephen Covey, the renowned leadership guru, believes the key to effective interpersonal communication is Seek first to understand, then to be understood. This habit is about communicating with others. It’s about developing the habit of listening carefully and really understanding the other person BEFORE giving your thoughts. These principles appear to be the heart of U of M’s new policy. Congratulations to U of M. The full text is in the following link.
University of Michigan Principles on Diversity of Thought and Freedom of Expression (umich.edu)
__________________________________________________________
Immediately after reading about U of M’s new policy, I ran across an editorial in the Detroit Free Press by John Corvino, Dean of the Irvin D. Reid Honors College and professor of philosophy at Wayne State University. The editorial touches on the importance of debate. Here are excerpts from the editorial.
As a college dean, I regularly observe campus controversies about the Israel-Hamas war, race relations and other hot-button issues. Many of these concern free speech — what students, faculty and invited speakers should and shouldn’t be allowed to say.
But free speech disputes aren’t merely about permission to speak. They are about who belongs at the table — and whether there are limits to the viewpoints we should listen to, argue with or allow to change our minds. As a philosopher who works on “culture war” issues, I’m particularly interested in what free-speech disputes teach about the value of open-mindedness.
Free-speech advocates often find inspiration in the 19th century philosopher John Stuart Mill, who argued for what we might call a “big tent” approach: engaging with a variety of viewpoints, including those that strike you as mistaken. After all, Mill wrote, you could be wrong. And even if you’re right, the clash of opinions can sharpen your reasons.
Some critics believe that Mill’s arguments haven’t worn well, especially in an age of demagoguery and “fake news.” Do I really need to listen to people who believe the Earth is flat? Holocaust deniers? My relatives’ crackpot conspiracy theories at the holiday dinner table? Whose benefit would such openness serve?
The primary argument for the big tent approach is rooted in intellectual humility: …More positively, intellectual humility is aspirational: There’s a lot yet to learn. Importantly, intellectual humility does not mean that one lacks moral convictions, let alone the desire to persuade others of those convictions.
Having spent several decades advocating for same-sex marriage …I believe that the marketplace of ideas should err on the side of a big tent. I was open to learning from them, and I often did. I was open to learning their concerns, perspectives, and insights, recognizing that we had different experiences and areas of expertise. I was also open to building relationships to foster mutual understanding. In that sense, I was quite open-minded.
Audience members who approached the debates with similar openness would commonly say afterward, “I always thought the other side believed [X], but I realize I need to rethink that.”
At the same time, there were prominent figures whose position on the marriage question did change…David Blankenhorn, founder of the think tank the Institute for American Values, had been a same-sex marriage opponent for many years, albeit one who always recognized some good on both sides of the debate. Eventually he came to believe that instead of helping children, as he had hoped, opposition to same-sex marriage primarily served to stigmatize gay citizens. So sometimes the clash of opinions can surprise you — just as Mill suspected.
Does this mean that I recommend seeking out Holocaust deniers for dialogue? No. Some views really are beyond the pale, and regular engagement has diminishing returns. There are only so many hours in the day. But that stance should be adopted sparingly, especially when experts in the relevant community are conflicted.
Instead, I recommend following Blankenhorn as a model, in at least three ways.
First, concede contrary evidence even when that evidence is inconvenient. Doing so can be difficult in an environment where people worry that if they give the other side an inch, they’ll take a mile. Blankenhorn’s opponents would often gleefully seize on his concessions, for instance, as if a single positive point settled the debate. But keeping beliefs proportionate to evidence is key to moving past polarized gridlock — not to mention discovering truth. ….
Second, strive to see what good there is on the other side, and when you do, publicly acknowledge it.
And third, remember that bridge-building is largely about relationship-building, which creates a space for trust – and ultimately, deeper dialogue.
Such dialogue may not always uncover truth, as Mill hoped it would, but at least it acknowledges that we all have a lot to learn.
Quote of the Day: As my fifth-grade teacher John McParland told me, “Tom, no one learns anything when they are talking. Stop talking so much and listen.”
____________________________________________________________
I do not want to get too intellectual, because it is not something that comes naturally to me, so when in doubt I go back to what I know best, which is sports.
To no one’s surprise, the Lions have captivated America with their resurgence, and it shows in the national coverage they are receiving in all forms of media. It has also showed up in the TV ratings.
Per NBC News, the Detroit Lions’ first playoff victory since the 1991 season averaged 35.8 million viewers across all platforms, including 31.9 million on NBC stations to make it television’s most-watched prime-time show since February’s Super Bowl on Fox, NBC announced Tuesday.
____________________________________________________________
The Detroit Pistons are in the middle of a major rebuild and it is painful. In calendar year 2023 the Piston won 9 games and the Detroit Lions won 13 games. During this same time the Pistons played 82 games and the Lions play 17. That pretty much says it all when it comes to the current state of the Pistons. I hope they turn it around.
Feel free to share my blog. To receive it in an email, please see the subscribe button below the Video of the Day.
Quote of the Day: My fifth-grade teacher John McParland. See above.
Orchid of the Day: The University of Michigan. See the above article.
Onion of the Day: The weather in Gulf Shores this morning. It was 22 degrees with windchill near 10 degrees. This area is not ready for this.
Question of the Day: Are you surprised at the Lions’ support across the country?
Image of the Day; This goes out to Lions’ fans and Wolverine fans.
Queen – We Will Rock You / We Are The Champions (Wembley July 12, 1986) (youtube.com)
22 degrees? But it will definitely warm up, soon! But can the Lions win one on Sunday, and will our HC stay?