I have written elsewhere that universities are “the last, best hope” to counter, in America and elsewhere, the profound loss of capacity to engage in dialogue with those who view the world differently (not only strangers but also friends, neighbors, and even family). Specifically, drawing upon the dramatic success of interfaith dialogue over the last sixty years, I have urged the embrace of a secular version of ecumenism as the antidote to this “secular dogmatism,” and I have argued that universities are natural incubators for this approach.
Raimundo Panikkar, a mentor to Pope Francis, preached the importance in the context of ecumenism of a “dialogic dialogue” - a meeting of persons across difference. Such dialogue asks participants to meet each other in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other; and, it asks the parties to do their best to pass momentarily into the worldview of the other in order to experience the other’s values from within the other’s perspective (including in the process, seeing themselves as others see them). This approach requires trust, humility, generous listening, and openness to changing one’s initial way of seeing things. And, it has worked.
Universities possess a set of foundational characteristics that justify faith in their capacity to incorporate and nurture this ecumenical spirit. First, those engaged in the advancement of knowledge understand that their work builds on that of others; they study the nuances of what others have done, including those with different views. Second, these seekers understand that validation of their work entails critique by others; they welcome such dialogue. Third, even “well settled” ideas are reexamined regularly in a transparent process. And, fourth, there is a premium in challenging received wisdom and very significant professional reward for unearthing its weaknesses.
Notwithstanding these fundamental characteristics, the disease that first infected our politics clearly has metastasized into universities themselves. Most campuses now display not only the polarity we see in society generally but also a cynical distrust of university leadership and colleagues that is a reflection of the general collapse of faith in institutions (including universities) and in each other. It is remarkable that many within the university abandon the intellectual rigor that they routinely exercise within their disciplinary work when they opine on the general workings of their intellectual homes; suddenly, they begin thinking in slogans that display no recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand.
Undoubtedly bad decisions have been made on campuses, some for motives that are unbecoming of university leaders. And even correct decisions can be executed badly. But, as a general matter, those to whom we have delegated leadership in our universities (typically, colleagues who have been chosen from among us to do a task) are doing their best to advance institutions they love.
In a time when in some quarters ignorance actually is celebrated and expertise is mocked, those of us privileged to live in universities must beware ourselves of oversimplification and binary, ideological thinking; as we opine on issues facing our communities, we must model the appreciation of complexity (and its concomitant, dialogue) that characterizes our disciplinary work at its best. As we do so, we must bring along the humility, the openness to different thoughts, and the assumption of good faith that we exercise with respected colleagues in our fields.
Some concrete steps to foster dialogue have already been taken on several campuses. For example, those who choose to join campus communities now are being asked to sign codes of discourse enunciating rules of conversation within the community; these codes, evenhandedly enforced in procedures with articulated penalties, provide a basis for building a dialogic culture.
Other innovative steps are available - some already underway. For example, a set of leading universities has come together in a Reconciliation League that will provide sets of student leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity in the skills and application of dialogic bridge building. The core of the project is a model curriculum and a set of related activities made possible in a unique setting, a lengthy voyage together as a community of learners.
Society is at an inflection point. A toxic disease has infected the body politic. Our universities, if they are true to themselves, can provide the antidote. The techniques are known. We now must build ever-expanding circles of trust and genuine dialogue. We can do that, if we start at home.
I have written elsewhere that universities are “the last, best hope” to counter, in America and elsewhere, the profound loss of capacity to engage in dialogue with those who view the world differently (not only strangers but also friends, neighbors, and even family). Specifically, drawing upon the dramatic success of interfaith dialogue over the last sixty years, I have urged the embrace of a secular version of ecumenism as the antidote to this “secular dogmatism,” and I have argued that universities are natural incubators for this approach.
Raimundo Panikkar, a mentor to Pope Francis, preached the importance in the context of ecumenism of a “dialogic dialogue” - a meeting of persons across difference. Such dialogue asks participants to meet each other in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other; and, it asks the parties to do their best to pass momentarily into the worldview of the other in order to experience the other’s values from within the other’s perspective (including in the process, seeing themselves as others see them). This approach requires trust, humility, generous listening, and openness to changing one’s initial way of seeing things. And, it has worked.
Universities possess a set of foundational characteristics that justify faith in their capacity to incorporate and nurture this ecumenical spirit. First, those engaged in the advancement of knowledge understand that their work builds on that of others; they study the nuances of what others have done, including those with different views. Second, these seekers understand that validation of their work entails critique by others; they welcome such dialogue. Third, even “well settled” ideas are reexamined regularly in a transparent process. And, fourth, there is a premium in challenging received wisdom and very significant professional reward for unearthing its weaknesses.
Notwithstanding these fundamental characteristics, the disease that first infected our politics clearly has metastasized into universities themselves. Most campuses now display not only the polarity we see in society generally but also a cynical distrust of university leadership and colleagues that is a reflection of the general collapse of faith in institutions (including universities) and in each other. It is remarkable that many within the university abandon the intellectual rigor that they routinely exercise within their disciplinary work when they opine on the general workings of their intellectual homes; suddenly, they begin thinking in slogans that display no recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand.
Undoubtedly bad decisions have been made on campuses, some for motives that are unbecoming of university leaders. And even correct decisions can be executed badly. But, as a general matter, those to whom we have delegated leadership in our universities (typically, colleagues who have been chosen from among us to do a task) are doing their best to advance institutions they love.
In a time when in some quarters ignorance actually is celebrated and expertise is mocked, those of us privileged to live in universities must beware ourselves of oversimplification and binary, ideological thinking; as we opine on issues facing our communities, we must model the appreciation of complexity (and its concomitant, dialogue) that characterizes our disciplinary work at its best. As we do so, we must bring along the humility, the openness to different thoughts, and the assumption of good faith that we exercise with respected colleagues in our fields.
Some concrete steps to foster dialogue have already been taken on several campuses. For example, those who choose to join campus communities now are being asked to sign codes of discourse enunciating rules of conversation within the community; these codes, evenhandedly enforced in procedures with articulated penalties, provide a basis for building a dialogic culture.
Other innovative steps are available - some already underway. For example, a set of leading universities has come together in a Reconciliation League that will provide sets of student leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity in the skills and application of dialogic bridge building. The core of the project is a model curriculum and a set of related activities made possible in a unique setting, a lengthy voyage together as a community of learners.
Society is at an inflection point. A toxic disease has infected the body politic. Our universities, if they are true to themselves, can provide the antidote. The techniques are known. We now must build ever-expanding circles of trust and genuine dialogue. We can do that, if we start at home.
I have written elsewhere that universities are “the last, best hope” to counter, in America and elsewhere, the profound loss of capacity to engage in dialogue with those who view the world differently (not only strangers but also friends, neighbors, and even family). Specifically, drawing upon the dramatic success of interfaith dialogue over the last sixty years, I have urged the embrace of a secular version of ecumenism as the antidote to this “secular dogmatism,” and I have argued that universities are natural incubators for this approach.
Raimundo Panikkar, a mentor to Pope Francis, preached the importance in the context of ecumenism of a “dialogic dialogue” - a meeting of persons across difference. Such dialogue asks participants to meet each other in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other; and, it asks the parties to do their best to pass momentarily into the worldview of the other in order to experience the other’s values from within the other’s perspective (including in the process, seeing themselves as others see them). This approach requires trust, humility, generous listening, and openness to changing one’s initial way of seeing things. And, it has worked.
Universities possess a set of foundational characteristics that justify faith in their capacity to incorporate and nurture this ecumenical spirit. First, those engaged in the advancement of knowledge understand that their work builds on that of others; they study the nuances of what others have done, including those with different views. Second, these seekers understand that validation of their work entails critique by others; they welcome such dialogue. Third, even “well settled” ideas are reexamined regularly in a transparent process. And, fourth, there is a premium in challenging received wisdom and very significant professional reward for unearthing its weaknesses.
Notwithstanding these fundamental characteristics, the disease that first infected our politics clearly has metastasized into universities themselves. Most campuses now display not only the polarity we see in society generally but also a cynical distrust of university leadership and colleagues that is a reflection of the general collapse of faith in institutions (including universities) and in each other. It is remarkable that many within the university abandon the intellectual rigor that they routinely exercise within their disciplinary work when they opine on the general workings of their intellectual homes; suddenly, they begin thinking in slogans that display no recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand.
Undoubtedly bad decisions have been made on campuses, some for motives that are unbecoming of university leaders. And even correct decisions can be executed badly. But, as a general matter, those to whom we have delegated leadership in our universities (typically, colleagues who have been chosen from among us to do a task) are doing their best to advance institutions they love.
In a time when in some quarters ignorance actually is celebrated and expertise is mocked, those of us privileged to live in universities must beware ourselves of oversimplification and binary, ideological thinking; as we opine on issues facing our communities, we must model the appreciation of complexity (and its concomitant, dialogue) that characterizes our disciplinary work at its best. As we do so, we must bring along the humility, the openness to different thoughts, and the assumption of good faith that we exercise with respected colleagues in our fields.
Some concrete steps to foster dialogue have already been taken on several campuses. For example, those who choose to join campus communities now are being asked to sign codes of discourse enunciating rules of conversation within the community; these codes, evenhandedly enforced in procedures with articulated penalties, provide a basis for building a dialogic culture.
Other innovative steps are available - some already underway. For example, a set of leading universities has come together in a Reconciliation League that will provide sets of student leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity in the skills and application of dialogic bridge building. The core of the project is a model curriculum and a set of related activities made possible in a unique setting, a lengthy voyage together as a community of learners.
Society is at an inflection point. A toxic disease has infected the body politic. Our universities, if they are true to themselves, can provide the antidote. The techniques are known. We now must build ever-expanding circles of trust and genuine dialogue. We can do that, if we start at home.
I have written elsewhere that universities are “the last, best hope” to counter, in America and elsewhere, the profound loss of capacity to engage in dialogue with those who view the world differently (not only strangers but also friends, neighbors, and even family). Specifically, drawing upon the dramatic success of interfaith dialogue over the last sixty years, I have urged the embrace of a secular version of ecumenism as the antidote to this “secular dogmatism,” and I have argued that universities are natural incubators for this approach.
Raimundo Panikkar, a mentor to Pope Francis, preached the importance in the context of ecumenism of a “dialogic dialogue” - a meeting of persons across difference. Such dialogue asks participants to meet each other in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other; and, it asks the parties to do their best to pass momentarily into the worldview of the other in order to experience the other’s values from within the other’s perspective (including in the process, seeing themselves as others see them). This approach requires trust, humility, generous listening, and openness to changing one’s initial way of seeing things. And, it has worked.
Universities possess a set of foundational characteristics that justify faith in their capacity to incorporate and nurture this ecumenical spirit. First, those engaged in the advancement of knowledge understand that their work builds on that of others; they study the nuances of what others have done, including those with different views. Second, these seekers understand that validation of their work entails critique by others; they welcome such dialogue. Third, even “well settled” ideas are reexamined regularly in a transparent process. And, fourth, there is a premium in challenging received wisdom and very significant professional reward for unearthing its weaknesses.
Notwithstanding these fundamental characteristics, the disease that first infected our politics clearly has metastasized into universities themselves. Most campuses now display not only the polarity we see in society generally but also a cynical distrust of university leadership and colleagues that is a reflection of the general collapse of faith in institutions (including universities) and in each other. It is remarkable that many within the university abandon the intellectual rigor that they routinely exercise within their disciplinary work when they opine on the general workings of their intellectual homes; suddenly, they begin thinking in slogans that display no recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand.
Undoubtedly bad decisions have been made on campuses, some for motives that are unbecoming of university leaders. And even correct decisions can be executed badly. But, as a general matter, those to whom we have delegated leadership in our universities (typically, colleagues who have been chosen from among us to do a task) are doing their best to advance institutions they love.
In a time when in some quarters ignorance actually is celebrated and expertise is mocked, those of us privileged to live in universities must beware ourselves of oversimplification and binary, ideological thinking; as we opine on issues facing our communities, we must model the appreciation of complexity (and its concomitant, dialogue) that characterizes our disciplinary work at its best. As we do so, we must bring along the humility, the openness to different thoughts, and the assumption of good faith that we exercise with respected colleagues in our fields.
Some concrete steps to foster dialogue have already been taken on several campuses. For example, those who choose to join campus communities now are being asked to sign codes of discourse enunciating rules of conversation within the community; these codes, evenhandedly enforced in procedures with articulated penalties, provide a basis for building a dialogic culture.
Other innovative steps are available - some already underway. For example, a set of leading universities has come together in a Reconciliation League that will provide sets of student leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity in the skills and application of dialogic bridge building. The core of the project is a model curriculum and a set of related activities made possible in a unique setting, a lengthy voyage together as a community of learners.
Society is at an inflection point. A toxic disease has infected the body politic. Our universities, if they are true to themselves, can provide the antidote. The techniques are known. We now must build ever-expanding circles of trust and genuine dialogue. We can do that, if we start at home.
I have written elsewhere that universities are “the last, best hope” to counter, in America and elsewhere, the profound loss of capacity to engage in dialogue with those who view the world differently (not only strangers but also friends, neighbors, and even family). Specifically, drawing upon the dramatic success of interfaith dialogue over the last sixty years, I have urged the embrace of a secular version of ecumenism as the antidote to this “secular dogmatism,” and I have argued that universities are natural incubators for this approach.
Raimundo Panikkar, a mentor to Pope Francis, preached the importance in the context of ecumenism of a “dialogic dialogue” - a meeting of persons across difference. Such dialogue asks participants to meet each other in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other; and, it asks the parties to do their best to pass momentarily into the worldview of the other in order to experience the other’s values from within the other’s perspective (including in the process, seeing themselves as others see them). This approach requires trust, humility, generous listening, and openness to changing one’s initial way of seeing things. And, it has worked.
Universities possess a set of foundational characteristics that justify faith in their capacity to incorporate and nurture this ecumenical spirit. First, those engaged in the advancement of knowledge understand that their work builds on that of others; they study the nuances of what others have done, including those with different views. Second, these seekers understand that validation of their work entails critique by others; they welcome such dialogue. Third, even “well settled” ideas are reexamined regularly in a transparent process. And, fourth, there is a premium in challenging received wisdom and very significant professional reward for unearthing its weaknesses.
Notwithstanding these fundamental characteristics, the disease that first infected our politics clearly has metastasized into universities themselves. Most campuses now display not only the polarity we see in society generally but also a cynical distrust of university leadership and colleagues that is a reflection of the general collapse of faith in institutions (including universities) and in each other. It is remarkable that many within the university abandon the intellectual rigor that they routinely exercise within their disciplinary work when they opine on the general workings of their intellectual homes; suddenly, they begin thinking in slogans that display no recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand.
Undoubtedly bad decisions have been made on campuses, some for motives that are unbecoming of university leaders. And even correct decisions can be executed badly. But, as a general matter, those to whom we have delegated leadership in our universities (typically, colleagues who have been chosen from among us to do a task) are doing their best to advance institutions they love.
In a time when in some quarters ignorance actually is celebrated and expertise is mocked, those of us privileged to live in universities must beware ourselves of oversimplification and binary, ideological thinking; as we opine on issues facing our communities, we must model the appreciation of complexity (and its concomitant, dialogue) that characterizes our disciplinary work at its best. As we do so, we must bring along the humility, the openness to different thoughts, and the assumption of good faith that we exercise with respected colleagues in our fields.
Some concrete steps to foster dialogue have already been taken on several campuses. For example, those who choose to join campus communities now are being asked to sign codes of discourse enunciating rules of conversation within the community; these codes, evenhandedly enforced in procedures with articulated penalties, provide a basis for building a dialogic culture.
Other innovative steps are available - some already underway. For example, a set of leading universities has come together in a Reconciliation League that will provide sets of student leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity in the skills and application of dialogic bridge building. The core of the project is a model curriculum and a set of related activities made possible in a unique setting, a lengthy voyage together as a community of learners.
Society is at an inflection point. A toxic disease has infected the body politic. Our universities, if they are true to themselves, can provide the antidote. The techniques are known. We now must build ever-expanding circles of trust and genuine dialogue. We can do that, if we start at home.
I have written elsewhere that universities are “the last, best hope” to counter, in America and elsewhere, the profound loss of capacity to engage in dialogue with those who view the world differently (not only strangers but also friends, neighbors, and even family). Specifically, drawing upon the dramatic success of interfaith dialogue over the last sixty years, I have urged the embrace of a secular version of ecumenism as the antidote to this “secular dogmatism,” and I have argued that universities are natural incubators for this approach.
Raimundo Panikkar, a mentor to Pope Francis, preached the importance in the context of ecumenism of a “dialogic dialogue” - a meeting of persons across difference. Such dialogue asks participants to meet each other in a spirit of mutual trust and understanding, ready to alter misconceptions about each other and eager to appreciate the values of the other; and, it asks the parties to do their best to pass momentarily into the worldview of the other in order to experience the other’s values from within the other’s perspective (including in the process, seeing themselves as others see them). This approach requires trust, humility, generous listening, and openness to changing one’s initial way of seeing things. And, it has worked.
Universities possess a set of foundational characteristics that justify faith in their capacity to incorporate and nurture this ecumenical spirit. First, those engaged in the advancement of knowledge understand that their work builds on that of others; they study the nuances of what others have done, including those with different views. Second, these seekers understand that validation of their work entails critique by others; they welcome such dialogue. Third, even “well settled” ideas are reexamined regularly in a transparent process. And, fourth, there is a premium in challenging received wisdom and very significant professional reward for unearthing its weaknesses.
Notwithstanding these fundamental characteristics, the disease that first infected our politics clearly has metastasized into universities themselves. Most campuses now display not only the polarity we see in society generally but also a cynical distrust of university leadership and colleagues that is a reflection of the general collapse of faith in institutions (including universities) and in each other. It is remarkable that many within the university abandon the intellectual rigor that they routinely exercise within their disciplinary work when they opine on the general workings of their intellectual homes; suddenly, they begin thinking in slogans that display no recognition of the complexity of the issues at hand.
Undoubtedly bad decisions have been made on campuses, some for motives that are unbecoming of university leaders. And even correct decisions can be executed badly. But, as a general matter, those to whom we have delegated leadership in our universities (typically, colleagues who have been chosen from among us to do a task) are doing their best to advance institutions they love.
In a time when in some quarters ignorance actually is celebrated and expertise is mocked, those of us privileged to live in universities must beware ourselves of oversimplification and binary, ideological thinking; as we opine on issues facing our communities, we must model the appreciation of complexity (and its concomitant, dialogue) that characterizes our disciplinary work at its best. As we do so, we must bring along the humility, the openness to different thoughts, and the assumption of good faith that we exercise with respected colleagues in our fields.
Some concrete steps to foster dialogue have already been taken on several campuses. For example, those who choose to join campus communities now are being asked to sign codes of discourse enunciating rules of conversation within the community; these codes, evenhandedly enforced in procedures with articulated penalties, provide a basis for building a dialogic culture.
Other innovative steps are available - some already underway. For example, a set of leading universities has come together in a Reconciliation League that will provide sets of student leaders a unique experiential learning opportunity in the skills and application of dialogic bridge building. The core of the project is a model curriculum and a set of related activities made possible in a unique setting, a lengthy voyage together as a community of learners.
Society is at an inflection point. A toxic disease has infected the body politic. Our universities, if they are true to themselves, can provide the antidote. The techniques are known. We now must build ever-expanding circles of trust and genuine dialogue. We can do that, if we start at home.
About the Author
John Sexton
Sexton served as president of New York University from 2001 through 2015. He is NYU’s Benjamin F. Butler Professor of Law and dean emeritus of the Law School, having served as dean from 1988 through 2002. During his presidency and his deanship, the University’s and the Law School’s reach and stature grew tremendously, including the emergence of NYU as a global network university, with campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and 12 other academic centers. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of 24 honorary degrees, President Emeritus Sexton is past chair of the American Council on Education, the Independent Colleges of NY, the New York Academy of Science, and the Federal Reserve Board of NY.
About the Author
John Sexton
Sexton served as president of New York University from 2001 through 2015. He is NYU’s Benjamin F. Butler Professor of Law and dean emeritus of the Law School, having served as dean from 1988 through 2002. During his presidency and his deanship, the University’s and the Law School’s reach and stature grew tremendously, including the emergence of NYU as a global network university, with campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and 12 other academic centers. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of 24 honorary degrees, President Emeritus Sexton is past chair of the American Council on Education, the Independent Colleges of NY, the New York Academy of Science, and the Federal Reserve Board of NY.
About the Author
John Sexton
Sexton served as president of New York University from 2001 through 2015. He is NYU’s Benjamin F. Butler Professor of Law and dean emeritus of the Law School, having served as dean from 1988 through 2002. During his presidency and his deanship, the University’s and the Law School’s reach and stature grew tremendously, including the emergence of NYU as a global network university, with campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and 12 other academic centers. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of 24 honorary degrees, President Emeritus Sexton is past chair of the American Council on Education, the Independent Colleges of NY, the New York Academy of Science, and the Federal Reserve Board of NY.
About the Author
John Sexton
Sexton served as president of New York University from 2001 through 2015. He is NYU’s Benjamin F. Butler Professor of Law and dean emeritus of the Law School, having served as dean from 1988 through 2002. During his presidency and his deanship, the University’s and the Law School’s reach and stature grew tremendously, including the emergence of NYU as a global network university, with campuses in Abu Dhabi and Shanghai and 12 other academic centers. A fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and a recipient of 24 honorary degrees, President Emeritus Sexton is past chair of the American Council on Education, the Independent Colleges of NY, the New York Academy of Science, and the Federal Reserve Board of NY.
More in Elections & Political Parties
More in Elections & Political Parties
More in Elections & Political Parties
More in Elections & Political Parties