I find it humorous that the best advice I have ever received is the same lesson I was taught as a toddler: listen. This may seem simple, superficial, and perhaps a bit naïve, but if it is then why do the elected officials of our government, the leaders of one of the most powerful sovereign nations in the world, find such difficulty with such an infantile task? To take a page out of Hemingway’s writing, being quiet while someone else is speaking is just the tip of what it means to listen.

This past January term I took a philosophy course called “Faith and Reason.” A significant portion of the course was dedicated to studying epistemology, the theory of knowledge, using the intellectual conflict between faith and reason as model for conflicting theories on knowledge. The most important lesson Professor Storm Bailey taught me during this course was his policy on class discussions: you cannot critique another person’s idea if you do not understand it, and you cannot claim to understand their idea until you can explain them in such a way that the person confirms your explanation. Listening requires cognitive participation. You have to listen with your mind as well as with your ears.

This lesson makes me think about another theory discussed in “Faith and Reason.” In his book Science and Religion: A Very Short Introduction, Thomas Dixon proposes the concept that ideological debates are not intellectual discussions but rather battles for academic authority. Is he wrong? Sadly, I believe Dixon pinpoints the reason there is so much corruption in our government right now. I like to believe there will be a day where Dixon’s theory is no longer valid, but right now power and authority is the status quo of American Politics. Whether a presidential candidate is considered electable is equally impacted by the political party with majority representation in the House and Senate as their platform. Have current arguments about legislations been about whether or not a bill will help the country and its people? Often not. Is it because a bill is deemed unconstitutional? It depends on how the person you ask interprets the constitution and which articles they reference. It is as if the party that represents a bill has become more important than what the bill actually says.

Another work I would like to reference is Plato’s account of Socrates’ trial. Fortunately, this reading was assigned in my first year writing course after I had taken “Faith and Reason” because I was able to recognize an important historical aspect crucial to explaining my interpretation that Socrates was charged and condemned for impiety and corrupting the youth. In the trial Socrates tells the Athenian people about how he tried and failed to refute a prophecy from the Oracle that he was the wisest man in the world. He recalls consulting several intellectuals considered to be experts in their field, assuming one of them would be wiser than him. However, these men assumed their academic authority in their specialty to claim they were experts in other areas of study; if they could not understand that intelligence in one subject did equate to intelligence in all subjects, than they could not be wiser than he was. The men Socrates consulted were craftsmen, poets, politicians, and other professionals that made up the jury that would decide his fate. These men may have interpreted Socrates claims not only as a challenge to their academic authority but also as accusations of hubris, something the Ancient Greeks considered to be one of the greatest vices a human could possess. Socrates essentially claims he is the wisest man in the world because he is willing to learn and willing to be wrong in his genuine pursuit of truth; hubris impedes intellectual growth. How is this different than today’s politicians and fossil fuel companies’ claims that burning fossil fuels, oil drilling, fracking, etc. is not harmful to the environment while nearly every climate scientist says it destroys it? These people are skilled in politics, business, and carbon energy, but not climate science.

That being said, college students have been just as guilty of intolerance in recent years as the politicians they love to criticize. Many of us identify as liberal, but are we really? Liberal college students, while progressive in which economic and social policies they support, have been the most resistant to opposing viewpoints. Not just college students, but young liberals and social activists in general have on several occasions attacked conservatives with ad hominem and hasty generalizations. We have criticized older generations for being stuck in their ways and resistant to change, yet we have been just as closed-minded about our opinions. We have asked to be exempt from reading literature with racist, misogynist, or religiously offensive material. Colleges and universities have been asked not to host speakers who are too conservative. Fellow students and academics, stop and reflect on your own statements. Let’s end the hypocrisy so blatantly present right now. Just because someone:

• Does not support President Obama does not make them racist
• Does not support Hillary Clinton does not make them sexist
• Wants to lower taxes does not mean they are greedy
• Is pro-life does not mean they are a misogynist
• Is pro-choice does not mean they support murder
• Receives welfare does not mean they are lazy
• Opposes same-sex or transgender marriages and lifestyles does not mean they are hateful

The point is it is not realistic, and I believe intellectually inhibiting, to go through life without being offended. Disagreements are part of intellectual growth; at some point you will meet someone whose opinions are so different from yours it offends you. This is not to say that the use of derogatory slurs are an acceptable part of academic development, but it is to say that we cannot censor ourselves from this language in our history. My point on censorship is best described in a disclaimer Warner Brothers Pictures that currently precedes some of their classic cartoons:

“The cartoons you are about to see are products of their time. They may depict some of the ethnic and racial prejudices that were commonplace in American society. These depictions were wrong then and are wrong today. While the following does not represent the Warner Bros. view of today’s society, these cartoons are being presented as they were originally created, because to do otherwise would be the same as claiming these prejudices never existed.”

Human history is ugly. War, oppression, slavery, and other calamities are a part of our identities today for better or for worse. As is stated in the Warner Brothers disclaimer, it would be foolish to censor ourselves from this material. Recently there has been controversy over the presence of the Confederate flag in some government buildings. Many want them removed because they represent racial bigotry and oppression, not Southern heritage. I believe that is the exact reason we should keep these symbols alive. These symbols of hatred need to be preserved not to be glorified but to remind ourselves of the tragic errors of our past so we do not make the same mistakes again. There is a monument for the Wounded-Knee Massacre and several museums dedicated to the Holocaust to ensure we do not forget catastrophes and prevent them in the future. Why should we treat slavery, racism, and Civil Rights in America any different?

I challenge my fellow college students and academics to change the trend of intellectual and political conversations. For some reason it has become a sign of weakness to change your mind or be proven wrong. Admitting fault is a strength, as cliché as that statement might be: it means you have humility. While I disagree with many of his past policies, I have a new respect for House Speaker Paul Ryan, a Republican from Wisconsin. Speaker Ryan recently gave a speech where he admitted to making mistakes in his previous policies and judgements about social welfare and his observations about the condition of American politics. He challenged his listeners to debate ideas rather than fight a power struggle between political parties. I challenge you to accept that same challenge. In order to complete this challenge we need to actively listen to one another, not only with our ears but with our minds. Research, digest, and analyze an opposing viewpoint before making judgments about it and make sure if you do critique an opposing view make sure you critique the reasoning rather than the person. If someone expresses a disagreement with you, don’t dismiss them or generalize and stereotype them; ask them why they disagree. If someone makes a mistake or you believe they did, teach them instead of insulting them so they don’t make the same error again. I love science for this reason: it is theoretical. What is taught in classes is the best explanation we have given our current knowledge and technology; when new information is discovered those theories are revised to accommodate the new information. But this concept is not limited to science; it should be applied to politics and other intellectual discussions as well.

The bottom line is that if we want to be the generation that changes the world, we need to actively listen to each other. We need to put less emphasis on the party politics that divide us and more attention to platforms and policies that could help us. Let’s show tolerance and acceptance towards one another, regardless of whether or not we agree with one another. I like to think that eventually some generation will stand up and realize that government is for the common good of the people, not political parties or financial interests, and treat one another the way we ourselves would like to be treated. Why shouldn’t that be our generation? Why can’t we be the generation that encourages change when it needs to be made but at the same time acknowledge the integrity and quality of policies that are working?

There is a common saying that says, “History repeats itself.” That saying also means that the only way to change the course of history is to learn from the past. So let’s study history and identify similarities to modern scenarios to help guide our decisions. As Reverend Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. is so famously quoted, “Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that.” Love listens. Listen to the modern trends as they repeat the historical cycle of conflict and hatred. It is time to take history off repeat and play a new legacy.