Connotations are a tricky business. They’re basically stereotypes for words and make us assume something about what’s being said that may not be true or even implied intentionally. Let’s try to keep that in mind as we delve into this subject of tolerance.
Just reading the word tolerance makes you think something. The word is used a lot now and you’ll likely have some political connotations or associations attached to it. Let’s try to distance ourselves from that and start from the ground. Oxford defines the word tolerant as “Showing willingness to allow the existence of opinions or behavior [sic] that one does not necessarily agree with.”
Tolerance is not agreement, concession, or accepting another person’s beliefs as your own.Tolerance is merely being willing to allow people to think and act in a way that you do not personally agree with. For example, I personally don’t drink. I have reasons that I don’t drink and the decision that I made that I think is the wisest is not drinking. However, most of my friends do drink and they have reasons for their opinions to be as they are. We may not have the same opinion, but these two disagreeing opinions can be held while my friends and I can easily exercise tolerance.
Another example of practical tolerance is that last week ago my friends and I went to a performance by Natasha “T” Miller. She is a poet and three-time women of the world poetry slam top five finalists among many other things. While we hold very different worldviews and have very different political stances and opinions on many issues, I could still enjoy her performance. As much as I have reasons to hold the opinions that I hold and interpret the world in the way that I do, she does as well. We have both learned different lessons in our lives and we have been shaped differently as we’ve gone through the world. Both of us are convinced that we’re right, and clearly, we can’t both be right if we hold opposing opinions. As sure as I may be that I’m right about something, she would likely be equally sure that I’m wrong about it, and vice versa. However, while I don’t agree with every message that she conveyed through her poetry, I tolerated it. I enjoyed it at times, but even when it was completely against what I believed, I tolerated it and I tried to understand where it was coming from.
Governor Scott Walker has recently proposed a bill that would require UW officials to protect free speech, even if it’s offensive to some. This bill states that “It is not the proper role of the board or any institution or college campus to attempt to shield individuals from ideas and opinions they find unwelcome, disagreeable, or even deeply offensive.”* This bill follows after a season of turmoil wherein controversial speakers such as Ben Shapiro and Milo Yiannopoulos face strong opposition on college campuses. Regardless of if you agree with or disagree with what a person says, violent actions aren’t a reasonable response to words, even provocative or offensive words. I by no means agree with much of what Yiannopoulos says or how he says it, however, the attacks, destruction of university and personal property, and other riotous acts which occurred at UC Berkley on February 1st were contemptible. This specific case could be another article in and of itself, so for now, we’ll just treat it as an instance of violent protests vs. offensive speech, the wrong response.
This bill would be in favor of protecting such speeches and such controversial and offensive speakers being able to voice their opinions. This would build up tolerance in students as they would face things that they disagree with and still go on living their lives. The bill also says “Members of the system’s community are free to criticize and contest views expressed on campus and speakers who are invited to express their views, (but) they may not obstruct or otherwise interfere with the freedom of others to express views they reject or even loathe.”* And that’s the heart of it. If someone says something controversial, they should face opposition. Both of those sides should be able to express their opinions without being silenced. Those who protect free speech are protecting those who disagree with them.
Free speech and tolerance go hand in hand. Tolerance is necessary for free speech to go on. If someone’s opinion got them silenced or killed by a mob then there’s truly no freedom of speech. Likewise, if someone was silenced by a government organization they also definitively do not have unrestricted freedom of speech. While the first amendment protects our right to protest the government in such an affair, we must exercise tolerance in circumstances such as the former. In a sense, it’s necessary for us to be tolerant of our opposition in order to grant them freedom of speech. Much like we could take away someone’s right to life by killing them, we can take away their right to free speech by silencing them. While you or I might not like the decisions that someone makes or the way that they live their life, we shouldn’t kill them. We can, however, try to be a part of their life and offer them advice and hope to improve their life, although it won’t always work. Likewise, when we disagree with someone we shouldn’t silence them. We can, of course, with an investment of time, we can try to change their opinions, or at the very least try to understand them, for they are people just like you and I who have the same God-given value and have reasons for everything they believe.
For more information on the aforementioned bill, visit The Cap Times or any preferred news source.
