Tolerating Intolerance

According to my dictionary, the word “tolerance” means “sympathy or indulgence for beliefs or practices differing from or conflicting with one’s own.”    The same dictionary defines the word “intolerant” to mean “unwilling to grant equal freedom of expression especially in religious matters or other social, political, or professional rights.”   In my lifetime, it seems to me that our society has become much more tolerant in some areas and much less tolerant in others.   

As a general rule, most people in our society are much more tolerant than they ever have been of people who have a different skin color than their own.    The best proof of our increased racial tolerance is the election of Barak Obama as the first black President of the United States.   With the exception of the controversial debate over whether the historical definition of marriage should be changed, I believe most people in today’s society are much more tolerant of gays and lesbians than they were even ten years ago.    Gays no longer feel the need to hide in the closet.   In addition, rightly or wrongly, our society today is much more tolerant of conduct that was once considered shameful if not immoral. 

Many universities and businesses pride themselves in their diversity programs.    To them, diversity means a group of people consisting of both men and women who do not share the same race, nationality or sexual orientation.   Diversity programs are designed to be symbols of tolerance and inclusiveness.  

Along with the increased tolerance in our society, there also has been an increase in intolerance.    From my perspective, most intolerance today does not relate to race, nationality, or gender.   Instead, it reflects an increasing inability on the part of many people to tolerate those with whom they disagree.    We love diversity as long as it does not encompass diversity of thought.   

There were many examples of intolerance during the recent presidential election.  The best example occurred when a 14-year-old school girl in Oak Park, Illinois decided to conduct an experiment on Diversity of Thought.  The results of the experiment were reported last week in The Chicago Tribune.   According to the report, Catherine Vogt, with the knowledge of her history teacher, wore a shirt bearing John McCain’s name to school one day and secretly recorded the comments of teachers and students in her journal.  She later wore an Obama shirt and also recorded the comments.   

The Chicago Tribune reported that Catherine quickly learned she was stupid for wearing a McCain shirt.  “People were upset.  But they started saying things, calling me very stupid, telling me my shirt was stupid and I shouldn’t be wearing it,” Catherine said.   “One person told me to go die.  A lot of comments about how I should be killed.”    One student suggested Catherine should be crucified for her political beliefs.   Even one of Catherine’s teachers insulted her.   One of Catherine’s classmates said she should be “burned with her shirt on.”   When Catherine later wore the shirt containing Obama’s name, she was praised for recognizing the error of her ways.   Her classmates told her she was smart after all.    

Unfortunately, Catherine’s experience is not unique.   There are many other examples of people who have trouble tolerating those with whom they disagree.  Here are just a few:    

 (1)    Studies have shown that many colleges and universities are dominated by administrators and faculty members who share a liberal political philosophy.   Many of these faculty members use their classrooms as a platform to promote their own political views rather than to encourage freedom of thought.    Conservative faculty members must hide their beliefs for fear of being denied tenure.   Conservative students hide their beliefs for fear of receiving a lower grade from a liberal faculty member. 

(2)    Many pastors in churches, both liberal and conservative, use their pulpits to promote their political beliefs and in doing so show disrespect and even intolerance for members of their congregations who do not share their political philosophy.  

(3)    Many liberal Christians take pride in their tolerance for Jews and Muslims but have little, if any, tolerance for other Christians who do not share their views.   Take a look at the internal fighting within many Christian denominations. 

(4)    It is not uncommon for politicians to want to silence those with whom they disagree.    Some liberals, for example, want to shut down “talk radio” because they disagree with most of the content.   Of course, they have no problem with the portions of the media that share their political views.  

(5)    As a society, we have no tolerance for statements that are deemed to be “politically incorrect.”   As I see it, the primary purpose of political correctness is to silence or punish those who have beliefs or an ideology that is inconsistent with the beliefs or ideology of those who have appointed themselves to establish the rules for acceptable speech.  In today’s society, a politically incorrect statement can ruin a previously well-respected career much faster than an act of incompetence.   For example, take a look at Lawrence H. Summers, the former President of Harvard University, who was forced out of his job after suggesting that women may not have the same innate abilities in math and science as men.   Those who were offended by the comment refused to accept Mr. Summers’ apology and still wanted his head on a silver platter.    Or consider former Senator Trent Lott, who lost his position as Senate Majority Leader and ultimately resigned from the Senate after making a politically incorrect comment while attempting to praise Senator Strom Thurmond at a party celebrating Senator Thurmond’s 100^th birthday.   Again, Senator Lott’s apologies were not enough to save him.  There are many other examples of long-term and honorable careers that have been destroyed by a politically incorrect comment made in a moment of weakness.   

I hope my observations are wrong, but it seems to me that most people do not value diversity of thought as much as they value diversity based on race, nationality, or gender. 

Unfortunately, many people who pride themselves in being progressive and open-minded show little tolerance or respect for those who have opposing views.   In discussing the Catherine Vogt Experiment on Diversity of Thought, John Kass, the columnist for The Chicago Tribune who broke the story, wrote:   “I dared to illustrate, through the actions of a brave 8^th-grade girl, that even high-minded liberal communities can be intolerant, no matter how many times parents gush on about ‘diversity’ at their cocktail parties.   So much for the audacity of hope.  But it’s also true that if Catherine lived in a beet-red community and wore an Obama shirt, she’d get a similar negative, intolerant and ugly reaction.”