Most of us believe we are tolerant and accept (or even promote) a diversity of views, but we are actually all universally quite bad at it. (Yes, even me!)
Practicing diversity and tolerance is really hard – philosophically and biologically.
Why? Because it means making room for opinions that we do not agree with (that’s the definition). Opinions we may physically hate to our core. Opinions held by the ‘bad guys’.
It is not possible to limit our diversity and tolerance to the opinions that we feel comfortable with. That’s the whole point!
One response is to be a little more honest about the ‘flexibility’ of our approach to diversity and tolerance.
Advocating for diversity makes sense for a minority view trying to get a foothold or survive in a sea of opposition. Diversity and tolerance protect the little guy. But once a foothold is established, we tend to become a lot less tolerant and accepting of true diversity of opinion on the issue.
Once your view is accepted as mainstream, you then hold the power to stamp out opponents. Time to ban speech and censor the books! Lock in our gains! No more opinions, please.
This explains why a lot of advocacy groups have switched from a fanatical support of freedom of expression, to now actively opposing it. I cringe when I hear people who once suffered horrific oppression because of their views, now fanatically advocate for censorship. They want to deny other minority views the very tools of their liberation. Of course, they defend the removal of this freedom in the name of ‘tolerance’ – but it is oppression. Oppression of an idea they consider to be objectively bad, i.e. ‘justified intolerance’.
Unfortunately, diversity and tolerance are not characteristics we naturally hold universally. We hold them when it suits our position within the power structure. They are the foundational tools of minority expression and liberation. They are the tools that allow new ideas to take hold.
This is why you cannot mandate tolerance. When we promote, celebrate, ask for, or even mandate diversity of opinion, we are asking our opponents to accept, live with, or even forcibly adopt, a view they viscerally disagree with. How do you feel when this is asked of you? Honestly? When was the last time you truly sat with a view that was totally contrary to your instinct, and tried to understand it from your opponents perspective? You are probably thinking – why would I even entertain such foul ideals! They are just so wrong, evil, intolerant!
True tolerance is allowing others to express a different view. But laws that seek to enforce tolerance do this by outlawing the expression of certain ideas. This assumes that ‘someone’ more omnipotent than all of us knows what the ‘bad ideas’ are. It also assumes that we can trust this ‘someone’ to always be on our side.
Of course, these rules always start by banning things we all universally agree are objectively ‘bad’. Things no one can argue with. But it is the principle of tolerance that they fundamentally undermine in the long term – banning any view, even an obviously bad view, is an act of intolerance (again, ‘justified intolerance’).
The justification is that some views should not be tolerated by a fair society. Sounds fair? The problem is that the door is then open to oppression. The same laws that ban something truly offensive are later used to ban what you may consider a universal right. Do you trust the bad guys not to use these same rules against your views when they get into power? Are you opening the door to your future oppression?
So next time you think a group or opinion needs to be forcefully silenced, remember that at some point or on some issue, you may be in the minority, and you will need these tools to avoid oppression.
You may also reflect on the history of your own opinion and ask yourself whether at some point it may have been the minority view (or even an illegal view) – and that these principles of universal tolerance were the very tools that allowed you to advocate openly for mainstream recognition and then ultimately acceptance.
Be very careful that you do not undermine the freedom of expression in the name of diversity and tolerance. You just may get what you are advocating for, at a catastrophic cost to future you.
The safest way to silence bad ideas is to drown them out with better ones. In this way, both sides are using the same tools of diversity, tolerance and freedom of expression to win the day – while at the same time, preserving the ‘system’ to win the day again for the ‘good guys’ in the future.
You may be wondering why this post is from a commercial law firm? Because it is not always obvious what role we play in all of this.
Lawyers are the custodians of ‘the system of tolerance’. It is part of our role not to judge the opinions as they compete for supremacy. Our job is to maintain and provide access to the system in which you can safely hold and advocate for your opinions, even minority ones. This is why lawyers are the first group to be taken out and shot in a totalitarian revolution! (You certainly do not want to live in a society where lawyers openly advocate for only one side – these people are called politicians. Unfortunately, many law firms are making this mistake and undermining their longer term credibility.)
The practical takeaway from this post is to restate your right in our free society to express your opinions – and our role in protecting you when you do. We will do this, even if we do not always agree with you.
It may appear from time to time that we act for the bad guy and support their intolerable views. But that bad guy may one day be you!
As always, fiercely on your side.
The information contained in this post is current at the date of editing – 28 May 2023.
