In 2021, Kirk Waldroff wrote an excellent article for the American Psychological Association that pulls the political divide apart at the seams to better understand what's underneath.
I'll start with the good news: psychological science suggests that it is both possible and imperative for members of society to find common ground.
"To decrease the political divide, we must understand the various factors that work to divide us," Waldroff writes. "One thing we can do right now as individuals is pause and consider our thoughts, feelings, and behaviors and identify the psychological factors at play. The ability to place our own behaviors and the behaviors of others into a psychological framework can allow us to reflect on what we are experiencing and help us to understand and shape our actions."
He interviewed Kirk Schneider, PhD, adjunct faculty at Saybrook University in California and Teachers College at Columbia University. “Existential fear appears to be at the heart of what drives polarization," Schneider explains.
“One reason we tend to become fixated and polarized is because of individual and collective trauma that associates with a profound sense of insignificance,” says Schneider. In this state, people may feel that they don’t matter and fear “ultimately being wiped away or extinguished,” he adds. (The polarized mind: Why it’s killing us and what we can do about it, 2013, University Professors Press).
Tania Israel, PhD, professor of counseling psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara, and author of Beyond Your Bubble, a book about connecting across the political divide added: “Most people are not on the extremes of any of these issues, but most of what we hear is from people who are more on the extremes.” (More in Common, 2018; More in Common, 2019 )
Read the article: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2021/01/healing-political-divide
As Americans, we have the right to speak freely. But the manner in which we express ourselves can betray our cultural biases and let people know when we lack the skills to get along well with others.
So while we may have a right to say what we wish, do we have a right to refuse to learn more effective ways to interact or communicate in the school we attend or in the place we work? Where does "political correctness" end and cultural competency begin?
America's colleges and universities may soon begin that dialogue once again as a result of a series of lawsuits that the Philadelphia-based Foundation for Individual Rights in Education (FIRE) says it intends to file against public universities and colleges with restrictive speech codes.
On April 22,2008 FIRE filed a federal lawsuit against Shippensburg University - a small Pennsylvania state school - alleging that the school's speech code violates students' rights by outlawing speech that is "inflammatory or demeaning" to others.
"The action at Shippensburg is the first part of a campaign to end the nightmare of campus censorship," says Alan Charles Kors, president of FIRE. "Such codes are a moral, educational, and legal scandal in American higher education."
The lawsuit asserts that the plaintiffs - undergraduates at the university - risk punishment up to expulsion for engaging in constitutionally protected free expression. In other words, if a white college student calls a student of color a name in the heat of an argument, he or she has the right to do so.
This strategy, unfortunately, uses a long-term injustice to eliminate a short-term mistake. While it aims to uphold the Constitution, it doesn't address the lack of intercultural skills on college campuses that eventually will wend their way into corporate America. In 1996, Texaco agreed to settle what's believed to be the largest racial-discrimination lawsuit in US history to the company and its stockholders at a cost of $176 million. The suit was settled after the media widely reported that Texaco executives had made derogatory remarks about black employees.
I, for one, am not willing to pay more money for gas so some executives can call their co-workers names.
FIRE makes several points worth considering. Policies that restrict speech tend to prompt people to play it safe and simply avoid joining in the dialogue that is the mission of higher education. These mandates simply teach students to recite what others want to hear in public, and to act upon their true beliefs in private.
Whenever I facilitate conversations between people of different ethnic and racial backgrounds, I set a few ground rules at the start of each session: Each person is entitled to express his or her opinions; each is obliged to listen; and each has the responsibility to communicate in a way that respects the cultures of others in the group. In short, each of us pledges to behave as if we are competent and able Americans.
In all honesty, policies that restrict student speech are a backhanded way of addressing the skill deficit that exists among a few college students. Before these policies are eliminated, training and performance evaluations must be put in place to determine if college graduates are equipped to hold the crucial conversations in life, in the classroom, in their relationships, and in the workplace.
Shippensburg University would not need a diversity policy addressing speech at all if it required students to demonstrate proficiency in intercultural and interpersonal skills to receive a college diploma. If a student's behavior or speech suggests a lack of necessary social or workplace skills, then hold him or her back, just as you would any student who has failed to master a core competency.
What does the US Army expect of its 21st-century troops? Cultural literacy, a set of new skills and abilities outlined below.
Here's the million-dollar question: If the Army expects enlisting soldiers to be culturally competent, should colleges and universities expect the same from their graduates?
US Army Definition of Culturally Literate Soldiers :
-Understand that culture affects their behavior and beliefs and the behavior and beliefs of others.
-Are aware of specific cultural beliefs, values, and sensibilities that might affect the way they and others think or behave.
-Appreciate and accept diverse beliefs, appearances, and lifestyles.
-Are aware that historical knowledge is constructed and, therefore, shaped by personal, political, and social forces.
-Know the history of mainstream and nonmainstream American cultures and understand how these histories affect current society.
-Can understand the perspective of nonmainstream groups when learning about historical events.
-Know about major historical events of other nations and understand how such events affect behaviors, beliefs, and relationships with others.
-Are aware of the similarities among groups of different cultural backgrounds and accept differences between them.
-Understand the dangers of stereotyping, ethnocentrisms, and other biases and are aware of and sensitive to issues of racism and prejudice.
-Are bilingual, multilingual, or working toward language proficiency.
-Can communicate, interact, and work positively with individuals from other cultural groups.
-Use technology to communicate with individuals and access resources from other cultures.
-Are familiar with changing cultural norms of technology (such as instant messaging, virtual workspaces, E-mail, and so on), and can interact successfully in such environments.
