From the Dean’s Desk

The recent presidential election made glaring what we all knew: We are polarized as a society. The polarization exists across our society and within most American families. In quiet conversations, a good number of people have said to me regretfully that they can no longer have a political conversation with members of their own families. The polarization is real and painful.

There are several dimensions to our polarization. In a study funded by and published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Rachel Kleinfeld, a Yale alumna, pointed out that the divide is not as ideological as we might suppose.[1] Many Americans agree on issues that are politically divisive; the divide is often more pronounced among the representatives whom we send to Washington, D.C., than it is among us. For example, the majority of Americans favor restrictions on assault weapons, although the distribution of opposition is not even across the political landscape.[2] Again, 62 percent of Americans were opposed to the Supreme Court’s decision to overturn Roe vs. Wade in 2022[3] and two years later 63 percent were of the same opinion.[4] The point is that the ideological divide is more intense in Washington, D.C., than it is among the American public.

The political polarization has fomented political rhetoric which has made the polarization more affective or emotionally based than it once was. For example, in the past politicians often referred to members of the opposite party as their political opponents; today the language has shifted to their political enemies. Instead of thinking of members of the opposite party as opponents as in an athletic contest, they are enemies as if from a foreign state who are trying to undermine American democracy.

There is also an epistemological dimension to the divide which has once again been fostered by political rhetoric. Some of us favor data and expertise; others are highly skeptical of experts and take their cues from social media or popular venues that do not rely on the elaborate structures that govern the reliability of data that can be presented to the public or used to formulate public policy.

This has led to a lack of trust in our institutions by many, including institutions of higher education. In a recent Gallup poll, only 36 percent of Americans expressed a great deal or quite a lot of confidence in American higher education, a drop of 20 percentage points from 56 percent who had such confidence in 2015![5] The drop is mirrored in the political polarization of our society: Republicans have lost the most confidence in higher education dropping from 56 percent to 20 percent, while Democrats dropped from 68 percent to 56 percent and Independents are down from 48 percent to 35 percent. The leading three reasons for the decline are the belief that universities are promoting political agendas, are not providing the necessary skills for the job market, and are too expensive. 

The loss of trust in universities has led to two thought pieces that have attracted a good deal of attention in the last month: David Blight’s op-ed in the New York Times[6] and David Brooks’s article in the Atlantic.[7] Professor Blight is a Yale faculty member (and a friend) and Brooks is a well-known New York Times columnist who taught at Yale for a number of years.

How should we respond to the current crisis? For those of us who care deeply about America and its institutions like Yale, we cannot simply continue to do what we have been doing. We cannot point to the fact that we have trained more leaders of schools and denominations than any other theological school in the country and expect this to persuade people of our value to society. As we have noted, people are suspicious of institutions. 

We have taken some steps. For example, in 2022 we became tuition-free for every student with demonstrated need. No one can legitimately claim that we have not used our endowment for the advantage of students, including many students who come from backgrounds that are underprivileged. The same can be said of the schools of Drama and Music at Yale that are also tuition-free. Other Yale schools have made great strides in becoming more affordable, e.g., Medicine; and yet others are trying hard to do the same, e.g., Architecture and Art.

We will, however, have to do more than this. Freedom of expression is a cornerstone of Yale University and of American higher education.[8] In my mind, you cannot have a university without it. The right to voice an opinion—including opinions that challenge the status quo—is a bedrock principle of American higher education. Underlying this right is the conviction that through the free exchange of differing perspectives, advances can be made that would be impossible if free expression were suppressed. Today this principle is challenged by those that regard views as threatening to social progress to be unworthy of protection. This is a mistake: They should not be silenced, they should be answered. Argumentation should expose the inadequacies and problems of perspectives that hurt or damage humans or other forms of life. I think of the spot in the plaza near the Humboldt University of Berlin where the Nazis burned books and hope that we will not come to this—although there are some in our society advocating the banning of books. I think of some of the countries that I have visited where everyone knows that you cannot say anything critical of the government without grave risk, and I hope that America will never reach this point.[9]

How can we make a difference in a political climate which is so fraught with polarization? In an atmosphere in which fear and distrust are real?[10] Let me offer a few practical suggestions for those working in local communities—whether churches, non-profit organizations, small civic communities, or subgroups within large communities. If you do not think that you can have a conversation with someone of a differing opinion, propose a social project that will benefit a group and on which there is no dissent. For example, start with a project that benefits children. The experience of working together on a common project helps everyone see their collaborator as a neighbor instead of “the other.” Robert Putnam and David Campbell wrote an important book entitled American Grace in which they argued that the reason why religious freedom has worked in American society is that we are neighbors: We know one another as neighbors even though we do not have a common religion.[11] We need to restore the sense of a neighborhood.[12]

If you think that you can have a conversation, begin with a small group and set guidelines for the conversation to which everyone agrees in advance. Groups of no more than four or five are large enough to have conversations, but small enough that people might avoid unnecessary displays that challenge the ability of the group to have a serious conversation. The goal of the conversation needs to be to hear and understand one another, not to convince one another. Begin statements with questions rather than propositions. Set time limits and keep to them. Let everyone speak. At the conclusion, ask if you understand the other persons better as a result of the conversation, even though you may well continue to disagree.[13]

Finally, I hope that ministers will remind their audiences that unity is a biblical value, one for which Jesus prayed in the Fourth Gospel. It is crucial that we remember that the kingdom of God is not identified with a government. There have been disastrous efforts to do so in the past. God’s rule transcends human governments and should never be reduced to one. In his Chronicles, Eusebius of Caesarea began his chronological lists with multiple columns for the nations of the world. When he came to the time of Jesus Christ, he reduced these to two: Rome and Christianity. Following the Great Persecution and the identification of Christianity as the religion of the empire, the two became identified. This was a mistake that gave the state the right to enforce religion. May we never return to such a state of affairs.

One of the great challenges we face is to listen to one another. We have spent an enormous amount of time and energy teaching ourselves to speak; now we need to teach ourselves how to listen.[14]