At the university, we must have conversations that cause friction

Groups are growing apart and the meaning of facts is being called into question. The ability to disagree well with one another is more important than ever, writes Eva Wolf. ‘Universities must be training grounds for disagreement. Are they living up to that role?’

Imagine this: two students leave the same lecture on climate policy. One is a convinced climate activist, the other grew up in a family of climate skeptics. They both have questions. But they don’t ask them of each other. For how do you actually have a good conversation about something close to your heart, when your conversation partner not only holds different views, but possibly also views what counts as a fact differently?

Tilburg University calls itself a university that wants to be courageous and connecting. Courageous connection. Those are beautiful words and values, which are extra meaningful in a time when we seem to be increasingly less connected to one another. A time when, mediated by filter bubbles, there is admittedly much talking against one another, but less talking with one another. It takes courage to hold conversations about controversial topics in such times. This is all the more true when major substantive divides are fueled by fundamental differences in views on knowledge.

After all, in what is often called the post-truth society, groups are increasingly at odds not only in their views on problems and solutions, but also in their views on truth itself. Facts according to some are opinions according to others, and what one presents as knowledge is called a perspective by another. The university must take this blurring of consensus regarding what we consider knowledge to be to heart. In combination with growing societal division, it can indeed also lead to a blurring of agreement regarding the value of science.

Herein lies an opportunity for Tilburg University. As an institution of courageous connection, it should be the quintessential place where we learn what it means to disagree with one another in a constructive way. Science thrives on criticism and doubt; on the systematic challenging of ideas, including one’s own.

The ability to disagree without disqualifying one another is one of its foundations. Disagreeing well also requires shared standards for when something counts as knowledge: which arguments are convincing and which evidence we accept. This deserves a broader practice than the methodology courses in university curricula.

Yet this happens too infrequently. Apart from exceptions such as Studium Generale, there are few initiatives on campus that seriously explore the growing disagreement regarding political and societal issues, and the role of the university in addressing them. Conversations that can cause friction are largely absent.

Systematic reflection on the attention given to confronting and bringing different viewpoints into dialogue is also lacking in many curricula. And in the classroom, teachers receive no training to facilitate complex, potentially polarizing discussions, making the temptation to avoid them strong.

The good news: trust in science remains high in the Netherlands. Let us work together to ensure that this trust remains high. In a society where groups find it increasingly difficult to relate to one another and to knowledge, the university can and must play an important role. Not only as a breeding ground for knowledge, but also as a training ground for disagreement.

_Advertentie.