Catholic
College and Universities All opinions are not created equal
By WILLIAM C. GRAHAM
Are all opinions equally valuable? The jury of
college students is still deliberating this one, and college-age men and women
raised in a politically correct world appear disinclined to suggest that any
opinion, no matter how zany, is undeserving of respect. To discredit an opinion
is now seen as identical with disrespect for the holder of that
opinion.
First exploring this quagmire with a group of students a few years
ago in my Christian Responsibility class, I proposed to them an opinion as
ridiculous as I could concoct. Our college, Caldwell in New Jersey, began life
as The Caldwell College for Women. What if, I wondered aloud, I were to suggest
that even with our foundations on and by strong Dominican women, we should no
longer be coeducational, but should instead become a college just for men? Men,
my deliberately specious reasoning went, are more educable and more suited to
college-level discourse.
I expected that someone who had been paying attention all semester
would assert that the women in class were clearly a match for the men, perhaps
even more vocal and reasonable in their considerations of the matters at hand.
I thought someone who had been studying statistics might suggest a look at my
grade book from previous semesters to determine whether men or women had tended
to earn higher grades.
Instead, a young woman sitting in the rear of the room burst into
angry tears. I asked what about our discussion prompted her reaction.
Well, she said, shaking with sobs, thats my
fathers opinion.
The heartless creature! What kind of a father was he to discredit
and discourage his bright and capable daughter? Before I could form any
comment, she continued, ... And you are not respecting him.
Well, she was quite correct there. I didnt know the man from
Adams blue ox, but did not feel inclined to share much fellow-feeling
with him, much less embrace or even respect his ill-formed and mean-spirited
opinion.
As deeply troubled as this father-daughter relationship apparently
was, I hoped that it was an isolated case, that most other students would see
and understand that not all opinions are created equal and equally deserving of
respect. Some opinions are well reasoned and thoughtful, based on an
examination and interpretation of data. Others are based on prejudice or
incorrect data or misperceived facts. Some are just plain ornery. Surely there
has to be a hierarchy of opinions perceptible to any clear-thinking
individual.
I later invited another group of students in RS 201 to read
Flannery OConnors short story, A Good Man is Hard to
Find. In it, a grandmother erroneously directs her vacationing family
down a road in rural Georgia where they have a car accident. The Misfit, an
escaped criminal much feared by the grandmother, somehow is on that same
desolate stretch of road, comes to the accident scene and enters briefly into
dialogue with the accident victims, after which he and his companions shoot to
death the entire family. Why was this annoying, though innocent, family,
murdered?
It was the will of God, said Diego after I posed the
question to his class. It happened. Everything happens for a reason. It
was the will of God.
No one other than I seemed awe-struck by his vision or version of
God and the Divine Will. I waited. No response. I disagree, I
offered.
Well, thats your opinion, Diego countered. He
was not upset by my opposing opinion. We all have opinions. Theyre all
fine. Think what you want.
Do you think, I wondered, that there is a
certain sense of irony in the story? The grandmother asserts that a good man is
hard to find, and yet, in all of the vast area of the rural south, all of the
thousands of miles of unpaved roads, the Misfit happens to meet this family
when they take a wrong turn on an unmarked road. What are the chances of this
meeting? A good man is hard to find, but it is impossible not to be found by a
bad man.
I dont want to believe in a God who would will such a
thing. I cant believe that the God we know could possibly will such an
occurrence, I concluded.
Sensing that I might not be respecting Diegos opinion,
several of his classmates spoke out in his defense. Well, thats
your opinion, they said.
But I think that Diego is incorrect. Not everything that
happens is Gods will.
Thats right, a young woman said, and added,
Lets remember Hitler.
Hitler seemed to stop them. His opinion about the Jews was
offensive. But it seemed to be the argument of the lonely fact. Just because
they could isolate one opinion that should be actively rejected was hardly seen
as endorsement of the idea that there may be a hierarchy of opinions, some of
which are uneducated, ill-informed, offensive or unacceptable.
We discussed Paul VIs idea from Humane Vitae, that
married love is creative of life, for it is not exhausted by the loving
interchange of husband and wife, but also contrives to go beyond this to bring
new life into being.
Bethanys hand shot up. Yes? I asked.
I disagree, she said quickly. With
what? With what he said.
This young student has heard that many Catholic people in good
conscience differ from Pauls teaching on artificial contraception.
Thats their opinion, she thinks, and its a good opinion for her.
Consequently, she disagrees with Paul. Human Vitae, therefore, is to be
dismissed. Her opinion, because it is hers, is every bit as good, she asserts,
as any popes. The fact that she really does not know his opinion is of
little consequence. She will not be moved to admit that what he teaches, not to
mention the dignity of his office, should have any more weight than her
instantaneous reaction.
Jesuit Fr. Avery Dulles, in his November lecture at Fordham,
reported that Paul Knitter, for instance, holds that it is disastrous for
dialogue to insist on the finality and superiority of Gods revelation in
Christ. Christians who wonder if all opinions in this matter are equally
valuable might take a look at Knitters opinion in The Uniqueness of
Jesus: A Dialogue with Paul F. Knitter, edited by Leonard Swidler and Paul
Mojzes (Orbis, 189 pages, paperback).
Writing in The New York Times (March 22), Gloria Steinem
wrote, There seems to be sympathy for keeping private sexual behaviors
private. Perhaps we have a responsibility to make it OK for politicians to tell
the truth -- providing they are respectful of no means no; yes means
yes -- and still be able to enter high office, including the
presidency. According to Steinem, Kathleen Willeys allegations
against President Clinton are very different from the cases of Clarence Thomas
and Bob Packwood. If the President made a reckless pass at someone who said no,
at least he took that no for an answer, so is not guilty of sexual
harassment.
Well, thats her opinion, editorialized the Times the
following Tuesday: As legal analysis, that may be sound. The
editors point out that feminist leaders, wrestling over legal standards, miss
the danger involved: The Clinton case raises the very real possibility
that if the president is seen as getting away with gross behavior, more bosses
will feel free to behave abominably (March 24).
Here, an opinion is considered, refinement suggested and further
debate seems to be invited. The next day, in a letter to the editor, Jeffrey
Rosen, an associate law professor at Washingtons George Washington
University, pointed out that Ms. Steinem is incorrect. Like President
Clinton, Sen. Packwood knew how to take no for an answer: none of his employees
alleged that he repeated his advances after being rebuffed, and only one
complaint occurred after 1985.
Moreover, he continued, Anita Hill has never
alleged that she was the victim of legally actionable harassment. Rosen
concludes that it is unfortunate that instead of clarifying the
harassment debate, Ms. Steinem adds to the confusion (March 25).
Two days later, A.M. Rosenthal asserts his opinion that Ms.
Steinem has blinded herself politically to protect a man she sees as a
champion of womens rights. For a feminist leader, that is an act of
grievous intellectual self-mutilation.
In this case, we see opinion challenged, new facts and
interpretations offered, people asserting not a presumed right to think or
believe what they want but, instead, seeking clarity and answers.
To allow our students to think or to think ourselves that the
Constitution declares that all opinions are created equal, that it is impolite
to challenge error and prejudice, that every idea is a good idea is stance and
an opinion that is insupportable and that cries for correction.
Do we all have the right to our opinions, no matter how ill-formed
or outrageous? Or are we instead obliged to seek the truth and act on our
discovery of moral rightness?
William C. Graham writes NCRs Bookshelf column. He
is a priest of the Duluth, Minn., diocese and an associate professor of
religious studies at Caldwell College, in Caldwell, N.J., where he directs the
Caldwell Pastoral Ministry Institute.
National Catholic Reporter, October 16,
1998
|