Two Wrongs Don't Make A Right

I am writing this blog as I received a message from a former Ethics student of mine as he was reflecting on the recent tragedy of the death of Charlie Kirk. His message included a balanced and thoughtful response where he was hoping for a sense of the moral issues that we covered in the class, how we covered them, and a possible way forward as a more united nation.

I celebrated our diverse viewpoints in our independent school, EA, where most religious denominations were present in our community that reflected the conservative and liberal points of view and everything in between. I celebrated this make up of our school community because it reflected the real world in which our students would be entering after graduation as well as what they were living in at present.

Other parishes, mosques, and synagogues, et all certainly contain diversity in their ranks, but didn’t necessarily include interfaith issues.

Obviously, I had this kind of religious diversity in my ethics classes. I feel that my role was to make sure there was a fair presentation of the controversial issues that we discussed. I believed that fairness in the expression of ideas was critical in the course so that a students’ ideas could be deepened by experiencing the ideas of someone in the class who thought differently from them. The goal was to teach them how to think rather than what to think. I would always give them my view of a situation after they discussed an issue. I applied this standard to what happened in our chapel services which were based in the Episcopal liturgy. The key to success of the chapel program was not me. It was the students elected to the Vestry which planned chapel services with me. They were a diverse group. To use a sports’ image, I was the coach. The Vestry were the players. Teams don’t win because of great coaching. They win based on the skill of the players no matter who the coach is.

The instant message that I received from a former student of my ethics class underlined the importance of civil discourse. However, this can’t happen unless the environment of the class is right. There were two rules for discussion. Only one person could talk at a time, and no one could make ad hominin attacks (against the person) of someone who had a different view.

But I had a more important job as the teacher of ethics where we covered many systems of thought as well as any controversial issue in the public domain. This approach only works if the students feel SAFE to express their point of view.

When we distill the job of all branches of our government down to two ingredients, it is to keep us, you and me, safe from all threats within and from outside of our nation based in equality as central to our Constitution.

Right now, no one feels safe. It is easy to have right vs. right decisions as it can be argued that someone is more right than another, but where are we now is two wrongs don’t make a right, so the finger pointing is heightened as we attempt to claim another group is more wrong than us. All of us have difficulty saying that we are wrong about anything which leaves us with being totally entrenched in proving the other more wrong. Think about how you and I feel awkward about saying we are wrong about something important.

This means that we must experience the benefit of talking with someone who has ideas different from us. It’s why our faith can be deepened by experiencing the faith of another.

Each of us needs to feel that life is fair and safe like my students had to feel in class. It’s not easy. People will always go to the fringes in a diverse society. I had people count the number of conservative or liberal speakers in chapel and keep checks on me as well as how many men compared to how many women spoke. John Yoo is one of my former ethics students. He is now the legal voice of Fox News. I invited him in to speak. He was respectful of our students with his point of view. Two weeks later I had Chris Matthews in. He is the embodiment of a liberal. He was respectful of our students as well with his take on all things political, but people on both sides of the spectrum thought I was wrong about bringing these two in to share their ideas.

The fiftieth reunion class of an all-male class unanimously chose to have a transgender member of their class in to speak on Alumni Weekend because she represented the best of the class. I said, “Of course!” I had a member of that class introduce her in the same manner as he shared with me, as representing the best in mind, body, and spirit of their class. She received a standing ovation after speaking although parents in the back row remained seated in protest.

My guideline to chapel speakers was “you can say how strongly you have benefitted from your faith perspective, but you can’t say that the congregation must agree with your belief. I told them that’s my family/community out there and they are diverse in their faith perspectives.”

Unfortunately, it is very easy to write somebody off. It’s easy to point the finger of blame. It’s not easy to get into the shoes of someone who holds a different view. Regarding their life perspective and his and his wife’s choice to be regenerative farmers, one of my sons said to me about his chosen vocation, “If it was easy everybody would be doing it.” The same is true in reaching out in our diverse world. My former student finished his message to me with these words: Left wing, Right Wing, Same bird!