Viewpoint Diversity

Nafees Alam is an influential proponent of viewpoint diversity. His support for viewpoint diversity is motivated by a memorable disagreement about race he had over a decade ago. 

Tell us your argument stories!

• Email guest and topic suggestions to us at whenwedisagree@gmail.com
• Follow us on Instagram

Transcript

Michael Lee: [00:00:00] When We Disagree is a show about arguments, how we have them, why we have them, and their impact on our relationships and ourselves. What is reason? What does it mean to think about a problem, whether to buy a new computer, whether to switch careers, whether to end a relationship, whether to run a red light?

Michael Lee: What does it mean to think about those rationally? Scores and scores of philosophers and random people drinking at bars have weighed in on these questions. What But the most concentrated and influential collective writing on this question occurred during the Enlightenment, roughly between 1650 and 1800, the end of the Thirty Years War and the end of the French Revolution.

Michael Lee: One of the core lessons stressed during this period of dense intellectual activity, and I'm I'm painting with a purposefully broad brush here over lots of thinkers strewn over lots of countries, is that the world should be viewed and organized according [00:01:00] to reason and science as opposed to five things.

Michael Lee: One, myths, useful but unprovable stories about the past. Two, superstition, personal or social habits based on a faulty view of the physical or spiritual world. Three, revelation, truths or lessons revealed privately to one person or a small group of people. Four, social tradition, a reverence for how previous people and societies have organized themselves.

Michael Lee: And five, unquestionable authorities. People or institutions whose demands for loyalty leave no room for doubting or criticizing their conclusions. In contrast, many of the intellectual reformers and revolutionaries associated with bold ideas about science and democracy during the Enlightenment Stress that claims about the world must be publicly verified and re verified again and again, rather than asserted by force.

Michael Lee: In short, [00:02:00] many Enlightenment thinkers married science to reason, asking us to ask unorthodox questions about our world, to test the answers we get to those questions according to experience and exacting methods, and then debate the truthfulness of competing answers that we get to those questions without limits or ego.

Michael Lee: That's what it means to reason individually and collectively, and in turn, that's what it means to live and participate in a democracy. I'm Michael Lee, Professor of Communication and Director of the Civility Initiative At the college of Charleston, our guest today on when we disagree is Nafis Alam.

Michael Lee: Nafis is a professor of social work who researches viewpoint, diversity, constructive disagreement, and open inquiry. Nafis, tell us an argument story. 

Nafees Alam: Sure. So back when I was, uh, starting my master's education, uh, it was a 2012, 2013, around that time. Um, I. During [00:03:00] orientation, I was asked to write a reflection piece on an article by Peggy McIntosh, White Privilege, Unpacking the Invisible Knapsack.

Nafees Alam: There's about 26, uh, I believe 26 items of white privilege, and when I dissected that and unpacked those areas of privilege, uh, I Came to the understanding that it's not so much white privilege, but green privilege, uh, almost every one of those points that could connect back to socioeconomic status being the prevailing factor over, uh, whiteness, uh, in this, in this particular article.

Nafees Alam: So that was my reflection paper. On this piece, and I got the worst grade that I've ever gotten, uh, in my life. And now I am a bit of a social experimenter. I do what I do. So I wrote the same exact paper, same number of sentences, same references, except everywhere. I. Every point I made, I made a [00:04:00] counterpoint.

Nafees Alam: So I, it was essentially the opposite of my perspective. And this was back in the day when listeners, if they're old enough, we'll remember that there were bulletin boards and thumb tacks that you would, you know, post a papers on, they wanted to do that. Professors wanted to put, post my paper on the bulletin board.

Nafees Alam: And that's when I knew that I was being judged, not based on the quality of my work, but whether or not my perspective aligned with the professors and, uh, the universities. So that inspired me to become a professor. That was when, that was a moment when I said, I need, I need to be in this role. And now, of course, I'm not going to, uh, being a professor means.

Nafees Alam: Being open to different perspectives and not shutting, you know, perspectives that I myself don't have down. So that's been my goal as a professor, and that's what led to me doing what I do today. 

Michael Lee: Sketch, if you will, set up the argument. Set up this position of white privilege, and then set up the [00:05:00] intervention you were trying to make, and presumably still are trying to make.

Nafees Alam: So if there, if, if white privilege does exist, which I believe it does, um, I don't believe that it exists to the extent to which some people believe that it does, but if a, if a solution to white privilege were to, uh, exist, um, it would be, um, Calling it out and specifically understanding that this is whiteness and not socioeconomic status or, you know, something that you're born into.

Nafees Alam: We need to etch out whether or not it is indeed white privilege or just privilege. Once we've done that and we find areas and pockets of white privilege, education is the number one thing I believe that, uh, you know, educating people and helping them understand that there is no. Advantage to, to being inherently white or inherently black or inherently brown.

Nafees Alam: I think that's where it begins. I think those who are racist or who are [00:06:00] sexist lack education. I still believe in benevolence. I think, you know, giving people the benefit of the doubt is the best starting point. Now, after a while, if you learn a little bit more about a specific person or specific group, you might say, okay, they don't deserve the benefit of the doubt anymore.

Nafees Alam: But to start off in a, in a place of. Positivity, I think, is a good, good start. 

Michael Lee: Is it say, is it fair to say that you were trying to, uh, de center the way in which we focus on, perhaps, skin color or race, and then have it exist alongside the way we focus on material distribution, wealth, access to resources, education, etc.

Michael Lee: In other words, those aren't the same thing, and we should recognize the extent to which each has its own lane? 

Nafees Alam: Yeah, I, I certainly am. I think it's a little bit too easy of a route and people opt for this must be racist when it might be something a little bit more complex. Um, so [00:07:00] it's an easy thing to go to whenever you feel like you've been discriminated against or you've been treated unfairly to say, well, there's a clear difference in skin color.

Nafees Alam: So. Let's just assume that that's the reason why this person has gotten preferential treatment over another. But if we dig down, scratch a little bit deeper, we'll find that there's a great deal of complexity as to why things happen the way they do. 

Michael Lee: It sounds like you're, you're making an argument for complexity, but it also sounds like you're making an argument that cuts to the heart of a single issue.

Michael Lee: And that issue is class. 

Nafees Alam: In this example, I am. I think, I personally believe that socioeconomic status, uh, has greater influence, uh, on, uh, privilege than race and gender and sexual orientation, things like that. That's my personal opinion. Um, I think that the literature also suggests that this is true. You know, and it sort of makes [00:08:00] common sense too, doesn't it?

Nafees Alam: If, if, you know, if I grew up with money, regardless of the color of my skin, like I would be the leader of that particular neighborhood, they would want me to fund whatever projects they want to fund and they're going to, they're going to treat me with privilege, you know, so, and that, that means if I'm a Brown person or a black person living in a white neighborhood, if I am, the richest person there, then of course, they're going to treat me in a privileged manner in order for me to contribute and invest in that particular neighborhood.

Michael Lee: This is an argument I think I've certainly heard before, kind of a class based critique of so called woke ideology post 2012, 13, give or take, right? Why do you think class is easily overlooked as a category of identity over race or gender, sexuality, et cetera? 

Nafees Alam: If you're asking me that question, my belief is that socioeconomic status is a bit more [00:09:00] complex.

Nafees Alam: It's more of a moving target. Also, you, as an individual, can change your socioeconomic status, uh, dramatically. You can go from lower class to upper class. It takes a lot of luck and a lot of work, but you can do it race, you can't change. Gender in some circles would suggest that you cannot change that, um, because socioeconomic status is something that you can have influence on.

Nafees Alam: I believe that is why it's not held to the regard that race is because race is, you know, you, you'll be your, the race that you are today. 10 years from now. So it's, it's an easy way to make it permanent or make it seem permanent, but it might not be. 

Michael Lee: There is a kind of like rags to riches, aspirational narrative that applies to class.

Michael Lee: And so we don't want to hamstring our future selves who are going to be very rich by regulating and making being rich negative today. 

Nafees Alam: Exactly. 

Michael Lee: Let's come back to the [00:10:00] original controversy, the one that you say inspired you to pick a whole line of work. Was there an exchange, a debate about your essay, or was just sort of a grade and a bunch of negative aspersions about the green argument you made over white privilege?

Nafees Alam: Well, I was allowed to, uh, revise and resubmit the paper after meeting with the professor and I wouldn't call it a debate, uh, because it was very clear, uh, that I was in the position of lacking privilege. My old football coach, uh, would say something and I didn't understand it until this very moment. He would say back in high school, you have to play the game before you change the game.

Nafees Alam: And. You know, this is the moment that it made sense because I did not have the power to change my professor's mind because I was still learning to play the game as a young master's student. Now that I'm, you know, I am a professor, [00:11:00] uh, I have the ability to change the game now that I've played it for as long as I have.

Nafees Alam: And, you know, I've done a lot of work with heterodox academy, uh, with fire, uh, foundation for individual rights and expression. I'll be presenting there, uh, you know, in a couple of weeks. So. Now I have the opportunity to change the game, but only because I've learned how to play the game. But back then I did not challenge my professors.

Nafees Alam: I wanted to get an idea of what I needed to do, but I, you know, I was hitting record in my mind and thinking, okay, so this is exactly the kind of professor that I do not want to be. And now I practice that. In that, like, you know, if, if a student comes up with a perspective that I personally don't agree with one, I really don't share my perspectives, my students, but if I inherently don't agree with it, I challenge myself to be open minded to it and as an antonym to a professor that I had back then.

Michael Lee: This is a really generative kind of conflict in your life, it sounds like. In other words, I'm sure it was negative to experience at the time, [00:12:00] and deeply, deeply frustrating. And as you look back on it, shapes the way you relate to students, shapes your research, shapes the talks you give before audiences.

Nafees Alam: Yeah, quite often, you know, human development is based on stress, isn't it? Like if we think about our past and if you think about your past too, I'm sure there have been negative experiences that have been integral to the success that you've experienced as well. 

Michael Lee: I think I'm going to get play the game to change the game tattooed on me somewhere.

Michael Lee: That's just, that's just a good line from a football coach. Let's talk about changing the game. One of the, what are the, some of the things that you try to do? Let's take it in different spheres of your professional work. So let's say with students, what are the things you try to do in interactions with students and classes you teach to promote viewpoint, diversity, constructive disagreement, and open inquiry?

Nafees Alam: Yeah, so one of the major things that I do is, um, in the classroom environment as a social work [00:13:00] professor, we get into topics that are very contentious. Abortion, gun rights, so on and so forth. And of course, students will come in with their perspectives and I encourage them to not change their mind. I tell them this is a classroom, not a cult.

Nafees Alam: So whatever we learn here over the course of 14 sessions should not change who you are fundamentally, because it is a classroom of education, not a cult of indoctrination. And so in doing that, when students disagree with one another, and, and, you know, they, they often tend to in my classrooms, I'll ask them to make arguments on behalf of the other.

Nafees Alam: Position, which isn't anything new. It's been done for centuries now in classrooms, but in doing so, I asked my students. Even if you make a compelling argument to the contrary, I want you to stay strong in who you are, and I only want you to consider the opposition in order to strengthen your current perspective.

Nafees Alam: Sort of like [00:14:00] a salmon swimming upstream and becoming strong. That's what you're doing here by considering those opposing and conflicting viewpoints. I don't want you to go change who you are. Again, this is not a cult. I want you to consider those viewpoints because you are better equipped to handle when people.

Nafees Alam: Debate you and ask you, well, why do you believe this? And why do you believe that when this is logical and that's logical. And when students do that, what ends up happening is that when several students do that, they'll begin understanding that, okay, so I'm being heard because my opposition is making the argument that I'm making logically.

Nafees Alam: And now I can express that. I'm hearing those other students too, by making their positional argument. And now it brings people together, but still creates an environment where we can be individuals. It 

Michael Lee: sounds like you're balancing two interests there. One is pluralism and the value of multiple different competing perspectives via debate and certainly the ancient Greeks and ancient rhetoricians practice those [00:15:00] principles of arguing the other side and perspective taking and we find that in debates and debate based pedagogy in law schools throughout America today.

Michael Lee: Let me ask you, and you also balance that with authenticity, right? Being who you are, using these debates to strengthen your existing position. I just want to ask you a quick follow up about that authenticity piece. Why not just embrace the first one and say, let's have a thousand viewpoints and see which one impacts you the most.

Michael Lee: In other words, why position it to say, use this as an activity to strengthen how you already feel. 

Nafees Alam: Undergraduate students, for the most part, are still adults. And as adults, They have done the work of developing who they are and becoming who they are. Now, will they change? Of course, I'm, you know, almost half a century old and I'm still changing.

Nafees Alam: Um, but I don't want the classroom environment to be an environment where students change who they are fundamentally. That's more Something that they should do on their own. So even [00:16:00] though I'm telling them not to change who they are, fundamentally, it's inevitable that when they go home on their drive home, or even when they're making dinner and just like dozing off and zoning out, they'll change who they are fundamentally.

Nafees Alam: If that's what's meant to happen. I just don't want to be the, the catalyst of that happening. Because again, I want my classroom environment to be truly inclusive of different viewpoints while acknowledging those opposing and conflicting viewpoints. If I were to go in that direction of saying, well, choose the most logical path, and then students say, well, this is logical, but this is who I want to be, there's a conflict there.

Nafees Alam: And we're all hypocrites at the end of the day. And so I want students to stay who they are while still considering those opposing viewpoints and allow that change to happen if it happens gradually instead of suddenly in those 14 sessions. 

Michael Lee: The story you told to, to jump off the show is fascinating in light of this too.

Michael Lee: And I wonder if when you revisit that story and the change it made in your [00:17:00] life in terms of how you decided to devote your career and spend your time and make money and influence the world, was that you extending who you are? Becoming the person you were sort of always meant to be, or was that, or was that a change?

Nafees Alam: I believe that that's who I was always meant to be. Um, and of course it's, it's sort of like confirmation bias, right? Because I have, you know, etched out my, my little corner in this space. I'm doing quite well here. Um, but it might've been other things, you know, but in my mind, I feel like I'm doing the work that.

Nafees Alam: I'm truly passionate about because i'll go around and talking about And talk about how important it is to to to have that unity while still having individuality and so if even two or three people during a Thousand person, you know audience are inspired by that and feel like okay So I can be friends with that person, even though they're voting for the party that i'm not going to be voting for Um I feel like that gives me [00:18:00] goosebumps.

Nafees Alam: You know, I don't know that it's happening. You know, certainly they don't, the audience members don't necessarily keep in touch with me, although sometimes I'll get emails or, or snail mail messages saying that, you know, thank you for this. And it really inspired me to do such and such. Um, that's really what fills my glass, fills my cup.

Michael Lee: You talked, uh, for a second about your classroom engagement with students based on the values you preach, constructive engagement, viewpoint, diversity, open inquiry. Let's talk about your research for a moment. How do you practice what you preach in your research and in talks you share with other audiences outside the classroom?

Nafees Alam: Yeah. So my research studies, I always have, um, conversation about what could have been done differently, implications, uh, uh, limitations, um, some other ways that, uh, to approach a certain topic. One of the other areas that I, uh, research is sports social work. So whenever I'm, I've done a research study, let's say on a non traditionally aesthetic bodies.[00:19:00] 

Nafees Alam: Um, we talk about. Whether or not it's better to be traditionally attractive or to be a better athlete, for example, with offensive linemen who are traditionally not aesthetic, but make 20, 30 million a year protecting the quarterback. So we have these point counterpoint perspectives. I've also written an article on transgender athlete inclusion.

Nafees Alam: That was a point counterpoint piece as well with my friend, Matt Moore. Over in, uh, University of Kentucky and, you know, we practice this and we create an environment, you know, in literature through those point counterpoint articles where people can read it and say, okay, so these are two academics that disagree, or even one academic that disagrees and shows those opposing viewpoints.

Nafees Alam: Maybe I can be nuanced in my thinking too. And that's what I, I aim to do in my publications. 

Michael Lee: If you could snap your fingers and change the argumentative and research environment in American culture broadly, [00:20:00] and certainly in colleges and universities specifically, what would you do? In other words, if you could design a system that protects the values that you've dedicated your career to pursuing, what would that system look like?

Nafees Alam: I would have public scholarship be factored into tenure. The average, the average, uh, peer reviewed article gets read by 10 people in its lifetime, which if I'm putting nine months of work into something, I would hope that. 11 people would read it and not 10. Um, my popular press pieces, however, some of them published in Pulitzer prize winning newspapers.

Nafees Alam: Sometimes I get 50, 000 views to 50, 000 reads. So the impact, you know, we're supposed to prioritize impact and academia yet it would peer reviewed pieces. There's minimal impact, although the quality of that work is much greater, I will admit than popular press pieces. So [00:21:00] I think. One of the ways that I've tried to do things is that I'll write a peer reviewed piece.

Nafees Alam: It's been peer reviewed. It's been published. And now I will publish, uh, sort of a different version of it in a popular press, uh, uh, source. So this way it gets out to the, to the general public. So I would, I really, change higher education, if I could snap my fingers, to have professors and faculty members, uh, prioritize popular press pieces.

Michael Lee: So first, let's figure out how to get some academic research out of a so called ivory tower and have a broader impact and tell better data driven, evidenced stories. Using the powers of education that some of us in the academy have gotten over the years. As somebody who's written a few books that I would say less than a dozen people have read, your words, your words mean a lot to me.

Michael Lee: Um, what's something else you would do? And let's just close that, close on this. So one, let's make sure that we're not [00:22:00] cloistered away. talking to ourselves or barely talking to ourselves with the same number of people that are on an offensive line, read something that it took me a year or two to write.

Michael Lee: But then second, what would you do to take aim at this professor and the professors and other people in the culture, not just the academy who take a point of view like the one who rejected your, your essay back in 2012, 2013, what can we do to change minds around those, uh, around that angle? 

Nafees Alam: To help professors understand that they are an educator and not an activist in the classroom is, is number one.

Nafees Alam: Number two, and this is more of a long term thing, would be to help adults, professors, understand that You don't need other people to believe what you believe in order for you to continue believing in that thing. You know all too often children act this way where they will try to convince you of something because they're trying to convince [00:23:00] themselves of that thing.

Nafees Alam: Adults, you know are sometimes no different and so they'll Also believe that, well, I'm more, I'm stronger in my position because I've, I convinced 30 of my students to believe in this one thing. And now I feel good about where I stand. It just doesn't need to be the case. Real strength comes in standing alone and being comfortable standing alone.

Nafees Alam: And I think that needs to be communicated. 

Michael Lee: Yeah. Great title of a book. Conflict is not of use abuse. And then another one is disagreement is not threatening. 

Nafees Alam: Exactly. 

Michael Lee: Nafis Alam. Thanks so much for being on When We Disagree. 

Nafees Alam: Thank you. I appreciate it. 

Michael Lee: When We Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee.

Michael Lee: Recording and sound engineering by Jesse Kunz and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at whenwedisagree at gmail. [00:24:00] com.