From Cruelty to Critique to Charity

What happens when “iron sharpens iron” turns into something more damaging? Timothy Shaffer,  the Stavros Niarchos Foundation Chair of Civil Discourse and director of the SNF Ithaca Initiative at the University of Delaware, recounts a tense, unexpectedly explosive thesis defense that left a student in tears and a faculty committee in conflict. The conversation explores where productive intellectual challenge crosses the line into accusation, ego, and harm. Shaffer argues that the real work of disagreement isn’t winning the argument, but cultivating the conditions where learning, dignity, and democracy can survive.

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.

Tell a teenager they can't date somebody and watch that person become irresistibly attractive, mandate a behavior, and watch people resist even if they might have chosen to do it freely. This is called psychological reactance. Our motivation to restore freedom when it feels threatened. Jack Brim's theory explains why the harder you push in disagreements, the more others push back.

Reactance turns every disagreement into a battle for autonomy, not just ideas. Your partner suggests you should exercise more, and even though you were starting to plan to work out, now, it feels like compliance rather than choice. Your boss mandates a process you were already following and suddenly you wanna do it differently.

The issue isn't the behavior, it's the perceived threat [00:01:00] to freedom. We'll fight against good ideas if we perceive that they're being forced upon us. Political talk is reactance theory in action. Mask mandates made masks, symbols of oppression to some even those who might have worn them voluntarily. Gun control proposals beg people buy more guns in some instances and attempts to ban books make them best sellers.

The more forcefully you advocate, the more you trigger reactants in those who disagree. Your passion for your position becomes their passion for their opposition and relationships. Reactants can create maddening dynamics. The more you ask your roommate to clean, the messier they become, the harder you try to change your partner, the more they dig in, children do exactly what you tell them not to do.

It's not just simple defiance, it's psychological reactance to perceived control. We're all, in some ways toddlers screaming, you're not the boss of me. In more sophisticated adult language and understanding, reactance transforms how we influence others. Instead of [00:02:00] commands, offer choices. Instead of pushing your solution, help others discover it themselves.

Instead of restricting options, expand them. The paradox of influence is that the less you push, the more others move, and sometimes the best way to win a disagreement is to stop making it feel like a fight for freedom. 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 Timothy Schafer. He is the Stavros Nikos Foundation Chair of Civil Discourse and the director of the SNF Ithaca Initiative at the University of Delaware. He is the co-author most recently of teaching Democratic ideals to Public Affairs students. Tim, tell us an argument story.

Timothy Shaffer : Thanks Michael for having me on. I love the podcast of the conversation, so an argument story. As we sit here right now, I am on the verge of finishing grading papers and finals. We exist a little bit later [00:03:00] than just about everybody else in the United States 'cause of our calendar. But the argument story is a very recent one and it's about me, but not directly about me.

And it's a student. The argument. Is a low simmer argument. Okay? And it's about a thesis that we've been struggling to get through the gates. The short version of this is, this has been years in the making, working on this, and a colleague has really caused lots of problems and how to, for me, this question of how do we help support students or, the day job.

For university faculty is to support and to teach students. I did research too, but fundamentally you're these educators and I think in these moments when the sort of dynamics that play out between professionals, whether they're faculty or whatever else it might be and we sometimes lose sight of the people that are primarily being affected by the decisions or the lack thereof.

Are to me really concerning. And so what played out [00:04:00] for us just in, in a very cute way the last couple weeks, but it's been building literally for months is this inability to think about how do we at, how do we attend to each other? In ways that are respectful, that are authentic, but also in a fundamental way.

True, right? So there was this very public moment of defense of these sort of accusatory statements being made. And for me as a chair of a committee trying to figure out how do I dissipate the intensity? How do I help get the students to, get through the threshold here, which was the most intense thing at that very moment.

And then also at the same time, how do we ensure that we function well in some sort of collective way? And so for us it was really this very interpersonal level. It was also this institutional dynamic. It had these bigger reverberations that have played out. And so it's it was a very quiet argument.

I guess I would put it that 

Michael Lee : If I can, and maybe I'm into this.[00:05:00] 

I've been in a few hot defenses, as they say, and what I'm interested in hearing is whether my, yes. What I'm hearing is what you're saying. So I'm filling in the blanks with maybe my past and Yeah. So reflecting back at you. Yeah, sure. There is a long developing student. Thesis. The defense of the thesis comes, you are the chair of the committee helping the student.

There was also a second reader. That's right. Or two one of them perhaps 

Timothy Shaffer : there were four. 

Michael Lee : Wow. That's so many. 

Timothy Shaffer : One of them. Yeah. And that was part of, that was part of the challenge was that and without going into too many details and names and things, 'cause I don't wanna assume your audience, but I also don't wanna get in trouble in those ways.

Michael Lee : Yeah. 

Timothy Shaffer : Is somebody else came on board because of their work aligned with the students. They were not as, as willing to engage in ways that they uhhuh purported to, and also in very public ways that the defense. It really the drama of this, what makes this, I think a good story is that it blew up in a [00:06:00] way that nobody expected. We thought this was gonna be pretty. Yeah. It's tame. Maybe docile is even a word. Yeah. And then it immediately was not, it was very accusatory. There were like some little gasps in the room. There were, there's like a big audience that came.

I. The, when the students stepped out, for those who aren't academics, the way this works is the student presents and then the committee asked them lots of questions. In this case, there was a public audience online and in person the room was full. The committee invites everybody to leave, including that student and the committee meets for a period of time.

I guess in the midst of that student is out in the hall crying. Oh. Like dramatically for 15 minutes in the arms of one of our support staff. Oh. All of this sort of stuff. And so this played out really intensely for, and that, which is probably why this story is coming to mind.

Yeah. But for me it was. Back to the point I made a moment ago, my primary job is to educate and to mentor. I direct a program called S Ithaca, which the [00:07:00] name Ithaca comes from the Odyssey, Odysseus and the sense of journey and transformation and things. And I think and one of the characters in that story is literally the name mentor, right?

Where we get this. And so as I think about the opportunities. To help navigate these challenges with others. The sort of argument was how much of an argument happens in these moments and how much of this is trying to not sidestep or avoid but to do so with kind of the concern.

'cause it's not just, it wasn't just like some intellectual disagreement. We did have some stuff on that point, but it was also practical of are you telling the truth or not? Those sorts of things. But fundamentally, here's this other person, this third party or the fifth party as it were, because there were these other people in this committee too who we, our stake is a name on a line on a dissertation that some people, including maybe parents and a friend will read.

But that for that individual, this has the implication of do they pass this, do they receive the honors at commencement in, in [00:08:00] five days? These sorts of things, right? That, in my view, are absolutely appropriate. But, given these other pieces and so how do we navigate when we have our own sort of feelings about something and also realizing that it's not just my.

My position or my feelings, but it has implications on others. 

Michael Lee : Yeah. This is exactly where I thought you were going actually. Okay, good. Good. I thought I was way out on left field here, assuming that it was gonna be hyper mean and that Dr. Meany was gonna say something very reflective of a pretty a pretty robust academic tradition of.

To put it as a bumper sticker of iron sharpens iron that sees these kinds of defenses or presentations of books or papers as an opportunity for kind of intellectual gladiatorial spectacle in the sense that we're all blacksmiths, trying to make the sharpest sword in some way. And so me coming at you as hard as I possibly [00:09:00] can when you present a public argument.

Is it its own kind of intellectual activity and there's, it seems like a tacit assumption that this is for the betterment of all of us as scholars and for the sake of ideas and so for the public at large. And so maybe that's a charitable defense of what this person was doing, but it's certainly in keeping with a species of arguments that I have seen over and over again at this kind of hyper aggressive intellectual, gladiatorial public sphere.

Timothy Shaffer : And I think, and I love that too. It's one of my favorite things about being an academic. I was just on, actually on another committee the other day and I was told actually by this student who was friends with the other person at their defense. I was going off to a conference actually, so I was wearing a suit and tie, which is not my usual attire.

I'm the more casual professor. The jeans and the fleece and the button up shirt sort of guy. And and after the fact I was told by the student that like, yeah, there was a, one of our other friends was sitting in the room and they're like, this guy's intense. And I don't know if I've ever been [00:10:00] described as intense and like scary but I do appreciate.

Academia where we can really so many places in the rest of life we're always, hesitant to, to overstep or say whatever. I was at a, one of my kids' musicals or recital last night and there was a child sitting in the row behind me. I'm trying to take a video of her.

Her solo, her desk can, was beautiful by the way. And the kid right behind me is munching on a bag of chips so loud. I just wanted to turn around and be like, what are you doing right? And I could, and I couldn't, right? I said to my wife later, and she's I couldn't even hear it. So I was clearly focusing on this thing, but so we're always navigating where and how to be confrontational or aggressive or how much not.

But we don't, we like that doesn't work very well in lots of other places within higher education, within academia. It's probably one of the best places to like have robust disagreement and then be able to just walk down a hall and talk to each other and say actually, yeah, may, maybe I'll concede that point or, yeah, I hadn't thought about it that way.

Or something in that spirit, but there's a such a robustness, like [00:11:00] I, I love that and I'm not just like a contrarian, I'm not just gonna fight to fight, but I love the exchange. What I was describing earlier was not that, it was more of the like. The sort of accusatory it was the factual statements were not aligning. These sorts of things. And that's really where it was like, how do I navigate this environment where we can and should have robust disagreement? What about the things that have merit to be disagreed about? 

Michael Lee : Yeah. Talk, talk a bit more about and use this example as the springboard perhaps, but talk about that line where.

The kind of competitive, beneficial antagonism, bleeds over into just flat contrarian, mean-spirited ness and how you see where those soils start to change from your point of view. 

Timothy Shaffer : Yeah, and it's a great point and I think it's something that's so essential whether you do. Whether you're an educator and you're trying to cultivate conversations in a classroom, or if you're doing work in [00:12:00] a community with people who aren't, familiar with one another or comfortable kind of.

Of speaking in these ways, so folks like ourselves are quite happy. Thank you very much to keep going and talking, but a lot of people aren't in these, in, in these regards. But how do we how do we weave this sort of this is a fine line, right? And how do you weave this to where you are, pushing and asking questions.

You're truly being inquisitive. How are you trying to, to more fully understand? A position or a perspective that maybe isn't your own or it's a slightly nuanced, which is why, I think, I'll speak for myself, I won't speak for you, but you can get critiqued of are you like trying to split hairs here?

What the heck are you doing? In contrast to just being like and I really don't like the phrase, although I know plenty of people you like, I'm just gonna be devil's advocate here. I was like, is that really the way to be? Let's have some other perspectives, but don't I, I always think about the meme of the kid riding the bike with the stick and then he like throws the stick into his own wheel and he falls over and he is like mad.

And that sort of that's what I feel [00:13:00] like these sort of. Non-constructive conversations end up being if folks are just like, I'm gonna just throw something in here to see what happens. No shit. Your bike, bro. Or you fell over and you got a scraped up knee because that's what happens when you, what is it?

The Taylor Swift line. You play stupid games. You win stupid prizes like. I've hung out. I've I listened to those lines a lot with my kids, particularly last year. So yeah, that's ingrained somewhere in my head. But like that there's something about how do we disagree and how do we disagree?

Not just to concede points, but there's a way, and for me, literally my job title has like civil discourse in it. Yeah. How do we engage each other with some level of respect? That affords the opportunity for things to be expressed, positions to be taken and to also be challenged.

And it actually takes I actually don't wanna dwell on that first story a whole lot longer unless you wanna take it there. But I think that's the sort of thing of like, how do we not just go where the visceral reaction wants us to go? The sort of loud, the sort of confrontational sometimes that's.

[00:14:00] The way to have discussion and discourse, but other times I think more, more often than not is how do we, one of the books I co-authored with Nick Longo was Creating Space for Democracy. And I say this phrase all the time, how do we create space for these interactions to occur? And I don't think just being the sort of contrarian or the one who's gonna poke the bear and see what's gonna happen is really the best way to go.

Michael Lee : Yeah, and I have a few daughters who are recovering swifties as well, so I appreciate that reference. Yeah. 

Timothy Shaffer : You understand 

Michael Lee : Pulled saliently and accurately top of mind. As I was asking you the question and I was reflecting on your answer, I was trying to think through how I would answer it too.

Where do I separate the line between. Productive, constructive competitive antagonistic argument, debate as it were, and mean-spirited combat for the sake of winning. And so highlighting big picture characteristics I would use to say, okay, this is where the soil starts to change for me. And let's tease these out.

I'm curious about your reactions [00:15:00] to these. Rapid fire one is. Are we talking about personal issues, making accusations as you were talking about personal commitments or loyalties, or are we talking about ideas? The second one is certainly tonality, right? Yelling. Is it sarcastic? Is it acerbic?

Different ways to say different messages. Some that preserve relationships, others that potentially destroy them or power moves in and of themselves. Third, if I present an idea is your reaction to an idea you hoped I was presenting, and so you're reacting to my argument as a species of other arguments or in a sense of being productive and constructive, trying to help my argument be a better version of itself.

And so your role as you see it perhaps, is to cast yourself as a makeup artist, giving my argument a glam up to help me make a better case. Almost like a good debate coach for what I call forbearance, what a few political scientists call forbearance, which is what the. A great political theorist in mere civility, [00:16:00] talked about as trying to land some punches, but not all of them at the same time.

And then the final one is maybe a, a species of persuadability. Are you presenting your arguments in the spirit of having some doubt and then therefore being willing to be persuaded? Or are you pursuing this headlong. No matter what consequences be damned, I'll be the devil's advocate until we, until the last dog dies, as Bill Clinton used to say.

Yeah. Those are a few that, that helped me try to separate the way the soils changed between antagonism and mean spiritedness. What do you think about those and what else would you add? 

Timothy Shaffer : Yeah, that's a great point and actually I, you used the word forbearance and I was just at a convening.

Recently that was co-hosted by Johns Hopkins University, the SNF Agora there and by the American Enterprise Institute, a EI, which, is a, here's an academic institution SNF Agora is this great convener robust scholarship, all sorts of work. A EI is a. I'm self-identified, [00:17:00] conservative think tank.

And 

Michael Lee : yeah, 

Timothy Shaffer : It was a wonderful convening. But Andy Perrin Andrew Perrin, who's one of the faculty sociologists at Hopkins, he was actually speaking and he made a wonderful comment. I actually pulled my notes. This is audio, so I cannot verify, I'm holding this right now, but in any other way than just, you have to trust me.

But he made he was making this point about commitment and forbearance. And I think about what you're talking about the, and even before you got to the forbearance kind of point, because I think this is an interesting kind of term to conceptualize and think about as it plays here.

I was actually thinking about the three kind of types of conflict and how do we navigate these things. And and in my mind these three are, there's task conflict, there's relationship conflict. And then there's this sort of value conflict and how do we, this is really coming from conflict resolution work, but how do we.

How do we step into these moments to where back to your sort of, I image of like, how do we help till the soil, right? How do we help make fertile the possibility of something to come from it [00:18:00] later? My, my wife grows gardens. Looks like this year's gonna be better than last year.

I'm either gonna have a lot of potatoes and watermelons in the fall or not report back. I'll let you know, but follow 

Michael Lee : episode. 

Timothy Shaffer : Yeah, that's right. Episode two. Did the potatoes make it? There's a lot of rain right now, so maybe not. But. Farming doing little backyard gardens.

I, I use this image a lot when I give talks is are you a carpenter or a gardener, right? And are, do you wanna follow rules and how we do a thing I've built a lot of IKEA furniture in my life, right? I think I've had almost all the versions of the shelves and the in and the bureaus.

And or how much of you, how much are you a sort of gardener, right? Where you figure out, you don't just throw the seeds into the wind and wish it well. Like you do have to figure out like, is the pH right? Are there a few things that I can do? But at the end of the day, it's not just what you are doing, right?

You are reliant upon, is the sun hitting the right way? Is, was there too much rain? Are those pesky birds? We actually have a groundhog that lives under our shed who I think is adorable. But last year ate a lot of our plants and so that's [00:19:00] why we're doing better this year, by the way. But like those sorts of things, I come into now, I've really stretched this. I've gone so far away from your original question, but like, how do we navigate these moments of conflict and recognize what are we actually disagreeing about? Is it about facts? Is it about values? Is it about meaning? Is it just that I don't like you and I think you're referring to Theresa Beon, like this sort of like the sense of how do we.

How do we disagree, but not just to totally chop it here, right? How do we how do we do something that's productive, especially, and this is what I've had to navigate the part of the story that I didn't tell you. I was just in a meeting for something unrelated to that defense I was mentioning yesterday, and I'm sitting across a table from this person and I was trying to figure out.

Do I sit, what do I say now? What do I do? Do I do anything? Do I act like this didn't happen? Do I make a make, make a scene or what? And I chose a path of like least resistance [00:20:00] because we are coworkers, not immediately, but in these sort of bigger ways that. There are always these factors that come into play about what is it that makes the most sense.

And when I, and to use, beige and talking about the colonial American experience, these sorts of things, when we take seriously, notions of community, we have connections, right? Sometimes those are strong, sometimes those are thin relationships, right? That, that sort of stuff.

But. This isn't a one-time interaction because if it was, then I could be maybe more, you know what I'm thinking in that moment, right? It could be this sort of expression of just like sheer frustration or anger or whatever it is. But I'm gonna talk to you again. I think, and maybe in a way that's really important, I think.

And so how do I continue to build I think the relationship in a way that's not disingenuous, right? That doesn't act like we didn't have these disagreements or we didn't have that sort of exchange. Like it was real. There's email threads about it [00:21:00] now and like even a few text messages, I believe, right?

These sorts of things that could come up in a. In the court of law, so to speak. But that's, yeah, that that's the world in which we live. And if we. Recognize that then that does shape how do we disagree better? I would say 

Michael Lee : you've given us a great example there concluding the story of forbearance and between the carpenter and the gardener and the adorable groundhog.

Some really good concepts as well as potentially some great Halloween costumes. So Tim Schafer, we really appreciate you being on when we disagree. 

Timothy Shaffer : It's been wonderful to be with you. Thank you.

Michael Lee : When we Disagree is recorded at the College of Charleston with creator and host Michael Lee. Recording and sound engineering by Jesse k and Lance Laidlaw. Reach out to us at When We [00:22:00] disagree@gmail.com.