How to foster productive and responsible debate with Ishan Bhabha

TED Talks Daily
|

Automatic TRANSCRIPT

What if you own a hotel? I'm one of the key principles in your mission statement is a commitment to treat all employees and customers equally including on the basis of gender and religion. And then a large group books event, you'll space and when you look at the booking, you realize it's a religious group I. One of their key principles is that women should never leave the home and should have no opportunities for professional development outside of it. What do you do? Do host the events and get criticized by some or refuse and get criticized by others. In my work council organizations on how to create rules to navigate ideological disagreements and controversial speech. And I defend my clients weathering to from the government when their a challenge. The structures I recommend recognize the real homes that can come from certain types of speech bought at the same time seek to promote dialogue rather than shut it down. The reason is that we need disagreement creativity and human progress depend on it. While it may be often easier to speak with someone who agrees with everything, you say it's more enlightening and times we'll satisfying to speak with someone who doesn't. But disagreements and discord can have. Meaningful costs disagreement particularly in the form of hateful speech can lead to deepen lost wounds and sometimes results violence. And in a world in which polarization and innovation or increasing out seemingly exponential rates, the needs create structures for vigorous but not violent disagreement have never been more important. The US Constitution's First Amendment might seem like a good place to start to go to France you like I may have often heard somebody say that some form of a speech restriction whether from an employer, a website or even somebody else violates the first amendment. But in fact, the First Amendment usually has little if any relevance at all. The First Amendment only applies when the government is seeking to suppress the speech of its citizens. As a result. The First Amendment is by design, a blunt instrument and narrow category of speech can be banned based on its content almost everything else cannot. But the First Amendment has no relevance when what we're talking about is a private entity regulating speech and that's a good thing because it means private entities have disposal a abroad and flexible set of tools that don't prohibit speech but do make speakers aware of the consequences of that woods here are some examples. When you go to university, it's a time for the free and unrestricted exchange of ideas. But some ideas and the words used to express them can cause discord whether it's an intentionally inflammatory event hosted by a student group or the exploration of controversial issue in costs in order to protect both intellectual freedom and the most vulnerable students. Some universities have formed teams brings speaker unlisted together free from the possibility of any sanction to hear each other viewpoints. Sometimes, students don't want to meet on. That's fine. But in other circumstances, mediated exposure to an opposing view can result in acknowledgement recognition of unintended consequences and broadening of perspectives. Here's an example. On, a college campus, a group of students supporting the Israelis and those supporting the Palestinians were constantly reporting each other for disrupting events, tearing down posters and engaging in verbal confrontations. Recognizing that most of what the students were reporting did not violate the university's disciplinary? Code. University invited both groups to sit down in a so-called restorative circle where they could hear each other's viewpoints from the possibility of sanction. Off To the meeting, he ideological disagreements between the groups remained a stock as ever but the rankle between them significantly dissipated. Now. Obviously, this doesn't always happen. But by separating reactions to speech from the disciplinary system institutions of higher education have created a space for productive disagreement and the broadening perspectives. We're all biased I. don't mean that in a bad way. All of us are influence and rightly. So by family background education, all lived experience and a million other things organizations to have influences most importantly the beliefs of their members but also the laws under which governed or the marketplace in which they compete.

Coming up next