Disagreements are an inescapable fact of life, especially in learning environments like the U. But the bitterness and anger that often accompany them can frequently be avoided. However, too many people are prone to assume the very worst about the opposing party or to generalize from a disagreement about one issue to all other aspects of a person’s life and personality.
Again, this is the case even at a supposedly enlightened institution like the U.
The key to avoiding this is to not blow an issue out of proportion and to limit one’s criticism of the other side to its known actions rather than its imagined faults. These types of disagreements can be divided into three different categories. The most superficial only involve the question of who is going to win some contest, rather than any substantive issue or principle. Others involve a clash of competing principles and the most irritating involve individuals who are willing to subordinate all principles to their own self-interest.
Athletic contests are a good example of the first type of disagreement8212;each side wants to win but there is usually no issue or principle at stake other than who has the best team. Unfortunately, too many fans believe that they have to insult the other school and its players. One particularly egregious example I remember was a volleyball match the U had with Utah State University in Logan a couple of years ago. A number of Aggie fans seemed to feel that the best way to support their team was to hurl the most obnoxious insults imaginable at our players.
The U is also far from innocent in many sports.
During the past few months, we have witnessed a clash of competing values about Proposition 8 in California and the Common Ground Initiative here in Utah. One side views its goal as establishing a fairer and more just society while the other views its efforts as a way to stop the normalization of immoral practices.
A lot of the rhetoric, on both sides, is still overly antagonistic, notwithstanding the importance of the issues involved. The charge of Sen. Chris Buttars, R-West Jordan, that “homosexuals lack any morals,” obviously falls in this category. It is clearly over the top to completely deny that an entire group of people has any moral values or principles, based on this one contested lifestyle.
Likewise, the widespread accusation that those of us opposed to the gay rights agenda are hateful bigots is unfair. Being opposed to a practice or position does not automatically mean that one hates the people involved. When I was an intern at the Utah Legislature, I found that some of the legislators I liked best were Democrats, despite the fact that I am a conservative Republican. Disagreeing with somebody politically or philosophically does not mean that you cannot get along with them.
Finally, there are those disputes in which one of the parties is motivated purely by selfishness over and above any principle. An examples of this is the outrageously high compensation packages a number of top executives of failing companies have been receiving. Repugnant as the people are who engage in such behavior, the best way to confront them is by criticizing their actions rather than attacking them personally. Such an approach is not only more diplomatic but is paradoxically more devastating because it is focused on the other party’s least defensible point.
Steve Warrick