An Open Letter to University Presidents
7 min read
Ancient Jewish wisdom on how to effectively argue without animosity.
The current political situation in both the United States and Israel is cause for concern. Each side of the political debate engages in insults, threats, distortions and sometimes in acts of violence. Many are worried about the future of societies with such division and animosity.
The Talmud tells us that the destruction of the Second Jewish Commonwealth by Rome, the destruction of the Second Temple and the subsequent exile occurred as a result of the incredible divisions, hatred and sectarianism within the Jewish people at the time.1
Here is a time-tested strategy for reducing the tension and bringing greater harmony into our politics, our society and our families. The strategy is based on an ancient Jewish study method, the chavruta (study partner) system. It may sound counter-intuitive, but we should engage in arguments to achieve peace. Let me explain.
The ancient chavruta/study partner method is not only an incredibly effective method of absorbing, understanding and retaining information, it is also an excellent model for how to argue without animosity and disagree without discord.
The American Behavioral Science Research Institute2 studied the rate of memory formation in the brain 24 hours after studying in various ways. The results were as follows: Lecture explanations: 5%; reading: 10%; audiovisual: 20%; demonstration: 30%. On the other hand, better results arose from discussions: 50%; direct practice: 75%; and teaching others: 90%. In order to achieve these same effects, studying for one hour using a critical friend method (i.e., chavruta) is claimed to be more efficient than traditional lecture-based teaching.
Studies performed at the Andong Science College of Sahmyook University in the Republic of Korea3 found six beneficial effects of chavruta learning. Chavruta learning helped people develop skills of listening, articulating, wondering, focusing, supporting and challenging.
Explaining to your partner why he or she is wrong, defending your viewpoint to people who disagree, and thinking of critiques of the other viewpoint are all skills of truth-seeking. The clarity, retention and understanding that one can achieve by argument are much greater than can be achieved by agreement.
King Solomon said “Two are better than one…”4 not because they agree with each other but because they disagree with other and hence arrive at a greater clarity than a lone person.
No two minds see things in exactly the same way,5 so, disagreement is inevitable and not necessarily negative.
The Talmud says, “Even a father and his son, or a rabbi and his student, who are engaged in Torah study together become enemies. But they do not leave there until they love each other…”6
Conflict is actually advantageous and lies at the center of Talmudic study and classic Jewish learning.
People are unique, and no two minds see things in exactly the same way,7 so, disagreement is inevitable and not necessarily negative. But if we want to arrive at the truth, and we want to argue without creating animosity and division, there are some techniques that our ancient sages suggested that can be applied to all areas of life. Seek out someone with whom you disagree, invite them to argue about the issue. Sit down over a coffee (not too much caffeine!), maybe study a text relevant to the dispute. But follow these rules in the argument.
Rule #1: Make your goal to discover truth, not merely to convince the other that he is wrong.
One should argue, as the Sages wrote, “for the sake of Heaven,”8 in other words for the sake of truth, not for one’s ego, honor or gratification. Before you begin, entertain the possibility that the other side may have some solid points; that you may be mistaken about something, and then enter with the desire to find truth, not victory.
Rule #2: Reiterate your opponent’s arguments before presenting your own viewpoint.9
This way you demonstrate that you listened to their arguments and were not just waiting to respond. This also helps you understand your criticisms of the other viewpoint and will serve to calm the debate. If you understand the other viewpoint well, it will help you develop your own argument, and it will help both of you find some common ground and areas of agreement. You may be surprised by how much you agree upon.
Rule #3: Entertain the possibility that you may be wrong, either partially or completely.
Your opponent may be expressing a truth as well. Reality is nuanced and bears many possibilities. Rabbi Sacks, of blessed memory, expressed this in his characteristic eloquence:
“Truth on earth is not, nor can be, the whole truth. It is limited, not comprehensive; particular, not universal. When two propositions conflict it is not necessarily because one is true the other false. It may be, and often is, that each represents a different perspective on reality, an alternative way of structuring order, no more and no less commensurable than a Shakespeare sonnet, a Michelangelo painting or a Schubert sonata. In heaven there is truth; on earth there are truths. Therefore, each culture has something to contribute. Each person knows something no one else does. The sages said: 'Who is wise? One who learns from all men' - The wisest is not one who knows himself wiser than others: he is one who knows all men have some share of the truth, and is willing to learn from them, for none of us knows all the truth and each of us knows some of it.”10
This idea can be found in the Talmud and commentaries and is summarized in a short comment regarding the disputes between two schools of thought, “These and those are the words of the living God.”11
Rule #4: Debate the merits or flaws of the argument, not the merits or flaws of the arguer.
Your opponent may be deeply flawed but his view may be correct; he may be a wonderful individual but completely wrong; or he and his argument may be any combination of the above. There is no value in saying, “You people…” “You’re type…” etc.
It is possible to admire, respect, and even love a person and nevertheless disagree with their viewpoint.12
Rule #5: Silence.
One of the authors of the Mishnah said, “All my days I grew up among the sages, and I have found nothing better for a person than silence…”13 I am not suggesting complete silence, even though for many people that would be a good idea. Rather, pause in silence, however briefly, before responding to an argument.
Silence gives you a chance to calm down and reduces the likelihood of a sharp retort or insult.
The pause of silence before responding is a sign of intellect rather than instinct.
One of the greatest benefits of silence is that you’re not merely responding to the other’s triggers, taunts, or claims. Immediate response often indicates that you are reacting, and that “your buttons are being pushed.” The pause of silence before responding is an action, not a reaction; it’s a sign of intellect rather than instinct. Sometimes certain words or phrases set us off and trigger us, responding initially with silence mitigates their effect. Silence is contemplation, wisdom and thoughtfulness and not merely a retort or the return of a “serve.”14
If we can engage in actual dialogue and arguments with the “other side”, rather than merely yelling slogans, shouting accusation and making threats, we can begin a small change that may have a major impact. Peace does not require uniformity, or even agreement. Peace requires a love for truth, an understanding that reality is nuanced, and a willingness to listen, talk and argue with respect and love.
Argue for the sake of peace!
