Opinion
 

Tolerance inherently contradictory

Jennifer Jackson

I've heard a lot about tolerance and I've finally figured out how to achieve that lauded, ideal state of mind. So here are my instructions on how to be a tolerant individual: Step 1: Accept all ideas and viewpoints as equal and valid. Step 2: Reject all intolerance.

Confusing? I thought so, too.

Perhaps there is an inherent problem with the idea of tolerance, seeing as there will always be one thing that tolerance will not tolerate: intolerance. Intolerance, as it is termed, simply means believing in a level at which something is rejected as definitely wrong. In other words, tolerance will inherently contradict any absolutes. But whether we claim absolutes or not, we all have them and, therefore, the idea of tolerance makes hypocrites of all who try to practice complete tolerance.

We can't limit this hypocrisy to one group either. Nobody is as open-minded as they claim to be -- liberal or conservative, Democrat or Republican, religious or non-religious. Everyone has a limit.

But since we seem to hear plenty about the non-acceptance of ideas typically considered radical, let's look at some often ignored examples of ideas that are becoming truly radical in our society.

For example, the obvious disparity in the 17-1 Democrat-Republican faculty ratio at Duke University is not being decried as discrimination. Neither is the remark from Robert Brandon, chairman of the philosophy department: "Stupid people are generally conservative and, therefore, we will not hire (conservatives)." Is this open-minded and accepting? Not hardly. Apparently conservatives are too radical for Duke.

Likewise, I have been told many times of the stupidity, close-mindedness and hatefulness of the Christian faith. Apparently my "instructors" had bad experiences with individual Christians and felt that airing these opinions was a necessary exercise.

But if I receive rude, demeaning and spiteful comments from a homosexual and then conclude that all homosexuals are likewise rude, demeaning and spiteful, society would immediately, and correctly, label me a bigot.

Fortunately, I would not do such a thing because I know homosexuals who are not all these things. But more importantly, my thinking is broad enough to comprehend the fact that generalizations are rarely accurate and stereotypes are unfair. It's called open-mindedness.

But why is generalizing about Christians OK in our society, but it's not OK to make generalizations about other groups? Why is there a difference in treatment? 

If you don't believe this is true, consider another example. When a Nigerian cardinal, speaking at Georgetown University, plainly stated his church's position on homosexuality by saying it "mocked the family," students and faculty walked out and the dean sent an apology e-mail to students offering counseling for those who might have been psychologically traumatized. I highly doubt that the dean would have offered the same services to Catholic students -- if a homosexual had made a speech claiming that the Catholic Church is bigoted.

You see, those students and faculty were not thinking of trying to listen open-mindedly and understand the cardinal's viewpoint (which should not be a surprise to anyone). Their motivation for leaving was not based on tolerance, but rather intolerance -- they heard an idea they could not accept.

So before we get too caught up in congratulating ourselves on our great capacity for having tolerance, we should consider the fact that we've merely chosen a different brand of intolerance to condone. And maybe it's because tolerance is an inherently contradictory ideal.

Jackson, a columnist for The Daily Cougar, can be reached at jenny@mail.scholars.uh.edu.