Al Kyte's Life Take-Aways

   

          Al Kyte 

The first day of the class was like so many other college classes with our professor describing his expectations for us.  This professor explained that he did not use midterms, final exams, nor long term-papers to evaluate us.  Instead our entire grade would be based on six short papers, each to be no longer than two double-spaced, type-written pages.  That sounded too good to be true until he explained in more detail what he expected in those papers.  

First, each paper was to be on a topic that we felt strongly about, whether something from the lecture notes or his assigned readings. Also we were to present two divergent viewpoints on the issue involved—our viewpoint and an opposing viewpoint— as fairly as possible. Finally we were to draw forth a perspective that reached beyond those arguments. All of this was to be accomplished within those two double-spaced pages. I realized that every word I selected had a job to do. There would be no space for wasted words, padding or embellished writing.

With each of those papers I completed a first draft and set it aside for a few days. When I look again at what I had written, I was invariably startled by how unfairly I had expressed the opposing viewpoint. I had to research the thinking behind that viewpoint to better represent it. Then I put that second draft aside. When I reread it a few days later, it was still unfairly one-sided. Each of those papers required a number of revisions until both sides were represented fairly. Only then did I begin to see something that might offer a more enlightened perspective.

This reminded me of something George Marshall was reported to have said. General George Marshall had been the Chief of Staff over our military in Europe during the difficult years of World War II, and later served both as Secretary of Defense and Secretary of State. He authored the Marshall Plan, the U. S. program for recovery of war-torn countries in Europe, and ultimately was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize. Characterized as honest and selfless in his service, he was widely considered to be one of the most impressive leaders of his time. He said that the most important thing in working with people was “to listen to the other person’s story, listen to the other person’s full story, listen to the other person’s full story first.” He knew that when we speak, we learn nothing. When we listen, we stand the best chance of fully understanding the issue.

I sometimes wonder if anyone is teaching today’s college students to look at both sides of issues.  So often they seem to be ruled by their emotions, even adopting methods of intimidation and censoring other viewpoints.   A classic example occurred recently when a group of law students from a prestigious university shouted down a speaker with a view they disagreed with and would not let that person speak.  These are students who might one day hope to become judges with the societal role expectation of listening fairly to both sides of issues.  We need to remember that our democracy is not just about our viewpoint on an issue; it is every bit as much about the methods we are willing to tolerate to advance our viewpoint.  Denying a person’s free speech is denying democracy at its core.  If we are really interested in democracy, rather than control, we need to be able to draw the best from both sides.