00:00:04
[Applause]
00:00:15
right good evening
00:00:20
everybody all right that's
00:00:22
better welcome to the Herbert Family
00:00:25
University lecture series brought to you
00:00:28
through a generous gift from Helen and
00:00:30
Jeff Herbert thank you and your entire
00:00:33
family for making this event
00:00:35
possible my name is Dr Rich reic I am
00:00:38
the senior Vice Provost for curriculum
00:00:40
enrollment and the dean of the
00:00:41
undergraduate college at the University
00:00:43
of Texas at
00:00:44
Austin I'm also a longtime professor in
00:00:47
the College of Education in the African
00:00:50
and African diaspora studies department
00:00:53
and this semester I'm also teaching a
00:00:54
sign signature course or as you might
00:00:57
know them a ugs 303 course in titled
00:01:00
black Austin
00:01:02
matters all right my
00:01:06
people I have personally presented at
00:01:08
this lecture Series in the past and I
00:01:11
can tell you it was an incredible
00:01:13
experience and I'm sincerely excited to
00:01:15
be here this evening with
00:01:17
you and speaking of this evening please
00:01:21
join me in giving a round of applause to
00:01:23
welcome our speakers for tonight's
00:01:25
lecture Beyond debate dialogue
00:01:27
discussion and discourse
00:01:31
[Applause]
00:01:36
can I say you're a good sounding
00:01:37
audience I love that I assure you that
00:01:40
what they have prepared for you will be
00:01:41
engaging and
00:01:43
enlightening I'll introduce each speaker
00:01:45
before their lecture but first some
00:01:47
quick housekeeping hopefully you scann
00:01:50
the QR code that you've seen on the
00:01:52
screen rotating at this time everybody
00:01:55
got the QR code sir it's right there all
00:01:59
right I'll give you a second to get
00:02:03
that I do want to say some of you are
00:02:06
super high over aieve types because we
00:02:09
already have questions already in we'd
00:02:12
love for you to send in any questions
00:02:15
you have during the lecture so if you
00:02:17
hear something that's interesting or
00:02:18
something you want to know more about
00:02:20
send us a question on the using the QR
00:02:23
code once our third speaker has finished
00:02:26
we ask that you remain seated for 5 to
00:02:27
10 minutes for a question and answer
00:02:30
period and it'll conclude our evening
00:02:33
please do not get up out of your seats
00:02:34
until the Q&A is
00:02:39
finished all
00:02:43
right okay is this the
00:02:46
right
00:02:48
okay and so our first Speaker tonight is
00:02:52
Professor David Rabin Professor Rin
00:02:55
joined UT Texas law faculty in 1983 at
00:02:59
after serving as Council for the
00:03:01
American Association of University
00:03:04
professors he has since become a leading
00:03:06
expert on free speech and academic
00:03:08
freedom with his teaching and research
00:03:11
also focusing on higher education and
00:03:13
the law and American legal history he is
00:03:16
AD Dar Jam Randall ha jam and Robert Lee
00:03:20
Jam Region's chair in a university
00:03:23
distinguished teaching
00:03:25
Professor again it is my pleasure to
00:03:28
welcome you to this event at this time
00:03:31
I'll turn it over to my esteemed
00:03:32
colleague Professor David M
00:03:39
reban
00:03:41
there uh good evening everybody uh I'm
00:03:45
going to focus my comments on legal
00:03:48
decisions that deal with the extent and
00:03:51
limitations of student speech on
00:03:53
University
00:03:54
campuses and the first important case
00:03:58
I'm going to discuss Ates way back from
00:04:02
1969 it was really the first case that
00:04:05
recognized that students have free
00:04:07
speech rights on campus in a very famous
00:04:12
expression that's often been quoted
00:04:14
since the Supreme Court said that
00:04:17
students do not shed their
00:04:20
constitutional rights at the schoolhouse
00:04:23
gate but the court also said that the
00:04:26
constitutional rights of students
00:04:30
must be interpreted in light of the
00:04:33
special circumstances of the school
00:04:37
environment the court emphasized that
00:04:40
mere undifferentiated fear or
00:04:44
apprehension of disruption is not enough
00:04:47
to justify restrictions on student
00:04:51
speech for a school to limit student
00:04:55
speech it must prove must have evidence
00:05:00
that there's a material and substantial
00:05:03
threat of disruption to the work or
00:05:07
discipline of the
00:05:09
school and in this case the this was
00:05:11
during the Vietnam War era uh junior
00:05:14
high school and high school students
00:05:16
wore black armbands to protest the war
00:05:18
in Vietnam and they were suspended for
00:05:20
not taking them off and the Supreme
00:05:23
Court said there's not enough evidence
00:05:26
of a threat of material and substantial
00:05:29
disruption
00:05:30
the students are
00:05:33
protective and another phrase that has
00:05:36
become famous the Supreme Court said
00:05:40
that schools cannot become enclaves of
00:05:45
totalitarianism so that was the first
00:05:47
major case dealing with free speech
00:05:50
rights of
00:05:53
students there's a recent 2021 case you
00:05:58
may have heard of have you of this
00:06:02
uh girl who didn't make the cheerleading
00:06:05
team at her High School have you heard
00:06:08
of I'm seeing some nodding here right
00:06:11
and uh she and a friend posted a photo
00:06:16
on
00:06:17
snapshot with their middle fingers
00:06:20
raised okay and of course Sometimes some
00:06:23
nasty language is necessary to talk
00:06:25
about
00:06:26
speech here's what they said in the
00:06:28
caption
00:06:31
school
00:06:33
softball
00:06:35
cheer everything okay so that's
00:06:39
what they
00:06:44
you you want you want to get suspended
00:06:46
for that okay so they were
00:06:51
suspended for that off-campus expression
00:06:56
right this was off-campus
00:06:58
so the low Court deciding this case said
00:07:03
the school has no authority to regulate
00:07:06
off-campus speech of students period end
00:07:09
of
00:07:10
case the Supreme Court
00:07:14
disagreed and said in some very narrow
00:07:18
circumstances off-campus student speech
00:07:21
can be regulated for example if it
00:07:24
involves serious bullying if it involves
00:07:28
threats to directed at particular
00:07:30
students if it involves harassment
00:07:34
that's not protected even if it's off
00:07:38
campus but the Supreme Court said
00:07:40
there's a lot less authority of the
00:07:43
school to regulate off-campus speech
00:07:45
than oncampus speech in this case the
00:07:49
Supreme Court
00:07:51
found some
00:07:53
disruption of the school based on this
00:07:56
photo and caption
00:07:59
it hurt the morale of the sports
00:08:02
teams also there was a discussion of
00:08:04
this in uh incident in algebra class an
00:08:07
algebra class is not about discussing
00:08:10
cheerleading so there was some mild
00:08:16
disruption but the Supreme Court said
00:08:19
not enough disruption to justify
00:08:22
suspension of the students and the court
00:08:26
emphasized that the students did not
00:08:28
identify the school or Target particular
00:08:33
individuals in the photo and caption
00:08:36
that they posted another thing the court
00:08:39
said that's extremely important is that
00:08:42
if the speech of the students had
00:08:44
involved politics or religion there
00:08:47
would have been even more protection for
00:08:49
the speech than talking about
00:08:53
cheerleading the court said and this is
00:08:55
a very important principle in American
00:08:58
law that that the First Amendment and I
00:09:00
want to quote from the court decision
00:09:02
here protects even hurtful speech on
00:09:05
public issues to ensure that we do not
00:09:08
stifle public debate that's a key theme
00:09:12
in First Amendment
00:09:15
law okay I now want to talk about a
00:09:18
couple of cases dealing with student
00:09:20
access to school
00:09:24
facilities uh one case this is back in
00:09:26
the Vietnam War era 2 anybody here ever
00:09:29
he the SDS students for a Democratic
00:09:32
Society I'm seeing some nodding as long
00:09:34
ago 50 years ago uh so there was a local
00:09:39
campus organization of this radical
00:09:42
student group that met in a coffee shop
00:09:45
in the student center on the campus of a
00:09:48
public
00:09:49
university and the president of the
00:09:51
University said you can't meet here
00:09:54
anymore as an SDS chapter because the
00:09:57
SDS is a disruptive influence on
00:10:02
campus the Supreme Court said no telling
00:10:07
a student organization you can't meet at
00:10:10
all just not even getting to what people
00:10:13
said you can't even meet on campus is a
00:10:16
particularly severe restriction on
00:10:19
speech and therefore the university has
00:10:22
a heavy burden to justify that
00:10:26
restriction the court decided the
00:10:28
president did did not meet that heavy
00:10:32
burden the President also said that he
00:10:36
found the philosophy of the SDS quote
00:10:39
unquote abhorent because the SDS
00:10:42
Justified the use of violence and the
00:10:46
Supreme Court said you cannot restrict
00:10:50
speech as a
00:10:52
school because you disagree even abhor
00:10:58
the philosophy of a particular group the
00:11:01
group has a free speech right to express
00:11:04
its
00:11:07
philosophy to be
00:11:09
unprotected it's a high standard and the
00:11:13
standard is that the speech must be
00:11:17
directed to inciting or producing
00:11:20
imminent Lawless action and must be
00:11:24
likely to cause Lawless
00:11:27
action and the court found no such
00:11:31
evidence in the speech of the
00:11:35
SDS but the court said one other thing
00:11:37
that's very important which is that a
00:11:39
school can require a school
00:11:42
organization to agree to follow
00:11:45
reasonable school rules in order to get
00:11:49
access to school
00:11:53
facilities okay another I think I hope
00:11:55
you agree interesting case uh dealing
00:11:59
with
00:11:59
student speech in University facilities
00:12:03
had to do with the right of a group of
00:12:06
student Christian evangelicals to meet
00:12:09
on campus and the school said if we
00:12:11
allow them to meet on campus we would be
00:12:14
endorsing religion and it's
00:12:16
unconstitutional under the religion
00:12:18
clause of the First Amendment to endorse
00:12:20
religion and the Supreme Court said
00:12:25
no lots of different organizations use
00:12:29
University facilities by allowing a
00:12:31
student group to use a facility the
00:12:33
university is not
00:12:35
endorsing the group's
00:12:38
ideology so it's not an establishment of
00:12:41
religion in fact to deny access to
00:12:44
meeting rooms of a religious group is
00:12:48
discrimination based on the content of
00:12:50
speech and discrimination based on
00:12:52
content is illegal under the First
00:12:57
Amendment okay there are many more lower
00:13:01
court cases than supreme court cases
00:13:04
dealing with student speech and I just
00:13:07
want in closing really
00:13:12
to tell you about one very important
00:13:15
distinction that's made by the lower
00:13:19
courts and that's
00:13:22
between speech in the
00:13:24
classroom and speech on campus generally
00:13:29
okay speech in the classroom can be
00:13:33
subject to significant
00:13:37
regulation by the professor why because
00:13:41
the professor has expertise the
00:13:44
professor can decide whether the student
00:13:46
speech is relevant to classroom material
00:13:50
the professor can evaluate and grade
00:13:53
student speech based on its Merit and
00:13:58
the Prof Professor can
00:14:00
require certain degrees of Civility from
00:14:04
the students in discussing ideas in
00:14:06
class so those are limitations on
00:14:10
student
00:14:15
speech but there's some student speech
00:14:18
in the classroom a professor cannot
00:14:22
restrict if a student speaks within the
00:14:26
boundaries of academic discourse
00:14:29
a professor cannot discipline a students
00:14:32
a student for disagreeing with the
00:14:34
professor's position or for discussing
00:14:37
an idea in the class in a way that might
00:14:41
be offensive to other
00:14:44
students that's protected by the First
00:14:48
Amendment and I want to give you an
00:14:51
example from a very important
00:14:54
case a Court held that in in in a class
00:14:59
called comparative animal behavior any
00:15:02
of you taking evolutionary psychology or
00:15:05
biology classes so this so this comes up
00:15:08
in this course
00:15:10
apparently uh the notion is it's a
00:15:14
theory it's not aaz it's not held by
00:15:17
most people but it's held by some but
00:15:20
that males of different species
00:15:23
including
00:15:24
humans are better than females in C
00:15:29
certain mental tasks related to spatial
00:15:33
relationships okay so like this
00:15:37
Theory very arguably stigmatizes women
00:15:42
but because it's within the scope of
00:15:45
like legitimate academic theory in the
00:15:46
field it's protected by the First
00:15:51
Amendment now many fewer restrictions
00:15:54
can be imposed on speech on campus
00:15:57
generally
00:16:01
but and I'll end with
00:16:03
this they're what are called in law it's
00:16:06
a term of art called time place and
00:16:09
manner restrictions on speech with a
00:16:13
which a university can imposed not based
00:16:16
on the content but on when the speech is
00:16:20
made a university can say you can't
00:16:21
speak at night a university can say you
00:16:24
can't be too noisy when you speak and a
00:16:28
university
00:16:30
uh can exclude certain people from
00:16:33
campus who are not students even if
00:16:36
students want to hear
00:16:40
them but a
00:16:42
university cannot prohibit discussion of
00:16:48
ideas now I've talked about the law
00:16:51
there are a lot of very important issues
00:16:53
related to speech outside the law I want
00:16:57
to highlight
00:17:01
two one
00:17:05
is a university does not have
00:17:09
to enforce its right to restrict speech
00:17:12
it could decide to allow speech even
00:17:15
though it doesn't have
00:17:17
to and another thing that's important to
00:17:21
remember is though while a university
00:17:25
can't restrict offensive even harmful
00:17:28
spe spe related to the discussion of
00:17:31
ideas that meet academic standards it
00:17:34
can counsel professors about how to
00:17:36
teach that material it can counsel
00:17:39
students who are offended even harmed by
00:17:41
that
00:17:42
material and I'll stop now and look
00:17:45
forward to hearing my colleagues here
00:17:47
who will talk about many other non-legal
00:17:50
ways in which the university uh
00:17:53
interacts with free speech and other
00:17:55
issues so thanks for your attention I
00:17:57
look forward to your questions later
00:18:05
thanks thank you Professor
00:18:09
ran our second speaker is Dr Talia
00:18:12
Stroud she is a professor in the
00:18:15
department of communication studies in
00:18:17
the school of Journalism as well as the
00:18:19
founding and current director of the
00:18:21
center for media engagement in the Moody
00:18:23
College of
00:18:24
communication her work examining media's
00:18:27
role in shaping people's political
00:18:28
attitudes and behaviors has been
00:18:30
nationally internationally rewarded
00:18:33
awarded while her teaching has twice
00:18:35
earned her the outstanding faculty
00:18:37
member
00:18:38
award thank you for being here tonight
00:18:40
Dr
00:18:44
stoud thank
00:18:47
you thank you so much and welcome to the
00:18:50
University of Texas at Austin I will
00:18:53
join so many other people in saying that
00:18:55
we are so excited about everything that
00:18:57
you're going to learn and accomplish
00:18:59
in your time here now the theme for
00:19:02
tonight's discussion is the importance
00:19:04
of difficult
00:19:06
conversations and when I we talk about
00:19:08
difficult conversations we mean those
00:19:10
where you're speaking with someone with
00:19:12
whom you hold a very different attitude
00:19:14
where you don't agree where it may
00:19:16
actually be uncomfortable because you
00:19:18
feel so passionately about your point of
00:19:20
view that it's really hard to Envision
00:19:23
that someone might have a view that's
00:19:24
different from yours and the outcome of
00:19:27
these difficult conversations
00:19:29
doesn't have to be that you change your
00:19:31
mind or that you persuade someone else
00:19:33
although these are both possible but the
00:19:36
real outcome of a difficult conversation
00:19:38
is an appreciation that someone has a
00:19:40
very different background that led them
00:19:42
to a very different conclusion than
00:19:45
yours now I come from Helena Montana and
00:19:48
Helena Montana is about a third the size
00:19:51
of the UT stadium and I'm sure there are
00:19:54
people here who come from hometowns that
00:19:55
are even smaller than my own and when I
00:19:58
finished high school I wanted to do
00:20:00
something different so I went to
00:20:01
California for college and let me tell
00:20:04
you that California is really different
00:20:07
from
00:20:08
Montana and I remember having
00:20:10
conversations in my college dorm room
00:20:11
where we talked about things like
00:20:13
religion and race and politics and I
00:20:16
came to appreciate that what most people
00:20:18
thought in Helena Montana wasn't
00:20:21
actually what most people thought in
00:20:23
other places and that's what college is
00:20:26
really all about it's about learning and
00:20:28
understanding that people have different
00:20:30
points of view and really importantly
00:20:32
it's about figuring out how to navigate
00:20:35
those contexts where people come to the
00:20:37
table with really different perspectives
00:20:40
no matter what you do when you leave the
00:20:41
University of Texas at Austin this is a
00:20:44
skill set you will absolutely want to
00:20:46
have and it's more than just what's
00:20:49
going to benefit you personally because
00:20:51
difficult conversations are actually the
00:20:53
substance of democracy democracy in fact
00:20:56
requires these difficult
00:20:59
conversations it can't be the case that
00:21:01
Republicans just talk to Republicans and
00:21:03
Democrats just talk to Democrats and
00:21:05
they never talk to one another we have
00:21:07
to have this system where there's a
00:21:08
clash of ideas where there's a
00:21:10
Marketplace of ideas this is how it
00:21:12
happens when one idea rises above
00:21:15
another when people start to compromise
00:21:18
or even when people represent you that's
00:21:20
why we have elected leaders so that they
00:21:22
can represent people with diverse
00:21:25
constituencies and that they've actually
00:21:27
taken the time to have difficult
00:21:29
conversations and understand how people
00:21:31
have different
00:21:32
views so when it comes to thinking about
00:21:35
this I have four points for you the
00:21:38
first one I've already made democracy
00:21:40
requires difficult conversations in our
00:21:42
time together tonight I'd like to talk
00:21:43
to you a little bit about social media a
00:21:45
little bit about listening and then
00:21:47
finally a little bit about humility so
00:21:50
first let's take a step back and think
00:21:51
about where is it that you first
00:21:54
experience difficult conversations where
00:21:56
you understand that people have
00:21:57
different points of view and for some of
00:21:59
us it's going to be from our family
00:22:01
maybe our parents have different
00:22:02
political beliefs or different religious
00:22:04
affiliations or maybe it's that ant or
00:22:06
Uncle at Thanksgiving that you think oh
00:22:08
wow we we come from the same family but
00:22:10
we're quite different uh for others of
00:22:12
us it might be something that you
00:22:13
learned in school you might have
00:22:15
participated in a debate class where you
00:22:17
had to advocate for a point of view that
00:22:18
might have even been different from your
00:22:20
own and defend it against
00:22:22
Counterattack uh but there are all sorts
00:22:24
of situations in which we counter
00:22:26
conflict but in the day-to-day the place
00:22:28
place where we most often encounter
00:22:29
conflict is actually in the media and
00:22:32
this is my area of academic expertise is
00:22:34
really trying to understand what the
00:22:35
media's role is and it turns out that a
00:22:38
place we see lots of conflict is in
00:22:40
social media now this is going to be the
00:22:42
understatement of the evening to say
00:22:44
that social media is not really a good
00:22:47
model for figuring out how to have
00:22:49
difficult conversations and I want to
00:22:51
take a step back and unpack why that is
00:22:53
the case so I'm going to give you a
00:22:54
little quiz don't worry it's not graded
00:22:57
but little quiz for you and the first is
00:23:00
we spend a ton of time on social media
00:23:02
so Gallup did surveying of teens from
00:23:04
ages of 13 to 19 figure out how much
00:23:07
time they're actually spending on social
00:23:09
media so my first question for you is
00:23:11
how much time on average are us teens
00:23:13
spending on social media per day and the
00:23:17
answer is 4.8 hours per day so social
00:23:22
media takes up a ton of our time on any
00:23:24
given day and what circulates there can
00:23:29
influence quite a bit what it is that we
00:23:31
think about the world around
00:23:33
us next question for you true or false
00:23:36
people tend to see more content from
00:23:38
politically likeminded sources than from
00:23:41
those with different views on social
00:23:43
media and this one is true it is the
00:23:45
case that on social media you tend to
00:23:47
encounter and befriend and follow others
00:23:49
who are similar to you and not those who
00:23:52
are different from you now this isn't to
00:23:54
say that we don't sometimes encounter
00:23:56
difference we absolutely do we'll have
00:23:57
people who follow who have a different
00:23:59
view or maybe someone who actually
00:24:01
shares our view will share some sort of
00:24:03
a meme that paints the other side in a
00:24:05
negative light but in general we tend to
00:24:08
see content from like-minded others and
00:24:09
this certainly isn't a building block
00:24:11
for having difficult
00:24:13
conversations okay next question for you
00:24:16
now most people don't have their feeds
00:24:18
filled with political content but most
00:24:20
people see political content on social
00:24:21
media from time to time and when you do
00:24:24
see it I want you to think about what
00:24:26
type of political content gets the most
00:24:28
Eng engagement and you see your choices
00:24:30
here and if you selected D you are
00:24:34
correct the type of political content
00:24:36
that elicits the most engagement is
00:24:38
content that is uncivil content that is
00:24:40
partisan and content that expresses
00:24:43
moral outrage hardly the substance of
00:24:46
having productive difficult
00:24:48
conversations and what's really
00:24:49
interesting about social media platforms
00:24:52
is that the algorithms that undergird
00:24:54
them they tend to reward engagement so
00:24:56
if you're engaging with content that's
00:24:58
partisan and uncivil and expresses moral
00:25:00
outrage the algorithm will then give you
00:25:02
more of that content and it'll say oh
00:25:04
other people like you also should get
00:25:06
more of this content so this creates an
00:25:09
engagement sort of mechanism whereby
00:25:12
this type of difficult conversation is
00:25:15
elevated so we did a study uh this was
00:25:18
an incredible privilege I co- a study
00:25:20
with academics across the United States
00:25:21
it was a first of his kind study to
00:25:23
partner with a social media company to
00:25:25
find out what happens if we actually
00:25:27
alter that algorithm them so what if we
00:25:29
changed it what if it wasn't
00:25:31
prioritizing this problematic content so
00:25:34
we had around 40,000 people who agreed
00:25:36
to allow us to mess with their social
00:25:38
media feeds on Instagram and Facebook
00:25:40
and so during the last presidential
00:25:42
election for a random subset of them we
00:25:44
actually turned off the engagement based
00:25:45
algorithm we instead had content show up
00:25:48
temporally so whoever posted last was
00:25:51
the one you saw first in your feed so it
00:25:53
was a chronological order no engagement
00:25:55
algorithm and when we did this what
00:25:57
happened well when we switched Instagram
00:26:00
and Facebook ranking algorithms to a
00:26:01
chronological feed people spent less
00:26:06
time so they really were craving this
00:26:09
sort of Engagement and when they didn't
00:26:11
get it they spent less time on the
00:26:13
platform overall and in fact for a
00:26:15
subset of them we tracked what they did
00:26:17
and they started to spend more time on
00:26:20
other platforms so when they didn't get
00:26:22
this sort of Engagement based ranking
00:26:24
algorithm they said ah forget that I'm
00:26:26
just going to go somewhere else where I
00:26:28
can get it so for all of these reasons I
00:26:31
submit to you that social media is in
00:26:33
fact not the best way to have difficult
00:26:35
conversations it elevates content that
00:26:37
inflames difference it leads us to
00:26:39
follow people who are similar to us uh
00:26:42
and it elevates content that is
00:26:44
problematic okay next point for you I
00:26:47
want you to think of the last time that
00:26:49
you met someone new so probably
00:26:50
something recently and I want you to
00:26:52
think what you did when you met someone
00:26:54
new probably what you did is try to
00:26:56
figure out what you have in common so
00:26:58
you realize like oh we both came from
00:27:00
the suburbs of Dallas or oh we both
00:27:01
played tennis in high school and this is
00:27:04
a great thing establishing common ground
00:27:06
is a wonderful way to start having a
00:27:08
difficult conversation because you have
00:27:10
something in common first but
00:27:12
establishing Common Ground can come up
00:27:14
with all of these problematic inferences
00:27:16
because you start to think oh that
00:27:18
person must share my opinion on all
00:27:20
sorts of things when in fact we don't
00:27:22
often share opinions on lots of things
00:27:25
so I want you to try a thought
00:27:26
experiment for me the next time you meet
00:27:28
someone new or the next time you're
00:27:29
chatting with a new acquaintance I want
00:27:31
you to think not about common ground but
00:27:34
I want you to say here's what we have in
00:27:36
common and here's how we're different
00:27:39
because when we appreciate the
00:27:40
differences that we have that's when we
00:27:42
can really learn and this is what
00:27:44
democratic theorists say is absolutely
00:27:47
critical for the practice of democracy
00:27:49
is listening for difference
00:27:52
understanding how we might be different
00:27:54
from one another and using that to
00:27:56
inform the way that we look at others
00:27:58
and the way we Orient toward the world
00:28:00
so this is my third point for you is
00:28:03
finding common ground can be good but
00:28:06
listening for how you're different can
00:28:08
be even more
00:28:11
powerful now if you want to create a
00:28:13
context where you're listening to
00:28:14
someone that has a different view how
00:28:16
might you speak to create a productive
00:28:19
conversation to have a difficult
00:28:21
conversation but where you come away
00:28:23
with an appreciation of another point of
00:28:25
view and uh here's an example
00:28:29
so this is a point of view that someone
00:28:31
might have about social media they might
00:28:32
say social media companies are being
00:28:34
heavy-handed in removing content from
00:28:36
the Platforms in a democracy we must
00:28:39
prioritize the free exchange of ideas
00:28:41
online no matter what even offensive or
00:28:43
misleading posts we have to create a
00:28:45
legal path for people to appeal the
00:28:47
removal of their posts and hold
00:28:49
platforms accountable for restricting
00:28:50
Free Speech there are no downsides to
00:28:52
this okay so this is one way you could
00:28:55
articulate a point of view and it's a
00:28:56
way a lot of people articulate points of
00:28:58
view online forcefully with confidence
00:29:02
but it turns out that a lot of us have a
00:29:04
lot of opinions on a lot of things but
00:29:06
on a lot of things we actually don't
00:29:08
have a lot of information about it that
00:29:10
if you really think about that issue
00:29:11
there are components of it that you
00:29:13
actually don't know so instead of
00:29:16
articulating something so forcefully
00:29:18
What If instead we included a bit of
00:29:20
what is called intellectual humility we
00:29:23
admit that we might not know everything
00:29:25
and it might not be the right answer so
00:29:27
here's the exact same point being made
00:29:29
but with a little addition of
00:29:31
intellectual humility so this may just
00:29:33
meet me but I worry that social media
00:29:35
companies are sometimes being
00:29:37
heavy-handed I acknowledge that some
00:29:39
posts may be offensive or misleading one
00:29:41
idea may be however I recognize there
00:29:44
may be downsides to this as well and
00:29:47
this incorporation of intellectual
00:29:49
humility in our speech has all sorts of
00:29:51
positive outcomes so with colleagues at
00:29:53
the center for media engagement a center
00:29:55
here on campus that hires undergrads too
00:29:57
from time to time uh we've been really
00:29:59
studying what's the effect of
00:30:01
incorporating intellectual humility in
00:30:03
conversation and it turns out when you
00:30:05
use intellectual humility when you're
00:30:07
having difficult conversations not only
00:30:09
do people feel more warmly toward you
00:30:11
they're also more likely to want to work
00:30:13
with you to solve the issue and the
00:30:15
really amazing thing about intellectual
00:30:17
humility is note that when you're using
00:30:20
these sorts of words you're basically
00:30:22
saying I don't know everything there
00:30:24
might be something out there that could
00:30:25
convince me and the wild thing about the
00:30:27
research on
00:30:28
is that people who use intellectual
00:30:30
humility are seen as more competent even
00:30:35
though they're admitting things that
00:30:36
they don't know so this is a a type of
00:30:39
speech that you can consider when you're
00:30:41
going into a context in which you may
00:30:43
have a difficult
00:30:44
conversation okay so in our time
00:30:46
together we've talked about humility
00:30:48
here and a little bit can go a long way
00:30:50
and I want to reiterate my four points
00:30:51
so that you can take them away with you
00:30:53
first democracy actually demands of us
00:30:55
to have these difficult conversations
00:30:58
that's how democracy Works second social
00:31:01
media is not a good model for having
00:31:03
difficult conversations third listening
00:31:06
is key and fourth and finally a little
00:31:08
bit of intellectual humility can go a
00:31:10
long way thank you so
00:31:12
[Applause]
00:31:19
much thank you Dr Stroud 4.8 hours okay
00:31:24
I've got two teenagers at home I got to
00:31:25
remember that um our final speaker for
00:31:29
this evening is Dr chetto Vora Gupta
00:31:32
with a master's and PHD in social work
00:31:35
Dr VOR Gupta works on identifying and
00:31:38
analyzing structural racism within
00:31:40
Health policies as an assistant
00:31:42
professor in the Steve Hicks School of
00:31:43
Social Work her current projects include
00:31:46
examining the cultural determinants of
00:31:48
health and their impact on Health Equity
00:31:52
some of you may be currently in her ugs
00:31:54
303 course the invisible 80% students
00:31:58
policy and action a difficult dialogue
00:32:00
signature course she has been teaching
00:32:03
each fall since
00:32:05
2018 welcome Dr Vora
00:32:12
Gupta thank
00:32:14
you hello how are you
00:32:17
guys thank you for being here this
00:32:20
evening um as Dr reic said I teach um
00:32:25
ugs difficult dialogues course 303 three
00:32:28
the title is the invisible 80% students
00:32:32
policy and
00:32:33
action and actually the impetus behind
00:32:36
that course were students back in
00:32:40
2017 there was actually some racial
00:32:42
tensions going on on campus and I at
00:32:45
that time worked at a policy
00:32:48
Institute and students of color had come
00:32:50
to us and asked about
00:32:53
policies on campus that had any effect
00:32:57
on some of the hate incidents is
00:32:59
happening on
00:33:00
campus and really at that time while we
00:33:04
looked through the university policy
00:33:07
office and so forth there weren't any
00:33:09
that the students were satisfied with so
00:33:12
in that interaction with students and
00:33:14
Leadership a couple of things came to my
00:33:17
mind one was how do students of color
00:33:20
and students from other marginalized
00:33:23
communities come together and have
00:33:25
dialogue and the second was how do
00:33:28
students have dialogue with those that
00:33:30
are in uh with individuals that are in
00:33:32
positions of
00:33:34
power and so with those two I kind of
00:33:36
set in an application to create this
00:33:38
difficult dialoges course and I have
00:33:41
loved teaching it ever since it is my
00:33:43
favorite course to teach now for my
00:33:47
purpose for tonight is really to talk to
00:33:49
you about what students over the years
00:33:52
that have taken this course have taught
00:33:54
me students that over the years have sat
00:33:57
in the very same seats that you guys are
00:33:59
sitting right
00:34:02
now so one of the things
00:34:06
about
00:34:07
dialogue in policy is that we've come to
00:34:12
an uh a time frame where
00:34:15
polarization seems to be the norm and it
00:34:18
wasn't the case before and so engaging
00:34:22
and difficult dialogues seems to be even
00:34:25
more of an importance not only in policy
00:34:28
but outside of policy
00:34:30
too the underlying framework that
00:34:33
students over the time have taught me is
00:34:36
that engaging in these dialogues creates
00:34:38
a pathway to Greater human understanding
00:34:42
for those that are different from
00:34:48
us so as a very astute research scholar
00:34:53
when I was asked to talk about tonight
00:34:55
this topic on difficult conversations
00:34:59
and how to have them I did what all
00:35:01
researchers do I came up with research
00:35:04
questions who what when where why and
00:35:07
how so what what is a difficult dialogue
00:35:11
my my colleague Dr Strauss kind of
00:35:13
touched on this too but what are the
00:35:16
difficult conversations it's a planned
00:35:18
discussion about an uncomfortable topic
00:35:21
where the goals
00:35:23
are to share different perspectives
00:35:27
build Mutual
00:35:29
understanding and develop
00:35:32
respect it's not about winning and it's
00:35:35
not about changing someone else's
00:35:37
perspective that's where it's different
00:35:39
from
00:35:42
debate why now echoing what again my
00:35:47
colleague said social media is such a
00:35:50
big part of your lives 4.8 hours exactly
00:35:53
a day and so what you see see the
00:35:58
algorithms are so set that everything
00:36:01
becomes an echo chamber which only
00:36:03
confirms your
00:36:05
bias right so instead of looking at
00:36:07
facts that might be different from what
00:36:10
you hold to believe you're only looking
00:36:14
at things that confirm your bias I have
00:36:17
my biases I'm guilty of it
00:36:21
myself and the last point of why now is
00:36:24
this notion of civil engagement and
00:36:26
civil dialogue
00:36:28
the course that I teach revolves around
00:36:31
policy not just University policy but
00:36:34
students take up local state and
00:36:37
National
00:36:38
policy we talk about reproductive Health
00:36:41
policy Free
00:36:43
Speech we talk about education policy
00:36:47
and such as affirmative
00:36:49
action we talk about hazing policy we
00:36:53
talk about immigration policy criminal
00:36:55
justice policies
00:36:58
and H to engage in that dialogue in a
00:37:01
way that critically assesses
00:37:05
policy it confronts and challenges
00:37:08
harmful
00:37:11
norms and teaches how to connect
00:37:14
meaningfully with Society that's the
00:37:17
Civil engagement civil discourse part
00:37:20
that I hope difficult dialogues and
00:37:22
conversations bring up and that students
00:37:24
have said that they have greater insight
00:37:26
to
00:37:29
how to engage in these difficult
00:37:33
conversations now all those that you see
00:37:36
all five of them there are all based in
00:37:39
research that's not anything new to
00:37:41
research but it's the top five that I
00:37:44
have students have echoed to me as
00:37:46
something that has been meaningful them
00:37:48
a skill set that they're able to take
00:37:50
and walk away with even outside of
00:37:54
University the first is this notion of
00:37:56
self-re
00:37:58
ction and actually I think a lot of time
00:38:00
gets spent here in the beginning of my
00:38:03
course and what I mean by
00:38:06
self-reflection is an awareness of each
00:38:08
of our
00:38:10
identities see each of us walk into any
00:38:13
space with our
00:38:16
positionality and our positionality is
00:38:19
our
00:38:20
identities we have more than
00:38:23
one which society has t has deemed
00:38:27
has power and privilege or those that
00:38:30
don't so we each of us hold identities
00:38:33
that hold power in certain situations
00:38:35
and each of us have identities that
00:38:37
don't hold power in certain
00:38:39
situation so it's the combination of all
00:38:42
of those
00:38:43
identities power and privilege afforded
00:38:46
or not
00:38:47
afforded plus the emotions that go with
00:38:51
it the understanding of that for each of
00:38:55
us is the self-reflection
00:38:58
and walking into a space knowing what
00:39:00
our identities are and how they impact
00:39:04
us is the start to an effective
00:39:07
difficult
00:39:10
dialogue I mentioned emotion so each of
00:39:12
our
00:39:14
identities has emotions behind it
00:39:17
depending on the power and privilege
00:39:18
that it holds and so acknowledging this
00:39:20
emotions are important so for example
00:39:24
you and I could be having a conversation
00:39:26
about immigration policy what should be
00:39:27
happening at the border or not we could
00:39:30
be getting to heated discussion and we
00:39:32
think it's about the actual policy at
00:39:35
play but it's actually about the
00:39:36
emotions it's about the identities that
00:39:39
are triggered in the emotions behind it
00:39:42
so the knowledge of that is an important
00:39:45
piece to be able to engage in dialogue
00:39:48
to where it's productive and it's a
00:39:50
civil discourse the third is active
00:39:54
listening active listening is listening
00:39:56
to understand
00:39:58
versus listening to
00:40:01
negate along with that comes asking
00:40:03
meaningful questions meaningful
00:40:05
questions that seek to understand the
00:40:07
other person's side their Viewpoint and
00:40:10
their lived experience could be
00:40:12
different from ours but worth knowing
00:40:15
and understanding just the
00:40:18
same and finally this point of Leaning
00:40:22
into safe
00:40:23
discomfort this is something my students
00:40:25
have taught me so beginning of each
00:40:28
semester we come up with ground rules on
00:40:31
how to create Brave spaces in this
00:40:36
classroom the students I have 30
00:40:39
students come from all different
00:40:40
backgrounds don't know each other so how
00:40:42
do we start engaging in dialogue that we
00:40:45
know is going
00:40:47
to create
00:40:49
vulnerability and so this leaning into
00:40:51
safe discomfort is creating those ground
00:40:54
rules of respect
00:40:57
of if someone has already spoken twice
00:41:01
offering the floor to someone that
00:41:02
hasn't
00:41:03
spoken it's about asking questions with
00:41:08
meaning and it entails other aspects of
00:41:12
safety for that classroom there's also
00:41:17
accountability so these are the five
00:41:19
elements that students have said of how
00:41:22
to engage in difficult dialogues
00:41:28
now what happens when we
00:41:34
engage Real World engagement real world
00:41:38
when we're out of the University when
00:41:40
we're out at our internships and
00:41:43
jobs the skill sets learned here can be
00:41:48
transferred you problem solve with
00:41:50
innovative
00:41:52
solutions you know when um one of the
00:41:56
things that we do in the course is we
00:41:58
write policy papers each student chooses
00:42:02
one policy that they want to analyze
00:42:05
through an equity
00:42:07
lens and I've had students pick the
00:42:10
policy of gun policy here on
00:42:13
campus and analyze through an an equity
00:42:19
lens there's several tools Frameworks
00:42:21
which are based in evidence and research
00:42:24
that they choose and then they present
00:42:26
it to
00:42:29
utpd and other administrators that have
00:42:32
power in these positions to create
00:42:34
policy change so Solutions are
00:42:37
Innovative when you engage in difficult
00:42:41
dialogues expanding our
00:42:45
perspectives and then finally this piece
00:42:49
on
00:42:51
empathy I had a student who wrote uh
00:42:56
very recently uh a paper on a policy
00:43:00
that they really wanted
00:43:02
to analyze and it was from Katie ISD
00:43:06
Katie Independent School District Katie
00:43:08
is a small town in case you don't know
00:43:11
outside of
00:43:12
Houston and over the last couple of
00:43:14
years Katie had a policy that said
00:43:16
students had to choose the pronouns that
00:43:19
they were born
00:43:20
with and the goal of that policy was to
00:43:23
create safe learning environment
00:43:28
now this student took up this
00:43:32
policy and we go through different
00:43:34
phases of analysis and initially the
00:43:37
student was you know this makes sense
00:43:39
safe learning environment we got to have
00:43:41
rules and regulations that make
00:43:44
sense took the analysis a step further
00:43:47
went through an equity lens and
00:43:49
intersectional policy analysis framework
00:43:52
and at the end when he was
00:43:55
presenting he said he ended up saying
00:43:58
that the policy no longer fits the goal
00:44:01
it does not fit the goal of safe
00:44:03
learning and so he had these other
00:44:05
recommendations that he offered to KD
00:44:10
ISD and so the students in the class
00:44:12
asked him they're like well what
00:44:13
happened this whole semester because
00:44:15
they all talked to each other and we're
00:44:16
in small groups and so forth throughout
00:44:18
the semester and so they asked them
00:44:19
they're like well what changed your mind
00:44:22
you were all about this policy initially
00:44:25
and he said and he had identified as
00:44:27
South Asian and he said because if
00:44:29
somebody asked me to give up my South
00:44:31
Asian
00:44:33
identity it wouldn't feel like a safe
00:44:35
learning
00:44:38
environment and so the underlying
00:44:42
thread engaging in difficult dialogues
00:44:45
and difficult
00:44:48
conversations is hope that this notion
00:44:51
of
00:44:52
empathy the highest form of knowledge is
00:44:56
empathy
00:44:58
and the students have taught me over
00:44:59
time overdoing this
00:45:01
course that for them that becomes an end
00:45:06
result and
00:45:08
so I end with that with engaging in
00:45:11
difficult dialogues I encourage you if
00:45:13
you haven't taken a difficult dialogue
00:45:15
course to do so if you haven't engaged
00:45:17
in difficult do so civil engagement and
00:45:21
civil discourse and difficult
00:45:24
dialogues highest form of knowledge is
00:45:26
empathy
00:45:28
thank
00:45:29
[Applause]
00:45:37
you thank you Dr VOR
00:45:40
Gupta
00:45:44
okay please stay seated and join me in
00:45:46
giving a round of applause to thank all
00:45:48
three of our speakers tonight
00:45:57
and our ASL
00:46:02
translators we have just enough time for
00:46:05
one or two questions and let's get
00:46:07
started with them so here is a question
00:46:09
that was very was very popular and this
00:46:12
is for all of you or any of you to
00:46:14
answer at what point should someone
00:46:17
withdraw from a difficult
00:46:22
conversation I I can start with that one
00:46:25
um in the the slide that said lean into
00:46:28
safe
00:46:30
discomfort um the safe part is what feel
00:46:35
safe for you
00:46:37
so I prior to this uh research coming
00:46:42
out on Brave spaces was the notion of
00:46:45
safe spaces and so you know as we were
00:46:49
teaching we like we want to create a
00:46:50
safe space and realize that safety is
00:46:53
not the same for everyone what might
00:46:55
feel safe for me may not feel safe for
00:46:58
you so the transition then the research
00:47:01
backed this notion of creating Brave
00:47:04
spaces and so the brave spaces the
00:47:07
intention behind that is in the moment
00:47:09
that you do not feel unsafe or you feel
00:47:12
like an identity that you
00:47:15
hold is being
00:47:18
attacked or is no longer you're able to
00:47:22
uh engage in a dialogue
00:47:25
that out of another one feel safe for
00:47:28
you or without being attacked is to then
00:47:31
withdraw thanks folks if you could just
00:47:33
stay seated until 8:00 we're gonna we're
00:47:35
almost done so we have a little time for
00:47:37
more questions go ahead else want to
00:47:40
answer another one
00:47:42
okay next
00:47:44
question my phone will
00:47:47
unlock is it okay to create dialogue
00:47:50
surrounding tough topics even if you
00:47:52
aren't aware of your own feelings and
00:47:55
thoughts about them
00:48:00
happy to start on that one absolutely
00:48:02
you should absolutely have those sorts
00:48:04
of conversations that's the way in which
00:48:06
you can learn diverse views it's a place
00:48:09
where you can test out your own ideas
00:48:11
you can even say things like I'm going
00:48:13
to make an argument here that I'm not
00:48:14
sure I totally believe and using those
00:48:16
sorts of conversational moves can help
00:48:19
you to have a really productive amazing
00:48:21
conversation and test it out find out
00:48:24
whether that that you can sustain that
00:48:26
argument and you believe it by the end
00:48:28
and then you can say oh no you know what
00:48:30
what I said earlier I don't believe that
00:48:31
anymore which is a wonderful experience
00:48:33
to have and I would just that that's
00:48:35
what a university is
00:48:37
for to have such
00:48:41
conversations well terrific advice well
00:48:44
once again I want to thank our our
00:48:46
panelists for being here tonight I want
00:48:48
to thank all of you for coming tonight
00:48:49
to the Herbert Family lecture series uh
00:48:52
have a great rest of the semester and
00:48:54
good luck in your ggs courses
00:48:57
good night
