Education and 'tolerance'

[nothumb]

Here's one for you.

It is often repeated that 'educated people tend to be more tolerant,' or that knowledge of real facts and perspectives on other societies tends to lead to a greater degree of tolerance and comfort with different ways of life.

It is also often repeated that American higher education is highly 'liberal.' Usually this connotes liberal in the pejorative, vague and inaccurate sense, used today as an insult to describe the semblance of a left wing party we have, and its common policies. As a person who is both highly educated and also highly leftist, I have no problem admitting that higher education in this country tends more to the supposed 'left' of our narrow political spectrum, or that, within the confines of the clouded political terms employed in debate around here, higher education could be described as somewhat leftist (although I think the momentum is in the other direction at this time).

So, this begs the question: is 'tolerance' (a virtue of so-called liberals in this country) a natural extension of education? Does it really result, empirically and demonstrably, from greater knowledge of the world surrounding us? Or does the near-left of higher ed attempt to essentialize education and its merits to include one of the pillars of its own political platform?

If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

Thanks
NT

[nothumb]

I sort of had a feeling this one might not get anyone going. Too wonky.

[wacki]

[ QUOTE ]
I sort of had a feeling this one might not get anyone going. Too wonky.

[/ QUOTE ]

Just for you Nothumb,

Does it really result, empirically and demonstrably, from greater knowledge of the world surrounding us?

This isn't my field, but I suggest you try here:
http://scholar.google.com/

Good luck.

If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

I say yes and no. I've seen plenty of very well educated people who were complete bigots. This is especially true when it comes to social classes, sexual behavior, rectreational activities (weed), image projected by your clothing, if you went to Harvard or some "lowly" state school. Some people just have blinders on, others need to be smacked around a little, others just need to get out more. No amount of education can help those people.

Hope that helps.

I have a paper to write......and I'm really tired. No sleep for me. [img]/images/graemlins/frown.gif[/img]

[MMMMMM]

[ QUOTE ]
If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

Good question. I don't think education necessarily = more tolerance.

Take modern-day "liberals" for example. While many of them extend or profess great tolerance to foreign cultures and countries (even too much, in my opinion, to the point of putting serious human rights abuses under the category of "just another cultural way"), I think many of these supposedly tolerant liberals are actually highly intolerant of political ideologies other than their own (note the violent or semi-violent demonstrations, the blockings of traffic and vandalisms; and campus censorships and coercions).

I don't think it is true of you, NT: but consider that many leftists are both highly educated and highly intolerant.

My personal take is if you want real tolerance, shitcan modern day "Liberalism" and revert to Classic Liberalism.

So: what is tolerance a function of?

I think tolerance is more a function of empathy, and of a willingness to live-and-let-live, than of education. The ability to put one's self in another's shoes emotionally (and perhaps intellectually) is the main factor, it seems to me. If one is able to empathize, and if one does not think that his/her own view must be the view others too must hold in order for the world to be an OK place, then one is generally tolerant. If however one lacks empathy, or subscribes to the idea of forcing others to be (or to think) like one does, then one is intolerant. I'll also note here that all major "group-think" generally tends towards intolerance of the individual.

If people would just respect the right of everyone else to do or be whatever they want (as long as they aren't hurting others), the world would be full of tolerant people. And there you have much of M's personal philosophy in a nutshell.

[Non_Comformist]

Here's a short answer for you. True tolerance comes from wisdom not knowledge.

[Broken Glass Can]

I think educated people are better at "pretending" to be tolerant. They know they can push an agenda by acting tolerant while being terribly intolerant of groups they do not like (groups like religious people, capitalists, people with solid family values, and the middle class). It is phony tolerance for the most part, not real tolerance.

[vulturesrow]

NT,

Good to see you posting here, nice post.

[ QUOTE ]
If tolerance is a natural consequence of education, why? If not, why not?

[/ QUOTE ]

No. First off, some liberals tend to be just as intolerant of certain groups, just as some conservatives tend be intolerant of certain other groups. BGC pointed this and I wont expand further. I am more interested in your unspoken question which is how does one acheive true tolerance.

I think I am a pretty tolerant person. I am sure that some people on here are laughing at that but no one on here knows me outside of twoplustwo. I have a Bachelors degree, and I have taken a handful of postgrad classes, so my education is strictly average in my opinion. There are two things I think that contribute to my tolerant worldview.
One is that I grew up in a very poor family, single mom who worked two jobs, blah blah. So I know what its like to struggle. Another reason is my faith. Now some people will argue that religion is intolerant or it's adherents are. Now I am not saying that intolerant religious people dont exist. They do. But they are wrong. The Church (Im Catholic) clearly states that we should hate the sin, not the sinner. A good example is homosexuality. I dont believe that homesexual are right. Never in a million years would this prevent me from being friends with a homosexual, attack (verbally or physically)them, etc. To see the ludicrousness of those things, just ask one of the fervently antihomosexual religious types if they unleash that sort of rhetoric against all their friends (since we are all sinners).

One last thing. I think education can certainly be an enabler for tolerance. That is being well educated helps challenge your viewpoints. But education in and of itself doesnt make one tolerant.

[ACPlayer]

It is worth thinking about what is intolerance.

A good example is homosexuality. I dont believe that homesexual are right

What is the difference between saying that "I dont belive that homosexual(s) are right" and saying that "I am not a homosexual". In one case you are denigrating and passing judgement on a group and in a another you are simply acknowledging your own status.

[nothumb]

Thanks for all the responses. As you may have guessed question was largely rhetorical in nature. One underlying point of this question was actually - even more so than 'how do we achieve tolerance - "Is tolerance truly a virtue?"

Not because I necessarily believe otherwise but because those who say yes may not remember why.

I am also waiting for the response of some well-known 'liberals' on this forum. This question was an alley-oop for political conservatives, obviously, but I think the left has some valid points to make here. Conservative or classical realist foreign policy is more consistent in terms of who it tolerates and does not (though it tolerates fewer people, it also posesses a far greater moral clarity than some of our other policy influences.) But it has its pitfalls as well.

NT

[nothumb]

And one more thing. There is an anti-educational bent in some responses to this thread. Now, if you take 'education' to mean not 'went to an American college,' but rather, simply, 'more well-versed in other cultures and knowledgable about other ways of life,' how does it change your response?

NT