John Taylor, Professor of Economics at Stanford University and developer of the "Taylor Rule" for setting interest rates | Stanford University
John Taylor, Professor of Economics at Stanford University and developer of the "Taylor Rule" for setting interest rates | Stanford University
A spring quarter course at Stanford University, PHIL 3: Democracy and Disagreement, has introduced a novel approach to conflict resolution. The course, taught by Debra Satz, the Vernon R. and Lysbeth Warren Anderson Dean of the School of Humanities and Sciences (H&S), and Paul Brest, professor emeritus and interim dean at Stanford Law School (SLS) at the time, emphasized understanding opposing viewpoints rather than winning arguments.
Each week, Satz and Brest facilitated discussions with scholars holding divergent perspectives on issues such as gun regulation, social media legislation, and legacy admissions. The broader Stanford community was invited to attend these sessions.
“Civil disagreement, of course, can be hard, and it can be passionate. It can also be compatible with advocating for radical change of the status quo,” Satz stated.
The course aimed to model civil discourse on divisive topics through conversation rather than debate. All classes were recorded and are available on the School of Humanities and Sciences website.
One notable session featured former Palestinian Prime Minister Salam Fayyad and Israeli Professor Alon Tal discussing a two-state solution for the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. “Even the most high-stakes, passionate, and very deep disagreement can be conducted in a meaningful way and people can learn,” Satz said.
Brest highlighted the complexity of issues discussed in the course. “Some of the issues [covered in the course] were not merely two-sided,” he said. “Many were multifaceted. The goal of the class was to listen to another position, to look for its strengths as well as its weaknesses, and to acknowledge your own position.”
A discussion between Stanford scholars Jeff Hancock and Anna Lembke about whether social media is addictive illustrated how disagreements can arise from differences in data interpretation. Lembke shared clinical experiences suggesting that social media use mirrors addiction symptoms. Hancock reviewed numerous studies finding no conclusive evidence linking social media use to harm at a population level but emphasized considering content and context.
Brest remarked that parsing through diverging scientific evidence is crucial for democracy despite being challenging or confusing at times.
Economic historian Ran Abramitzky addressed conflicting values during a discussion on immigration policy. “Even when we can agree on evidence and facts, reasonable people can reasonably disagree about what the policy recommendations are,” Abramitzky said.
The course concluded with a student panel discussing essential conditions for civil disagreement. Christian Figueroa noted how empathy played a significant role in respectful discourse between Satz and economics Professor Alvin Roth during their discussion on kidney exchange programs.
Senkai Hsia admired the respectfulness and intellectual curiosity demonstrated by scholars throughout the course discussions. “Humility, I think, is what creates the conditions for that good faith,” Hsia commented.
Satz and Brest will offer this course again in winter with new topics under discussion.
___
Alerts Sign-up