Talking Across the Aisle
Harvard Law Today | Rachel Reed
“In an interview with Harvard Law Today, [three instructors] explain why constructive dialogue has declined in recent decades, how to reverse the trend, and why it’s critical for lawyers — and everyone else — to learn how to have discussions about the issues facing our nation.”
“Health care, the federal budget, climate change, immigration, crime — there is no shortage of hot button issues in the United States, nor opinions on them. But despite the need to work together to find solutions, nearly 60 percent of Americans say that it is ‘stressful and frustrating’ to have conversations with those who have opposing political viewpoints, according to a recent Pew survey. The Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinical Program is working to change that.”
The following academics, interviewed by HLT, “teach courses on how to have empathetic and productive conversations with those who hold different views:”
Rachel Viscomi ’01, a clinical professor of law and director of the Harvard Negotiation and Mediation Clinic
Neil McGaraghan, a clinical instructor and lecturer on law
Morgan Michele Franklin ’17, a clinical instructor and lecturer on law, teach courses on how to have empathetic and productive conversations with those who hold different views.
Questions HLT asks include:
In the description of one of your courses, Political Dialogue in Polarized Times, you write that genuine dialogue across differing political viewpoints has declined in both public and private spaces over time. Why do you think that happened?
Why is it important that people — and law students in particular — have conversations with others who don’t think like them?
How can we approach polarizing topics with those with whom we deeply disagree? Do the tactics change if we’re talking to a colleague, as opposed to a member of our family?
Does it matter if the two sides don’t agree on the fundamental facts on which their conversation is based? For example, if one side points to scientific findings to bolster their argument, and the other refers to social media posts, how can a productive conversation move forward?
What happens if we don’t try to have more of these types of difficult conversations in our daily lives?
