What is Viewpoint Diversity?
To save American democracy, we must reject viewpoint replacement and reclaim Madison’s vision of pluralism—where diverse, even conflicting voices collide, collaborate, and build a better whole.
By Jeremi Suri
American democracy depends on diversity. Our system is built around “unity in diversity,” what James Madison identified as the advantage of a larger size and territory in encouraging productive combinations between different groups. Madison expected people to remain divided into what he called “factions,” but he anticipated that when thrown together in a single, free republic, they would find ways to work together for mutual benefit. The key was creating a system that encouraged collaboration for mutual benefits, especially security and prosperity. This is the enduring American contribution to democratic theory: pluralism.
The best image of pluralism is the collection of ethnic neighborhoods in an early twentieth-century city. Little Italy, Chinatown, the Jewish neighborhood, and the African-American ghetto were separated within tight spaces, and often antagonistic toward one another. Nonetheless, they each contributed essential services to the city and worked together in shared institutions, including markets, courts, and urban political machines. Although they attended separate bars and churches, factories and schools brought the groups together. They remained distinct in their beliefs as they learned how to collaborate for mutual gain.
That is how viewpoint diversity really works. American democracy presumes different, often antagonistic views among citizens. Our population has always come from places at war with one another, and those conflicts do not disappear at our borders. Religious differences have defined American life, with Christians, Muslims, Jews, Confucians, Hindus, and many other faiths (and non-faiths) seeking their own salvation while presuming others are destined for hell. Pluralism has embraced these differences as a strength, and viewpoint diversity has encouraged pragmatic cooperation among the factions for wealth creation, nation-building, and common defense.
James Madison leaned into difference, and so did American democracy from its first days. Federalism is an example of this, where local and state governments add diverse voices to national policy debates. Our institutions are anchored in geographical, historical, economic, and cultural differences. States like Texas and cities like Austin elect representatives who embrace the unique attributes of their citizens, and then they are expected to work with representatives from other places to find mutual benefits.
When we think about viewpoint diversity, we must take the diversity seriously. If you are advocating for one viewpoint, even a minority viewpoint, and you accompany that advocacy with an effort to silence others, then you are really promoting viewpoint replacement. Substituting one orthodoxy for another is just another form of repression. Viewpoint diversity widens the range of ideas and experiences in democracy; viewpoint replacement narrows ideas and experiences to serve powerful prejudices.
That is where we are today, and it is why our democracy is suffering in many places. Take my own university. We are fortunate that the Texas state legislature, board of regents, and governor have agreed to invest $100 million this year to “teach principles of freedom.” At the same time, they are proposing a bill that will establish new external oversight committees to limit the teaching of ideas they do not like related to social justice, economic inequality, foreign intervention, and, of course, racial and gender diversity. Over the last year, the same leaders promoting our university’s School of Civic Leadership have prohibited all programming about diversity, and they have deployed state police on campus to intimidate and arrest student protesters.
Governor Greg Abbott said, “We need to get back on the pathway of ensuring that we’re educating our students with the leading concepts that have led to the great country we are today.” I could embrace that language if “leading concepts” and “great country” allowed for a wide range of learned, well-studied perspectives. Leading concepts should include the mechanisms of free markets as well as the pervasiveness of racial discrimination. Studying a great country should combine appreciation for free enterprise and innovation with attention to structural inequalities and injustices. If you promote one point of view around these topics and repress the other, then you are not creating viewpoint diversity.
That is the strategy of many current Republicans. They advocated free speech a few years ago, but now they want less speech from their adversaries. They want to boost a particular view of the United States that matches the preferences of their supporters. Notice how often Republicans are attacking what students, professors, journalists, and other figures say.
The point must be made that diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) advocates sometimes did the same, with less brute force. In its extreme and lazy forms, the call for diversity becomes a form of identity politics where people who look and sound a certain way get extra attention. In the effort to reverse injustices, an upside-down world is sometimes created where the victims are the new overlords, demanding politically correct “diversity statements” and insulting self-criticism “training” sessions. The cruel irony is that conservative viewpoint replacement efforts follow the worst excesses of DEI viewpoint replacement – one intolerant version of ideology after another…
So, how can we get back to Madison’s pluralism and true viewpoint diversity? That is not easy when people are focused on their preferred political outcomes rather than the virtues of discussion and learning. We must remind ourselves that no one has a monopoly on the correct answers in a democracy. Facts and honesty are essential, and a free society assumes that free actors will voice the views of their group while respecting the considered views of other groups. Truth is found in the intersection of views, the debates about facts and interpretations, and the compromises necessary to build consensus.
Like the ethnic groups living separately in a city, the different groups can continue to speak their own languages, as they also find agreement on key words, phrases, and concepts. Viewpoint diversity requires recognition of the limits of one’s own group, and a desire to hear and learn from the insights of others, especially when common needs are on the line.
For universities in particular, boosting some groups over others will only make viewpoint diversity harder to achieve. The problem is not an absence of strongly held views with people to support them. What is missing is a culture that truly encourages discussion of different perspectives. Instead of specialized silos that emphasize separation, we need to lean into difference – showcasing how smart, learned people can see the same issue in fundamentally different ways. Democracy thrives when students grapple with difficult, uncomfortable, diverse points of view and then re-think their own mixed preferences.
Wisdom in a democracy is ever-evolving. Leaders and institutions must encourage a wide and continual discussion among different, fact-based, learned opinions. True viewpoint diversity allows for a vibrant public discussion. That must be our goal, and we must reject the seductions of viewpoint replacement. American democracy will thrive again when we return to Madison’s pluralism. I hope this article is one small example…
Also see in:
German, Turkish, Chinese, Spanish
Jeremi Suri holds the Mack Brown Distinguished Chair for Leadership in Global Affairs at the University of Texas at Austin. He is a professor in the University's Department of History and the LBJ School of Public Affairs. Professor Suri is the author and editor of eleven books on politics and foreign policy, most recently: Civil War By Other Means: America’s Long and Unfinished Fight for Democracy. His other books include: The Impossible Presidency: The Rise and Fall of America’s Highest Office; Liberty’s Surest Guardian: American Nation-Building from the Founders to Obama; Henry Kissinger and the American Century; and Power and Protest: Global Revolution and the Rise of Détente. His writings appear in the New York Times, Washington Post, Wall Street Journal, CNN.com, Atlantic, Newsweek, Time, Wired, Foreign Affairs, Foreign Policy, and other media. Professor Suri is a popular public lecturer and comments frequently on radio and television news. His writing and teaching have received numerous prizes, including the President’s Associates Teaching Excellence Award from the University of Texas and the Pro Bene Meritis Award for Contributions to the Liberal Arts. Professor Suri hosts a weekly podcast, “This is Democracy.”