Disagreeing without Disagreement by Zac Shaffer
Disagreements are an important part of society. Whether disagreeing about policies, laws, government, or even trial matters, disagreements and debates are necessary to effect change. However, as we continue to dive deeper into a society of deep-rooted polarizations, we continue to blindly follow a counter-productive philosophy. What is this philosophy? It is the idea that position is right, so your position is unequivocally wrong. In blindly following this ideal, society isolates itself from the true purpose of discussing disagreements – finding the truth.
This past week, I had the distinct honor and pleasure of attending a panel with three current Ohio Supreme Court Justices, including Justice Patrick F. Fischer. Justice Fischer, who was elected to serve on the Ohio Supreme Court in November 2016 and again in November 2022, has held his position as Supreme Court Justice for nearly a decade. Among other accolades, he has received the OSBA Bar Medal for his service to the profession, community, and humanity. He has experience representing plaintiffs and defendants alike and is known for expressing the importance of listening to all sides of a case.
During this panel, Justice Fischer was asked what is the biggest legal challenge facing us today and how can we as leaders and attorneys address it? His response was not only illuminating, but one of the most inspirational speeches I have heard in my lifetime. In summary, Justice Fischer stated that we as attorneys and leaders of our communities need to find a way to end the era of “Disagreeing with Disagreement.”
Our society, both legally and socially, has rooted and engrained itself in this idea that we must not only disagree with a position or argument, but also with the person and their point of view. Speaking plainly, society cannot separate the person from the viewpoint and, therefore, no fact, opinion, or argument can be valid by the opposition. Because of this, the world continues to polarize itself with any person that disagrees with their position; creating a world of black and white.
This is counterproductive to the main point of a debate, which is to openly discuss an issue and learn from both sides. Most issues are not black and white but exist in the gray. Justice Fischer stated clearly that for society and the legal practice to continue to evolve and grow, we must learn to “disagree without disagreement.” A simple concept of returning to a place where people can disagree and discuss those disagreements to become more knowledgeable. If we cannot learn why the opposition believes they are correct, then we will continue to demonize opposing viewpoints.
Justice Fischer urged all of us in attendance to focus on rectifying this problem as he believes it is one of the biggest problems society faces. We cannot implement change if we refuse to listen to the opposition. Whether you are trying to negotiate a settlement or debating your position on a relevant political issue, we must relearn to listen to opposing viewpoints to both understand their reasoning and to strengthen your own position. By not listening and appreciating the other side’s opinion and reasoning, there is no debate; there is no hope for a resolution. If we want to effect change, legally, politically, or socially, we must listen and understand all points of view. And we must learn to accept that the people behind the argument are still people. If we cannot, we as a society will continue to face an uphill battle with no summit in sight.
