speech about tolerance

TED is supported by ads and partners 00:00

Beyond Tolerance

English Summary

1 Minute Speech on Tolerance In English

A very good morning to one and all present here. Today, I will be giving a short speech on the topic of �Tolerance�.

Simply put, tolerance is the act of forbearing. Life is not all rosy like we envision it to be. Sometimes it will be unfair. Sometimes it will seem unbearable. At times like those, only the ability to tolerate will get us through and the hope that one day life will become better. To tolerate in life is thus a virtue we must all develop in our life.

Related Posts:

Beyond Intractability

Knowledge Base Masthead

The Hyper-Polarization Challenge to the Conflict Resolution Field We invite you to participate in an online exploration of what those with conflict and peacebuilding expertise can do to help defend liberal democracies and encourage them live up to their ideals.

Follow BI and the Hyper-Polarization Discussion on BI's New Substack Newsletter .

Hyper-Polarization, COVID, Racism, and the Constructive Conflict Initiative Read about (and contribute to) the  Constructive Conflict Initiative  and its associated Blog —our effort to assemble what we collectively know about how to move beyond our hyperpolarized politics and start solving society's problems. 

By Sarah Peterson

Originally published in July 2003, Current Implications added by Heidi Burgess in December, 2019

Current Implications

When Sarah wrote this essay in 2003, social media existed, but it hadn't yet become popular or widespread.  Facebook and Twitter hadn't started yet (Facebook started in 2004, Twitter in 2006.)  More .... 

What is Tolerance?

Hobbes: "How are you doing on your New Year's resolutions?"

Calvin: "I didn't make any. See, in order to improve oneself, one must have some idea of what's 'good.' That implies certain values. But as we all know, values are relative. Every system of belief is equally valid and we need to tolerate diversity. Virtue isn't 'better' than vice. It's just different."

Hobbes: "I don't know if I can tolerate that much tolerance."

Calvin: "I refuse to be victimized by notions of virtuous behavior."

--

Tolerance is the appreciation of diversity and the ability to live and let others live. It is the ability to exercise a fair and objective attitude towards those whose opinions, practices, religion, nationality, and so on differ from one's own.[1] As William Ury notes, "tolerance is not just agreeing with one another or remaining indifferent in the face of injustice, but rather showing respect for the essential humanity in every person."[2]

Intolerance is the failure to appreciate and respect the practices, opinions and beliefs of another group. For instance, there is a high degree of intolerance between Israeli Jews and Palestinians who are at odds over issues of identity , security , self-determination , statehood, the right of return for refugees, the status of Jerusalem and many other issues. The result is continuing intergroup conflict and violence .

Why Does Tolerance Matter?

At a post-9/11 conference on multiculturalism in the United States, participants asked, "How can we be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us?"[3] For many, tolerating intolerance is neither acceptable nor possible.

Though tolerance may seem an impossible exercise in certain situations -- as illustrated by Hobbes in the inset box on the right -- being tolerant, nonetheless, remains key to easing hostile tensions between groups and to helping communities move past intractable conflict. That is because tolerance is integral to different groups relating to one another in a respectful and understanding way. In cases where communities have been deeply entrenched in violent conflict, being tolerant helps the affected groups endure the pain of the past and resolve their differences. In Rwanda, the Hutus and the Tutsis have tolerated a reconciliation process , which has helped them to work through their anger and resentment towards one another.

The Origins of Intolerance

In situations where conditions are economically depressed and politically charged, groups and individuals may find it hard to tolerate those that are different from them or have caused them harm. In such cases, discrimination, dehumanization, repression, and violence may occur. This can be seen in the context of Kosovo, where Kosovar Alabanians, grappling with poverty and unemployment, needed a scapegoat, and supported an aggressive Serbian attack against neighboring Bosnian Muslim and Croatian neighbors.

The Consequences of Intolerance

Intolerance will drive groups apart, creating a sense of permanent separation between them. For example, though the laws of apartheid in South Africa were abolished nine years ago, there still exists a noticeable level of personal separation between black and white South Africans, as evidenced in studies on the levels of perceived social distance between the two groups.[4] This continued racial division perpetuates the problems of intergroup resentment and hostility.


How is Intolerance Perpetuated?

Between Individuals: In the absence of their own experiences, individuals base their impressions and opinions of one another on assumptions. These assumptions can be influenced by the positive or negative beliefs of those who are either closest or most influential in their lives, including parents or other family members, colleagues, educators, and/or role models. 

In the Media: Individual attitudes are influenced by the images of other groups in the media, and the press. For instance, many Serbian communities believed that the western media portrayed a negative image of the Serbian people during the NATO bombing in Kosovo and Serbia.[5] This de-humanization may have contributed to the West's willingness to bomb Serbia. However, there are studies that suggest media images may not influence individuals in all cases. For example, a study conducted on stereotypes discovered people of specific towns in southeastern Australia did not agree with the negative stereotypes of Muslims presented in the media.[6]

In Education: There exists school curriculum and educational literature that provide biased and/or negative historical accounts of world cultures. Education or schooling based on myths can demonize and dehumanize other cultures rather than promote cultural understanding and a tolerance for diversity and differences.


|

This post is also part of the

exploration of the tough challenges posed by the
.

What Can Be Done to Deal with Intolerance?

To encourage tolerance, parties to a conflict and third parties must remind themselves and others that tolerating tolerance is preferable to tolerating intolerance. Following are some useful strategies that may be used as tools to promote tolerance.

Intergroup Contact: There is evidence that casual intergroup contact does not necessarily reduce intergroup tensions, and may in fact exacerbate existing animosities. However, through intimate intergroup contact, groups will base their opinions of one another on personal experiences, which can reduce prejudices . Intimate intergroup contact should be sustained over a week or longer in order for it to be effective.[7]

In Dialogue: To enhance communication between both sides, dialogue mechanisms such as dialogue groups or problem solving workshops  provide opportunities for both sides to express their needs and interests. In such cases, actors engaged in the workshops or similar forums feel their concerns have been heard and recognized. Restorative justice programs such as victim-offender mediation provide this kind of opportunity as well. For instance, through victim-offender mediation, victims can ask for an apology from the offender and the offender can make restitution and ask for forgiveness.[8]

What Individuals Can Do

Individuals should continually focus on being tolerant of others in their daily lives. This involves consciously challenging the stereotypes and assumptions that they typically encounter in making decisions about others and/or working with others either in a social or a professional environment.

What the Media Can Do

The media should use positive images to promote understanding and cultural sensitivity. The more groups and individuals are exposed to positive media messages about other cultures, the less they are likely to find faults with one another -- particularly those communities who have little access to the outside world and are susceptible to what the media tells them. See the section on stereotypes  to learn more about how the media perpetuate negative images of different groups.

What the Educational System Can Do

Educators are instrumental in promoting tolerance and peaceful coexistence . For instance, schools that create a tolerant environment help young people respect and understand different cultures. In Israel, an Arab and Israeli community called Neve Shalom or Wahat Al-Salam ("Oasis of Peace") created a school designed to support inter-cultural understanding by providing children between the first and sixth grades the opportunity to learn and grow together in a tolerant environment.[9]

What Other Third Parties Can Do

Conflict transformation NGOs (non-governmental organizations) and other actors in the field of peacebuilding can offer mechanisms such as trainings to help parties to a conflict communicate better with one another. For instance, several organizations have launched a series of projects in Macedonia that aim to reduce tensions between the country's Albanian, Romani and Macedonian populations, including activities that promote democracy, ethnic tolerance, and respect for human rights.[10]

International organizations need to find ways to enshrine the principles of tolerance in policy. For instance, the United Nations has already created The Declaration of Moral Principles on Tolerance, adopted and signed in Paris by UNESCO's 185 member states on Nov. 16, 1995, which qualifies tolerance as a moral, political, and legal requirement for individuals, groups, and states.[11]

Governments also should aim to institutionalize policies of tolerance. For example, in South Africa, the Education Ministry has advocated the integration of a public school tolerance curriculum into the classroom; the curriculum promotes a holistic approach to learning . The United States government has recognized one week a year as international education week, encouraging schools, organizations, institutions, and individuals to engage in projects and exchanges to heighten global awareness of cultural differences.

The Diaspora community can also play an important role in promoting and sustaining tolerance. They can provide resources to ease tensions and affect institutional policies in a positive way. For example, Jewish, Irish, and Islamic communities have contributed to the peacebuilding effort within their places of origin from their places of residence in the United States. [12]

When Sarah wrote this essay in 2003, social media existed, but it hadn't yet become popular or widespread.  Facebook and Twitter hadn't started yet (Facebook started in 2004, Twitter in 2006.) 

In addition, while the conflict between the right and the left and the different races certainly existed in the United States, it was not nearly as escalated or polarized as it is now in 2019.  For those reasons (and others), the original version of this essay didn't discuss political or racial tolerance or intolerance in the United States.  Rather than re-writing the original essay, all of which is still valid, I have chosen to update it with these "Current Implications." 

In 2019, the intolerance between the Left and the Right in the United States has gotten extreme. Neither side is willing to accept the legitimacy of the values, beliefs, or actions of the other side, and they are not willing to tolerate those values, beliefs or actions whatsoever. That means, in essence, that they will not tolerate the people who hold those views, and are doing everything they can to disempower, delegitimize, and in some cases, dehumanize the other side.

Further, while intolerance is not new, efforts to spread and strengthen it have been greatly enhanced with the current day traditional media and social media environments: the proliferation of cable channels that allow narrowcasting to particular audiences, and Facebook and Twitter (among many others) that serve people only information that corresponds to (or even strengthens) their already biased views. The availability of such information channels both helps spread intolerance; it also makes the effects of that intolerance more harmful.

Intolerance and its correlaries (disempowerment, delegitimization, and dehumanization) are perhaps clearest on the right, as the right currently holds the U.S. presidency and controls the statehouses in many states.  This gives them more power to assert their views and disempower, delegitimize and dehumanize the other.  (Consider the growing restrictions on minority voting rights, the delegitimization of transgendered people and supporters, and the dehumanizing treatment of would-be immigrants at the southern border.) 

But the left is doing the same thing when it can.  By accusing the right of being "haters," the left delegitimizes the right's values and beliefs, many of which are not borne of animus, but rather a combination of bad information being spewed by fake news in social and regular media, and natural neurobiological tendencies which cause half of the population to be biologically more fearful, more reluctant to change, and more accepting of (and needing) a strong leader. 

Put together, such attitudes feed upon one another, causing an apparently never-ending escalation and polarization spiral of intolerance.  Efforts to build understanding and tolerance, just as described in the original article, are still much needed today both in the United States and across the world. 

The good news is that many such efforts exist.  The Bridge Alliance , for instance, is an organization of almost 100 member organizations which are working to bridge the right-left divide in the U.S.  While the Bridge Alliance doesn't use the term "tolerance" or "coexistence" in its framing " Four Principles ," they do call for U.S. leaders and the population to "work together" to meet our challenges.  "Working together" requires not only "tolerance for " and "coexistence with" the other side; it also requires respect for other people's views. That is something that many of the member organizations are trying to establish with red-blue dialogues, public fora, and other bridge-building activities.  We need much, much more of that now in 2019 if we are to be able to strengthen tolerance against the current intolerance onslaught.

One other thing we'd like to mention that was touched upon in the original article, but not explored much, is what can and should be done when the views or actions taken by the other side are so abhorent that they cannot and should not be tolerated? A subset of that question is one Sarah did pose above '"How can we be tolerant of those who are intolerant of us?"[3] For many, tolerating intolerance is neither acceptable nor possible." Sarah answers that by arguing that tolerance is beneficial--by implication, even in those situations. 

What she doesn't explicitly consider, however, is the context of the intolerance.  If one is considering the beliefs or behavior of another that doesn't affect anyone else--a personal decision to live in a particular way (such as following a particular religion for example), we would agree that tolerance is almost always beneficial, as it is more likely to lead to interpersonal trust and further understanding. 

However, if one is considering beliefs or actions of another that does affect other people--particularly actions that affect large numbers of people, then that is a different situation.  We do not tolerate policies that allow the widespread dissemination of fake news and allow foreign governments to manipulate our minds such that they can manipulate our elections.  That, in our minds is intolerable.  So too are actions that destroy the rule of law in this country; actions that threaten our democratic system.

But that doesn't mean that we should respond to intolerance in kind.  Rather, we would argue, one should respond to intolerance with respectful dissent--explaining why the intolerance is unfairly stereotyping an entire group of people; explaining why such stereotyping is both untrue and harmful; why a particular action is unacceptable because it threatens the integrity of our democratic system, explaining alternative ways of getting one's needs met. 

This can be done without attacking the people who are guilty of intolerance with direct personal attacks--calling them "haters," or shaming them for having voted a particular way.  That just hardens the other sides' intolerance. 

Still, reason-based arguments probably won't be accepted right away.  Much neuroscience research explains that emotions trump facts and that people won't change their minds when presented with alternative facts--they will just reject those facts.  But if people are presented with facts in the form of respectful discussion instead of personal attacks, that is both a factual and an emotional approach that can help de-escalate tensions and eventually allow for the development of tolerance.  Personal attacks on the intolerant will not do that.  So when Sarah asked whether one should tolerate intolerance, I would say "no, one should not." But that doesn't mean that you have to treat the intolerant person disrespectfully or "intolerantly."  Rather, model good, respectful behavior.  Model the behavior you would like them to adopt.  And use that to try to fight the intolerance, rather than simply "tolerating it." 

-- Heidi and Guy Burgess. December, 2019.

Back to Essay Top

---------------------------------------------------------

[1] The American Heritage Dictionary (New York: Dell Publishing, 1994).

[2] William Ury, Getting To Peace (New York: The Penguin Group, 1999), 127.

[3] As identified by Serge Schmemann, a New York Times columnist noted in his piece of Dec. 29, 2002, in The New York Times entitled "The Burden of Tolerance in a World of Division" that tolerance is a burden rather than a blessing in today's society.

[4] Jannie Malan, "From Exclusive Aversion to Inclusive Coexistence," Short Paper, African Centre for the Constructive Resolution of Disputes (ACCORD), Conference on Coexistence Community Consultations, Durban, South Africa, January 2003, 6.

[5] As noted by Susan Sachs, a New York Times columnist in her piece of Dec. 16, 2001, in The New York Times entitled "In One Muslim Land, an Effort to Enforce Lessons of Tolerance."

[6] Amber Hague, "Attitudes of high school students and teachers towards Muslims and Islam in a southeaster Australian community," Intercultural Education 2 (2001): 185-196.

[7] Yehuda Amir, "Contact Hypothesis in Ethnic Relations," in Weiner, Eugene, eds. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (New York: The Continuing Publishing Company, 2000), 162-181.

[8] The Ukrainian Centre for Common Ground has launched a successful restorative justice project. Information available on-line at www.sfcg.org .

[9] Neve Shalom homepage [on-line]; available at www.nswas.com ; Internet.

[10] Lessons in Tolerance after Conflict.  http://www.beyondintractability.org/library/external-resource?biblio=9997

[11] "A Global Quest for Tolerance" [article on-line] (UNESCO, 1995, accessed 11 February 2003); available at http://www.unesco.org/new/en/social-and-human-sciences/themes/fight-against-discrimination/promoting-tolerance/ ; Internet.

[12] Louis Kriesberg, "Coexistence and the Reconciliation of Communal Conflicts." In Weiner, Eugene, eds. The Handbook of Interethnic Coexistence (New York: The Continuing Publishing Company, 2000), 182-198.

Use the following to cite this article: Peterson, Sarah. "Tolerance." Beyond Intractability . Eds. Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess. Conflict Information Consortium, University of Colorado, Boulder. Posted: July 2003 < http://www.beyondintractability.org/essay/tolerance >.

Additional Resources

The intractable conflict challenge.

speech about tolerance

Our inability to constructively handle intractable conflict is the most serious, and the most neglected, problem facing humanity. Solving today's tough problems depends upon finding better ways of dealing with these conflicts.   More...

Selected Recent BI Posts Including Hyper-Polarization Posts

Hyper-Polarization Graphic

  • Reprise: Constructive Confrontation: Applying Conflict Insights from a 1st Party (Not 3rd Party) Perspective -- A reprise of an old newsletter on constructive ways of engaging in conflict that is less likely to create backlash and more likely to achieve one's goals than typical adversarial approaches are likely to do.
  • Guy and Heidi Burgess Talk with David Eisner about Threats to Democracy and How to Address Them -- The Burgesses talked with David Eisner about what he thinks the threats to democracy are, and how (and when) we might respond to them. We agreed, citizen involvement in governance is key.
  • Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of September 1, 2024 -- More in our regular set of links from readers, about colleague's activities, and from outside news and opinion sources.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

Educators Consider a low-cost BI-based custom text .

Constructive Conflict Initiative

Constructive Conflict Initiative Masthead

Join Us in calling for a dramatic expansion of efforts to limit the destructiveness of intractable conflict.

Things You Can Do to Help Ideas

Practical things we can all do to limit the destructive conflicts threatening our future.

Conflict Frontiers

A free, open, online seminar exploring new approaches for addressing difficult and intractable conflicts. Major topic areas include:

Scale, Complexity, & Intractability

Massively Parallel Peacebuilding

Authoritarian Populism

Constructive Confrontation

Conflict Fundamentals

An look at to the fundamental building blocks of the peace and conflict field covering both “tractable” and intractable conflict.

Beyond Intractability / CRInfo Knowledge Base

speech about tolerance

Home / Browse | Essays | Search | About

BI in Context

Links to thought-provoking articles exploring the larger, societal dimension of intractability.

Colleague Activities

Information about interesting conflict and peacebuilding efforts.

Disclaimer: All opinions expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of Beyond Intractability or the Conflict Information Consortium.

Beyond Intractability 

Unless otherwise noted on individual pages, all content is... Copyright © 2003-2022 The Beyond Intractability Project c/o the Conflict Information Consortium All rights reserved. Content may not be reproduced without prior written permission.

Guidelines for Using Beyond Intractability resources.

Citing Beyond Intractability resources.

Photo Credits for Homepage, Sidebars, and Landing Pages

Contact Beyond Intractability    Privacy Policy The Beyond Intractability Knowledge Base Project  Guy Burgess and Heidi Burgess , Co-Directors and Editors  c/o  Conflict Information Consortium Mailing Address: Beyond Intractability, #1188, 1601 29th St. Suite 1292, Boulder CO 80301, USA Contact Form

Powered by  Drupal

production_1

speech about tolerance

 

 

 

Somewhat

"Somewhat," he says.

Nor does it help anyone -- Nor does it help anyone’s cause to shout such epithets, or to try and shout a speaker down -- which is what happened last April when Dr. Falwell was hissed and heckled at Harvard. So I am doubly grateful for your courtesy here this evening. That was not Harvard’s finest hour, but I am happy to say that the loudest applause from the Harvard audience came in defense of Dr. Falwell’s right to speak.

. He had spoken there to allay suspicions about his Catholicism, and to answer those who claimed that on the day of his baptism, he was somehow disqualified from becoming President. His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life. Now, three years later, in November of 1963, he was appearing before the Protestant Council of New York City to reaffirm what he regarded as some fundamental truths. On that occasion, John Kennedy said: “The family of man is not limited to a single race or religion, to a single city, or country...the family of man is nearly 3 billion strong. Most of its members are not white and most of them are not Christian.” And as President Kennedy reflected on that reality, he restated an ideal for which he had lived his life -- that “the members of this family should be at peace with one another.”

: 5/31/24

: merican hetoric.com.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Study Paragraphs

An Essay About Tolerance For Grade 9 Students

Tolerance is an important value that we should all strive to cultivate in our lives. It means accepting and respecting people who are different from us, whether it is their race, religion, culture, or beliefs.

Tolerance promotes understanding and encourages people to work together towards a common goal, regardless of their differences.

Table of Contents

Read an Essay on Tolerance for students

Tolerance is especially important in today’s world, where we are more connected than ever before through technology and globalization. We encounter people from different backgrounds and cultures every day, and it is essential that we learn to appreciate and respect these differences.

One of the best ways to practice tolerance is to listen to and learn from others. We should make an effort to understand different perspectives and try to see things from someone else’s point of view. This can help us overcome our own biases and prejudices and promote mutual respect .

Another way to practice tolerance is to be open-minded and accepting of others’ beliefs and practices. We may not always agree with someone else’s beliefs or customs, but we can still respect their right to hold them. We should avoid making assumptions or stereotypes about others based on their race, religion, or culture, and instead seek to understand and appreciate their unique perspectives.

Tolerance also involves treating others with kindness and empathy. We should be respectful and courteous towards others, even if we do not necessarily agree with them. By being considerate and compassionate towards others, we can create a more harmonious and accepting world.

Tolerance is an essential value that promotes understanding, respect, and compassion towards others. It is something that we should all strive to cultivate in our lives, and something that can make a positive difference in the world. By practicing tolerance, we can build stronger relationships and communities, and work together towards a brighter future.

Paragraph Writing

Hello! Welcome to my Blog StudyParagraphs.co. My name is Angelina. I am a college professor. I love reading writing for kids students. This blog is full with valuable knowledge for all class students. Thank you for reading my articles.

Related Posts:

Paragraph on Tolerance In Everyday Life

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Save my name, email, and website in this browser for the next time I comment.

By Study & By Faith

William G. Eggington

“Therefore Ye Are No More Strangers and Foreigners”

Alan F. Keele

“The World Is Charged with the Grandeur of God”: A Mandate for Eternal Education

President M. Russell Ballard, acting president of the Quorum of the Twelve Apostles of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Children of Heavenly Father

Dallin H. Oaks—first counselor in the First Presidency of The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints.

Truth and Tolerance

Barbara Culatta

Loving Our Neighbor: Tolerance and Acceptance as We Come Together in Knowing Christ

Alwi Shihab

Building Bridges to Harmony Through Understanding

W. Grant Bangerter

“It’s a Two-Way Street”

Ann N. Madsen

Differences . . . “Allow All Men the Same Privilege”

Marvin J. Ashton - LDS Apostle

Appreciation—Sign of Maturity

Mark E. Petersen - Mormon Apostle

Tolerance is a commitment 'to seek in our diversity the bonds that unite humanity' – UN

Refugee children at the Centre Tenda Di Abramo of the Community of Sant’Egidio, at the time of Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s visit to the reception centre in Rome.

Facebook Twitter Print Email

Underscoring the importance of tolerance, particularly in today's diverse world, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the head of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization ( UNESCO ) have called for seeing the world through the prism of “we the peoples” and to collectively build societies that are more inclusive, more peaceful and more prosperous.

“The values of tolerance and mutual understanding – so firmly embedded in the United Nations Charter and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights – are facing profound tests around the world,” said Mr. Ban in his message on the International Day for Tolerance .

Refugees and migrants continue to face “closed doors and clenched fists,” he said, stressing that violent extremists continue to target people solely because of their faiths and traditions. Day by day, bigotry shows its face through racism, anti-Muslim hatred, anti-Semitism and other forms of discrimination.

“Too many armed conflicts have sectarian dimensions; too many societal disputes break down along communal lines. And too many politicians use the cynical math that says you add votes by dividing people,” he said.

The United Nations, the Secretary-General continued, promotes tolerance as a matter of its fundamental identity. “When tolerance is upheld, we encourage the world to emulate those fine examples. When tolerance is threatened, we must speak out,” he stated.

He went on to note that the UN has launched a new campaign to promote tolerance, respect and dignity across the world, Together . It is meant as a specific response to the xenophobia faced by so many refugees and migrants, and aims to highlight the benefits of diversity and migration. But it is also part of our general efforts to promote mutual understanding and global harmony.

Children participate in an interactive event – We are Family: Educating Our Children for a Safer World – to connect young people worldwide on the occasion of the International Day for Tolerance. UN Photo/Mark Garten (file)

“Let us not be provoked or play into the hands of those who thrive on hatred and instil fear in our societies. Today's global challenges should compel us to reject the failed mindset of 'us' versus 'them.' Let us see the world and all its possibilities through the prism of 'we the peoples' , the UN chief concluded.

“[Tolerance] is a lever for sustainable development, as it encourages the construction of more inclusive and thus more resilient societies that are able to draw on the ideas, creative energy and talents of each of their members,” said UNESCO Director-General Irina Bokova in her message on the Day.

Underscoring the need to counter the threats to tolerance such as tendencies and rhetoric calling for isolationism and that the world would be a better place if people lived alone, in “pure cultures, protected from outside influence, Ms. Bokova said.

“We must remember the historical facts, recall how peoples and identities have mingled, engendering richer, more complex cultures with multiple identities. Using the living testimony of world heritage sites, we can show that no culture has ever grown in isolation, and that diversity is a strength, not a weakness.”

In her message, the UNESCO Director-General also spoke out against the rise in racist attitudes and stereotyping of religions and cultures and stressed that tolerance is not naive or passive acceptance of difference, noting that it is a fight for the respect of fundamental rights.

“Tolerance is not relativism or indifference. It is a commitment renewed every day to seek in our diversity the bonds that unite humanity,” Ms. Bokova underscored.

International Day for Tolerance is celebrated annually on November 16, marking the 1995 adoption of the Declaration of Principles on Tolerance by UNESCO Member States that among other things, affirmed that tolerance is neither an indulgence nor indifference, and that it is respect and appreciation of the rich variety of our world's cultures, forms of expression and ways of being human.

helpful professor logo

15 Tolerance Examples

15 Tolerance Examples

Chris Drew (PhD)

Dr. Chris Drew is the founder of the Helpful Professor. He holds a PhD in education and has published over 20 articles in scholarly journals. He is the former editor of the Journal of Learning Development in Higher Education. [Image Descriptor: Photo of Chris]

Learn about our Editorial Process

tolerance examples and definition, explained below

Tolerance is the ability to accept and live with others for who they are. There are many things in life where people vary, and our acceptance of this diversity in life is vital to living together on a globalized planet.

For example, understanding and accepting the varying opinions in society about religion or politics (even when you disagree) is tolerance.

Increasingly, the idea of tolerance is seen as not enough: to tolerate means to grin and bear it, even if you don’t like it. Instead, we’re moving toward acceptance , a term that has less negative connotations.

Below are some examples of tolerance that you can apply in your life beginning today!

Tolerance Examples

1. accepting people’s traditions and religions.

People come from different religions, and they worship their god in their own way. These belief systems and traditions may seem strange or even outright wrong to you, but then you must understand that as long as the people are not harming others, they have a right to exercise their religion.

An example of intolerance in this case is a person confronting somebody who wears a hijab. The intolerant person being intolerant the Muslim because he or she feels affronted by a religion they don’t understand.

A tolerant person, on the other hand, would know that a person’s value and humanity goes beyond their religion. They come from a different perspective, and their choice to wear a certain religious outfit is their choice to make, not yours.

2. Accepting LGBTQI+ People

People are attracted to different types of people, and there is a wide spectrum of gender. Some people may look strange to you, but as a tolerant person, you would say that it’s okay for people to be different to you.

People who do not identify in the same way as their assigned gender at birth exist in this world and have just as much a right to be a part of our society anyone else. As we live in a diverse society, tolerance is required. This simply means treating them with equality and dignity even if you are not a part of their community.

3. Accepting People’s Political Stances

Politics today is divisive, especially in countries where there is democracy. Voters from different political camps seem to look at one another with disdain.

A tolerant and mature person may come to respect that intelligent people come to different conclusions about politics. (And, even if someone’s position seems unintelligent to you, it’s their right to hold that view!).

It is sad that some friendships and family relationships had to end because of political disagreements, but it’s a reflection of the division that has entered our civil society in recent decades.

4. Yimbyism

Yimby means “Yes in my back yard”. It’s the response to nimbyism (not in my backyard).

A nimby is a upper middle-class person who opposes affordable housing or racial diversity in their neighborhood. They’re often progressives who claim to be tolerant, but don’t want to actually share a community with people who aren’t wealthy like them.

Yimbyism is the response. It’s people who say they want a more diverse neighborhood (in terms of both class and race). They support affordable housing initiatives in their neighborhoods.

5. Inclusion of sub-cultural groups

Historically, moral panics have occurred when sub-cultural groups have become distrusted for the way they look or behave.

For example, in the UK in the 1970s, there was widespread moral panic about rock and punk music. Many parents worried that it would ‘corrupt’ the youth.

Today, the idea that The Ramones or The Who are the cause of any social problems seems laughable. But when new subcultures come on the scene, they’re often met with distrust and disdain by the establishment. This, of course, happened previously with Elvis and 1950s rock as well.

6. Tolerating dress codes

Earlier, I gave the example of tolerance of hijabs in the West as a sign of a tolerant society.

Some nations like France and provinces like Quebec have made moves to outlaw them. It’s arguable that this reveals a lack of tolerance . Quebec, in particular, has used the argument that the hijab is against liberal values, meaning that this topic is contestable and can be seen from multiple perspectives.

But there’s also the matter of more conservative societies accepting women in bikinis. If you walk around Aech in Indonesia, for example, women will be expected to cover up. Liberal women may find this offensive, too, so there are two sides of this same coin of tolerating others!

7. Integrated schools

In the United States, many schools remained separated by race right up into the 1950s and 60s. The integration of schools was a sign of increasing tolerance in American society.

Like many civil right, this did not come without a fight. Many people – black and white – protested and advocated hard for integration of schools, arguing that if children grew up together, then there would be greater trust, respect, and tolerance between the different ethnic and racial groups in society.

8. Accepting people you don’t get along with in the workplace

One of the most common times when we have to exercise tolerance is when we have to put up with a disagreeable colleague at work.

Tolerance may mean you need to accept when your colleague goes on a long diatribe in a meeting on a topic you don’t find relevant or useful. It may also mean in a university project that you need to find a way to include the perspectives of group members who you disagree with.

9. Free Speech

Free speech is a fundamental linchpin of a tolerant society. If we look to dictatorships around the world, one of the first things those societies lose is their freedom to speak out against the establishment.

Free speech means tolerating other people’s rights to say what they want, even if you don’t like it. It means allowing people to share tweets that you think are uncomfortable, letting people wear offensive clothing, and make jokes that might offend.

Today, there is a lot of debate about where to draw the line for free speech. Speech can offend and even cause people a lot of anguish. But lack of free speech also leads to the downfall of democracy.

10. Accepting the Right to Live the Way you Want

People have rights. For example, people have a right to food, privacy, security, shelter, etc. They have a right to be happy and live their lives decently.

Some intolerant people do not seem to understand the basic tenets of human rights. For example, an intolerant individual may deny someone the right to express his culture. The right thing to do is to respect an individual’s right to choose and right to live, provided that this exercise of rights does not violate the law.

11. Accepting People’s Ethnicity

Many countries today have matured in terms of respecting ethnic diversity. Societies are increasingly multicultural and as a result tolerance is increasingly required.

Tolerance of ethnicity means that you are not prejudicial about somebody simply because of the color of their skin or their family background. The same thing goes with stereotyping—one should not assume that just because someone comes from a certain ethnicity that they will hold certain beliefs or be a threat to anyone.

12. Accepting People’s Behaviors

This type of tolerance refers to exercising patience when people do something that bothers you. For example, a neighbor who has a temple in their backyard.

Tolerance in this situation means accepting that they can do what they want in their backyard so long as it isn’t rude or tangibly disruptive.

Of course, if people are partying almost every day, you also have the right to complain. In another case, some families may have children, and the children can make noise as they play. Yelling at these kids may be interpreted as intolerant.

13. Accepting the Poor and Downtrodden

Some people are poor and there is even sadly an underclass of people who are homeless, dirty, or smelly. We may cross paths with these people in public.

Intolerance of this situation means you dislike themand you do not want to see them around. You want them gone from your community as soon as possible!

On some occasions, you are within your rights to complain, especially if they are sleeping in front of your restaurant. However, getting disgusted and offended at the mere sight of someone who belongs to a different social class or because they are homeless and downtrodden is intolerant.

14. Accommodating for the Disabled

While in the past, society was generally ignorant of the disabled, today, society attempts to make reasonable accommodations for them. This is a reflection of increasing acceptance of difference.

For example, it can take a person with a disability sometime to walk up the stairs. In this case, you must be tolerant, which means you must exercise patience and wait behind that person.

The same thing goes with people who are seemingly slow mentally—you need to practice tolerance if they are taking a while to order or complete a transaction.

15. Accepting the Preferences of Others

Not all people like the same thing that you do. They may like rap music you, and you like rock. They may like fantasy novels, but you like dark humor.

An intolerant person may point out that the choice of the other person is cheap or unintelligent. This, of course, causes hurt to the others who hear it. In reality, nobody is correct as far as artistic preferences are concerned. The same thing goes for fashion choices.

See More: Examples of Preferences

16. Accepting Personality Differences

People have different personalities. People have different quirks, choices, humor, and ideals in life.

Tolerance of someone’s personality means not pushing or rubbing off somebody just because they are different from you. People must learn to accept their uniqueness, like the way he laughs, talks, smiles, etc. Without this level of tolerance, you will only cause unnecessary agitation among your group.

Tolerance is what makes a society peaceful. Without it, a given society that has a mixture of different people will be in a never-ending conflict.

Tolerance is something that schools, churches, and parents must teach their children. Intolerance must be nipped in the bud as soon as possible. Otherwise, children will grow up unreasonably hostile to others.

Chris

  • Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 10 Reasons you’re Perpetually Single
  • Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 20 Montessori Toddler Bedrooms (Design Inspiration)
  • Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 21 Montessori Homeschool Setups
  • Chris Drew (PhD) https://helpfulprofessor.com/author/chris-drew-phd-2/ 101 Hidden Talents Examples

1 thought on “15 Tolerance Examples”

' src=

Very helpful

Leave a Comment Cancel Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

Looking for tolerance essay topics? Writing about tolerance is easy with us! Find here top writing prompts and examples, together with topics on tolerance and respect.

🏆 Best Tolerance Essay Examples

📌 interesting tolerance essay topics, 👍 hot topics about tolerance, ❓ tolerance essay questions.

The concept of tolerance is crucial nowadays. Tolerance makes it possible for people of various races, nationalities, ages, and cultural backgrounds to peacefully coexist. In your tolerance essay, you might want to talk about why it is so important in society. Another option is to compare the levels of tolerance in various countries in the world. One more idea is to focus on the ways to promote tolerance and respect in schools, offices, and in everyday life.

  • Importance of Religious Tolerance Essay The Hindu pattern is again evidence of the fact that all religions are depictions of the experiences of the people involved and the conceptual systems that they deduced from them.
  • Tolerance and Respect for Cultural Differences The author concludes the essay in the third section by revisiting the thesis statement and highlighting the various approaches used to develop attitudes that promote respect and tolerance.
  • Religious Tolerance in Ottoman Empire Religious tolerance in the Ottoman Empire could not be compared to religious tolerance in the Roman Empire because diversity was not allowed in the Roman Empire.
  • A Visit to the Museum of Tolerance in LA The museum is a storehouse of the relics of racism to the xenophobia that has led man to commit heinous crimes in the name of faith and belief.
  • Freedom of Speech, Religion and Religious Tolerance As stipulated in Article 19 of the Universal Human Rights Declaration, the pastor has the right to share ideas and information of all kinds regardless of the periphery involved and in this case, he should […]
  • The Mongol Empire: Cruelty and Tolerance One of the apparent pieces of evidence of the barbarism and cruelty of the Mongol army can be the Mongol conquest of the Khwarazmian Empire.
  • Tolerance and Truth in America During the founding of the United States of America, the Catholic faith seemed to be the predominant religion in the country.
  • Abrahamic, East Asian and South Asian Religions and Concept of Religious Tolerance It is indeed true that religious tolerance and the problem of religious diversity present a major danger to individuals, societies and the world at large.
  • Exploring Glucose Tolerance and Gestational Diabetes Mellitus In the case of a glucose tolerance test for the purpose of diagnosing GDM type, the interpretation of the test results is carried out according to the norms for the overall population.
  • Possibility of Improving Gluten Tolerance Using Necator Americanus The next phase, which is the introduction of the hookworm larvae, improves the gluten tolerance levels. The disease that the introduction of hookworm is expected to treat is celiac disease.
  • Measuring the Salt Tolerance of Plants The variety of crops grown and the need for agricultural measures for soil moisture and irrigation depend on the arable land belonging to a particular category.
  • Fault Tolerance of an Information System In a soft fault tolerance focus is on data security incase an eventuality that hinder general functioning of the system is witnessed.
  • Risk Tolerance and Business Ethics In this case, basic critical thinking is reflected in considering the former type of risks while it is not applied to evaluating the latter one.
  • A Visit to the Museum of Tolerance The location is an ideal place for those interested in learning about the traditional culture and history of ancient people, giving a wide view of what happened in the past and the effect and the […]
  • White Women, Black Men: History and Tolerance The reasons for such changes and fluctuations may have varied from social to political and economic; and in her book White Women, Black Men: Illicit Sex in the Nineteenth-Century South Martha Hodes undertakes the task […]
  • Tolerance with Other Beliefs and Values People should live according to some rules and should value the moral rules according to which other people live. I am inclined to think that moral rules and values are mostly presented by our religion […]
  • Netflix: Solving the Problem of Increasing People’s Stress Tolerance Currently, an obvious fact is the increase in the number of psychosomatic diseases, in the origin and course of which the leading role belongs to the influence of traumatic factors.
  • Chimamanda Adichie: The Issue of Equality and Tolerance After centuries of discrimination and alienation between the communities of different cultural and ethnic backgrounds, after hundreds of years of wars based on religion and nationality, modern society has slowly started coming to senses and […]
  • Zero-Tolerance Policing Style The findings obtained from this study may be used in improving the efficiency of zero tolerance policing or in deciding whether to abolish the policing style.
  • Ethical Issues: Risk Tolerance It might be possible to state that when it comes to issues related to risk tolerance, the ethical dimension of these issues is similar to other their dimensions in some ways, but different in others.
  • European Framework National Statute for Tolerance Promotion Besides, the article with the Statute helps to clarify the main points intolerant relations between people, the development of national relations, and even the respect to migrants and other social minorities.
  • Religious Pluralism and Tolerance Therefore, it is possible to state that all religions have the same goal though they may have different tools to achieve it but people should embrace the idea of religious pluralism, as it will enable […]
  • Tolerance and Equal Attitude to People With this in mind, it is possible to say that it is a kind of segregation which is now officially promoted. That is why, it is clear for me that some actions are needed to […]
  • Religious Tolerance in Different Systems of Beliefs The purpose of this paper is to explore the subject of religious tolerance and its usefulness in the academic approach to the religious phenomenon.
  • Linguistics: Bilingualism, Multilingualism and Tolerance In my opinion, a person with some understanding of a local language is likely to find some of the social and cultural things in a foreign country awkward or abnormal.
  • Show Boat: Encouraging Tolerance In the beginning of the musical play, the fight between the characters and the disagreements that seize by the end illustrates a sense of acceptance as well as tolerance amongst the different groups by all […]
  • The Goddess: The Cry for Female Tolerance Feminism echoes throughout the plot of the movie through the life of the main character and through the reactions of the people around her.
  • Major Religions: Contribution to Religious Tolerance In spite of the constant existence of religious fanaticism and prejudice experienced in most parts of the word, there has been a notable growth in religious tolerance.
  • Tolerance and Pluralism in a Civil Society This is because the society is built by all kinds of people because everyone has a role to play in the society.
  • The Acceptance and Tolerance Towards Gay Rights
  • Tolerance, Cooperation, and Equilibrium Restoration in Repeated Games
  • Understanding Compassion and Tolerance in Harper Lee’s Novel To Kill Mockingbird
  • Three Different Perspectives on Tolerance, Equality and Freedom
  • The Impact of Acceptance, Tolerance, and Forgiveness in Frankenstein, a Novel by Mary Shelley
  • The Zero Tolerance Policy: Justified or Unreasonable
  • Use and Application of the Zero Tolerance Policy in American Schools
  • Schools Should Eliminate the Use of Zero-Tolerance Policies
  • The Role of Lactose Tolerance in Pre-Colonial Development
  • The Rise of Religious Tolerance in Protestant England in the Mid to Late 17th Century
  • The Demoralizing Treatment of Students as Criminals Due to the Zero Tolerance Policies in American Schools
  • The True Meaning of Tolerance and Its Importance for the Modern Society
  • The Tolerance Approach to Sensitivity Analysis in Linear Programming
  • Socio-Bioethics of Migration. The Deconstruction of Tolerance and Reinvention of Terror
  • Tutorial on Religious Tolerance and the Film The Passion of the Christ
  • Postmodernism Multiculturalism Tolerance and Political Correctness
  • Tolerance, Empathy and Respect and Diversity Programming
  • The Correlation Between Drug Tolerance and the Environment
  • The Importance of the Concept of Tolerance in the LGBTQ Society
  • Tolerance and Diversity for a Health Care Provider
  • Vygotsky’s Theory of Social Learning & Tolerance Introduction Prejudices
  • The Benefits of Religious Tolerance in American Society
  • Tolerance for Uncertainty and the Growth of Informationally Opaque Industries
  • Teaching and Modeling Homosexual Tolerance in the Public School System
  • Waiting Tolerance: Ramp Delay vs. Freeway Congestion
  • Tolerance and Kindness in the Novel To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
  • Why Religious Tolerance Increased in the American Colonies
  • The Relevance of Tolerance and Persecution ”The Crucible” by Arthur Miller
  • White and Ety Uses Stereotypes to Promote Cross-Cultural Tolerance
  • The Sign of the Cross, Tolerance and Indifference
  • Sexuality and Public Policy Regarding Sexual Tolerance
  • The Relationship Between Religious Tolerance and Ethnic Relation Practices Among MultiEthnic Youth in Malaysia
  • Using Variable Reduction Techniques and Tolerance Intervals to Summarise a Fitness Testing Battery in Soccer
  • The Impact of Tolerance as a Component of Organizational Culture on Individual Stress
  • Stereotypes Used in White and Ety Promotes Cross-Cultural Tolerance
  • The Effect of Visual Stimuli on Pain Threshold and Tolerance
  • Social Problems Are Due to Society’s Tolerance of Immorality
  • The Tolerance of Violence in America Review of Flaming Guns of the Purple Sage
  • The Problem of Zero Tolerance Policies in the United States
  • The Challenge of Tolerance Within a Multicultural Society
  • Why Is Tolerance Important in Our Daily Life?
  • What Is the Value of Tolerance?
  • Why Is Tolerance Important for a Peaceful Society?
  • How Can You Show Tolerance?
  • What Is the Importance of Tolerance in Islam?
  • How Can We Promote Tolerance in Our Society?
  • Why Is It Important to Teach Tolerance?
  • How Do You Show Tolerance in School?
  • What Is an Idea of Religious Tolerance?
  • How Can I Improve My Patience and Tolerance?
  • What Does the Bible Say About Tolerance?
  • How Do You Explain Tolerance to a Child?
  • What Is the Benefit of Tolerance in Diversity?
  • What Is Education Tolerance?
  • How Does Tolerance Develop?
  • What Is Cellular Tolerance?
  • How Can Tolerance Help Prevent a Conflict?
  • Why Tolerance Is Important in the Workplace?
  • Is Tolerance Enough for Preventing Conflict in Society?
  • How Does Tolerance Shift Your Attitude Towards Others?
  • Why Is Tolerance Important in a Relationship?
  • What Is the Most Serious Effect of Tolerance?
  • What Does Developing a Tolerance Mean?
  • Are Tolerance and Respect the Same Thing in the Workplace?
  • What Is Tolerance Answer in One Sentence?
  • What Is Tolerance and How It Affects Us?
  • Does Tolerance Mean Acceptance?
  • What Is Chronic Tolerance?
  • What Does Love and Tolerance Mean?
  • How Many Types of Tolerance Are There?
  • Intelligence Essay Ideas
  • Cultural Relativism Questions
  • Personal Identity Paper Topics
  • Ethical Relativism Essay Topics
  • Pluralism Paper Topics
  • Illegal Immigration Topics
  • Religious Conflict Topics
  • Ethics Ideas
  • Chicago (A-D)
  • Chicago (N-B)

IvyPanda. (2024, March 1). 103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/

"103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." IvyPanda , 1 Mar. 2024, ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

IvyPanda . (2024) '103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples'. 1 March.

IvyPanda . 2024. "103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

1. IvyPanda . "103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

Bibliography

IvyPanda . "103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples." March 1, 2024. https://ivypanda.com/essays/topic/tolerance-essay-topics/.

speech about tolerance

After Charlottesville, how we define tolerance becomes a key question

speech about tolerance

Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Sydney

speech about tolerance

Professor, Department of Biology, University of Washington

Disclosure statement

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

University of Washington provides funding as a member of The Conversation US.

University of Sydney provides funding as a member of The Conversation AU.

View all partners

It’s been a little over a month since a group of white nationalists marched in Charlottesville, Virginia , some chanting Nazi slogans. Clashes with counter-protesters turned violent, leading to the tragic death of counter-demonstrator Heather Heyer.

Since then, the value of tolerance has been under the spotlight. Tolerance seems to be a good thing, but do we have to tolerate this ? Do we have to tolerate people and ideas that are intolerant? And if we don’t, are we abandoning the goal of tolerance?

The ladder of tolerance

In 1945 the Austrian philosopher Karl Popper, having escaped the Nazis just before the second world war, published a book, The Open Society and Its Enemies .

It included, in a footnote, what Popper called “the paradox of tolerance”. Complete tolerance is an impossible goal for Popper, because if we tolerate even the intolerant:

… then the tolerant will be destroyed, and tolerance with them.

Since Charlottesville, Popper has been rediscovered on social media . He captured an important question, writing in a different time but one with echoes of our own.

The most famous of all books written in political philosophy over the century, John Rawls’ A Theory of Justice , drew related conclusions. A society that values freedom should try to tolerate the intolerant, Rawls said. But if the intolerant start to endanger the free society itself, then we do not have to tolerate them.

For both philosophers, the message seems to be that tolerance is good, but perhaps in moderation.

We think the whole idea of tolerance needs to be thought about differently, in a way that distinguishes levels of tolerance.

First, there is tolerance versus intolerance of ordinary or “base-level” behaviours. We call this first-order tolerance. If a person is first-order tolerant or intolerant, this will show in how they behave. If they are intolerant, they might threaten or abuse others.

That creates a new choice about tolerance – do you tolerate those behaviours? If so, this would be second-order tolerance. There can also be third-order and fourth-order tolerance, but most of the time it is the first and second orders that matter.

There is a sort of ladder here, with tolerance (and intolerance) at higher and lower levels. But what is the difference between the “base-level” behaviours and the others? We’ll look at two examples.

First, think about behaviours that are private , such as who you have sex with. You might choose to have heterosexual sex, homosexual sex, sex involving a non-binary individual, or some other kind. (Assume all these behaviours are between consenting adults.)

Liberal democracies have become much more tolerant about sex and other private behaviours over recent decades. Gay male sex was illegal in New South Wales until 1984 , for example. Decriminalising gay sex is an example of first-order tolerance.

Many countries and states also now have anti-discrimination laws, aimed at preventing intolerance of homosexuality, among other things. That is second-order intolerance.

Our society is now intolerant of those who are intolerant of homosexuality; they can be legally penalised. Is that a failure of tolerance? Would complete tolerance involve being tolerant of their intolerance? Not really.

There is a sensible goal here – the goal of first-order tolerance – and that is not a compromise. Societies like ours have decided that tolerance of private sexual choices is valuable and important. To protect tolerance of those private behaviours, we have to be second-order intolerant. A combination of first-order tolerance and second-order intolerance makes sense in a case like this.

What tolerance requires to thrive

But that example seems far from the situation we face with neo-Nazis and the like. Their behaviours are not “private”. They are marching around in public, chanting. How is our framework applicable to a case like that?

We think the same principles can be applied. Above we used a “private” behaviour to introduce the distinction between first-order and second-order tolerance, but that was not essential.

What is essential to the behaviours that get the story rolling is that they are not attempts to interfere with others’ choices. That is what defines the “base” level. First-order tolerance in the case of speech is tolerance of what people say when they are not interfering with the choices of others.

There is a slogan associated with the 18th-century French philosopher Voltaire (though it seems to have been invented by the English author Beatrice Evelyn Hall, writing years later):

I disapprove of what you say, but will defend to the death your right to say it.

This is another example of first-order tolerance and second-order intolerance. The Voltaire-figure allows people to say things he does not approve of (first-order tolerance), and will also interfere with those who try to prevent the person speaking (second-order intolerance).

The Voltaire slogan illustrates the way first-order tolerance and second-order intolerance can be applied to speech, and also illustrates how tricky the situation can be.

If someone tries to interfere with another person stating their opinions, this interference will often take the form of speech – threats, abuse, and so on.

So Voltaire, to protect free speech, will have to oppose some kinds of speech. How can he decide which speech to defend and which to oppose? He can defend speech which is not an attempt to prevent others making their own choices, even if the speech is controversial. He won’t defend speech which is first-order intolerant, or speech which does even greater harm, such as speech that incites violence.

When people who believe extreme political views want to express their opinions, we can tolerate their speech and argue back. We can be first-order tolerant.

Tolerance need not imply approval, and when we argue back to them we can express our disagreement under the same umbrella of protection afforded by a first-order tolerant society.

But when people refuse to be tolerant, we can refuse to tolerate those behaviours. That refusal should not be violent or unreasoning, and should not target behaviours that would otherwise receive protection; the aim is not “tit-for-tat”, a reply to intolerance in its own coin. The aim is instead to protect, using reasonable means, the field of first-order tolerance.

This is not a compromise, or a failure to fully live up to the ideal of tolerance. It’s a policy based on a better understanding of what tolerance requires to thrive.

  • Free speech
  • Same-sex marriage
  • Political philosophy
  • Donald Trump
  • Charlottesville

speech about tolerance

Quantitative Analyst

speech about tolerance

Director of STEM

speech about tolerance

Community member - Training Delivery and Development Committee (Volunteer part-time)

speech about tolerance

Chief Executive Officer

speech about tolerance

Head of Evidence to Action

  • Secretary-General
  • Statements and Messages

Tolerance Is Not Indifference or Grudging Acceptance, but Way of Life Based on Understanding, Respect for Others, Says Secretary-General in Message

Secretary-GeneralSG/SM/12605
OBV/830
Tolerance Is Not Indifference Or Grudging Acceptance, But Way of Life Based   on Understanding, Respect for Others, Says Secretary-General in Message   Following is the text of UN Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon’s message for the International Day for Tolerance, on 16 November: Globalization continues to bring people closer together.  Internet chat rooms and social networking sites enable us to connect with people we will never meet.  Global branding and the growth of international social and cultural movements expose us on a daily basis to the tastes, opinions and habits of our fellow men and women.  We have more ways than ever to communicate with each other and to benefit from cross-cultural exchanges. Yet globalization also carries the risk of creating a more uniform world, eroding the diversity that is one of humankind’s greatest strengths.  And as we grow closer, there is also a danger that the human propensity to build walls will assert itself, separating people into “us” and “them” and, all too often, victimizing some of the most vulnerable sections of society:  national, ethnic, religious and other minorities. Tolerance does not mean indifference or a grudging acceptance of others.  It is a way of life based on mutual understanding and respect for others, and on the belief that global diversity is to be embraced, not feared. The United Nations promotes tolerance on many fronts.  It is part of our work for peace, conflict prevention, democratization and human rights.  Through the Alliance of Civilizations and the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization’s many educational and intercultural initiatives, we promote dialogue and combat intolerance and extremism.  And we continue to press ahead with the articulation of laws and standards, such as the adoption of the Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples in 2007 and the creation that same year of the United Nations Forum on Minority Issues. On this International Day for Tolerance, let us to pledge to mobilize against intolerance. For our most vulnerable communities, and for all humanity, let us work together to promote tolerance. * *** * For information media • not an official record

Facebook Twitter Email Print LinkedIn

Official Logo MTSU Freedom Of Speech

  • ENCYCLOPEDIA
  • IN THE CLASSROOM

Home » Articles » Topic » Legal Terms and Concepts » General Legal Concepts and Theories » Tolerance Theory

Tolerance Theory

David Schultz

George W. Truett

One premise underlying First Amendment jurisprudence is the tolerance theory — the belief that promoting expressive freedoms will make individuals and institutions more open to ideas than they would be otherwise. Tolerance suggests that Nazis should be permitted to parade down the streets of Skokie, Illinois, as in Collin v. Smith (7th Cir. 1978), even though the community is populated with survivors of the German Holocaust. The reasoning is that protecting the speech of a Nazi group shields other forms of political expression. In this photo, Frank Collin, center, leader of the National Socialist Party of America, announces that the group had called off its planned march to suburban Skokie, Ill. (AP Photo/Fred Jewell, used with permission from the Associated Press)

One premise underlying First Amendment jurisprudence is the tolerance theory — the belief that promoting expressive freedoms will make individuals and institutions more open to ideas than they would be otherwise. The origin of this idea can be traced to John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1869) . Mill’s essay is a defense of individual freedom over paternalism and of free thought over dogma and the tyranny of the majority.

Mill and Bollinger promoted tolerance theory

According to Mill, the free exchange of ideas should be encouraged to promote the discovery of the truth and enhance the cognitive faculties of individuals. In tolerating or permitting different views to challenge prevailing opinion, Mill argued that these ideas may be true, contain part of the truth, or in fact be true themselves. Hence, toleration and respect for a diversity of viewpoints is grounded in a utilitarian calculus that stresses that we are all better off in allowing a diversity of opinions rather than in censoring them.

Lee Bollinger has written a more modern expression of Mill’s views in The Tolerant Society: Freedom of Speech and Extremist Speech in America (1986). In that book Bollinger argues from a standpoint of tolerance in favor of protecting extremist speech. For example, tolerating extreme speech is important because by being protected itself, it provides a shield for more mainstream political discourse. In addition, toleration supposedly reduces racial and ethnic tensions, diminishes the perception that other individuals are threats, and encourages respect for the rights of others. Toleration thus helps to promote a stable and open society — an end good in itself — but it also makes individuals themselves open to new ideas and respectful of the rights of others.

Tolerance theory applied to First Amendment jurisprudence

Tolerance as a basic value of a democratic society translates both into a theory for First Amendment jurisprudence and for judicial review. In terms of a jurisprudential theory, tolerance suggests that Nazis should be permitted to parade down the streets of Skokie, Illinois, as in Collin v. Smith (7th Cir. 1978) , even though the community is populated with survivors of the German Holocaust. The reasoning is that protecting the speech of a Nazi group shields other forms of political expression.

Tolerance also suggests that the right to criticize public officials should be encouraged, even if some factual errors permeate the comments, such as in New York Times Co. v. Sullivan (1964) , in order to promote open and free inquiry.

Finally, limits on prayer or religious displays in public schools are needed, such as in Engel v. Vitale (1962) and Abington School District v. Schempp (1963) , to foster religious tolerance. Overall, toleration theory dictates limits on the censorship of speech and support for either religious pluralism or neutrality .

Tolerance theory suggests courts strike down censorship laws

In terms of a theory of judicial review, tolerance theory suggests that the courts operate as guardians of the First Amendment, striking down censorship laws — practices that lead to the state endorsement or favoritism of a specific religion. Tolerance is but one of several important theories justifying protection of expressive freedoms.

Other theories argue that the purpose of the First Amendment is to promote self-expression or to foster democracy. Tolerance theory seems more encompassing in that it seems to explain the importance of free expression by way of its importance to both democracy and self expression.

This article was originally published in 2009. David Schultz is a professor in the Hamline University Departments of Political Science and Legal Studies, and a visiting professor of law at the University of Minnesota. He is a three-time Fulbright scholar and author/editor of more than 35 books and 200 articles, including several encyclopedias on the U.S. Constitution, the Supreme Court, and money, politics, and the First Amendment.

Send Feedback on this article

How To Contribute

The Free Speech Center operates with your generosity! Please  donate now!

SEP home page

  • Table of Contents
  • Random Entry
  • Chronological
  • Editorial Information
  • About the SEP
  • Editorial Board
  • How to Cite the SEP
  • Special Characters
  • Advanced Tools
  • Support the SEP
  • PDFs for SEP Friends
  • Make a Donation
  • SEPIA for Libraries
  • Entry Contents

Bibliography

Academic tools.

  • Friends PDF Preview
  • Author and Citation Info
  • Back to Top

The term “toleration”—from the Latin tolerare : to put up with, countenance or suffer—generally refers to the conditional acceptance of or non-interference with beliefs, actions or practices that one considers to be wrong but still “tolerable,” such that they should not be prohibited or constrained. There are many contexts in which we speak of a person or an institution as being tolerant: parents tolerate certain behavior of their children, a friend tolerates the weaknesses of another, a monarch tolerates dissent, a church tolerates homosexuality, a state tolerates a minority religion, a society tolerates deviant behavior. Thus for any analysis of the motives and reasons for toleration, the relevant contexts need to be taken into account.

1. The Concept of Toleration and its Paradoxes

2. four conceptions of toleration, 3. the history of toleration, 4. justifying toleration, 5. the politics of toleration, other internet resources, related entries.

It is necessary to differentiate between a general concept and more specific conceptions of toleration (see also Forst 2013). The former is marked by the following characteristics. First, it is essential for the concept of toleration that the tolerated beliefs or practices are considered to be objectionable and in an important sense wrong or bad. If this objection component (cf. King 1976, 44–54 on the components of toleration) is missing, we do not speak of “toleration” but of “indifference” or “affirmation.” Second, the objection component needs to be balanced by an acceptance component , which does not remove the negative judgment but gives certain positive reasons that trump the negative ones in the relevant context. In light of these reasons, it would be wrong not to tolerate what is wrong, to mention a well-known paradox of toleration (discussed below). The said practices or beliefs are wrong, but not intolerably wrong. Third, the limits of toleration need to be specified. They lie at the point where there are reasons for rejection that are stronger than the reasons for acceptance (which still leaves open the question of the appropriate means of a possible intervention); call this the rejection component . All three of those reasons can be of one and the same kind—religious, for example—yet they can also be of diverse kinds (moral, religious, pragmatic, to mention a few possibilities; cf. Newey 1999, 32–34 and Cohen 2014).

Furthermore, it needs to be stressed that there are two boundaries involved in this interpretation of the concept of toleration: the first one lies between (1) the normative realm of those practices and beliefs one agrees with and (2) the realm of the practices and beliefs that one finds wrong but can still tolerate; the second boundary lies between this latter realm and (3) the realm of the intolerable that is strictly rejected. There are thus three, not just two normative realms in a context of toleration.

Finally, one can only speak of toleration where it is practiced voluntarily and is not compelled, for otherwise it would be a case of simply “suffering” or “enduring” certain things that one rejects but against which one is powerless. It is, however, wrong to conclude from this that the tolerant need to be in a position to effectively prohibit or interfere with the tolerated practices, for a minority that does not have this power may very well be tolerant in holding the view that if it had such power, it would not use it to suppress other parties (cf. Williams 1996).

Based on these characteristics, we can identify three paradoxes of toleration that are much discussed in philosophical analyses of the concept, and each one refers to one of the components mentioned above. First, there is the paradox of the tolerant racist , which concerns the objection component. Sometimes people argue that someone who believes that there are “inferior races” the members of which do not deserve equal respect should be “more tolerant.” Thus the racist would be called tolerant if he curbed his desire to discriminate against the members of such groups, say, for strategic reasons. Thus if (and only if) we considered tolerance to be a moral virtue, the paradox arises that an immoral attitude (to think of other “races” in such way) would be turned into part of a virtue. What is more, the racist would be more “tolerant” the stronger his racist impulses are if only he did not act on them (cf. Horton 1996). Hence, seen from a moral perspective, the demand that the racist should be tolerant has a major flaw: it takes the racist objection against others as an ethical objection that only needs to be restrained by adding certain reasons for acceptance. It thus turns an unacceptable prejudice into an ethical judgment. From this it follows that the reasons for objection must be reasonable in a minimal sense; they cannot be generally shareable, of course, but they must also not rest on irrational prejudice and hatred. The racist, therefore, can neither exemplify the virtue of tolerance nor should he be asked to be tolerant; what is necessary is that he overcome his racist beliefs. This shows that there are cases in which tolerance is not the solution to intolerance.

Second, we encounter the paradox of moral tolerance , which arises in connection with the acceptance component (for various analyses of this paradox, see Ebbinghaus 1950, Raphael 1988, Mendus 1989, Horton 1994). If both the reasons for objection and the reasons for acceptance are called “moral,” the paradox arises that it seems to be morally right or even morally required to tolerate what is morally wrong. The solution of this paradox therefore requires a distinction between various kinds of “moral” reasons, some of which must be reasons of a higher order that ground and limit toleration.

Third, there is the paradox of drawing the limits , which concerns the rejection component. This paradox is inherent in the idea that toleration is a matter of reciprocity and that therefore those who are intolerant need not and cannot be tolerated, an idea we find in most of the classical texts on toleration. But even a brief look at those texts, and even more so at historical practice, shows that the slogan “no toleration of the intolerant” is not just vacuous but potentially dangerous, for the characterization of certain groups as intolerant is all too often itself a result of one-sidedness and intolerance. In a deconstructivist reading, this leads to a fatal conclusion for the concept of toleration (cf. Fish 1997): If toleration always implies a drawing of the limits against the intolerant and intolerable, and if every such drawing of a limit is itself a (more or less) intolerant, arbitrary act, toleration ends as soon it begins—as soon as it is defined by an arbitrary boundary between “us” and the “intolerant” and “intolerable.” This paradox can only be overcome if we distinguish between two notions of “intolerance” that the deconstructivist critique conflates: the intolerance of those who lie beyond the limits of toleration because they deny toleration as a norm in the first place, and the lack of tolerance of those who do not want to tolerate a denial of the norm. Tolerance can only be a virtue if this distinction can be made, and it presupposes that the limits of toleration can be drawn in a non-arbitrary, justifiable way.

The discussion so far implies that toleration is a normatively dependent concept . This means that by itself it cannot provide the substantive reasons for objection, acceptance, and rejection. It needs further, independent normative resources in order to have a certain substance, content, and limits—and in order to be regarded as something good at all. In itself, therefore, toleration is not a virtue or value; it can only be a value if backed by the right normative reasons.

The following discussion of four conceptions of toleration is not to be understood as the reconstruction of a linear historical succession. Rather, these are different, historically developed understandings of what toleration consists in that can all be present in society at the same time, so that conflicts about the meaning of toleration may also be understood as conflicts between these conceptions (cf. Forst 2013).

1. The first one I call the permission conception . According to it, toleration is a relation between an authority or a majority and a dissenting, “different” minority (or various minorities). Toleration then means that the authority gives qualified permission to the minority to live according to their beliefs on condition that the minority accepts the dominant position of the authority or majority. So long as their being different remains within certain limits, that is, in the “private” realm, and so long as the minority groups do not claim equal public and political status, they can be tolerated on pragmatic or principled grounds—on pragmatic grounds because this form of toleration is the least costly of all possible alternatives and does not disturb civil peace and order as the dominant party defines it (but rather contributes to it); and on principled grounds because one may think it is morally problematic to force people to give up certain deep-seated beliefs or practices.

The permission conception is a classic one that we find in many historical writings and in instances of a politics of toleration (such as the Edict of Nantes in 1598) and that—to a considerable extent—still informs our understanding of the term. According to this conception, toleration means that the authority or majority, which has the power to interfere with the practices of a minority, nevertheless “tolerates” it, while the minority accepts its inferior position. The situation or the “terms of toleration” are hierarchical: one party allows another party certain things on conditions specified by the first one. Toleration is thus understood as permissio negativa mali : not interfering with something that is actually wrong but not “intolerably” harmful. It is this conception that Goethe (1829, 507, transl. R.F.) had in mind when he said: “Tolerance should be a temporary attitude only: it must lead to recognition. To tolerate means to insult.”

2. The second conception, the coexistence conception , is similar to the first one in regarding toleration as the best means toward ending or avoiding conflict and toward pursuing one’s own goals. What is different, however, is the relationship between the subjects and the objects of toleration. For now the situation is not one of an authority or majority in relation to a minority, but one of groups that are roughly equal in power, and who see that for the sake of social peace and the pursuit of their own interests mutual toleration is the best of all possible alternatives (the Augsburg Peace Treaty of 1555 is a historical example). They prefer peaceful coexistence to conflict and agree to a reciprocal compromise, to a certain modus vivendi . The relation of tolerance is no longer vertical but horizontal: the subjects are at the same time the objects of toleration. This may not lead to a stable social situation in which trust can develop, for once the constellation of power changes, the more powerful group may no longer see any reasons for being tolerant (cf. Rawls 1987, 11, Fletcher 1996).

3. Different from this, the third conception of toleration—the respect conception —is one in which the tolerating parties respect one another in a more reciprocal sense (cf. Weale 1985, Scanlon 1996). Even though they differ fundamentally in their ethical beliefs about the good and true way of life and in their cultural practices, citizens recognize one another as moral-political equals in the sense that their common framework of social life should—as far as fundamental questions of rights and liberties and the distribution of resources are concerned—be guided by norms that all parties can equally accept and that do not favor one specific ethical or cultural community (cf. Forst 2002, ch. 2).

There are two models of the “respect conception,” that of “formal equality,” and that of “qualitative equality.” The former operates on a strict distinction between the political and the private realm, according to which ethical (i.e., cultural or religious) differences among citizens of a legal state should be confined to the private realm, so that they do not lead to conflicts in the political sphere. This version is clearly exhibited in the “secular republicanism” of the French authorities who held that headscarves with a religious meaning have no place in public schools in which children are educated to be autonomous citizens (cf. Galeotti 1993).

The model of “qualitative equality,” on the other hand, recognizes that certain forms of formal equality favor those ethical-cultural life-forms whose beliefs and practices make it easier to accommodate a conventional public/private distinction. In other words, the “formal equality” model tends to be intolerant toward ethical-cultural forms of life that require a public presence that is different from traditional and hitherto dominant cultural forms. Thus, on the “qualitative equality” model, persons respect each other as political equals with a certain distinct ethical-cultural identity that needs to be respected and tolerated as something that is (a) especially important for a person and (b) can provide good reasons for certain exceptions from or general changes in existing legal and social structures. Social and political equality and integration are thus seen to be compatible with cultural difference—within certain (moral) limits of reciprocity.

4. In discussions of toleration, one finds alongside the conceptions mentioned thus far a fourth one which I call the esteem conception . This implies an even fuller, more demanding notion of mutual recognition between citizens than the respect conception does. Here, being tolerant does not just mean respecting members of other cultural life-forms or religions as moral and political equals, it also means having some kind of ethical esteem for their beliefs, that is, taking them to be ethically valuable conceptions that—even though different from one’s own—are in some way ethically attractive and held with good reasons. For this still to be a case of toleration, the kind of esteem characteristic of these relations is something like “reserved esteem,” that is, a kind of positive acceptance of a belief that for some reason you still find is not as attractive as the one you hold. As valuable as parts of the tolerated belief may be, it also has other parts that you find misguided, or wrong (cf. Raz 1988, Sandel 1989).

To answer the question which of these conceptions should be the guiding one for a given society, two aspects are most important. The first one requires an assessment of the conflicts that require and allow for toleration, given the history and character of the groups involved; and the second requires an adequate and convincing normative justification of toleration in a given social context. It is important to keep in mind that the (normatively dependent) concept of toleration itself does not provide such a justification; this has to come from other normative resources. And the list of such resources, speaking both historically and systematically, is long.

In the course of the religious-political conflicts throughout Europe that followed the Reformation, toleration became one of the central concepts of political-philosophical discourse, yet its history reaches much further back into antiquity (for the following, see esp. Forst 2013, part 1; cf. also Besier and Schreiner 1990, Nederman 2000, Zagorin 2003, Creppel 2003, Kaplan 2007 and Bejan 2017). In stoic writings, especially in Cicero, tolerantia is used as a term for a virtue of endurance, of suffering bad luck, pain and injustice of various kinds in a proper, steadfast manner. But already in early Christian discourse, the term is applied to the challenge of coping with religious difference and conflict. The works of Tertullian and Cyprianus are most important in that respect.

Within the Christian framework, a number of arguments for toleration have been developed, based on charity and love for those who err, for example, or on the idea of the two kingdoms and of limited human authority in matters of religious truth, i.e., in matters of the divine kingdom. The most important and far-reaching justification of toleration, however, is the principle credere non potest nisi volens , which holds that only faith based on inner conviction is pleasing to God, and that such faith has to develop from within, without external compulsion. Conscience therefore must not be and cannot be forced to adopt a certain faith, even if it were the true one. Yet, Augustine who defends these arguments in his earlier writings, later (when confronted with the danger of a schism between Roman Catholics and the so-called Donatists) came to the conclusion that the same reasons of love, of the two kingdoms and of the freedom of conscience could also make intolerance and the use of force into a Christian duty, if it were the only way to save the soul of another (esp. Augustine 408, letter # 93). He cites numerous examples of reconverted Catholics to substantiate his position that the proper use of force combined with the right teaching can shake men loose from the wrong faith and open up their eyes so as to accept the truth—still “from within.” Accordingly, individual conscience can and sometimes must be subjected to force. Christian arguments thus both form the core of many modern justifications of toleration and yet are janus-faced, always bound by the superior aim to serve the true faith. Similar to Augustine, Thomas Aquinas later developed a number of reasons for limited and conditional toleration, drawing especially strong limits against tolerating any form of heresy.

The question of peaceful coexistence of different faiths—Christian, Jewish and Muslim—was much discussed in the Middle Ages, especially in the 12 th century. Abailard and Raimundus Lullus wrote inter-religious dialogues searching for ways of defending the truth of Christian faith while also seeing some truth—religious or at least ethical—in other religions. In Judaism and Islam, this was mirrored by writers such as Maimonides or Ibn Rushd (Averroes), whose defense of philosophical truth-searching against religious dogma is arguably the most innovative of the period (see esp. Averroes 1180).

Nicolas of Cusa’s De Pace Fidei (1453) marks an important step towards a more comprehensive, Christian-humanist conception of toleration, though in the conversations among representatives of different faiths his core idea of “one religion in various rites” remains a Catholic one. Still, the search for common elements is a central, increasingly important topic in toleration discourses. This is much further developed in Erasmus of Rotterdam’s humanist idea of a possible religious unity based on a reduced core faith, trying to avoid religious strife about what Erasmus saw as non-essential questions of faith ( adiaphora ).

In contrast with this “irenic” humanist approach, Luther defended the protestant idea of the individual conscience bound only to the word of God, which marks the limits of the authority of the church as well as of the secular powers of the state (Luther 1523). The traditional arguments of free conscience and of the two kingdoms were radicalized in this period. The protestant humanist Sebastian Castellio (1554) attacks the intolerance of both Catholic and Calvinist practices and argues for the freedom of conscience and reason as prerequisites of true faith. In this period, decisive elements of early modern toleration discourse were formed: the distinction between church authority and individual religious conscience on the one hand and the separation of religious and secular authority on the other.

Jean Bodin’s work is important for the further development of modern ideas of toleration in two ways. In his Six Books of a Commonweal (1576), he develops a purely political justification of toleration, following the thought of the so-called Politiques , whose main concern was the stability of the state. For them, the preservation of political sovereignty took primacy over the preservation of religious unity, and toleration was recommended as a superior policy in a situation of religious plurality and strife. This, however, does not amount to the (late modern) idea of a fully secular state with general religious liberty. More radical still is Bodin’s religious-philosophical work on the Colloquium of the Seven (1593), a discourse among representatives of different faiths who disagree about fundamental religious and metaphysical issues. For the first time in the tradition of religious discourse, in Bodin’s work there is no dominant position, no obvious winners or losers. The agreement that the participants in the conversation find is based on respect for the others and on the insight that religious differences, even though they can be meaningfully discussed, cannot be resolved in a philosophical discourse by means of reason alone. Religious plurality is seen here as an enduring predicament of finite and historically situated human beings, not as a state to be overcome by the victory of the one and only true faith.

Marked by bitter religious conflicts, the 17 th century brought forth a number of toleration theories, among them three paradigmatic classics: Baruch de Spinoza’s Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (1670), Pierre Bayle’s Commentaire Philosophique (1686) and John Locke’s A Letter Concerning Toleration (1689). In his historical critique of biblical religions Spinoza locates their core in the virtues of justice and love and separates it from both contested religious dogmas and from the philosophical search for truth. The state has the task of realizing peace and justice, thus it has the right to regulate the external exercise of religion. The natural right to freedom of thought and judgment and to “inner” religion cannot, however, be entrusted to the state; here political authority finds the factual limits of its power.

Bayle’s Commentaire is the most comprehensive attempt to refute the arguments for the duty of intolerance that go back to Augustine (and especially his interpretation of the parable “compel them to come in,” where the master orders his servants to force those who were invited to the prepared supper but did not attend to come in; see Luke 14, 15ff.). In his elaborate argument against the use of force in matters of religion, Bayle does not primarily take recourse to the idea that religious conscience must not and cannot be forced, for he was aware of the powerful Augustinian arguments against both points (cf. Forst 2008 and Kilcullen 1988). Rather, Bayle argued that there is a “natural light” of practical reason revealing certain moral truths to every sincere person, regardless of his or her faith, even including atheists. And such principles of moral respect and of reciprocity cannot be trumped by religious truths, according to Bayle, for reasonable religious faith is aware that ultimately it is based on personal faith and trust, not on apprehensions of objective truth. This has often been seen as a skeptical argument, yet this is not what Bayle intended; what he suggested, rather, was that the truths of religion are of a different epistemological character than truths arrived at by the use of reason alone. Connecting moral and epistemological arguments in this way, Bayle was the first thinker to try to develop a universally valid argument for toleration, one that implied universal toleration of persons of different faiths as well as of those seen as lacking any faith.

In important respects, this is a more radical theory than the (much more popular and influential) one developed by Locke, who distinguishes between state and church in an early liberal perspective of natural individual rights. While it is the duty of the state to secure the “civil interests” of its citizens, the “care of the soul” cannot be its business, this being a matter between the individual and God to whom alone one is responsible in this regard. Hence there is a God-given, inalienable right to the free exercise of religion. Churches are no more than voluntary associations without any right to use force within a legitimate political order based on the consent of the governed. Locke draws the limits of toleration where a religion does not accept its proper place in civil society (such as Catholicism, in Locke’s eyes) as well as where atheists deny any higher moral authority and therefore destroy the basis of social order.

In the 18 th century, the conception of a secular state with an independent basis of authority and the distinction between the roles of citizen and believer in a certain faith were further developed, even though Locke’s thought that a stable political order did require some common religious basis persisted (with a few exceptions, such as the French materialists). In the course of the American and the French Revolutions a basic “natural” right to religious liberty was recognized, even though the interpretations of what kind of religious dissent could be tolerated differed.

Thinkers of the French Enlightenment argued for toleration on various grounds and, as in Bodin, there was a difference between a focus on political stability and a focus on religious coexistence. In his On the Spirit of the Laws (1748), Montesquieu argues for the toleration of different religions for the purpose of preserving political unity and peace, yet he warns that there is a limit to the acceptance of new religions or changes to the dominant one, given the connection between a constitution and the morality and habits of a people. In his Persian Letters (1721), however, he had developed a more comprehensive theory of religious pluralism. The difference between the two perspectives—political and inter-religious—is even more notable in Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s writings. In his Social Contract (1762), he tries to overcome religious strife and intolerance by institutionalizing a “civic religion” that must be shared by all, while in his Emile (1762) he argues for the primacy of individual conscience as well as for the aim of a non-dogmatic “natural religion.”

The idea of a “religion of reason” as an alternative to established religions for the sake of overcoming the quarrels between them was typical for the Enlightenment, and is found in thinkers such as Voltaire, Diderot and Kant. In his parable of the rings (which goes back to medieval precursors) in the play Nathan the Wise (1779), G. E. Lessing offers a powerful image for the peaceful competition of established religions that both underlines their common ancestry as well as their differences due to multiple historical traditions of faith. Since there is no objective proof as to their truth for the time being, they are called upon to deliver such proof by acting morally and harmoniously until the end of time.

John Stuart Mill’s On Liberty (1859) marks the transition to a modern conception of toleration, one that is no longer occupied with the question of religious harmony and does not restrict the issue of toleration to religious differences. In Mill’s eyes, in modern society toleration is also required to cope with other forms of irreconcilable cultural, social and political plurality. Mill offers three main arguments for toleration. According to his “harm principle,” the exercise of political or social power is only legitimate if necessary to prevent serious harm done to one person by another, not to enforce some idea of the good in a paternalistic manner. Toleration towards opinions is justified by the utilitarian consideration that not just true, but also false opinions lead to productive social learning processes. Finally, toleration towards unusual “experiments of living” is justified in a romantic way (following Wilhelm von Humboldt), stressing the values of individuality and originality.

The story of toleration would have to be continued after Mill up to the present, yet this short overview might suffice to draw attention to the long and complex history of the concept and to the many forms it took as well as the different justifications offered for it. Seen historically, toleration has been many things: An exercise of love for the other who errs, a strategy of preserving power by offering some form of freedom to minorities, a term for the peaceful coexistence of different faiths who share a common core, another word for the respect for individual liberty, a postulate of practical reason, or the ethical promise of a productive pluralistic society.

Many of the systematic arguments for toleration—be they religious, pragmatic, moral or epistemological—can be used as a justification for more than one of the conceptions of toleration mentioned above (section 2). The classic argument for freedom of conscience, for example, has been used to justify arrangements according to the “permission conception” as well as the “respect conception.” Generally speaking, relations of toleration are hierarchically ordered according to the first conception, quite unstable according to the conception of “coexistence,” while the “esteem conception” is the most demanding in terms of the kind of mutual appreciation between the tolerating parties. In each case, the limits of toleration seem either arbitrary or too narrow, as in the esteem conception, which only allows toleration of those beliefs and practices that can be ethically valued.

Accordingly, in current philosophical discussions of toleration in multicultural, modern societies, the “respect conception” is often seen as the most appropriate and promising. Yet in these discussions, toleration as “respect” can be justified in different ways. An ethical-liberal, neo-Lockean justification argues that respect is owed to individuals as personally and ethically autonomous beings with the capacity to choose, possibly revise and realize an individual conception of the good. This capacity is to be respected and furthered because it is seen as a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for attaining the good life (cf. Kymlicka 1995). Hence the argument presupposes a specific thesis about the good life—i.e., that only an autonomously chosen way of life can be a good life—which can, however, reasonably be questioned. One may doubt whether such a way of life will necessarily be subjectively more fulfilling or objectively more valuable than one adopted in a more traditional way, without the presence of a range of options to choose from. Apart from that, the ethical-liberal theory could lead to a perfectionist justification of policies designed to further individual autonomy that could have a paternalistic character and lack toleration for non-liberal ways of life. In other words, there is the danger of an insufficient distinction between the components of objection and rejection mentioned above (section 1).

Thus, an alternative, neo-Baylean justification of the respect conception seeks to avoid a particular conception of the good life, relying instead on the discursive principle of justification which says that every norm that is to be binding for a plurality of persons, especially norms that are the basis of legal coercion, must be justifiable with reasons that are reciprocally acceptable to all affected as free and equal persons. Such persons have a basic “right to justification” (Forst 2012a) which gives them the power to reject one-sided ethical or religious justifications for general norms. For a complete argument for toleration, however, this normative component has to be accompanied by an epistemological component which says that ethical or religious reasons, if reciprocally contested, cannot be sufficient to justify the exercise of force, since their validation depends on a particular faith that can reasonably be rejected by others who do not share it; its validity reaches into a realm “beyond reason,” as Bayle said (see also similar arguments by Rawls 1993, ch. 2, and Larmore 1996, ch. 7). Thus toleration consists of the insight that reasons of ethical objection , even if deeply held, cannot be valid as general reasons of rejection so long as they are reciprocally rejectable as belonging to a conception of the good or true way of life that is not and need not be shareable. While such a distinction between ethical reasons for objection and stronger, morally justifiable reasons for rejection tries to overcome the “paradox of moral tolerance” (see section 1 above), the “paradox of drawing the limits” would be solved by seeing as tolerable all such views or practices that do not violate the principle of justification itself (see Forst 2013).

With such a reflexive turn in the debate about toleration, a number of questions arise as to the alleged superior validity of the principle of justification and the plausibility of a neo-Baylean epistemology distinguishing between faith and knowledge. Can there be an impartial justification that is not in the same way a “party” to the contest of ethical truths and world-views? Might there be the possibility, using a phrase John Rawls (1993) coined in the context of his theory of justice, of a “tolerant” theory of toleration that is at the same time substantive enough to ground and limit toleration?

Any concrete use of the concept of toleration is always situated in particular contexts of normative and political conflict, especially in societies that are transforming towards increased religious, ethical and cultural pluralism – even more so when societies are marked by an increased awareness of such pluralism, with some cultural groups raising new claims for recognition and others looking at their co-citizens with suspicion, despite having lived together for some time in the past. These social conflicts always involve group-based claims for recognition, both in the legal and in the social sphere (see generally Patten 2014, Galeotti 2002). Contemporary debate has focused on questions of respecting particular religious practices and beliefs, ranging from certain manners of dress, including the burka, to certain demands to be free from blasphemy and religious insults (Laborde 2008, Newey 2013, Nussbaum 2012, Leiter 2014, Taylor and Stepan 2014, Modood 2013, Forst 2013, ch. 12). The general questions raised here include: What is special about religious as opposed to other cultural identities (Laborde and Bardon 2017)? When is equal respect called for and what exactly does it imply with respect to, for example, norms of gender equality (see Okin et al. 1999, Song 2007)? What role do past injustices play in weighing claims for recognition, and how much room can there be for autonomous forms of life in a deeply pluralistic society (Tully 1995, Williams 2000)?

Other connected and intensely debated issues of toleration include free speech and “hate speech,” (Butler 1997, Waldron 2012, Gerstenfeld 2013) as well as the ways in which new forms of digital communication change the nature of social and political discourse (Barnett 2007).

Finally, in light of Goethe’s remark that to tolerate also means to insult, those working from the perspective of a critical theory of toleration discuss how power can be exercised not only by denying toleration but also by disciplining when granting toleration (Brown 2006, Brown and Forst 2014). As much as a politics of toleration aims to express mutual respect, it also involves disagreement, mutual criticism, and rejection. We still face the challenge of examining the grounds and forms of a politics of toleration as an emancipatory form of politics.

  • Augustine, 408, Letters , Vol. I (1–82), Vol. II (83–130), tr. S. Parsons, New York: Fathers of the Church, Inc., 1951 and 1953.
  • Averroes (Ibn Rušd), ~1180, Tahafut al-Tahafut (The Incoherence of the Incoherence), transl. by. S. van den Bergh, London: Luzac & Co, 1954.
  • Barnett, B. A., 2007, Hate group community-building online: A case study in the visual content of internet hate , New York: Proceedings of the New York State Communication Association.
  • Bayle, P., 1685, Philosophical Commentary , A. Godman Tannenbaum (trans. and ed.), New York: Lang, 1987.
  • Bejan, T., 2017, Mere Civility. Disagreement and the Limits of Toleration , Cambridge, MA and London: Harvard University Press.
  • Besier, G. and Schreiner, K., 1990, “Toleranz”, in O. Brunner, W. Conze, R. Koselleck (eds.), Geschichtliche Grundbegriffe 6, Stuttgart: Klett-Cotta, 445–605.
  • Bodin, J., 1576, The Six Books of a Commonweal , R. Knolles (trans.), J. Mc Rae (ed.), Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1962.
  • –––, 1588, Colloquium of the Seven about Secrets of the Sublime , M. Kuntz (trans.), Princeton, 1975.
  • Brown, W., 2006, Regulating Aversion: Tolerance in the Age of Identity and Empire , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Brown, W. and Forst, R., 2014, The Power of Tolerance. A Debate , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Butler, J., 1997, Excitable Speech: A Politics of Performative , Abingdon: Routledge.
  • Castellio, S., 1554, Concerning Heretics: Whether they are to be Persecuted , R. Bainton (trans. and ed.), New York: Columbia University Press, 1935.
  • Cohen, A.J., 2014, Toleration , Cambridge: Polity Press.
  • Creppel, I., 2003, Toleration and Identity: Foundations in Early Modern Thought , New York: Routledge.
  • Cusa, Nicholas, 1453, On Peaceful Unity of Faith, J. Hopkins (trans.), in Complete Philosophical and Theological Treatises of Nicholas of Cusa , Vol. 1, Minneapolis: Banning, 2001.
  • Ebbinghaus, J., 1950, “Über die Idee der Toleranz”, Archiv für Philosophie 4, 1–34.
  • Fish, S., 1997, “Mission Impossible: Settling the Just Bounds Between Church and State”, Columbia Law Review , 97: 2255–2333.
  • Fletcher, G., 1996, “The Instability of Tolerance,” in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 158–172.
  • Forst, R., 2002, Contexts of Justice , J. Farrell (trans.), Berkeley and Los Angeles: University of California Press.
  • –––, 2008, “Pierre Bayle’s Reflexive Theory of Toleration”, in M. Williams, J. Waldron (eds.), Toleration and its Limits (Nomos XLVIII), New York: New York University Press, 78–113.
  • –––, 2012, The Right to Justification: Elements of a Constructivist Theory of Justice , A. Allen (ed.), New York: Columbia University Press.
  • –––, 2013, Toleration in Conflict. Past and Present , C. Cronin (trans.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Galeotti, A. E., 1993, “Citizenship and Equality: The Place for Toleration,” Political Theory , 21: 585–605.
  • –––, 2002, Tolerance as Recognition , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Gerstenfeld, P., 2013, Hate Crimes: Causes, Controls, and Controversies , Los Angeles: Sage.
  • Goethe, J. W., 1829, Maximen und Reflexionen, Werke 6, Frankfurt am Main: Insel, 1981.
  • Horton, J., 1994, “Three (Apparent) Paradoxes of Toleration”, Synthesis Philosophica , 17: 7–20.
  • –––, 1996, “Toleration as a Virtue”, in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 28–43.
  • Kaplan, B. J., 2007, Divided by Faith. Religious Conflict and the Practice of Toleration in Early Modern Europe , Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
  • Kilcullen, J., 1988, Sincerity and truth. Essays on Arnauld, Bayle, and Toleration , Oxford and New York: Clarendon Press.
  • King, P., 1976, Toleration , New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1998.
  • Kymlicka, W., 1995, Multicultural Citizenship , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Laborde, C., 2008, Critical Republicanism: The Hijab Controversy and Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Laborde, C. & Bardon, A. (eds.), 2017, Religion in Liberal Political Philosophy , Oxford: Oxford University Press.
  • Larmore, C., 1996, The Morals of Modernity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Leiter, B., 2014, Why Tolerate Religion? , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Lessing, G. E., 1779, Nathan the Wise (Plays of Lessing), ed. E. Bell, London, 1888.
  • Locke, J., 1689, A Letter Concerning Toleration ed. Tully, Indianapolis: Hackett, 1983.
  • Luther, M., 1523, “Secular Authority: To what Extent It Should Be Obeyed”, in Martin Luther, Selections From His Writings , J. Dillenberger (ed.), New York: Anchor Books, 1962.
  • Mendus, S., 1989, Toleration and the Limits of Liberalism , Atlantic Highlands: Humanities Press.
  • Mill, J. S., 1859, On Liberty , G. Himmelfarb (ed.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1974.
  • Modood, T., 2013, Multiculturalism , Cambridge: Polity.
  • Montesquieu, 1721, Persian Letters , C.J. Betts (trans.), Harmondsworth: Penguin, 1973.
  • –––, 1748, On the Spirit of the Laws , A.M. Cohler, B.C. Miller, and H.S. Stone (trans. and eds.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1989.
  • Nederman, C., 2000, Worlds of Difference: European Discourses of Toleration , University Park, PA: Pennsylvania State University Press.
  • Newey, G., 1999, Virtue, Reason and Toleration. The Place of Toleration in Ethical and Political Philosophy , Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press.
  • –––, 2013, Toleration in Political Conflict , Cambridge University Press, 11–23.
  • Nussbaum, M., 2012, The New Religious Intolerance: Overcoming the Politics of Fear in an Anxious Age , Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University.
  • Okin, M., 1999, Is multiculturalism bad for women? , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
  • Patten, A., 2014, Equal Recognition: The Moral Foundations of Minority Rights , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Raphael, D. D., 1988, “The Intolerable”, in S. Mendus (ed.), Justifying Toleration. Conceptual and Historical Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 137–154.
  • Rawls, J., 1987, “The Idea of an Overlapping Consensus,” Oxford Journal of Legal Studies , 7: 1–25.
  • –––, 1993, Political Liberalism , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Raz, J., 1988, “Autonomy, Toleration, and the Harm Principle,” in S. Mendus (ed.), Justifying Toleration. Conceptual and Historical Perspectives , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 155–175.
  • Rousseau, J.-J., 1762, On the Social Contract , in The Social Contract and other later political writings, V. Gourevitch (ed.), Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1997.
  • –––, 1762, Emile, or On Education , A. Bloom (trans.), New York: Basic Books, 1979.
  • Sandel, M., 1989, “Moral Argument and Liberal Toleration: Abortion and Homosexuality,” California Law Review , 77: 521–538.
  • Scanlon, T., 1996, “The Difficulty of Tolerance,” in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration. An Elusive Virtue , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 226–239.
  • Spinoza, Baruch, 1670, Tractatus Theologico-Politicus (Gebhardt Edition), S. Shirley (trans.), Indianapolis: Hackett, 2001, 2 nd edition.
  • Song, S., 2007, Justice, Gender, and the Politics of Multiculturalism , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Taylor, C. and Stepan, A., 2014, Boundaries of Toleration , New York: Columbia University Press.
  • Tully, J., 1995, Strange Multiplicity: Constitutionalism in the Age of Diversity , Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
  • Waldron, J., 2012, The Harm in Hate Speech , Berlin: De Gruyter.
  • Weale, A., 1985, “Toleration, Individual Differences, and Respect for Persons,” in J. Horton and S. Mendus (eds.), Aspects of Toleration , London and New York: Methuen, 16–35.
  • Williams, B., 1996, “Toleration: An Impossible Virtue?,” in D. Heyd (ed.), Toleration. An Elusive Virtue , Princeton: Princeton University Press, 18–27.
  • Williams, M., 2000, Voice, Trust, and Memory: Marginalized Groups and the Failings of Liberal Representation , Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
  • Zagorin, P., 2003, How the Idea of Religious Toleration Came to the West , Princeton: Princeton University Press.
How to cite this entry . Preview the PDF version of this entry at the Friends of the SEP Society . Look up topics and thinkers related to this entry at the Internet Philosophy Ontology Project (InPhO). Enhanced bibliography for this entry at PhilPapers , with links to its database.

[Please contact the author with suggestions.]

Augustine of Hippo | Bayle, Pierre | Bodin, Jean | Cusanus, Nicolaus [Nicolas of Cusa] | justice: international distributive | liberalism | Locke, John | Locke, John: political philosophy | Rawls, John | Spinoza, Baruch

Copyright © 2017 by Rainer Forst < forst @ em . uni-frankfurt . de >

  • Accessibility

Support SEP

Mirror sites.

View this site from another server:

  • Info about mirror sites

The Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy is copyright © 2023 by The Metaphysics Research Lab , Department of Philosophy, Stanford University

Library of Congress Catalog Data: ISSN 1095-5054

Home

The Tolerant Society

Lee Bollinger argues that free speech establishes tolerance. Through a free speech regime, a vast number of ideas circulate even those that some may consider as extreme, dangerous, hateful, or wrong. Bollinger reasons that if we run up against ideas and opinions that differ from our own, we will learn to accept their existence. We will learn to manage our impulse, almost instinct to forbid such views. We will learn to manage our impulse to excessive intolerance. Through freedom of expression, we are forced to encounter others, others' opinions, others' dignities, others' autonomy, and to tolerate their existence. In his view, a free speech regime is a great social experience in tolerance. The extraordinary zone of freedom of expression tests our ability to live in a society that is necessarily defined by conflict and controversy. It trains us in the art of tolerance and steels us from vicissitudes. The best way to think of freedom of speech and press then, is not just as an aid in the search for truth, but also as creating an unregulated public arena, a special zone of social interaction. Bollinger argues that through the free speech experiment, we commit ourselves to being people of fortitude.    

Lee Bollinger , the Tolerant Society (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1986)

Read the Latest on Page Six

Recommended

Breaking news, no longer truly ‘elite’: top colleges fail on free speech and basic tolerance.

Signs sit on the floor as pro-Palestinian students

If college students are seen sporting riot gear on campus this fall, no one should blame them: In all likelihood, campus events and even classes will be canceled this semester due to the actions of some of their fellow students.

Perversely, these days the more expensive the college or university and the more “elite” its reputation, the more chilled its environment for open discourse and constructive disagreement.

These once-revered universities, still generally respected for reputations earned in earlier eras, are ironically among the worst offenders when it comes to stifling independent thought — so much so that they’re torpedoing trust in academia’s credibility as a center for objectivity and discovering truth.

Perhaps they shouldn’t be considered elite at all.

These disturbing dynamics punctuate the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression’s 2025 College Free Speech Rankings , our annual survey of American colleges’ commitment to free thought and free speech.

Some of the nation’s most prestigious schools — Columbia, NYU, Penn, Barnard — rank at the very bottom of the list, while Harvard , perhaps the most prestigious university in the world, has the inglorious distinction of finishing dead last for free speech for the second year in a row.

Other elite schools such as Princeton, Northwestern, Cornell, Brown, UCLA, Georgetown and Berkeley have a similarly abysmal commitment to free speech, our survey found, all scoring well below average.

Campus responses to the Israel-Hamas conflict vividly demonstrated the failures of our higher education institutions to safeguard free expression.

In our survey, 55% of students said they find it difficult to discuss the Israeli-Palestinian conflict on campus — a record high for any issue since our rankings began in 2021.

Some of the chaos on campuses during the last school year was a direct result of administrators stifling free speech protected under the First Amendment.

And while the vast majority of pro-Palestinian protesters’ speech is unequivocally protected by the First Amendment, it’s worth noting that pro-Palestinian protesters are responsible for every campus shout-down FIRE has recorded since Oct. 7 .

Our study also exposes administrators’ long-running casual disregard for nurturing free expression or inculcating those values into the student body.

A majority of students said that six of eight hypothetical offensive speakers should “probably” or “definitely” not be allowed on campus.

For example, roughly two-thirds of current students oppose allowing a speaker on campus who expressed unpopular views on transgender people or Black Lives Matter.

At least half of students surveyed oppose allowing speakers who expressed controversial views on Israeli security, abortion, the police or the Catholic church.

It’s troubling that even a handful of students believe that speakers with whom they disagree have no place on campus.

But when a majority of students believe this, it signals something even worse: We have failed to teach an entire generation to respect the dialogue across differences that lies at the heart of our institutions of higher learning and our society’s marketplace of ideas.

Our survey also detected a rise in the percentage of students who believe that the use of violence to stop a campus speech is acceptable in at least some circumstances, rising from 27% last year to 32% this year — nearly a third of all students.

 Again, the percentage of students who believe violence is justified to stop speech should be zero .

That nearly a third of all students today say otherwise is a disaster.

It’s valid to ask if these are the values we want “elite” universities to instill in our young people — and parents and alumni should wonder if instilling this mentality into students is worth paying a fortune for.

The failure of our institutions to serve as centers for rigorous debate, open discussion and thought experimentation — and the way these trends undermine our universities’ credibility as truth-seeking institutions — should trouble us all.

Perhaps we must redefine what we mean by “elite” universities in the first place: An “elite university” should prepare students to think critically, ask hard questions, take seriously the possibility they might be wrong, question dogmas both on and off campus, and resist groupthink with reason and evidence.

When these institutions fail to uphold or even seriously explain the profound philosophy that undergirds freedom of speech and academic freedom , they fail in their fundamental mission.

If elite schools are to regain their stature, they need to foster intellectual humility, instill enthusiasm toward dissent and discussion rather than fear of it, and cultivate citizens who see it as an intellectual duty to seek out and engage with smart people with whom they disagree.

Then, and only then, can they truly claim to be elite.

Greg Lukianoff is president and CEO of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression , a free speech nonprofit.

IMAGES

  1. Tolerance Speech

    speech about tolerance

  2. Tolerance Day Speech 2012

    speech about tolerance

  3. How to write a speech about tolerance? :)

    speech about tolerance

  4. 10 Lines on International Day for Tolerance and Peace for Students and

    speech about tolerance

  5. International Day for Tolerance

    speech about tolerance

  6. Tolerance Quotes Posters and Activities

    speech about tolerance

VIDEO

  1. Protest or Tolerance for the betterment?

  2. Tolerance In The Islamic Utopia Of Pakistan

  3. EASY AND EFFECTIVE IDEA TO HANDLE BEHAVIOR PROBLEMS

  4. Practice Tolerance In Speech

  5. Promoting tolerance through theatre

  6. Inclusion. Getting rid of stereotypes.

COMMENTS

  1. Sara Al Awadhi: Beyond Tolerance

    Beyond Tolerance. When 2019 was named 'The year of Tolerance' in the United Arab Emirates, it sparked many a dialogue around what tolerance really means. In this talk, Sara Alawadhi explores how we define and perceive Tolerance, and what we can do - both individually and on a broader societal scale, to go 'Beyond Tolerance' to create a deeper ...

  2. 1 Minute Speech on Tolerance In English

    Simply put, tolerance is the act of forbearing. Life is not all rosy like we envision it to be. Sometimes it will be unfair. Sometimes it will seem unbearable. At times like those, only the ability to tolerate will get us through and the hope that one day life will become better. To tolerate in life is thus a virtue we must all develop in our life.

  3. Tolerance is more than putting up with things

    Tolerance is a moral virtue best placed within the moral domain - but unfortunately it is often confounded with prejudice. Much of the psychological research about… Tolerance is more than ...

  4. Tolerance

    Tolerance | Definition, Types, Importance & Examples

  5. Truth and Tolerance

    My treatment of truth and tolerance will invite you to consider and to teach these twin subjects because they are vital to the rising generation, in which you are the senior members. First: Truth. We believe in absolute truth, including the existence of God and the right and wrong established by His commandments.

  6. Tolerance

    Tolerance - Beyond Intractability ... Tolerance

  7. Speech About Tolerance in Life

    Speech About Tolerance in Life.doc - Free download as Word Doc (.doc), PDF File (.pdf), Text File (.txt) or read online for free. First, the speaker expresses gratitude to God for blessing them with good health and allowing them to gather. The speaker then defines tolerance as accepting beliefs and behaviors different from one's own. Tolerance is important to maintain harmony in diverse ...

  8. Faith, Truth, and Tolerance in America

    Full text and audio mp3 and video excerpt of Edward M. Kennedy's Truth and Tolerance in America Address . Edward M. Kennedy. Faith, Truth, and Tolerance in America. delivered 3 October 1983, Liberty Baptist College (Liberty ... His speech in Houston and then his election drove that prejudice from the center of our national life. Now, three ...

  9. An Essay About Tolerance For Grade 9 Students

    An Essay About Tolerance For Grade 9 Students. Tolerance is an important value that we should all strive to cultivate in our lives. It means accepting and respecting people who are different from us, whether it is their race, religion, culture, or beliefs. Tolerance promotes understanding and encourages people to work together towards a common ...

  10. Talks about Tolerance

    Tolerance is not, however, forsaking what you know to be true. devotional 1953. Top. Sign up for the BYU Speeches newsletter to receive monthly inspiration. A little hope in your inbox. Contact. BYU Speeches ... Follow BYU Speeches. Brigham Young University. Provo, UT 84602, USA +1-801-422-4711

  11. Tolerance is a commitment 'to seek in our diversity the bonds that

    Underscoring the importance of tolerance, particularly in today's diverse world, United Nations Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the head of the UN Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization have called for seeing the world through the prism of "we the peoples" and to collectively build societies that are more inclusive, more peaceful and more prosperous.

  12. Tolerance is a dirty word

    This talk was given at a local TEDx event, produced independently of the TED Conferences. Andrew Sayer, a senior at Providence College, presented his provoca...

  13. 15 Tolerance Examples (2024)

    15 Tolerance Examples. Tolerance is the ability to accept and live with others for who they are. There are many things in life where people vary, and our acceptance of this diversity in life is vital to living together on a globalized planet. For example, understanding and accepting the varying opinions in society about religion or politics ...

  14. 103 Tolerance Essay Topic Ideas & Examples

    The concept of tolerance is crucial nowadays. Tolerance makes it possible for people of various races, nationalities, ages, and cultural backgrounds to peacefully coexist. In your tolerance essay, you might want to talk about why it is so important in society. Another option is to compare the levels of tolerance in various countries in the world.

  15. After Charlottesville, how we define tolerance becomes a key question

    The Voltaire slogan illustrates the way first-order tolerance and second-order intolerance can be applied to speech, and also illustrates how tricky the situation can be.

  16. Tolerance Is Not Indifference or Grudging Acceptance, but Way of Life

    Tolerance does not mean indifference or a grudging acceptance of others. It is a way of life based on mutual understanding and respect for others, and on the belief that global diversity is to be embraced, not feared. The United Nations promotes tolerance on many fronts. It is part of our work for peace, conflict prevention, democratization and ...

  17. Tolerance Theory

    One premise underlying First Amendment jurisprudence is the tolerance theory — the belief that promoting expressive freedoms will make individuals and institutions more open to ideas than they would be otherwise. The origin of this idea can be traced to John Stuart Mill's On Liberty (1869). Mill's essay is a defense of individual freedom ...

  18. Tolerance and intolerance: Cultural meanings and discursive usage

    Thus, the concept of tolerance is widely embraced across many settings for many sorts of differences (e.g., race, ethnicity, religion, and sexuality), and across a diverse ideological and left-right political field (Brown, 2006).However, our ability to create, evaluate, and implement appropriate policies is limited by tolerance and intolerance having various meanings that can be used in ...

  19. Toleration

    Toleration - Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy

  20. The meanings of tolerance: Discursive usage in a case of 'identity

    The argument for classical tolerance in society (e.g. equal citizenship rights, free speech) does not similarly apply to, for example, a church, a political movement or a professional organizations. Collectives of these kind have reason to exclude those who disagree with their core values, principles and aims because they would lose their point ...

  21. The Tolerant Society

    Through freedom of expression, we are forced to encounter others, others' opinions, others' dignities, others' autonomy, and to tolerate their existence. In his view, a free speech regime is a great social experience in tolerance. The extraordinary zone of freedom of expression tests our ability to live in a society that is necessarily defined ...

  22. Promoting Peace, Tolerance, and Respect

    Promoting Peace, Tolerance, and Respect. 2018 World Leader Award. Appeal of Conscience. Remarks by Christine Lagarde, Managing Director IMF. September 26, 2018. Good evening to all of you. Thank you so much for the honor awarded to me tonight. I would especially like to thank Rabbi Schneier and the Appeal of Conscience Foundation that he has ...

  23. Extremist Speech and the Paradox of Tolerance

    tolerance, it raises several vexing questions and paradoxes of its own. Foremost among them is the justification for singling out self-restraint as the preeminent goal of free speech in contemporary American society. Even if one concedes that self-restraint is a virtue and that tolerance of extremist speech would promote self-restraint, one won-

  24. Free Speech Rankings

    Tolerance for Speakers. Students were asked whether three speakers espousing views potentially offensive to conservatives (e.g., "The police are just as racist as the Ku Klux Klan.") should be allowed on campus, regardless of whether they personally agree with the speaker's message.

  25. Colleges fail the free-speech test as students reject dissent

    No longer truly 'elite': Top colleges fail on free speech AND basic tolerance By . Greg Lukianoff. Published Sep. 9, 2024, 6:01 p.m. ET.

  26. Tolerance.ca®

    All information reproduced on the Web pages of www.tolerance.ca (including articles, images, photographs, and logos) is protected by intellectual property rights owned by Tolerance.ca ® Inc. or, in certain cases, by its author. Any reproduction of the information for use other than personal use is prohibited.