speech about tolerance

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.
• 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 […]
• 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.
• 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 […]
• 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.
• 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 […]
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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.
• 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 Truth in America During the founding of the United States of America, the Catholic faith seemed to be the predominant religion in the country.
• 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/.

Beyond Intractability

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?

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.

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.

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

• Thinking about What Democracy's Winners and Losers Owe One Another -- As we think about how to heal US democracy following the upcoming, and undoubtedly divisive election, we propose asking ourselves whether we are willing to treat the other side as we would like to be treated.
• Daniel Stid: A Big Question I Have Is... -- Hope, vision, and place-based civic heath are key elements to our ability to navigate the turbulent times that have left so many of us in fear and despair.
• Massively Parallel Peace and Democracy Building Links for the Week of July 14, 2024 -- Our regular reader-suggested links, colleague activities, news and opinion links and a new "highlighted links" for people who want some really good reads quickly.

Get the Newsletter Check Out Our Quick Start Guide

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

Constructive Conflict Initiative

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

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

You are using an outdated browser. Please upgrade your browser or activate Google Chrome Frame to improve your experience.

Thanks for signing up as a global citizen. In order to create your account we need you to provide your email address. You can check out our Privacy Policy to see how we safeguard and use the information you provide us with. If your Facebook account does not have an attached e-mail address, you'll need to add that before you can sign up.

This account has been deactivated.

Please contact us at [email protected] if you would like to re-activate your account.

International Day of Tolerance could not come at a more powerful time.

Brutal attacks in Paris, Beirut and Baghdad left hundreds dead at the hands of extremists bent on the opposite of tolerance, determined to suppress any idea or lifestyle that falls out of step with their ideology. 

In a world of such violence, it is easy for tensions between communities to fester.  But it’s at times like this that societies can choose how to respond. Religious, racial, cultural and political differences will always exist - this diversity is what makes life rich and exciting, but also difficult. It’s our choice to decide how to overcome this challenge by uniting around the values we share. Even though it may not always be easy, I don’t believe this is simply a utopian ideal, and I’m not the only one (oops, I didn’t quite mean to quote John Lennon there).  Here are 10 quotes on tolerance from some of the world’s greatest minds that can help us all build a stronger, more united world: 

“In order to have faith in his own path, he does not need to prove that someone else's path is wrong.”  ― Paulo Coelho

“tolerance isn't about not having beliefs. it's about how your beliefs lead you to treat people who disagree with you.”, ― timothy keller, “in the practice of tolerance, one's enemy is the best teacher.”  ― dalai lama xiv.

Image: Wikimedia Commons

“ Tolerance implies no lack of commitment to one's own beliefs. Rather it condemns the oppression or persecution of others.” ― John F. Kennedy  

"the only way to make sure people you agree with can speak is to support the rights of people you don't agree with." ― eleanor holmes norton , “i do not like what you say but i will defend to the death your right to say it.” ― attributed to voltaire , "if civilization is to survive, we must cultivate the science of human relationships - the ability of all peoples, of all kinds, to live together, in the same world at peace.", ― franklin d. roosevelt, "if a profound gulf separates my neighbor's belief from mine, there is always the golden bridge of tolerance.", “no one is born hating another person because of the color of his skin, or his background, or his religion. people must learn to hate, and if they can learn to hate, they can be taught to love, for love comes more naturally to the human heart than its opposite.” ―  nelson mandela , and last but not least: , ― copper and tod, the fox and the hound.

Tolerance is not easy, but it’s infinitely better than hatred. Democratic values tread a fine line--is a tolerant society necessarily intolerant to intolerance? While there are no simple answers to the tough questions the world faces, democratic nations cannot afford to lose sight of the fundamental freedoms they are fighting for. In the wake of last weekend’s violence, it’s time to reassert the values that make us human.

You can show your appreciation for tolerance by going to TAKE ACTION NOW to spread awareness of the Global Goals. 

Demand Equity

10 Quotes About Tolerance for International Day of Tolerance

Nov. 16, 2015

Academic Discipleship

“therefore ye are no more strangers and foreigners”, “the world is charged with the grandeur of god”: a mandate for eternal education, children of heavenly father, truth and tolerance, loving our neighbor: tolerance and acceptance as we come together in knowing christ, building bridges to harmony through understanding, “it’s a two-way street”, differences . . . “allow all men the same privilege”, appreciation—sign of maturity.

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

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.

• human rights

After Charlottesville, how we define tolerance becomes a key question

Professor of History and Philosophy of Science, University of Sydney

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

Sydney Horizon Educators – Faculty of Engineering (Targeted)

Administration Officer

Apply for State Library of Queensland's next round of research opportunities

Associate Professor, Psychology

Law and Crime

"hate has no home here" and the paradox of tolerance, is intolerance of intolerance, well, intolerant is hating hate hateful.

Posted July 2, 2020 | Reviewed by Ekua Hagan

I’ve seen the signs around in a few people’s yards. “ Hate Has No Home Here, ” they say, followed by translations of the phrase in Hebrew, Arabic, Spanish, Korean, and Urdu. I didn’t think much of them, other than that the sentiment was nice. But when a colleague of mine got hate mail from a neighbor for displaying one in her front yard, I had to look further into it. Hate mail for not hating? There had to be a logical fallacy to be found somewhere!

The phrase, it turns out, was the brainchild of … children … a third-grader and kindergartner at Peterson Elementary, which services the extremely diverse Chicago neighborhood of North Park, Illinois. The sign project was the result of the cooperation of a North Park neighborhood organization. The stated purpose of the sign is as a “public declaration that hate speech and hateful actions against others will not be tolerated by the person or organization displaying the sign.” What’s to hate, right?

Karen Pansler Lam thinks the signs are a hate crime , and her explanation of why is what my colleague received as an email forward. I won’t go into the details here (like I did here ), but in short her argument is that putting up a “Hate Has No Home Here” sign in front of your house, which implies that you do not hate “foreigners”—i.e., people of other cultures, who speak other languages, and belongs to other religions—is tantamount to saying that you do hate those who do not tolerate such people. She apparently sees signs that suggest “you should love and accept everyone” as a personal affront to her and her views. And apparently my colleague’s neighbor does too. To them, my colleague putting up a “Hate Has No Home Here” sign was tantamount to saying “In my home we don’t hate … unlike in that other home down the street, where they do hate. I hate them.”

Now, there is certainly is a strawman fallacy here. My colleague was only trying to express that her home does not tolerate hate speech or actions. She did not have her neighbors in mind. Saying otherwise misrepresents her view. But my colleague also, most certainly, hates hate. And this got me thinking about the paradox of tolerance.

The paradox of tolerance , first identified by Karl Popper, suggests that tolerance leads to intolerance—or, more specifically, that complete and pure tolerance of everything would lead to the elimination of tolerance for anything. How so?

If every view is tolerated, then viewpoints that are intolerant must be tolerated. But intolerant viewpoints, left unchecked, will wipe out everything besides themselves—leaving us with only intolerance in the end. So, to champion tolerance, one must be intolerant to a degree—one must not tolerate intolerant views. Indeed, Popper argued, such views must be made illegal (like how Germany effectively made Nazism illegal after WWII).

A similar paradox arises it seems, not about tolerance and intolerance, but about love and hatred. If you truly love everything, then you must also love hate. But if hate is loved, and thus left unchecked, it will wipe our everything but itself, and all we will be left with is hate. So, to champion love, one must hate to a degree—one must hate hatefulness. And that, in a way, is what the “Hate Has No Home Here” signs declare: “In this house, we hate hate.”

But is this truly a paradox? Perhaps we can just “hate the sin but not the sinner,” or “hate the hate without hating the hater.” Indeed, perhaps we can even love the hater, but hate their hate and not leave it unchecked. Maybe. But, on the other hand, is it really possible to separate people from their actions in this way—especially their actions towards others? As author Mayur Ramgir put it, “Your actions define your character, your words define your wisdom , but your treatment of others defines [the] real you.” Can I really love Hitler, but just hate his actions? Didn’t his actions reveal him to be a deplorable human being deserving of hatred? Indeed, one might even argue that a person is morally deficient if they don’t hate Hitler. So is one morally deficient if they do not hate people who take calls for love and tolerance as personal affronts? I’m not really sure. But if one vocally stands against an “anti-hate” message, one should not be surprised if one receives criticism from people who hate hatefulness.

Copyright David Kyle Johnson, 2020.

David Kyle Johnson, Ph.D. , is a professor of philosophy at King's College in Pennsylvania.

• Find a Therapist
• Find a Treatment Center
• Find a Psychiatrist
• Find a Support Group
• Find Online Therapy
• United States
• Brooklyn, NY
• Chicago, IL
• Houston, TX
• Los Angeles, CA
• New York, NY
• Portland, OR
• San Diego, CA
• San Francisco, CA
• Seattle, WA
• Washington, DC
• Asperger's
• Bipolar Disorder
• Chronic Pain
• Eating Disorders
• Passive Aggression
• Personality
• Goal Setting
• Positive Psychology
• Stopping Smoking
• Low Sexual Desire
• Relationships
• Child Development
• Self Tests NEW
• Therapy Center
• Diagnosis Dictionary
• Types of Therapy

Sticking up for yourself is no easy task. But there are concrete skills you can use to hone your assertiveness and advocate for yourself.

• Emotional Intelligence
• Gaslighting
• Affective Forecasting
• Neuroscience

Color Scheme

• Use system setting
• Light theme

High school student’s poignant speech on tolerance continues to resonate nearly one year later

In January, then-senior Ava Sharifi delivered a powerful message to her fellow students at Lewis and Clark High school.

“I do not want to live in a world where at 17 years old I must worry about the color of my children’s skin,” she said in a speech delivered in mid-January. “We must take action; we cannot let darkness consume our hearts.”

The speech, posted to YouTube in February, struck a nerve with more than 11,000 views, hundreds of comments and an article on Buzzfeed , along with a slew of local media coverage .

In her speech, Sharifi shared how as a 10-year-old she realized her skin color and ethnicity set her apart. Later she remembers strangers contacting her on Facebook, asking her why she hated Westerners. She recalls walking into middle school and hearing children call her a terrorist.

Now, Sharifi is a freshman at the University of Washington studying political science. After delivering that speech, she said she was invited to speak at the University of Washington as well as the University of Idaho.

“It’s really been a fantastic journey from the moment I gave that speech,” she said. “I think what’s really great about the millennial generation is we are a lot more outspoken about social issues.”

Sharifi believes the biggest impact her speech had on the community was raising awareness. A good friend of hers, Sami Hoiland, agrees.

“I definitely cried,” Hoiland said. “I think it’s good for people to see it in her perspective because a lot of people don’t.”

To this day, Hoiland defends Sharifi on YouTube when some commenters attack Sharifi. When that happens, Hoiland jumps in and stands up for her friend.

“I felt like I needed to help her more,” she said. “I didn’t know the extent of prejudice and discrimination, and that’s why I’m still trying to defend her.”

That’s the kind of awareness Sharifi hoped to raise by delivering her speech. Sharifi, who isn’t religious, doesn’t want to be a spokesperson for Muslims, she said. Instead, she’s hoping to raise awareness about prejudice and hatred of all kinds.

“Even though I’m not Muslim, I got put into a box,” she said.

In a way, that illustrated her point exactly. Because of her skin color and ethnic origin, she was immediately linked to a religious group, a group with which she has little to do.

She originally wrote and presented the speech Jan. 13 for a panel discussion her father, an Eastern Washington University professor, organized on domestic terrorism and Islam. Subsequently, she presented it to her high school.

Sharifi’s parents emigrated from Iran in 1990. They lived in Miami, where Sharifi was born, until 2008. They then moved to Spokane. They aren’t a religious family.

Although Hoiland no longer attends LC, she said Sharifi is still a respected figure there.

“I feel that people still look up to her,” she said.

The truth about Gigs, Gs and other internet marketing jargon

My phone runs on 5G. I also just saw a bunch of ads about “10G”. Is it twice as fast?

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:

In order to continue enjoying our site, we ask that you confirm your identity as a human. Thank you very much for your cooperation.

• 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

• Skip to Nav
• Skip to Main
• Skip to Footer

6 Strategies for Addressing Hate Speech and Microaggressions in Classrooms

Please try again

Excerpted from Equity Now: Justice, Repair, and Belonging in Schools by Tyrone C. Howard. Copyright (c) 2024 by Corwin Press, Inc. All rights reserved.

Hate speech is often deliberate and meant to be hurtful, while microaggressions are often more common, subtle everyday slights directed at someone’s identity. Microaggressions can be intentional or unintentional, and often perpetrators are unaware of the injury that they may have caused. Hate speech, on the other hand, is usually intentional and a direct attack on some aspect of a person’s individual or group identity. Both are problematic at schools and happen far too often, especially to minoritized students. Educators can and must play a role to stop hate speech in schools. Here are some steps that can be taken to address racism and hate speech in schools and classrooms:

1. Address the issue (do not ignore it!)

2. Research the topic or the offensive language

When caught off guard with hate language, use it as a teachable moment, for yourself and for your students. But always keep in mind that we cannot teach what we do not know. If we do not know the history of hateful language used to demean different racial/ethnic groups, women, LGBTQ+ members, people of particular religious backgrounds or people who are born in another country, then we need to learn. It is incumbent for teachers to educate themselves and study about topics, issues and language that are divisive or hateful. Then share with students about the way hateful language has led to many people dying in our country and beyond.

3. Increase your own racial literacy

Demographers state that in the year 2042, our nation will be predominantly comprised of non-white people. Our country’s racial, ethnic and linguistic demography is changing rapidly. Thus, teachers need to increase their racial literacy to better understand, connect with and teach today’s learners . Race-based hate crimes remain the number-one type of hate crime in the United States. Hate is learned, and all adults must speak out about it. Approximately 80% of our teaching population is white, and over half of our student population is non-white. All teachers must work to increase their racial literacy. Ignorance and indifference fuel hate. Much of the hate speech in schools today is focused on racial hatred or discrimination. Increase your literacy to inform your students.

4. Examine content in the curriculum

Frequently, school content and curriculum can have language, examples or images that implicitly or explicitly convey hateful messages. Teachers must be diligent in examining anything that could be controversial in textbooks, literature or videos shared in the classroom. Such content should be excluded from what students are being taught, but skilled teachers may choose to have educative discussions about why certain language is used in content and why it should be removed.

5. Generate discussion in your class around hate language

No matter the grade level or subject matter, teachers need to have conversations early and often about the zero tolerance for hate speech in their classrooms and across the school. Introduce concepts and lessons about the history of certain words and how they were used to dehumanize people. I recall a middle school teacher I worked with in Ohio who was masterful in teaching a lesson about the death of Matthew Shepard and how hate, ignorance and violence toward members of the LGBTQ+ community were at the root of his tragic death. The discussion the lesson generated was powerful, insightful and emotional. Students talked about how they did not realize that phrases such as “that’s so gay” contribute to the mistreatment of people and learned not only that they need to stop using such language but also how they can speak up and be upstanders when they hear friends and peers using such language.

6. Bring in guest speakers

One of the more powerful approaches that teachers can take to help students learn about diversity is to hear firsthand from people from different groups who can talk about cultural practices, lived experiences or historical events that are age appropriate and tied to particular subject matter. Ask colleagues or parents/caregivers about who might be ideal speakers to talk to your students.

Jack Black 'blindsided' by Kyle Gass' Trump shooting comment, ends Tenacious D tour

Jack Black is speaking out against his bandmate's controversial comment about the assassination attempt on former President Donald Trump .

In a statement provided to USA TODAY, the "School of Rock" actor, 54, said he was "blindsided" by bandmate Kyle Gass saying "don't miss Trump next time" on stage during their Tenacious D show on Sunday.

Black also said he is ending the Tenacious D tour and pausing plans to continue working with Gass .

"I would never condone hate speech or encourage political violence in any form," Black said. "After much reflection, I no longer feel it is appropriate to continue the Tenacious D tour, and all future creative plans are on hold. I am grateful to the fans for their support and understanding."

Kyle Gass, Jack Black's Tenacious D bandmate, says 'don't miss Trump next time' after assassination attempt

Kyle Gass apologizes for his 'dangerous' joke about Trump assassination attempt: 'Terrible mistake'

In his own statement shared Tuesday on Instagram , Gass apologized for the remark and made clear that it was not planned.

"The line I improvised onstage Sunday night in Sydney was highly inappropriate, dangerous and a terrible mistake," he said. "I don't condone violence of any kind, in any form, against anyone. What happened was a tragedy, and I'm incredibly sorry for my severe lack of judgement."

He added, "I profoundly apologize to those I've let down and truly regret any pain I've caused."

Meanwhile, Gass was dropped by his talent agency Greene Talent due to the Trump comment, agent Michael Greene confirmed to USA TODAY.

Jack Black's bandmate, Donald Trump and when jokes go too far

Controversy comes after Tenacious D announced 'Rock D Vote' shows ahead of election

Tenacious D was set to continue performing this month with tour stops in Australia and New Zealand. The band had also announced a series of " Rock D Vote " shows in the fall to benefit the nonpartisan organization Rock the Vote ahead of the presidential election .

During a Tenacious D show Sunday in Sydney, Black presented a cake to Gass for his birthday and told him to make a wish. "Don't miss Trump next time," Gass said, referencing the assassination attempt on Trump.

Trump assassination attempt: Graphics, maps show you what happened

On Saturday, during a rally in Pennsylvania, 20-year-old Thomas Matthew Crooks shot at Trump, who later said a bullet "pierced the upper part of my right ear." The shooting left one rally attendee dead and two injured. In the aftermath, officials in both parties, including President Joe Biden , spoke out to condemn political violence.

Gass' comments received backlash as they went viral Monday on social media. "Evil," Tesla CEO Elon Musk wrote in response to a clip of the moment. Video showed the concert audience cheering Gass' joke, though Black did not remark upon it. "Thank you," he said before moving the show along.

Trump assassination attempt unlikely to have lasting political impact, observers say

Black has been performing with Gass in Tenacious D, a comedy rock band, since 1994. They co-starred in a comedy film about the band, "Tenacious D in The Pick of Destiny," in 2006.

Black is a supporter of Biden and went viral in June after delivering a passionate speech for the president's re-election campaign at a fundraiser. Wearing American flag overalls, he said, "When democracy is at stake, Jack Black answers the call."

TED is supported by ads and partners 00:00

The Paradox of Tolerance in an Intolerant World

• global issues

• Skip to main content
• Keyboard shortcuts for audio player

Stories about J.D. Vance's grandmother stole the night at the RNC. Here's who she was

Jason Breslow

Republican vice presidential candidate J.D. Vance speaks during the Republican National Convention in Milwaukee on Wednesday. Vance spent a portion of his address speaking about the influence of his late grandmother, who he called his "guardian angel." Nam Y. Huh/AP hide caption

For more updates from the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee, head to the  NPR Network's live updates page . Plus: You can watch live video coverage from NPR of tonight's speeches.  Here's how.

She was a Christian, but she loved to swear. She’d run down a drug dealer to protect her grandson, and when she died, her family found 19 loaded handguns stashed around the house.

If there was one woman who stole the night at the Republican National Convention on Wednesday, it was Bonnie Blanton Vance, the late grandmother of the GOP’s vice presidential nominee, J.D. Vance.

Up until her death in 2005, the woman known affectionately as “Mamaw” played a pivotal role in Vance’s life. As a boy growing up in the small industrial community of Middletown, Ohio, it was Vance’s grandmother who raised him as his mother struggled with addiction — a painful story that Vance recounts in his best-selling 2016 memoir Hillbilly Elegy .

“Mamaw was in so many ways a woman of contradictions,” Vance told convention delegates as he accepted his party’s nomination for vice president. “She loved the Lord, ladies and gentleman. She was a woman of very deep Christian faith. But she also loved the F word. I’m not kidding. She could make a sailor blush.”

She was born Bonnie Eloise Blanton in 1933 in Keck, Ky., deep in the heart of central Appalachia. She’d move to Middletown in the late 1940s with the boy who would ultimately become Vance’s grandfather: James Vance. James was 16 at the time and Bonnie was 13 — and pregnant with their first child.

Takeaways from J.D. Vance’s first date with America

Living in Middletown — where Jim Vance worked in an Armco steel mill — the young couple were what Vance once described as “classic Blue Dog Democrats,” or generally speaking, progressives who are more socially and fiscally conservative. He wrote in his memoir about mamaw’s “affinity for Bill Clinton,” and summed up his grandparents’ political outlook as: “All politicians might be crooks, but if there were any exceptions, they were undoubtedly members of Franklin Delano Roosevelt’s New Deal coalition.”

Vance has said that no one in his life had more of an influence on him than his grandmother.

“She really just got me,” Vance told NBC News in a 2017 interview . “She understood when I needed somebody to ride me. She knew when I needed love and comfort. She knew when she needed to just be sympathetic. She was really smart.”

One part of their bond seems to have been rooted in a shared understanding of substance abuse — and the toll it can take on a family. Vance’s grandmother not only watched his mother struggle with addiction, but also her own husband.

Sometimes, the toll of witnessing a loved one’s addiction would take a violent turn for her. In Hillbilly Elegy , Vance writes about how his grandmother once grew so infuriated by her husband’s alcoholism, that she poured gasoline on him after he had passed out on the couch in a drunken stupor, and then dropped a lit match on him. He would survive the attack.

By all accounts, she could be fiercely protective of her grandchildren.

“She once told me, when she found out that I was spending too much time with a local kid who was known for dealing drugs, that if I ever hung out with that kid again, she would run him over with her car,” Vance told the RNC. “That’s true. And she said, ‘J.D., no one will ever find out about it.’ ”

She was no typical grandma

The story, which Vance recalled with a laugh, is just one of the ways she was no typical grandma. She was feisty and known for a foul mouth.

Writing four years ago in the Dayton Daily News , Bonnie Meibers, a cousin to Vance, remembered once trying to clean up Mamaw’s language by getting her to use a swear jar.

“Twenty-five cents for every bad word. It sat on the windowsill in our kitchen,” Meibers wrote. “One afternoon while she was babysitting the two of us, she pulled out her checkbook and wrote a blank check. ‘Now I can say whatever the (expletive) I want. I’ll fill out the amount later,’ she said.”

J.D. Vance addresses the RNC, and America, with a focus on Rustbelt roots

At the same time, she had a deeply personal faith, which Vance has described as “a really important part of my life.”

“She really loved the Christian faith. She loved God, and that was an important part of her life,” he told NPR in a 2016 interview .

It was a faith she largely practiced outside of any organized church, however.

“Mamaw just mistrusted a lot of the parts of institutional Christianity as she saw it,” Vance said. “She saw that people were primarily asking for money and weren't actually that interested in the faith. And the other side of it — and I think that this is related — is that Mamaw saw church as increasingly an upper-crust institution.”

'Hillbilly Elegy' Recalls A Childhood Where Poverty Was 'The Family Tradition'

Her faith taught her tolerance. In Hillbilly Elegy , Vance recounts a story how at a young age, he thought that perhaps he might be gay. “You’re not gay,” his grandmother told him, but even if he was, “God would still love you.”

“Now that I’m older, I recognize the profundity of her sentiment: Gay people, though unfamiliar, threatened nothing about mamaw’s being. There were more important things for a Christian to worry about,” he wrote.

(As a candidate for Senate in 2022, Vance said he would vote against federal protections for gay marriage. But he also said that “gay marriage is the law of the land in this country. And I’m not trying to do anything to change that.”)

A hidden stash of guns

After the success of Hillbilly Elegy, the memoir was adapted for film by director Ron Howard. In the movie, Vance’s grandmother is played by Glenn Close, who wears Mamaw’s actual glasses in the film.

Vance’s grandmother died in 2005, and as he shared in his convention address, when the family would later go through her things, they found almost two dozen guns.

Who is J.D. Vance, the Republican nominee for vice president

“Now, the thing is, they were stashed all over her house,” he said. “Under her bed, in her closet. In the silverware drawer. And we wondered what was going on, and it occurred to us that towards the end of her life, Mamaw couldn’t get around very well. And so this frail old woman made sure that no matter where she was, she was within arms’ length of whatever she needed to protect her family.”

After she died, the Vance family buried her on a small hillside plot in Kentucky, a short drive from where she was born. Vance has bought more than 100 acres in the area, a buffer of sorts from the outside world for the woman he remembered in his convention address as his “guardian angel.”

An official website of the United States government

Here's how you know

Official websites use .gov A .gov website belongs to an official government organization in the United States.

Secure .gov websites use HTTPS A lock ( Lock A locked padlock ) or https:// means you’ve safely connected to the .gov website. Share sensitive information only on official, secure websites.

• The Attorney General
• Organizational Chart
• Budget & Performance
• Privacy Program
• Press Releases
• Photo Galleries
• Guidance Documents
• Publications
• Information for Victims in Large Cases
• Justice Manual
• Business and Contracts
• Why Justice ?
• DOJ Vacancies
• Legal Careers at DOJ

Justice Department sues Southwest Key for sexual abuse and harassment of children in shelters

HOUSTON – The Justice Department has filed a  lawsuit against Southwest Key Programs Inc., a Texas-based nonprofit that provides housing to unaccompanied children who are encountered at the southern land border of the United States.

The lawsuit alleges Southwest Key, through its employees, has engaged in a pattern or practice of sexual abuse and harassment of unaccompanied children in Southwest Key shelters in violation of the Fair Housing Act. 

“In search of the American Dream, children often endure perilous journeys on their migration north to the southern border. The sexual harassment alleged in the complaint would destroy any child’s sense of safety turning what was an American Dream into a nightmare,” said U.S. Attorney Alamdar S. Hamdani of the SDTX. “We look forward to working together with the Civil Rights Division (CRD) and the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Western District of Texas (WDTX) to provide justice for the victims who allegedly suffered harm in Southwest Key’s shelters.”

“Sexual harassment of children in residential shelters, where a child should be safe and secure, is abusive, dehumanizing and unlawful,” said Assistant Attorney General Kristen Clarke of the Justice Department’s CRD. “Sexual abuse of children is a crisis that we can’t ignore or turn a blind eye to. This lawsuit seeks relief for children who have been abused and harmed, and meaningful reforms to ensure no child in these shelters is ever subjected to sexual abuse again.” 

“Every child has the right to feel safe and secure in their dwelling, including in shelter care,” said U.S. Attorney Jaime Esparza for the WDTX. “This lawsuit seeks to provide a pathway for justice and healing for these children, who are among the most vulnerable in our society.”

“Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has a zero-tolerance policy for all forms of sexual abuse, sexual harassment, inappropriate sexual behavior and discrimination,” said DHHS Secretary Xavier Becerra. “The Department of Justice’s (DOJ) complaint against Southwest Key raises serious pattern or practice concerns. DHHS will continue to work with DOJ and oversight agencies to hold its care-giving programs like Southwest Key accountable. And we will continue to closely evaluate our assignment of children into care-giving programs to ensure the safety and well-being of every child in DHHS custody.” 

Southwest Key operates 29 shelters that provide temporary housing for unaccompanied children in Texas, Arizona and California, and is the largest housing provider for unaccompanied children in the United States. Southwest Key receives grants from the DHHS Office of Refugee Resettlement (ORR) to provide housing and other care for unaccompanied children at these shelters. Unaccompanied children are minors who enter the United States without parents or other legal guardians and without lawful immigration status in the United States. The shelters are the children’s homes until they are reunited with their immediate families or placed with a relative or other vetted sponsor while their immigration cases proceed.

The lawsuit, filed yesterday in the U.S. District Court for the WDTX, alleges that, from 2015 through at least 2023, multiple Southwest Key employees subjected children in their care to severe or pervasive sexual harassment that has included, among other things, sexual contact and inappropriate touching, solicitation of sex acts, solicitation of nude photos, entreaties for inappropriate relationships and sexual comments. The complaint further alleges that Southwest Key took insufficient action to prevent sexual harassment of the children in its care, failed to consistently follow federal requirements for preventing, detecting and reporting abuse including sexual harassment, failed to take appropriate or sufficient action to protect the children in its care and discouraged children from disclosing sexual harassment in violation of federal requirements, despite ORR having issued multiple corrective actions to Southwest Key.

The department’s lawsuit seeks monetary damages to compensate children the alleged harassment children harmed, a civil penalty to vindicate the public interest and a court order barring future discrimination and requiring Southwest Key to take appropriate steps to prevent such harassment in the future.

Individuals who believe that they may have been victims of sexual harassment or abuse at Southwest Key shelters or who have other information that may be relevant to this case, may contact the Justice Department’s housing discrimination tip line at 1-833-591-0291. For Spanish dial “2,” then dial “2” for sexual harassment cases and dial “3” for the Southwest Key lawsuit mailbox. For English dial “1,” then dial “2” for sexual harassment cases and dial “9” for the Southwest Key lawsuit mailbox.  Individuals can also email the Justice Department or report through our online portal . 

The CRD leads the Justice Department’s  Sexual Harassment in Housing Initiative in coordination with U.S. Attorneys’ Offices across the country. The initiative seeks to address and  raise awareness  about sexual harassment by people who have control over housing. Since launching the initiative in October 2017, the department has filed 43 lawsuits alleging sexual harassment in housing and recovered over $17 million for victims of such harassment .

The Fair Housing Act prohibits discrimination in housing based on race, color, religion, national origin, sex, disability and familial status. More information about the Civil Rights Division and the laws it enforces is available here .

Related Content

A 29-year-old Houston and former officer for the Arcola Police Department has been sentenced following his conviction for obstruction of justice and violation of civil rights,

The Justice Department and Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) have sued Colony Ridge for operating an illegal land sales scheme and targeting tens of thousands of Hispanic borrowers with false...

The Justice Department announced today its findings that four Texas counties violated Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by maintaining election websites that discriminate against individuals with...

• Things to Do
• Travel & Explore
• Investigations
• Advertise with Us
• Newsletters
• AZ International Auto Show & New Car Buyer's Guide 2020 Model Year
• Connect With Us
• For Subscribers
• Contributor Content
• Home & Garden Ideas

Former first lady Melania Trump won't speak at RNC. When was she last in Arizona?

Former first lady Melania Trump will make an appearance at the 2024 Republican National Convention in Milwaukee this week but is maintaining her low profile on the campaign trail and isn't scheduled to give a speech.

Donald Trump was named the Republican nominee on Monday and will address attendees on the convention's last day on Thursday. It has not been revealed when Melania Trump will appear. Several of the Trump children were in attendance Monday during their father's nomination.

Melania Trump has spoken at the last two conventions, which is common for the husband or wife of a nominee. Trump’s oldest sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, are scheduled to speak at the four-day convention.

When was Melania Trump's last visit to Arizona?

She made one of her rare solo appearances in Tuscon and Phoenix in 2018 to visit an immigration holding facility. She spent almost five hours with detained migrant children and asked immigration officials questions about the facility's operations.

Melania Trump visited Arizona a week after she got pushback for wearing an army green jacket with the words "I really don’t care, do u?" when leaving Washington, D.C., to visit an immigration detention center in Texas. The outcry about her controversial jacket came when the Trump administration was also rolling out a family-separating "zero-tolerance" policy.

Trump hosted a rally in early June at Dream City Church in Phoenix, which the former first lady did not attend.

What to know: Here's why some Arizona Republicans are skipping the GOP convention

What did Melania Trump say in her last RNC speech?

Melania Trump's latest RNC speech in 2020 covered Donald Trump's last four years as president and her own perspective as a first lady.

"For many years, I watched him grow concerned and frustrated, and I’m so proud to see the many things he has done in such a short time," Melania Trump said in her 2020 RNC speech. "America is in his heart. So while at times, we only see the worst of people in politics on the evening news, let’s remember how we come together in the most difficult times."

After Melania Trump's 2016 RNC speech, she was accused of plagiarizing a speech former First Lady Michelle Obama gave in 2008.

Melania Trump issues statement after husband's attempted assassination

The former first lady issued a statement on Sunday after a gunman attempted to assassinate her husband at a rally in Butler, Pennsylvania, on Saturday.

One spectator was killed and two others wounded. Trump was rushed offstage with blood running down his cheek, later  confirming  that a bullet pierced his ear. 

Melania Trump urged Americans to “ascend above the hate, the vitriol, and the simple-minded ideas that ignite violence" in her statement.

“When I watched that violent bullet strike my husband, Donald, I realized my life, and Barron's life, were on the brink of devastating change,” she wrote in a statement Sunday.