Inclusion

論文

Inclusion:
Reducing Polarization by Supporting Constructive Controversy

Michael C. BOYCE

要

旨

超自由主義の波と，それに追随するソーシャルメディアとメディアバブ
ルによって，社会は今，より一層，政治とイデオロギーにおいて分断されている。教育者は，これらの影響に対する免疫がないため，彼らの著作物や授業内での偏見や衝突を排除するよう注意を払う必要がある。挑発的な話題を，その場に不適切という理由で単純に避けることは，生徒から社会生活に必要なスキルを学ぶ機会を奪うことになる。コンストラクティブ
コントロバーシーのプログラムは，周囲の状況を学ぶことに結びつき，それによって，教師と学生が共に目の前の問題に立ち向かう手段を得ることとなり，生徒は，挑発的で攻撃的になり得る事柄へも，敬意を持って論を唱えることが出来るようになる。つまり，攻撃の種になる可能性を持っているという理由でそれを制限するのではなく，議論することによって，より現実的で刺激的な教育材料を使うことも可能になるのである。
最近のエバーグリーン大学での論争が示すような，文化の盗用，セーフスペース，トリガーワード，超自由主義など現在の傾向や，ライオネル・
シュライバーのスピーチ「フィクション

アンドアイデンティティ

ポ

リティクス」への社会的な反感を考慮すると，真にインクルーシブな環境の必要性のために，コンストラクティブ コントロバーシーの形態を使い，礼儀正しく構成された対話を通じて，今後議論されることになるだろう。

119

愛知大学

キーワード：アイデンティティ
ストラクティブ

言語と文化

No. 38

ポリティクス，インクルージョン，コン
コントロバーシー，メディアバブル，分断，特権Abstract
With a surge in hyper-liberalism and accompanying social
media and media bubbles, society is becoming increasingly morepolarized in politics and ideology. Educators are not immune fromthese influences and must take care to identify and integrate bias
and conflict in their content and classrooms. Simply avoiding
challenging topics because they are deemed inappropriate deprives
students of the opportunity to learn and acquire skills necessary forlife in society. Integrating a constructive controversy program into
learning environments provides both teachers and students with an
avenue to address emerging conflict and preparing students withskills that respectfully address challenging, and potentially
offensive content, thus not limiting them due to the possibility of
causing offence, and in doing so, allowing for the use of more
realistic and stimulating educational materials. Referencing current
trends of cultural appropriation, safe spaces, and identity politics, asevidenced by the recent conflict at Evergreen State College, and thebacklash to the “Fiction and Identity Politics” speech given by
Lionel Shriver, a case will be made for the need to support moretruly inclusive environments through structured and respectful
dialogue in a constructive controversy format.
Keywords: identity politics, inclusion, constructive controversy,
media bubbles, polarization, privilege

120

Inclusion

Introduction
This paper will be presented in two distinct sections. The first section will consider
the increasing political polarization of society, the influence this polarization has on
university life and research, and some of the variables that could contribute to thispolarized culture. The various interpretations of inclusion will be examined as well.
Reference will be made to a keynote speech entitled “Fiction and Identity Politics”, madeby the American writer, Lionel Shriver, at the 2016 Brisbane Writers Festival, and thesubsequent backlash to her comments. In addition, a number of incidences that haveoccurred at universities will be presented for analysis. To complete this section, there
will be a review of the approach that the University of Chicago is taking to the issues ofidentity politics, safe spaces, trigger words and other factors associated with the concept
of inclusion and identity politics.
After identifying the academically stifling nature of identity politics in the firstsection, a case will be made for the use of constructive controversy to provoke productive
communication, and reconnect the increasingly polarized social and academic
environment. As the internet is providing an environment ripe for the development ofsocial media bubbles and the resulting echo chambers of thought, educational programsmust use great care to support communication skills and promote honest, respectfulinquiry into conflicting and even offensive ideas.
The trend of identity politics that began in the United States has now stretchedaround the globe to the U.K., Europe, Australia, and even Japan, with individuals
embracing identity and culture in the interest of freedom and inclusion. It should also be
noted that with this movement very positive advancement has been made in the equal
treatment of all individuals with regard to race, sexuality, or gender orientation.

Privilege
In Lionel Shriver’s keynote speech at the Brisbane Writers Festival, she said, “in thelatest ethos, which has spun well beyond college campuses in short order, any tradition,
any experience, any costume, any way of doing and saying things, that is associatedwith a minority or disadvantaged group is ring-fenced: look-but-don’t-touch. Those who
embrace a vast range of “identities”—ethnicities, nationalities, races, sexual and gender

121

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 38categories, classes of economic under-privilege and disability—are now encouraged to
be possessive of their experience and to regard other people’s attempts to participate intheir lives and traditions, either actively or imaginatively, as a form of theft” (Shriver,2016).
Along with identity politics has come a realization of privilege, and the accompanying
understanding that certain individuals in society are born into more privileged roles thanothers. The most prominent of these privilege positions includes people who are bornwith white skin. Individuals born with white skin, regardless of geographic location,
economic or educational background benefit from the privilege of being white skinned.
Aside from recognizing the problem of determining how white is white skin, andthe definition of racism that can be understood as holding a negative bias toward an
individual due to the colour of their skin, this paper will not address the concept of white
privilege itself.

Cultural appropriation
The Oxford Dictionary defines cultural appropriation as the “unacknowledged orinappropriate adoption of the customs, practices, ideas, etc. of one people or society bymembers of another and typically more dominant people or society”.
The use of aspects of a cultural other than your own, without authorization, is seenas the appropriation of culture. Cultural appropriation can be claimed in incidences ofthe misuse of any aspect of a culture by an outsider to that culture, including, but notlimited to clothing, music, art, food, and language. For the purposes of this paper, twoessential variables of cultural appropriation must be identified. The first variable is how
to accurately make a determination of the misuse of culture that is acceptable to if notall, but at least a majority of the individuals that claim said culture. A second variable inthis definition of cultural appropriation is who, or which group has the authority to grant
permission for the use of an aspect of culture.
Considering the hierarchy of identity politics, each individual’s identity gives thema varying degree of power, which is largely dependant upon the individuals involvedin a negotiation at any given time. Which individual can consider themselves a pure
representative of an identity, or mixture of identities?
Identity politics are interpreted through a somewhat Marxist filter that shows every

122Inclusion

relationship being based on power, and for an individual or a group to have power,
another individual or group must have lost power, a dynamic which is often referred to asa zero-sum game. Considering the millions of identities that could be claimed, coupledwith relationships determined by power, or lack of power, it is inevitable that a hierarchyof privilege, or perhaps seen from an alternate view, a hierarchy of victimhood will occur.
The top position in the hierarchy of privilege is widely seen as being held by caucasian,English speaking, heterosexual males. The opposite end of the spectrum appears to becontinuously evolving due to expanding definitions of privilege.
A recent incident in the U.K. demonstrates the potential problems in the frameworkof a world of privilege. The case involves two individuals active in the LGBT community,
Peter Tatchell and Fran Cowling. Mr. Tatchell is a long-term advocate for gay rights,
and human rights in general. In her position as the National Union of Students LGBT
Officer, Fran Cowling refused to participate in a debate with Peter Tatchell. Her reason
for refusing to debate was that in the previous year Mr. Tatchell had signed an open letter
against the action of no-platforming. No-platforming being the recent tactic of blocking
speakers whose content is deemed inappropriate, from getting to the stage to speak. For
one group, no-platforming is a legitimate form of protest, but for the opposing group,
no-platforming is an active restriction of free speech. Ms. Cowling was against joining
the debate because she felt that by opposing no-platforming, Mr. Tatchell was endorsing
transphobia and racism. For many observers, accusing Mr. Tatchell of transphobia andracism was incongruent with his over 50 year history of actively campaigning for humanrights. Yet for many of Ms. Cowling’s supporters, Tatchell was in a privileged position
due to his experience, and his sexual preference, and it was felt that he abused thatprivilege (Faye, 2016).
This privilege-victim-blaming cycle is not sustainable, as one moment’s victim
becomes another’s privileged nemesis. Taken to the logical conclusion, all individuals,
with the exception of the absolutely least privileged, will find themselves in a relationshipthat demands that they themselves recognize their own privilege.

Inclusion, not exclusion
Inclusion is currently a very popular topic, although perhaps there have been a numberof different interpretations of it’s meaning. Increasingly, inclusion has come to mean

123

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 38including minorities, or more accurately, minorities that do not offend any of thepreviously included members or groups. Dr. Haidt (Kennedy, 2017) somewhat ironicallyobserves that taking into account the current hyper-liberal trends in academia, theconservative right is consistently finding themselves in a hostile intellectual climate,being marginalized, and it being made clear to them that they do not belong. Thesehostile environments, marginalization and exclusion, are some of the situations that
inclusion is meant to resolve. Does inclusion only include those who the dominant group
determines to be includable? True inclusion would mean including all individuals andgroups, regardless of their viewpoints, offensive or not.
In Lionel Shriver’s speech at the Brisbane writers festival, she spoke about her ideathat identity is not simply being a member of a larger minority group (Shriver, 2016).
Each person is an individual, with an individual identity that may not be shared by anyother person in the larger group. Ms. Shriver proposed that, “… as people, we should beseeking to push beyond the constraining categories into which we have been arbitrarily
dropped by birth. If we embrace narrow group-based identities too fiercely, we cling
to the very cages in which others would seek to trap us. We pigeonhole ourselves. We
limit our own notion of who we are, and in presenting ourselves as one of a membership,a representative of our type, an ambassador of an amalgam, we ask not to be seen”(Shriver, 2016). Unfortunately, instead of releasing ourselves from the constraints ofnarrow group-based identities, we have created a society in which a speaker or writeris judged on their ability, acceptability, legitimacy, etc. by a perception of their cultural
background, history, skin color, sexual preference, gender identity, and self-reported or
public experience, and perhaps not on their actual attributes.
After giving her speech at the Brisbane Writers Festival, Lionel Shriver experienced
a strong negative response. She was told that her ideas had deeply offended somepeople and the organizers of the event promptly removed the text of her speech from thefestival’s home page. Ironically, her speech had quite logically addressed the restrictions
and influence that identity politics were having on creativity and freedom of expression
in the arts, but has itself been censored.
In the United Kingdom, Tom Bennet, a headteacher from Glasgow was chosen by
the Department of Education to improve behavioral standards in the national schools.
Mr. Bennet found that many students were graduating from school with very shelteredviews that did not equip them for the reality of life in society. A life which often includes

124Inclusioninteracting with people holding very divisive views. Bennet observed that an unfortunate
truth is that there are still homophobic and sexist views in our society. On the topic ofstudents entering university Mr. Bennet stated, “ No wonder they are seeking safe spaces,
because they can’t handle the truth”. As an alternative to safe spaces, he proposed creating‘healthy spaces’ where young students can be exposed to controversial views, and betaught how to argue against them. “Teachers should be more proactive at encouraging
discussion in the classroom and at confronting pupils with views they may find offensive
to teach them how to disagree with others rather than shun debate” (Espinoza, 2016).

Safe spaces
There is no denying that there are toxic environments that have create a need for safe
spaces; which the Merriam-Webster dictionary describes as, “a place (as on a college
campus) intended to be free of bias, conflict, criticism, or potentially threatening actions,
ideas, or conversations. An obvious problem with safe spaces is that without making
significant changes in society, the number of spaces will, by necessity be exponentially
increasing as individuals find more difference that can be interpreted as threatening.
Changing society is a noble pursuit, but quite likely not something that will occur
quickly, and there will probably always be some racist, sexist, or bigoted people in any
population. Considering this, adopting Mr. Bennet’s idea of ‘healthy spaces’ that expose
students to controversial views in a more controlled, safer environment seems to be apractical evolution.
All of the incidents and beliefs documented above are considered to be left, or liberalleaning views and increasingly, individuals questioning or opposing these beliefs are
identified as right, or conservative leaning. Questions such as those raised in this paper,can, in this binary environment, be seen not as academic inquiry, but as an attack on abelief system. One of the unintended consequences of the socializing of the internet is themedia bubbles that social media algorithms create. Within these bubbles individuals get
repeated exposure to views which are determined to be similar to their own, and perhaps
more importantly, decreased exposure to thoughts that might contradict their worldview.
Individuals are influenced by confirmation bias to select information that reinforces theirworldview, and in doing so move further into a political monoculture.
In addition to the influences of social media algorithms and confirmation bias,

125

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 38individuals may reinforce these thoughts by judging others with an attribution bias. Whena person feels positively toward another, attribution bias leads them to interpret anythingthat they say or do in a positive light. Conversely, if an individual feels negatively toward
someone, attribution bias will lead them to interpret anything that they say or do in anegative light. When communicating in an online environment, single words can identify
an individual to be a member of one group or another, and the influences of attribution
bias can either positively or negatively influence their feelings for the relationship.
This process of political purification is occurring both on and off university campuses
as individuals align themselves with others holding the same values. Individuals finding
companionship with others holding shared interests and values is not new, but themove toward polarization, and the tendency of groups to create taboo thoughts andwords that cannot be addressed for fear of losing membership in the group is becoming
more pronounced. As these ideologies develop, they become increasingly tribal andsacred, with the sacred being defended with an almost religious intensity. Regarding theideologies with those intensifying aspects creating further barriers to understanding, it
is even more critical for educators to understand that nothing can be sacred, if the goal isfor communities of varied individuals to function healthily (Kennedy, 2017).
In Ohio at the Oberlin College there was an incident involving the serving of sushi inthe university cafeteria. The students felt that the sushi had not been authentically prepared
and was appropriated from the Japanese culture; therefore, serving it was disrespectful toJapanese people (Moyer, 2015). Oberlin College students has also demanded safe spaces
for students who identify as Africana (Dent, 2016). In the University of California, Los
Angeles, members of the Afrikan Student Union have demanded an Afrika Diaspora
floor. This area has been requested because it was felt that Black students did not havespaces where they feel safe and comfortable (Dent, 2016). One of the more controversial
incidents has occurred at Evergreen State College. The school had traditionally helda Day of Absence during which students of colour would not attend classes so otherstudents and faculty could experience what it might be like without them. In 2017, theorganizers chose to reverse the Day of Absence, and ask all white students and faculty tovoluntarily leave the campus for the day. Professor Bret Weinstein, who is white skinned,chose to stay on campus and work because he did not agree with the activity. He waslabeled a racist by the students, and forced to leave the campus.
Of course, there are many variables in all of these instances, and nothing can be126

Inclusion

as simple as it is portrayed in the media, but it is the political, racial, sex, and genderpolarization that is creating environments that are conducive to these conflicts. It is
important to note that the universities that are actively supporting the actions of identity
politics are not the majority, but they often appear so from the media coverage.
Considering data obtained by the 2016 Freshman Survey conducted by the
University of California at Los Angeles’ Higher Education Research Institute, colleges
are experiencing more political polarization than they have had in over forty years. Firsttime, full-time first year students were asked to indicate their political views on a scalefrom far left, liberal, middle of the road, conservative, and far right and 2016 recorded
42.3 percent of participants self-identified as middle of the road politically. This was thelowest percentage for middle of the road since this survey first began, decades ago. The
share of female students who identified as liberal or far left was 41.1 percent, and theshare of men identifying as liberal or far left was 28.9 (Rampell, 2017).

University of Chicago
In contrast to increasing number of universities that are instituting policies to protect
students from uncomfortable thoughts or situations, the University of Chicago has madea public declaration that there will be no requirement for safe spaces or trigger warnings
in the university environment. When discussing the current climate of intolerance forunpopular points of view on college with Douglas Belkin of The Wall Street Journal,
the University of Chicago president, Robert Zimmer, commented, “The main thing one
always needs to keep in mind to contextualize all of these issues is the overarching purposeof universities. The purpose is to be a place that gives the most empowering education
to students and creates an environment for the most imaginative and challenging workof faculty. Confrontation of multiple ideas and ideas that are different from one’s own is
critical to this” (Belkin, 2017). Mr. Zimmer goes on to emphasize the importance of notallowing any kind of suppression of speech, or limiting of discourse due to discomfort
at universities. “the nature of educating people to be flexible, imaginative, integrative,
analytical and having the capacity for understanding, creating argument and syntheses
has been and continues to be an extremely important function, as is the research mission”(Belkin, 2017).
In an interview with the Ideas program of the Canadian Broadcasting Company,

127

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 38

Professor Jonathon Haidt explains how a phobophobic academic environment willlead to inaccurate research results. Professor Haidt’s research showed that ratio ofprofessors in the psychology field who self-identify as liberal to those who self-identify
as conservative ranged from two-to-one to four-to-one for most of the 2oth century, withthe ratio increasing to seven-to-one after 1995, and a dramatically different, seventeento-one in the latest data from 2015. With the current high ratio of liberal minded
professors and student body, when researchers propose a hypothesis that makes people
on the left uncomfortable, they run a risk of being perceived as racist or sexist. This
politically influenced bias will produce incomplete, inaccurate, and substandard results.
By avoiding potentially risky outcomes, and only an incomplete range of thoughts being
welcome in the community, the dominant viewpoint will not be challenged (Haidt, 2017).
Regardless of an individual’s position on the issues of identity politics, privilege,
cultural appropriation, microaggressions, and no-platforming, it is clear that society is
increasingly taking a polarized view, and a great deal of this thought is coming out of
university environments. It would be both academically and socially beneficial to provide
the skills for students, professors, and citizens to more fully engage in an open learning
environment with access to wildly differing opinions.
For every acknowledgement of social injustice, it is prudent to make efforts toprotect the individuals involved, and create systems that will guide society in a directionin which the protections are no longer necessary. The author is in no way opposed tothese systems of protection, but also believes in the necessity of true discussion with allparties involved, and not just blind acceptance of the dominant view.

Constructive Controversy“Constructive controversy exists when one person’s ideas, information, conclusions,
theories, and opinions are incompatible with those of another, and the two seek to reachan agreement that reflects their best reasoned judgement” (Johnson and Johnson, 2007).
Bringing constructive controversy to the classroom environment introduces aframework that can successfully reduce polarization and adequately question dominant
viewpoints to provide a more balanced and receptive environment for alternate ideasthat may not otherwise be given sufficient consideration. This structure of constructive
controversy provides the flexibility to adapt to any learning environment, and promote128Inclusion

learning from all sides of an issue. The two elements essential to successful learning are
conflict and cooperation.
Conflict can be an immensely powerful tool if it is handled safely and with goodintention. Unfortunately, many people maintain a belief that conflict is to be avoided at
all costs because of its enormous capacity for damage. Perhaps a more accurate appraisalof conflict would bestow it with an enormous capacity for change. In both good or bad
conflict, change will undoubtedly occur, but “by avoiding conflicts, individuals missout on valuable opportunities to capture and emotionally involve themselves and othersin the situation and enhance their creativity, productivity, and learning” (Johnson, 2015,p. 7).
Ironically, conflicts become more frequent when the individuals involved truly careabout the issue or outcome. Identity is certainly an example of something that can invoke
a very passionate response, and correspondingly intense conflict. Of course, it is always
the individual’s choice whether or not they use their energy to draw positive or negative
results from the conflict.
The actions that we take can essentially be broken down into three distinct groups.
A person may choose to take an action with the intent of decreasing the success ofothers, increase the success of others, or have absolutely no effect on the success of otherpeople. These groups correspond with the three categories of one of social psychology’s
dominant theories, social interdependence. Positive interdependence, or cooperation,
represents an understanding that goals can be reached only when cooperating individuals
also reach their goals. Competition, or negative interdependence, covers the perceptionthat goals can only be reached if the individual with whom they are in competition
with fails to reach their goals. No interdependence, or individualistic effort, defines
a perception that achieving one’s goals has no relation to whether or not others fail orsucceed (Johnson, 2015). Constructive controversy is framed on the perception of positive
interdependence. Addressing controversy with an adversarial argument approach will notlead to a constructive outcome without first transforming the argument to a collaborative
approach with parties cooperating to argue both for and against all available ideas,
positions, and conclusions.
Choosing to cooperate, and tie our fate to that of another, coupled with a conflicting
element, is the transformational force of constructive controversy. For most people, theirfirst instinct is to cooperate, and it is only after they have stopped to consider a situation

129

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 38that their actions become more selfish (Axelrod, 2016). In social cognitive theory,
cooperation involves aspects of modeling, coaching, and scaffolding. An individual
learns, teaches information to another, and they work together in cooperation. Of course,
cooperation can work against constructive controversy if the individuals involved choose
to cooperate to maintain polarly opposed groups and value cooperation inside the groupover all else. Successful cooperation always involves a great deal of conflict. Conflictis necessary for all individuals and groups working together to develop a shared goal,and path to that goal (Johnson, 2015). If viewed in a positive light, all of the conflict thatpeople are experiencing and feeling in the previously mentioned university environments
could be extremely constructive, if it were possible to get participants to work together
cooperatively. Harnessing the cognitive conflict found when an individual is confronted
with ideas that do not mesh with information that they already possess, is the driving
energy behind constructive controversy.
The structure-process-outcome theory explains that the structure of any situation
will determine the process by which individuals interact, and the process by which
individuals interact determines the outcome of the interaction (Watson & Johnson, 1972).
Building a constructive controversy structure, there can be a cooperativeenvironment with shared goals of the best answer, and the best path by which to achieve
the best answer. The structure involves establishing two opposing groups, not unlikethat of a traditional debate. These two groups research and prepare positions with theunderstood goal of presenting and advocating for that position. The two sides thencritically evaluate and argue against each other’s positions. Once both sides are satisfied
with the presentation and defense of their positions, the groups reverse positions, andadopt the materials of the opposing side while arguing for their new position. Throughout
this process, no position should be left unchallenged and accepted without analysis. By
accepting this advocacy-based-inquiry procedure information from all positions can besynthesized and integrated into the final best possible answer. In this single process,participants become researchers, advocates, students, teachers, and synthesizers. The
initial cognitive dissonance and uncertainty gives way to a search for new information
and an epistemic curiosity (Johnson, 2015).
Care must be taken to not allow the participants to fall into the structure ofconcurrence seeking.
The concurrence seeking structure begins with a similar method to constructive

130

Inclusion

controversy. In a cooperative environment, participants are encouraged to research andprepare their positions which are then presented and advocated for. Following the defenseof the positions, a majority position will emerge. The majority members then pressure
the minority to accept the majority position without a complete critical analysis of all
possibilities. Concurrence occurs, but not without individuals experiencing conflict
between their private beliefs and their public acceptance.
In a recent open letter, twenty-eight Ivy League scholars addressed their concerns
about the damaging nature of succumbing to dominant opinions without thorough andopen-minded consideration. Within the body of the letter in which they gave the simple
advice to think for yourself, they wrote, “So don’t be tyrannized by public opinion. Don’t
get trapped in an echo chamber. Whether you in the end reject or embrace a view, makesure you decide where you stand by critically assessing the arguments for the competing
positions (Bloom et al., 2017).
The moment when someone experiences entirely new ideas or beliefs, is the moment
when they choose to react to the instinct of preservation of equilibrium and reductionof dissonance by responding defensively, or the individual can embrace the dissonanceof cognitive conflict and push forward with curiosity and questions. Considering thewords of the English economist and philosopher, John Stuart Mill, “Since the generalor prevailing opinion on any subject is rarely or never the whole truth, it is only by thecollision of adverse opinion that the remainder of the truth has any chance of being
supplied”, it is clear that constructive controversy is a valuable path to the remainder oftruth.
References
Al-Gharbi, M. (2017, Jan. 30). Microaggressions, Macro Debate. The Heterodox Academy. Retrieved
from https://heterodoxacademy.org
Axelrod, R. (2006). The Evolution of Cooperation. New York, NY. Basic Books.
Belkin, D. (2017, Feb. 20). Why the University of Chicago Opposes ‘Trigger Warnings’. The WallStreet Journal. Retrieved from https://www.wsj.com
Bloom, P., Bogan, E., Christakis, N., Eire, C., Garlock, M., Gelernter, D., … Whittington, K. (2017,
Aug. 29). Some Thoughts and Advice for Our Students and All Students. The James Madison
Program. Retrieved from https://jmp.princeton.edu
Bodine, R. J., & Crawford, D. K. (1998). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution Education. A Guide to
Building Quality Programs in Schools. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass Inc.

131

愛知大学

言語と文化

No. 38

Cultural appropriation. Oxford Dictionary. Retrieved from https://en.oxforddictionaries.com
Johnson, D. W., Johnson, R. T., Tjosvold, D. (2006). Constructive controversy. In M. Deutsch and P.
T. Coleman (Eds.). The Handbook of Conflict Resolution: Theory and Practice (2nd ed.). (pp.
69-91.) San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
Dent, Alec. (2016, Jan. 6). Black Students Demand Segregated Spaces from White Students. The
College Fix. Retrieved from https://www.thecollegefix.com
Hartocollis, A. (2017). A Campus Argument Goes Viral. Now the College Is Under Siege. https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/16/us/evergreen-state-protests.html
Johnson, D. W. (2015). Constructive Controversy: Theory, Research, Practice. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Kennedy, P. (2017). The Politics of the Professoriat: Political Diversity on Campus [Interview with
Jonathan Haidt] Retrieved from http://www.cbc.ca/
Moyer, J. (2015, Dec. 21). Oberlin College Sushi ‘Disrespectful’ to Japanese. The Washington Post.
Retrieved from https://www.washingtonpost.com
Nowak, M., & Highfield, R. (2012). Supercooperators: Altruism, Evolution, and Why We Need Each
Other to Succeed. New York, NY. Free Press.
Rampell, C. (2017, May 10). Political Polarization Among College Freshmen is at a Record High,
as is the Share Identifying as ‘Far Left’. The Heterodox Academy. Retrieved from https://heterodoxacademy.org
Safe space. Merriam-Webster Dictionary. Retrieved from https://www.merriam-webster.com
Shriver, L. (2016, Sept. 13). Fiction and Identity Politics. Brisbane Writers Festival Keynote Speech.
The Guardian. Retrieved from https://www.theguardian.com
Shriver, L. (2016, April 21). Gender-Good for Nothing. Prospect Magazine. Retrieved from http://
www.prospectmagazine.co.uk
Sue D. W., Capodilupo C. M., Torino G. C., Bucceri J. M., Holder A., Nadal K. L., Esquilin M.
(2007). Racial Microaggressions in Everyday Life: Implications for Clinical Practice. American
Psychologist, 62, 271–286.
Watson, G., & Johnson, D. W. (1972). Social Psychology: Issues and Insights (2nd ed.). Philadelphia:
Lippincott.

132