Under this definition, any limits placed by government on the freedom to contract were immoral impositions. The other economist defined justice primarily in terms of equality, which meant that justice mandated policies and laws that would moderate glaring social inequity, even to the point of redistributing economic resources. Full justice for her meant going beyond being a good citizen to becoming an involved good neighbor. After a lively discussion, the panelists had not budged on their positions, but at least the lines of disagreement had become clear. Even as fractious a panel as this departed from the academy's usual polite isolation of disciplines and discreet silence about moral issues.
Tolerance is often a polite way to screen out disagreement.
Genuine dialogue would take a lot more time and effort to get beyond the initial positions, build mutual respect, find common ground, and even change one's own position. In this, of course, we are a microcosm of American society at large. The panel also shows that education for justice must involve serious dialogue among faculty, a process that is likely to take patience and sustained effort. Unless the panelists were willing to pursue these more fundamental issues over a period of time, they would never break their intellectual gridlock Our specialized graduate training does not equip most of us to discuss underlying assumptions and convictions. We rarely articulate them to ourselves, let alone others.