My Experience at the Aspen Institute’s Socrates Seminar

At the beginning of February, I had the great privilege to participate in the winter session of the Aspen Institute’s Socrates Seminar program. I chose one of three seminars to attend, titled: “Can We Ever Speak Freely Without Consequence? Disagreement, Civil Discourse, and the Boundaries of Freedom.” You know, simple stuff – easy weekend reading.

And we had readings! Readings that ranged from, yes, Socrates, to Hannah Arendt, Frederick Douglass, and perspectives on free speech from India and a Chinese political prisoner. Also, court case excerpts on freedom of speech and its limits, Jonathan Rauch’s “Constitution of Knowledge,” modern-day op-eds on college campus protests, Charlie Kirk’s assassination and perceived newsroom bias, a study from Rutgers University on social media structures that make calls for and the elevation of violence more permissible, and speculation on how AI will influence all of these things.

These readings were the basis for a 3-day, moderated conversation (sometimes debate), full of question-raising and assumption-checking dialogue with folks from all over the U.S. and internationally. We tested the ability to have disagreement and civil discourse while sharpening our own understanding and thinking of free speech and if and where we would draw boundaries on those freedoms.

The time I spent in Aspen was exactly what had been described to me: “an experience that takes the coolest college professor you ever had, multiplied by the best of summer camp, multiplied by a spa for your brain.”

Admittedly, I was alarmed by how little I actually knew about the origins of and current structure of free speech in the United States and how that is rapidly changing; how little I knew of what is and isn’t protected and how that changes in different contexts (such as the military, or a private company, or a government office); how our laws may limit government overreach, but how different that can be for private citizens engaging each other (especially on social media), and how our existing laws are inequitably enforced. I was surprised by the lengths to which people will go to keep speech – even when used by those “on the opposite side” – protected, and the lengths to which people will go to punish and cancel speech they disagree with.

I was also struck by some of my peers who were not U.S. born, pointing out the rather bizarre polar-opposite framing that U.S.-born participants use: Why can’t you have universal health care and free education through college AND capitalism? There are many variations along a spectrum, so what is behind this adherence in the U.S. to extreme binary thinking? Why overlook or ignore all the other ways in which systems can be designed? Why is winning the argument more important than finding a solution that works better?

And how in the world do we engage with people who think differently than us when it feels like everything turns into a political fight and social media fallout can wreck people’s lives?

One thing I offered on that point: 

What can change in a conversation when you ask permission first: “Would you be open to me sharing an alternative or different opinion to your own?”  

By asking permission to share a different opinion – and meaning it – we disrupt the defensive crouch that we’ve been socialized into, always preparing what we’re going to say next and not listening. By asking permission, we invite the possibility of, as Frederick Douglass said, the “freedom to hear” that is the other side of the coin to freedom of speech. And we also allow the opportunity for our partner in dialogue to say, “no.” Or, “I’m so angry/afraid/triggered by what you just said/the situation I won’t be able to listen right now. Maybe later..” Or, “I will never be open to what you have to say,” and then we can all save our breath.

Some of my learning, to which I want to hold myself accountable:

• It is important to have spaces like this to wrestle with ideas, philosophy, policy and different opinions – and it’s up to us to create them, when and where we can.
• It is important to anchor any discussion of philosophy and policy in the consequences – intended and unintended – and experiences of actual people, and particularly of those with identities that are marginalized by the social context of wherever you are. 
• It is easy to slip into over-intellectualizing and ignore or cut away the hard, unfair and sometimes violent reality of what people face, because intellectualizing allows us to distance ourselves from feeling in our bodies what others experience.
• Residing comfortably only in echo chambers where our views, whatever they are, are dominant and reflected back to us constantly can allow for lazy reasoning and a lack of anchored values and beliefs. If we cannot answer when asked, “Why do you believe this to be right/true and how do you know?” then we’ve got work to do.
• Understanding rhetoric and the construction of arguments is helpful in spotting when tactics are used to deflect or distract (I was lucky enough to have a professor of rhetoric in my seminar whose presence helped me realize how little I understand this).
• More. We need more of this kind of space. Because when we look each other in the eye and agree to dialogue without immediate judgement; when the first thing we say in response ends in a question mark, rather than a period (or exclamation mark) we can cultivate disagreement AND respect; opposing opinions AND understanding; freedom to speak AND freedom to hear AND freedom to question AND freedom to doubt AND freedom to find common ground. And maybe, just maybe, we can look at ourselves and shift our thinking.

We closed our seminar with an exercise:  

• Fill in the blank: “I used to think free speech was _______________. Now, I think it is _______________.  

• What’s one rule you’re going to apply to your life when you leave here?

How would you answer that question?

Here is what I eventually arrived at:

I used to think free speech was about not being shut down by the “other side”. Now, I think it is about relationship.

My rule: I will keep practicing in small spaces (I’m pretty good about staying curious around a dinner table) so that I can work up to larger spaces (I tend to watch and assess, but not engage in larger spaces):

• seeking out different opinions
• withholding judgement
• exercising curiosity
• asking permission to share different opinions
• cultivating my own willingness and ability to hear
• examining how I am entering spaces and engaging by turning the mirror on myself

A closing note of acknowledgement: 

I would be remiss as a fellow facilitator and event planner if I did not shout out my peers in the “Can We Ever Speak Freely” seminar and all those I met and engaged in deep and wide-ranging conversation – I am wiser for your presence; the incredible Aspen Institute Socrates staff Cynthia, Sarah and Danny and supporters who provided me with a partial scholarship to attend – I would not have had this experience without your encouragement, care and support; and moderator of our session Clea Conner of Open to Debate – you shaped and held the container for us to wrestle with our and others’ ideas on an incredibly challenging topic in real-time and I am grateful; as well as all the Aspen Institute workers who fed, watered, housed and transported us over the weekend. I’m also grateful to Gathering Ground for giving me the time to participate in this extraordinary learning experience during a busy month of programming!