Polarisation

These days, discussions about diversity focus exclusively on personal characteristics – skin colour, gender, ethnicity – but never on opinions and viewpoints. This is deeply troubling, especially in academia and journalism. Meaningful discussions can only take place between people who hold different views.

As a convinced atheist, I used to give talks to like-minded audiences. I received plenty of approval, praise, and pats on the back. At some point, I realised how pointless that really was. It was preaching to the choir, as the French say. I have no desire to convert religious believers – usually a futile endeavour anyway – but discussions with people who think differently are simply more lively and more meaningful than conversations with those who share your views.

It is the task, if not the duty, of universities and the press to give voice to a variety of perspectives. To my dismay, this is happening less and less. Much is said about the growing polarisation of society, and I watch that development with concern. To a significant extent, it is driven by the emergence of camps that shut out dissenting opinions. Those who are excluded then gather elsewhere and, from that moment on, become ‘the enemy’.

A year ago, Het Parool dismissed columnist Theodor Holman. He had written approximately 10,000 columns for this once ‘resistance newspaper’, at one point even contributing a daily column. Many readers complained about his outspoken views, particularly on Israel. In response, the editors-in-chief issued the following statement: ‘After more than 30 years, we bid farewell to a valued and outspoken columnist with a true Parool heart’. The decision to end his column was not reached amicably and was very much against Theodor Holman’s wishes.

If readers are upset by a column, it is those readers who should be reprimanded, not the columnist

More recently, Sylvain Ephimenco left Trouw, another Dutch newspaper. A critical column he wrote about the Dutch asylum and immigration policy provoked a wave of angry reactions. In an editorial commentary, the newspaper accused him of distorting the facts. A newspaper ought to stand behind its columnists, not publicly rebuke them – unless they have done something genuinely reprehensible. Expressing an unpopular opinion does not fall into that category. I was about to add ‘obviously’, but apparently things are different nowadays. If readers are upset by a column, it is those readers who should be reprimanded, not the columnist. After all, it is a columnist’s job to provoke thought, and that may be provocative. But apparently things are different nowadays.

These are two recent examples of dissenting voices disappearing from the national press. What has become of that noble aspiration of diversity and pluralism when it comes to ideas and opinions? How dull is a newspaper in which everyone agrees with one another and only disagrees over which Taylor Swift song is best? It is deeply regrettable that editorial boards seem willing to bend to readers who disagree with the views of one of their many columnists. It is neatly packaged as ‘a new direction’, but it bears an uncomfortable resemblance to censorship.

Polarisation is becoming an ever-greater problem in society. It is profoundly unwise for newspapers to aggravate it further by depriving their readers of contrarian viewpoints. After all, not everyone reads a broad range of newspapers and magazines. Surely you do not want to be constantly confirmed in your own beliefs? Nosce hostem, as the French say.