This article originally appeared in The Detroit News October 1, 2025.

A sad reality in American culture right now is that we’re uncomfortable with disagreement. We encounter a differing opinion, and our instincts are to avoid, dismiss or demonize the other person.

Contemporary life exacerbates this problem. We socialize with likeminded people. Social media algorithms feed us content we already agree with. Political parties foster an “us versus them” mentality.

A fundamental American value is shifting and feels like it’s at risk. Eighty percent of Americans think that “words can be violence,” according to the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression. And we all saw what happened to Charlie Kirk — a prominent commentator was silenced with a bullet.

This inability to navigate disagreement manifests in bizarre ways on college campuses.

A June 6 article in The Wall Street Journal told the story of “May,” a Tulane freshman, whose former college roommate served her with a no-contact order. The two had experienced normal dorm room squabbles. The roommate’s solution? Kick May out of the room and use institutional force to avoid contact.

The Tulane division of student affairs said the order was “based on the right of every Tulane community member to avoid contact with another community member if such contact may be harmful or detrimental.”

The Wall Street Journal found several other colleges that facilitate similar directives when interpersonal disagreements arise.

One can hardly relish the thought of these college students entering the workforce and demanding similar accommodation.

A recent episode of comedian Bill Maher’s podcast offered a refreshing contrast. Maher hosted Chris Pratt, the star of hits like “Parks and Recreation” and “Guardians of the Galaxy.” The two discussed the value of curiosity and open dialogue.

“We are a bit reactionary now, right?” Pratt said. “I think there are people who are just like really quick to cut someone off at the pass and be like, ‘I know enough about you to know that I’m not interested in hearing what you have to say.’”

“It is not healthy,” agreed Maher.

“You have to be willing to engage with someone in a loving way,” continued Pratt. “And that’s something I really like about you, Bill, is you can sit down with just about anybody, hear their point of view, be interested in it.”

“And by the way, when you do have these conversations,” said Maher, “the person you’re talking to is invariably so different than the person that was painted a picture to you by the media.”

The First Amendment prohibits the government from restricting free speech. “Congress shall make no law,” it says. A constitutional restriction on government power differs, of course, from your everyday interactions with other people. Free speech doesn’t compel you to listen. You can walk away.

But as a society, we show our commitment to free speech through our willingness to listen, discuss and debate. It’s not consistent to say I value another person’s right to speak if I refuse to engage.

We can each be happier at work, at home and in our neighborhoods if we master the ability to discuss differences and resolve conflicts. Conflict resolution is more than good manners — it’s critical to a free and functioning society.

Don’t reach for the “mute” button or a no-contact order. Try listening.

Permission to reprint this blog post in whole or in part is hereby granted, provided that the author (or authors) and the Mackinac Center for Public Policy are properly cited.