The Value of Disagreement: A Takeaway from Justice Stephen Breyer

Photo via the Associated Press

ZACH FOTIADIS: Last week, I had the privilege of hearing former Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer speak in Gaston Hall. Justice Breyer retired from the bench less than a year ago after nearly three decades of service. 

The 85-year-old legal legend captivated his audience, providing a somewhat grandfatherly presence in a room packed with teens and twentysomethings. Breyer was witty, insightful, and engaging.

The audience paid rapt attention as the former Justice explained his views on a wide range of relevant topics, from the constitutionality of the death penalty to how the leaking of the Dobbs decision’s first draft may have sealed the case’s fate. He offered insightful and nuanced commentary on nearly every subject he addressed. 

His introductory remarks resonated greatly with me. In an answer to a question on the increasing polarization of federal judicial appointments, Breyer digressed about the seemingly lost art of listening to the opposition. While this may appear a somewhat cliché piece of advice, it contains fundamental wisdom the most ideological among us increasingly gloss over. 

Welcoming civil, constructive discourse is not purely a democratic virtue, it is a necessary utility. The renowned classical liberal philosopher John Stuart Mill, whom Justice Breyer mentioned as a source of intellectual wisdom, once listed three of the most compelling arguments for hearing contrary points of view. 

The first two are rather intuitive: that which you wholeheartedly believe to be false may in fact ring true upon further reflection (and vice versa) and that which you know to be indisputably false may nonetheless contain elements of truth previously unconsidered. The third often feels neglected in our tribalistic political climate: refusing to engage the opposition transforms noble principles into unsophisticated prejudices.

This rule applies most to the people who are least likely to abide by it: the ones with strong, ideological convictions. Those who see the world through a doctrinal prism may be hard-pressed to listen to arguments they regard as incorrect no matter which way they are presented. But it is the process of engaging and responding to opposing perspectives that builds grounded, well-adjusted principles. Deprived of counternarratives, even the most intelligent people will be reduced to repeating talking points. 

It is for this reason that Justice Breyer said what I saw as the event’s most crucial takeaway: “give credit to your opponents.” “Do not simply respect them,” he continued, “do not merely hear them for the sake of polite courtesy. Actually, listen to them. Understand them. Learn from them.” His point was spot on. It is impossible for a single perspective, regardless of the subject matter, to own a monopoly on truth. You do yourself a disservice to discount your critics without considering what they have to say. “Do your due diligence, for your own sake!” says Breyer. This view led Justice Breyer to hire law clerks who explicitly disagreed with his philosophy. 

It was refreshing to hear a figure of American history articulate this point of view. The value of disagreement and respecting people who have different views may sound like common sense, but it bears repeating given how superficial our adherence to it often is Justice Breyer was confirmed to the Supreme Court by a Senate vote of 87-9, just another reminder of how political open-mindedness increasingly feels like a relic from a bygone era. We would do well to heed the advice of an esteemed justice whose career centered around the exchange and application of ideas. 

A brilliant mind trapped in an echo chamber is a brilliant mind wasted. 

Zach Fotiadis is a staff writer for On the Record originally from Miami, Florida. He is currently a junior in the School of Foreign Service studying International Politics with a minor in history.