The Fragility of Power and Why Leaders Must Welcome Disagreement, Not Silence It
It’s troubling how thin-skinned we've become as a society—especially when it comes to disagreement. This fragility becomes particularly dangerous when found in our leaders, those entrusted with responsibility, oversight, and public trust. Leadership is not about surrounding yourself with affirmation; it’s about having the resilience to hear dissent and the wisdom to grow from it.
A recent example—UC Merced’s removal of Professor Colin Holbrook from a commencement ceremony for calmly expressing concern to a university system president—illustrates how allergic institutions and leaders have become to respectful disagreement. (‘I Didn’t Want to Make a Scene’: A Professor Recounts the Conversation That Got Him Ejected From Commencement) There was no shouting, no disruption, no violation of decorum—just a private comment shared behind the scenes. And yet, the consequence was swift ejection.
This reaction is not just about one incident; it reflects a broader cultural shift. We conflate disagreement with disrespect and treat discomfort as danger. But the strength of any community—especially an academic or civic one—depends on its ability to tolerate, even welcome, a diversity of viewpoints. Disagreement is not the problem. How we disagree is what matters.
Respectful dialogue, even when it challenges power, should be protected. It is not the content of dissent that determines its legitimacy—it is the manner in which it is expressed. As a society, we must be clear: yelling, swearing, name-calling, or threatening harm or violence are never acceptable. These are not forms of speech; they are attempts to dominate and intimidate, and they should rightly be condemned and confronted. But disagreement itself, expressed calmly and sincerely, is not violence—it’s democracy in action… and some might argue the basics of relationships in life.
This principle is perhaps best captured in the words of Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis, who said:
“If there be time to expose through discussion the falsehood and fallacies, to avert the evil by the processes of education, the remedy to be applied is more speech, not enforced silence.”
This is more than a legal doctrine—it’s a philosophy for leadership. Leaders should not fear being challenged. They should fear losing the trust of those they lead by creating environments where people are afraid to speak. Courageous leadership means being open to being wrong, or at least to hearing something you hadn’t considered.
We don’t have to agree with each other. But we do have to make room for one another. Respect should be reserved for those who engage thoughtfully, not just those who echo our views. Leaders, in particular, must model that truth—not retreat from it.
