Defending the Constitution, Free Speech, and Diversity: A Lofty Ideal or the Only Path to Realizing the American Dream?

Dr. Christopher (Chris) Drapeau (Class VII Fellow) is a licensed psychologist and the Director of Research at Vibrant Emotional Health, a mental health nonprofit who serves as the administrator of the national 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline network. He’s previously served as an executive leader in state government and as a university professor. As a MDLF Fellow, he is exploring how citizen deliberation models can strengthen community mental health while also addressing declining civic engagement and social trust.

It was a treat to learn from such thoughtful and accomplished leaders during our December 2024 MDLF Fellowship VII Class, which focused on Civil Society, Free Speech, and Leadership. Among the distinguished speakers were Justice Mark Massa of the Indiana Supreme Court, as well as key Purdue University leaders: Dr. John Gates, Vice Provost for Diversity & Inclusion; Alysa Rollock, Vice President for Ethics and Compliance; Steve Schultz, Senior Vice President and General Counsel; and the University’s President, Dr. Mung Chiang.

The day began with a video message from Mitch Daniels urging us to resist the temptation to denigrate and defame in the pursuit of success. Although some of this counsel was framed in the context of running a campaign, I interpreted it as broadly applicable to how we conduct ourselves in all areas of life. It set the tone for our initial small-group discussions among the MDLF Fellows. At my table, we talked about the competitive world we navigate and the resulting ego that can easily overshadow any greater good we might achieve. Afterward, the entire group of Fellows came together to continue the small group discussions, and what especially resonated was the need to listen more deeply – to learn to “see” others “with our ears.”   

Justice Massa’s presentation then steered our focus toward the U.S. Constitution and its essential role in creating common ground. He reminded us that “everyone has a stake in defending the Constitution,” and that as citizens we “silently take the oath” to uphold it. He praised the Constitution’s “ingenious” qualities and commended its founders for being “amazingly astute observers of human nature,” who understood that power can corrupt.  

This characterization prompted me to recall Skousen (1981), who highlighted how painstaking it was to design the Constitution. Skousen (1981) noted that the “object of the Founders was to seek a consensus or general agreement on what the Constitution should provide [and] extreme patience was used to bring the minds of the delegates into agreement rather than simply force the issue to finality with a compromise” (pg. 22). It’s tempting to think that this was possible due to a less divisive political climate than what we observe today, but history shows otherwise. After the Constitution was ratified by Congress, several large states threatened to reject it. In response, they were encouraged to propose amendments. They received 189 amendments in total which were eventually whittled down to the 10 we know as the Bill of Rights (Skousen, 1981). This serves as a reminder that persistent disagreements and strong opinions are nothing new. Justice Massa reinforced this by alluding to Madison’s Federalist 10 and the seemingly enduring truth that “we will always face deep divisions.”

This recognition that division is inherent to our civic life finds a contemporary echo in the 2023 Indiana Civic Health Index (Szarleta, Dunlap, & Moreau, 2024). Today’s polarization, civic apathy, and barriers to inclusivity may feel uniquely intense, yet history and scholarship (see Putnam, 2020) tell a different story. As alluded to in the above paragraph, division is neither new nor unusual. That fact can feel both disheartening and oddly encouraging: we need not lament the presence of division itself, but rather learn to harness and engage it productively. Instead of avoiding discomfort, we can face it head-on and grow from it. In this light, Justice Massa’s call to “be as brave as possible” took on real meaning. It’s easy to retreat to comfort, but doing so shrinks our intellect and, if too many follow suit, can limit our collective freedoms.

The writings of Jodock (2011) and Skousen (1981) especially resonate here. Jodock warns us that anxiety can stifle civil discourse, narrow learning, harden positions, and fuel defensive behavior. Skousen cautions that centralizing power dulls the spirit of civic engagement, leaving communities less involved and less willing to solve their own problems.

These insights suggest that feelings of anxiety, a desire for certainty or feeling right, and top-down power structures can all chip away at liberty and personal responsibility. Moreover, when we limit the input of “everyday” citizens or fail to regularly bump into differing ideas, we deprive ourselves of the collective intelligence that arises from embracing diversity. As Dr. Gates put it, our “excellence expresses itself through the intersections of perspectives and lived experiences.” He reminded us that individual excellence can “amalgamate” into a collective cause while also acknowledging that well-meaning actions can have unintended consequences. This especially struck me as a call for us to consider the second- and third-order effects of our decisions. This requires a wider perspective than any individual alone can materialize and arguably will be impossible to accomplish without seeking out as many perspectives on our decisions as possible (and before we implement them).  

Similarly, as I listened further to Dr. Gates, I found myself concluding that seeking disagreement and differing opinions will put us on a path to better decision making and that restricting the expression of diversity may in fact restrict our very ability to get ever closer to realizing the ideals noted in the Declaration of Independence (1776): that all are created equal and endowed with inalienable rights including Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

Building on these insights, I’m especially grateful to Alysa Rollock and Steve Schultz for prompting us to reflect on the complexity of free speech protections. They guided us to a commencement speech by Mitch Daniels, who emphasized that “our freedom starts with free speech, and free speech means disagreement, and disagreement means that now and then you will be upset by things you hear and read.”  He adds that if “you absorbed anything of our Constitution, you know that it contains no right not to be ‘offended.’  If anything, by protecting speech of all kinds, it guarantees that you will be.  As they say, ‘Deal with it.’  And if you are disturbed enough, then answer it, with superior facts and arguments.”

Of course, discovering those superior facts becomes challenging when the very concept of a “fact” feels slippery in a hyper-information age. Too often, truth-seeking can get sidelined by ego-driven jousting or uncharitable misrepresentations of others’ perspectives. As a result, we squander opportunities to learn by structuring our debates and discussions as zero-sum battles steeped in logical fallacies, rather than engaging in genuine inquiries aimed at understanding one another’s evolving experiences and the ideas that resonate with them at that moment in their lives.

Dr. Gates emphasized that our shared humanity matters most. To honor it, we may need new paradigms and systems that make this common ground more visible. I sense that the leaders in this MDLF fellowship are committed to precisely that, and I believe Justice Massa shared this hopefulness. He echoed Mitch Daniels’s vision of aiming higher and expressed confidence that MDLF Fellows (past, present, and future) will carry this vision forward in their hearts and minds. 

Yet living up to this vision requires more than just recognizing our commonalities. We humans don’t seem naturally inclined to seek out conflict and disagreement. Still, embracing such tensions may be necessary if we’re to discover solutions that genuinely improve people’s lives. 

John Stuart Mill’s words in On Liberty provide a fitting close:

In the case of any person whose judgment is really deserving of confidence, how has it become so? Because he has kept his mind open to criticism of his opinions and conduct. Because it has been his practice to listen to all that could be said against him … Because he has felt, that the only way in which a human being can make some approach to knowing the whole of a subject, is by hearing what can be said about it by persons of every variety of opinion, and studying all modes in which it can be looked at by every character of mind (2002, pg. 17).

The civic challenges we face today present a unique opportunity to aim higher. I’m excited to stand alongside my MDLF colleagues, as well as our mentors and leaders who share this commitment. Life is short, opportunities are fleeting, and there’s never been a better time to act boldly on one another’s behalf.

References

The Declaration of Independence (U.S. 1776). https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript  

Jodock, D. (2011). Vocation of the Lutheran College and religious diversity. Intersections, 33(4). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.augustana.edu/intersections/vol2011/iss33/4 

Mill, J. S. (2002) On Liberty. Dover Thrift Editions. Dover Publications. 

Putnam, R. D. (2020). The upswing: How America came together a century ago and how we can do it again. Simon & Schuster.

Skousen, W. C. (1981). The 5,000 year leap: The 28 great ideas that changed the world. National Center for Constitutional Studies.  

Szarleta, E., Dunlap, C., & Moreau, D. W. (2024). 2023 Indiana Civic Health Index. Retrieved from https://northwest.iu.edu/cure/programs-initiatives/inchi.html 

Class VII Fellows at Purdue University for their “Civil Society, Free Speech and Leadership” class day