A lot of students at Hillsdale can’t seem to fathom the possibility that they might be wrong.

Who has not been this way from time to time? Intellectual overconfidence is a side effect of being a fallen human being in academia. But it seems all too common at Hillsdale, where the pursuit of truth is an explicit goal of the college. After all, if we are pursuing something, that implies we do not have it yet, or at least not as much as we would like.

At first glance, overconfidence seems to be due to overly dogmatic thinking. Yet there is nothing intrinsically wrong with holding certain beliefs to be absolutely true.

In his autobiography, G.K. Chesterton says, “The object of opening the mind, as of opening the mouth, is to shut it again on something solid.” One needs an intellectual starting point. Once one finds a solid starting point, one ought to cling to it and only abandon it if something demonstrably better is discovered. Absolute skepticism is too intellectually taxing to be a way of life, and even the most hard-boiled skeptic is dogmatic about one thing: that nothing is as it seems.

It seems, then, that the problem is not dogma. The problem lies in a lack of charity and humility in intellectual discourse. Humans are often wrong. Even if a given belief of ours is true, our justifications for it may be misinformed. So too, we may have erroneous ideas about what others believe. They may simply express the same beliefs in different terms, disagree with us because they know things that we do not, or hold different core values.

But we will never reach a point of mutual understanding, let alone one of intelligent debate, if we habitually dish out our opinions with inflammatory language, mock what we do not understand, and talk down to those we disagree with under the guise of “tough love.” When we do this, we are no better than the political pundits and social media personalities we often criticize.

This behavior will only impress those who are like-minded. When we are rude about our beliefs to others, we give all who hold these beliefs a bad name. It will drag others – and ourselves – away from the actual pursuit of truth.

I chose to come to Hillsdale because I wanted to be intellectually and spiritually challenged. I wanted to be surrounded by others who equally valued this pursuit, but who came from different points of view. When I came here, I was dismayed at how many students, especially fellow Catholics, “circled the wagons,” ridiculing other denominations, liberals, and even those of their own kind who did not live up to their idiosyncratic standards. They seemed to relish being harsh about everything from theology to anime, and that made me uncomfortable. Even if you think you are right, you have no right to be obnoxious about it.

The point of a liberal arts education is to achieve a well-ordered soul by pursuing truth from a variety of perspectives. When we stake our personalities on proudly dishing out our opinions, we work against that goal. In making flat caricatures of others, we think and act two-dimensionally ourselves. We cut ourselves off from true learning if we see education as a means of gathering ammunition and fellow truth-seekers as enemies. It is acceptable to hold controversial opinions if you have arrived at them with thoughtful conviction, but not if the point is merely to be impressive.

There’s a saying among writers: “Murder your darlings.” It means that if one is especially proud of writing a particular turn of phrase, it is probably overwrought trash. One should swallow their pride and delete it. If we applied that rule to our opinions and dialed back any that were designed to be impressive or “edgy,” we would probably be much more reasonable and pleasant people.