Golden State Today

Stephen Menendian of UC Berkeley’s Othering & Belonging Institute poses a significant question: What is the value of free speech if no one listens? This query drives his work on how societies can heal, discuss, and connect.

Menendian emphasizes that much of the 2024 conversation about free speech revolves around its boundaries. He suggests shifting focus to how people receive what is being said. "The right to protest or the right to speak means very little if you’re not actually heard," he states.

With over 25 years of research into structural racism, civil rights, and inequality, Menendian oversees Berkeley’s Campus Bridging Project. This initiative aims to unite members of the campus community across ideological divides. Free speech plays a central role in his work, which often addresses divisive political conflicts.

Menendian believes freedom of speech requires "reciprocity," involving understanding and respecting those who express themselves. "There’s this idea that the answer to bad speech is good speech... But that doesn’t work," he says. Instead, he advocates for moving from an evaluative frame to a dialogical one focused on understanding self-conception.

Illustrating his point with an example, Menendian describes talking to someone who believes the earth is flat. Rather than disproving their belief with evidence, he suggests asking open-ended questions about their identities and values. This approach builds trust—what Menendian calls psychological proximity—which fosters expression and connection without dehumanization.

"If people feel like they don’t belong or they’re alienated or they’re not heard... The solution is asking them, ‘Think about it this way,’" he explains. Once people feel heard, they are more likely to trust others and build community.

Historical examples support this approach. Nelson Mandela attended the 1995 Rugby World Cup as South Africa's president—a symbolic gesture recognizing white South Afrikaners' collective symbol and promoting unity.

Menendian imagines applying this method in conflict resolution scenarios such as discussions between Palestinians and Israelis about Gaza. He argues that sharing individual stories rather than debating facts can build community through shared interests and experiences.

"This style of connection won’t end disagreement or create unanimity on contentious issues," Menendian acknowledges but adds that it can lead to more persuasive speech and less contentious disagreements. "If you feel heard and understood... there will be some baseline foundation for connection."