Few experiences can shift your viewpoint as profoundly as facing criticism from both sides of America’s cultural divide.

If you believe the left is particularly intolerant, how do you interpret censorship from the right? Conversely, if you see the right as more prone to violence, how do you reconcile that with far-left riots? When confronted with similar actions from either side, extreme partisans often retreat into misleading comparisons, reassuring themselves that their own group, no matter its faults, is outdone by the other.

Yet, there’s a different way to view this. Stepping outside the partisan divide reveals that human nature fuels American conflict just as much, if not more, than ideological splits.

I had this realization while reading Nicholas Confessore’s insightful report in The New York Times Magazine about the University of Michigan’s unsuccessful efforts in diversity, equity, and inclusion (D.E.I.).

Two alarming elements stand out in his article. First, despite significant financial investment and the hiring of numerous diversity officers, the university’s D.E.I. initiatives failed to achieve their goals. Black student enrollment remains around 4 to 5 percent, while the state’s Black population is 14 percent.

Second, these ineffective policies were reinforced by a campus culture marked by intolerance. Confessore cites numerous instances where professors faced baseless accusations of racial or gender bias. Following Hamas’s attack on October 7, Michigan’s commitment to pluralism was severely tested, yet it failed to uphold even the most basic legal standards.

In a June announcement regarding the resolution of two civil rights complaints against the university for antisemitism, the U.S. Department of Education stated it found no evidence that the university met its Title VI obligations to assess whether incidents created a hostile environment for students or staff. The school also failed to take reasonable measures to rectify this environment.

Despite considerable investment aimed at promoting inclusivity, Jewish students could not rely on the university to adhere to the law, falling short of the minimum standards of acceptable behavior.

Had I read Confessore’s article 15 years ago, while litigating free speech cases on campus, my reaction would have been straightforward—yet another example of the left’s intolerance and inefficacy.

Having faced a similar brand of intolerance during my own academic career, I dedicated much of my legal work to addressing what we now recognize as excesses in D.E.I. policies—situations where diversity initiatives encroached upon free speech and due process.

However, in 2024, my perspective has evolved. I have witnessed right-wing institutions exhibit the same, if not greater, levels of intolerance as their left-wing counterparts. After sharing my own experience of being canceled by my previous religious denomination, I received numerous emails detailing similar experiences, where even minor deviations from right-wing orthodoxy led to severe backlash in conservative churches and organizations.

To understand the situation better, let’s revisit Confessore’s Michigan report. He notes that the expanding D.E.I. bureaucracies reflected a significant and predominantly left-leaning shift in campus power. While university faculty members lean left, administrators are reportedly even more politically liberal, often favoring racial preferences in admissions and hiring.

In essence, the D.E.I. bureaucracy was tackling a complex challenge from within an ideological echo chamber, setting itself up for failure in a toxic manner.

The issue isn’t solely that the D.E.I. bureaucracy is leftist; it’s a consequence of human nature. When like-minded individuals come together, they tend to adopt more extreme views. This principle, known as the law of group polarization, applies across all ideological divides and was notably articulated by Cass Sunstein in 1999. According to him, this phenomenon explains extremism, cultural shifts, and the dynamics of political and religious organizations.

From my experience, as institutions become more ideologically or theologically homogeneous, they are likely to err more, especially when confronted with difficult challenges. Monocultures are detrimental not only to marginalized voices but also to the majority and their causes.

Currently, I’m teaching a class titled “Why Is American Politics So Insane?” While developing the syllabus, I considered whether Robert Putnam’s “Bowling Alone” or Bill Bishop’s “The Big Sort” better captured the essence of the 2000s.

“Bowling Alone” emphasizes the decline of community engagement in America, a factor driving national polarization and distress.

“The Big Sort” points out that Americans increasingly reside in ideologically uniform communities, which can lead to radicalization. Bishop notes that “mixed company moderates,” while “like-minded company polarizes.” Diverse communities can temper group excesses, while homogeneous ones push toward extremes.

Moderation doesn’t guarantee correctness, but a moderate outlook fosters inclusivity and receptiveness to varied ideas. The more challenging the issue—like addressing the lingering effects of centuries of racial oppression—the greater the necessity for diverse viewpoints.

Even individuals with radical ideas should remain open to the possibility that their views could be flawed or that constructive critique can enhance even good ideas.

In contrast, monocultures restrict thinking. Mandated D.E.I. statements often serve as ideological litmus tests for faculty candidates. As Confessore highlighted, expressing even moderate views advocating for a level playing field could be “career suicide” at Michigan.

The D.E.I. bureaucracy seemed indifferent to a crucial aspect of diversity—the diversity of thought. It even questioned the premise that “students should be expected to encounter uncomfortable ideas.”

This issue is not limited to universities. The evangelical church, a significant cultural institution in the U.S., is trending toward an ideological uniformity akin to that found on progressive college campuses.

Ryan Burge, a scholar of religious trends, recently noted that Southern Baptists were evenly split between Republicans and Democrats in 2008, but by 2022, 75 percent identified as Republican. Data from the 2020 elections shows even greater Republican alignment in other Protestant denominations.

Behind these statistics lie numerous stories of alienation and exclusion—family divisions and power struggles fueled by an elusive pursuit of purity and righteousness that religious fundamentalism often complicates. The mysteries of faith cannot be confined within ever-narrowing human doctrines.

While I am wary of the idea that simplistic solutions can resolve intricate issues, what if a straightforward concept could help us navigate complexity? Intellectual diversity is essential. Embracing a broader range of perspectives can be transformative. It safeguards minorities from the majority and helps the majority protect itself. Institutions that recognize this will be far more tolerant and successful than those that shut themselves off from dissenting viewpoints.

No political faction possesses a monopoly on virtue or insight. For those who value diversity, equity, and inclusion, the goal should not be for one side to triumph over the other but for both sides to engage with each other openly.

If only achieving this were as simple as it sounds.