In this extra post, Dr Brian McGrail adopts a philosophical approach to make the case that diversity in HE classrooms is, in fact, common sense. Brian is a Lecturer in Social Sciences at the Centre for Open Learning.
Introduction
On 20th January 2025, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order (EO 14151) to remove all federal Diversity, Equality and Inclusion (DEI) policies. The order was followed by a Washington air collision killing 72. When challenged on his decision to attack DEI, Trump glibly replied he had (so possessed) ‘common sense‘ and immediately, without evidence, claimed the air catastrophe a result of DEI policies within US air-traffic-control recruitment. Apparently, affirmative action (US ‘diversity’ policies) worked against meritocracy in choosing the best qualified people.
Complaints about DEI ‘recruitment’ previously produced legal cases against US elite universities (Harvard). Applicants of East Asian ethnicity protested that they faced discrimination (as a statistical group) by scoring highly in entry tests. Fair admission is a highly charged political issue. However, in this blog post, I argue that diversity in HE classrooms makes ‘common sense’. Significantly, common sense requires not only use of evidence (arguably something Trump regularly does not provide) but a diversity of evidence.
University classrooms are not just places of education (Latin educare – to train or mould), where instrumental-technical skills are downloaded generationally. They are important public fora where teachers and students decipher truth (and folly) in the taken-for-granted, thereby enhancing knowledge and practice of shared human condition. Here, ‘science’ is about coming to a better understanding of ourselves. Controversially, I ask, ‘do all those (privileged) with advanced technical skills, already well-represented, need access to such fora?’ Which leads me to question, ‘what are our universities for?’.
Looking to Common Sense Philosophy: Reid on optical illusions
Thomas Reid (1710-96) founded Scottish Common Sense Philosophy. He criticised ‘philosophy of mind’ approaches (Reid, 1915, pp.27-37), arguing specialist tools and skills are not needed to know ‘the truth’. How can farmers with no philosophic training answer, ‘Do I exist?’ or ‘Is that horse white?’ with a self-certainty that dumbfounds highly-educated practitioners of scepticism (Descartes, 2010, and Hume, 1999, for example)? For Reid, acts of human communication (e.g., ‘Am I here?’) presume common ground (shared abilities and space with others), which provides first principles of sense certainty. When I speak, I presuppose others understand me, otherwise ‘speech’ is meaningless. Doubt debunks itself in addressing others (‘what do you think of this blog post?’) and not just through ‘observation’. The questioning itself assumes doubt is surmountable and others’ existence.
But what happens when people are fooled? Reid was a natural and moral philosopher interested in optical illusions which trick the mind. Related to the sense of sight, our eyes can trick our brain. Reid cited an example of stone carvings looking like ‘vases’ which were solid rather than hollow.
Let us imagine an art gathering where a ‘vase’ goes on display. The first viewer enters and sees a ‘vase’, as does the second and third. Soon, there are 50 all agreeing (common sense) that what they see is a ‘vase’. At this point a blind man arrives and walks to the plinth; reaching out to sense the ‘vase’ using touch. His hands go through the middle of it. Without use of specialist tools, truth is revealed. The first principles of sense certainty (trust in senses – plural) indicate we are dealing with a projection (a hologram).
This, and not 50 people in agreement, exemplifies common sense – the gathering of information from more than one sense. The transformation (progression) in knowledge is possible via addition of a second sense (touch) to the first (sight). This sensual combination not only reveals the ‘vase’ (not to be as such) but brings the illusion to consciousness (including the untrustworthiness of a single sense). Our multiple senses feed our brain, which acts (Reid refers to the ‘active powers’ of humans) as our ‘sixth’ or ‘common’ sense.
The truth of social sense: the need for conversation and intersubjective action
Reid’s example from bodily senses can be extended to the social realm. If 12 people stand in a circle around a statue we have a dozen perspectives (or senses) on what the statue represents. Walking around enables one person to experience what others previously have. However, others may have interpreted the statue differently based on prior experiences (what Kant, 2007, calls apriori knowledge). There is no way of avoiding the need for conversation and intersubjective action in developing common, mutual understanding. Deliberation is the sixth or common sense, drawing on Freire’s (1974) notion of ‘deliberative democracy’.
Such deliberation must be democratically open – not closed or predetermined – so as many perspectives (senses) as possible are made available to our social brain. To work properly, this process is never about numbers of individuals. As demonstrated, it is the one person using touch who provides the key (sense) in unlocking the illusion which fooled the other 50. What matters is the uniquely alternate experiences of social life when uncovering truth in our social existence.
In the social realm, even when all perspectives are present, some dominate whilst others are suppressed. This is understood regarding our traditional, proprietor-controlled ‘press’, especially when the proprietor is the State. But social media is prone to suppression on a numbers basis given the mathematical foundations of algorithmic computations. What is ‘popular’ is promoted as, and confused for, ‘truth’. By contrast, a truly civic forum provides space for conventionally suppressed experiences and work against what de Sousa Santos (2014) terms ‘epistemicide’ (i.e., the killing of local / alternate knowledges by coloniality, therefore , domination).
In conclusion
I argue that ‘common sense’ is not a possession (as Trump may claim) but a process – a social relationship – that lies ‘between beings’ (Latin inter-esse). We all have an ‘interest’ in performing common sense. Consequently, I controversially propose that Harvard’s discrimination was not against East Asians (as an ethnic group), but against people with (statistically) better scores in standard entry tests. It is the test that is being discriminated against (and why not?), not the individuals, no matter their ethnicity. If the aim of HE is to generate ‘common sense’, then the representation of a predominant view must be balanced (with others) or limited (without being diminished). A majority of those requiring purely ‘technical’ education for their own instrumental and social ‘advancement’ can be accommodated in alternate establishments, because why should our key public fora require an over-representation of one mode (episteme) of understanding?
‘Elite’ education is contradictory to a construction of common sense. In so far as universities form civic spaces, where pursuit of ‘truth’ is accepted as the primary aim, then such spaces need to be open to as broad a range of social experiences as possible. Diversity makes for common sense.
References
Descartes, R. (2010) Meditations, translated by Desmond M. Clarke, London: Penguin Books.
de Sousa Santos, B. (2014) Epistemologies of the South: Justice against Epistemicide. London: Routledge.
Freire, P. (1974) ‘Education as the Practice of Freedom’, in Freire, P. (2021) Education for Critical Consciousness. London: Bloomsbury Academic.
Hume, D. (1999) An Enquiry concerning Human Understanding, edited by Tom. L. Beauchamp, Oxford: Clarendon Press.
Kant, I. (2007) Critique of Pure Reason, Penguin Classics, London: Penguin Books.
Reid, T. (1915) ‘Introduction to the Philosophy of Common Sense’, in G. A. Johnston (ed.) Selections from the Scottish Philosophy of Common Sense. London: Open Court Publishing.
Further Reading on Thomas Reid:
The following collection includes helpful chapters covering ‘Reid on Common Sense’ (N. Wolterstorff), ‘Reid’s Theory of Perception’ (J. van Cleve), ‘Thomas Reid and the Culture of Science’ (P. Wood), and ‘Reid and the Social Operations of Mind’ (C. A. J. Coady):
Cuneo, T. & van Woudenberg (eds.) (2004) The Cambridge Companion to Thomas Reid, Cambridge: CUP.
Brian McGrail
Dr Brian McGrail is a Lecturer (Social Sciences) and Course Organiser in the Centre for Open Learning, The University of Edinburgh, where he teaches and designs courses on Access, International Foundation, and Short Courses (Open Studies) Programmes. He is also an Associate Lecturer with the Open University and has specialised in adult returner education for 25 years. Brian is currently External Examiner for Lifelong Learning (Access and Study Abroad Experience) at University of Glasgow and for Foundation Pathways at University of Derby. http://linkedin.com/in/brian-mcgrail-5a579034↗️
Brian McGrail’s OpenLearn Profile – OpenLearn – Open University↗️
Brian McGrail (academia.edu)↗️
www.socialisingsense.net ↗️
