c . w . VON BERGEN, P H D , BETH A. VON BERGEN, M E D , CLAIRE STUBBLEFIELD, P H D , AND DIANE BANDOW, P H D Abstract: Promoting tolerance is seen as a key weapon in battling prejudice in di- versity and multicultural training but its meaning has been modified recently. The classical definition of tolerance meant that others are entitled to their opinions and have the right to express them and that even though one may disagree with them, one can live in peace with such differences. In recent years, however, tolerance has come to mean that all ideas and practices must he accepted and affirmed and where appreciation and valuing of differences is the ultimate virtue. Such a neo-classical definition has alienated many who value equality and justice and limits the effective- ness of diversity initiatives that teach the promotion of tolerance. The authors offer authentic tolerance as an alternative, incorporating respect and civility toward others, not necessarily approval of their beliefs and behavior. All persons are equal, but all opinions and conduct are not equal. Key Words: Tolerance and Acceptance, Tolerance and Endurance, Forbearance, Intolerance, Diversity Training, Multicultural Training, Promoting Civility and Respect AUTHENTIC TOLERANCE: BETWEEN FORBEARANCE AND ACCEPTANCE I f tolerance is defined, as it often is, as "the ability to accept the values and beliefs of others," (Lickona, 2002, p. 1) it poses a dilemma: How can individuals be asked to accept all people's values and practices when they may believe that some of those ideas and behaviors are wrong? How, for example, can one ask supporters on opposite sides of the abortion and homosexuality debates to accept the validity of each other's perspectives? Such contradictory views carmot both be correct. We address the controversial topic of tolerance by starting with a brief history of tolerance. Then we discuss tolerance in diversity training efforts and explore both traditional (classical) and new (neo-classical) definitions C. W. Von Bergen, PhD, ¿s the John Massey Professor of Management in the John Massey School of Business in the Department ofManagement and Marketing at Southeastern Oklahoma State University in Durant, OK. Beth A. Von Bergen, M.Ed., Southeastern Louisiana State University) is a 6th grade Special Education Case Manager at Lanier Middle School in Houston, Texas. For over eight years she has taught tolerance to elementary and middle school students. She has also provided tolerance and diversity workshops at faculty symposia for these schools. Claire Stubblefield, PhD, also teaches at Southeastern Oklahoma State University in Durant, OK. Diane Bandow, PhD, teaches at Troy University in Atlanta, GA. The correspond- ing author is Dr. C.W. Von Bergen who may be reached at: Office Phone: 580-745-2430; Office Fax: 580-745-7485; Email: cvonbergen@se.edu. Journal of Cultural Diversity • Vol. 19, No. 4 of tolerance. In the next section, we review the concept of intolerance and then offer a discussion on the value of dialogue. Finally, we conclude with a summary that emphasizes respect and dignity of persons rather than required acceptance and endorsement of their beliefs and conduct. Some History Although the concept of tolerance (Locke, 1689/1983; Mill, 1859/1985; Voltaire, 1763/1994) is esteemed today its valuehas not always been appreciated. For example, early Western religious scholars St. Augustine and St. Thomas Aquinas viewed tolerance as a vice that could corrupt society and harm innocent people (Colesante & Biggs, 1999). Likewise, a value system that enjoyed near universal support in America for a number of years indicated that a good person was "trustworthy, loyal, helpful, friendly, courteous, kind, obedient, cheerful, thrifty, brave, clean, and reverent" (Boy Scouts of America, n. d.)—but not tolerant. Believing in and practicing the Boy Scout values, even if a person were not a Scout or a male, was highly correlated with being a citizen of excellent character and integrity. Tolerance is said to be "indispensable for any decent society—or at least for societies encompassing deeply di- vergent ways of life" (Oberdiek, 2001, p. 23) characteristic of many Western cultures. Highly homogenous societies may be able to dispense with tolerance or greatly reduce its centrality but most of the world cannot. Tolerance has been recognized today as an especially important characteristic in pluralist, multicultural communities Winter 2012