PART I of II

Rodin. The Thinker. Thinking. It’s a useful process, for people generally and leaders specifically. Why, then, is rigorous and critical thinking increasingly under assault?

Let’s start with the basics. Where do people learn to think? This can be at many places and hopefully at university or college. The objective of a liberal arts education should be to help students think more clearly—to be a so-called “critical thinker.” Critical thinking involves reflection about what others are saying, about your own biases, questioning assumptions, and checking facts. Further, thinking is a useful quality for leaders and, in fact, is a precondition for effective strategic decision-making.

I did my undergraduate degree in history, and during my honours program, there was an emphasis on “historiography”—in other words, understanding how history is written. You soon learn that the issue is not whether or not people have biases, but rather what these biases are. Out of a mountain of facts, why did the historian choose to include certain facts?

We learn in historiography that historians often come up with an angle or story and then facts are selected to support the narrative. Typically, the best histories are those rollicking tales that make a good read but are often loose with the facts. Donald Creighton could even make Canada's relatively new history sound more interesting.

Traditionally, there was always an underlying notion that there is a baseline of facts, a core bedrock of indisputable things, despite one's biases.

In today’s woke environment, virtually every bit of the bedrock has been disputed so that society is in a quicksand of malleable facts.

A further source of my exposure to critical thinking was at two law schools. The experience instilled in me the basic sequence: facts, issues, and analysis. This needs to be done on a dispassionate basis, with self-reflection, and in an unbiased manner. The starting point is the facts. Like history, there are source documents. A key to critical thinking is to assess the documents and evidence we are relying on to form conclusions.

But what is the relevance of this for leaders? Better thinking will lead to better decisions. This will require independent thought, understanding how things are and not how people wish they were, standing above distracting motivations and ideologies, and keeping in mind the long-term benefits of the quest for truth.

How does this work itself out in a practical way? A good case in point is Nigel Biggar, who shared his experiences with the ELO Oxford Leadership Program cohort on July 12th. Nigel Biggar is Emeritus Regius Professor of Moral Theology at the University of Oxford and Distinguished Scholar in Residence at Pusey House, Oxford. Nigel Biggar’s most recent book is Colonialism: A Moral Reckoning (2023); it has become an exhibit in the “culture wars.”

Biggar recently aroused the anger of the woke movement by having the temerity to engage in thinking around the various, often unchallenged, claims of the woke movement.

He suggested that perhaps Cecil Rhodes was not racist—but neither was he a saint. He was also a product of the time. The “Rhodes Must Fall” contingent, bent on toppling his statue in Oxford, didn’t want to hear that, whether true or not.

Biggar highlights atrocities and misdeeds perpetrated by the British Empire, but he also indicates some positive aspects of their involvement. He suggested that perhaps a nuanced tale was in order and, among guilt-addled woke leaders, this is heresy.

Yet Biggar’s nuanced approach rings true. For example, I lived in a British colony for five years: Hong Kong. The British garrison had to work to keep people from entering illegally. Millions of People's Republic of China (PRC) inhabitants were desperate to get into the colony—yes, that relic of colonialism. Further, the view of prosperity in Hong Kong was due to the potent combination of British law and order and Chinese entrepreneurial creativity!

Biggar highlights another case where critical thinking is useful. He cites the example in Canada of mass graves being uncovered at an Indigenous residential school site in Kamloops, BC, in 2021. This story was reported globally without much fact-checking, including sources such as the New York Times. Now the dust has settled. A Canadian National Post article has concluded that there never was a mass grave. Yes, of course, Indigenous peoples in Canada have been treated shamefully—but this tale was not part of the narrative.

Biggar is suggesting in various instances, like the ones above, that there might be a narrative worth considering that is not consistent with the prevailing ideology. Biggar points out that the factual record often does not substantiate a particular position, the situation is far more nuanced, and ideology and emotion are poor bedfellows for factually based argumentation.

Biggar’s approach is a woke antidote. In light of the power of woke media, inconvenient facts get steamrolled. Interestingly, even in halls of higher learning, facts are trounced by emotivism. Those, like Biggar, who suggest an alternative view are then marginalized as “denialists.” Trial by social media and public ostracism is swift.