Tim Shriver pitches Dignity Index as antidote to political contempt at Hinckley Forum

Tim Shriver, founder and CEO of Unite and chairman of Special Olympics International, told an audience at the Hinckley Institute of Politics forum at the University of Utah that a combination of partisan media, social‑media algorithms and politics is amplifying contempt and driving social isolation.

Shriver, who is serving as a public impact scholar at the university, described the scale of the problem and offered the eight‑point Dignity Index — developed by Unite in partnership with Hinckley Institute scholars — as a practical tool to help people recognize contempt in public conversation and adopt more respectful language.

Shriver said the social feed people see is not neutral. "We're all getting tricked. We're all getting used. We're all getting lied to. We're all getting propagandized," he said, arguing that platforms and partisan outlets profit by steering audiences toward outrage. He called the combined influence of social platforms and partisan news a multibillion‑dollar industry and said it pushes people toward angrier, more polarized views.

The Dignity Index Shriver described is an eight‑point scale, with lower scores indicating increasing levels of contempt (ranging in his examples from dismissive comparisons to calls for violence) and higher scores reflecting curiosity, humility and a baseline of respect. Shriver said the tool was normed and validated by University of Utah scholars about two and a half years after Unite introduced the idea here in 2021.

"If you use 2 language, you're very close to the language of violence," Shriver said, contrasting that with the higher scores on the index: "I might be wrong" as a telltale sign of humility and higher‑score behavior.

He cited survey findings and social effects — saying, for example, that only 4 percent of Americans tell pollsters the country is "working well" and that many people have severed personal relationships over politics — to illustrate the human and social costs of contempt. He emphasized that the Dignity Index is intended as an awareness and practice tool, not a call to neutralize strongly held principles.

In a question‑and‑answer session, audience members pressed on difficult topics including whether dehumanizing rhetoric or violence can be effective. One audience member argued that historical examples show dehumanization and violence have produced political results. Shriver acknowledged the point: "It can work," he said, adding that violence and contempt have been used throughout history to impose will and sometimes produce short‑term results. He maintained, however, that treating opponents’ humanity as a target is likely to be counterproductive for people trying to win others over to their cause.

On confronting public figures whose statements he said risk harm, Shriver described a recent media appearance in which he criticized policy claims about pregnancy and medication. He said he sought to focus on policies, data and outcomes rather than personal attacks because, he added, attacking a person distracts from the practical problems he wants to address.

Several students and other audience members asked how younger people can influence older or entrenched audiences and institutions. Shriver said cultural change often starts with small groups that model alternatives and added that university communities have leverage to create different norms. "Never underestimate the power of 10 or 15 people to change the world," he said.

Natalie, an audience member who said she spent 18 years on Utah's Capitol Hill, urged students to use their knowledge and engagement to influence elected officials. "All of you can make a huge difference just by virtue of your education and your engagement," she said.

The forum was presented in partnership with the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute. Shriver described the Dignity Index as a work in progress and invited participants to test the scale and consider ways to use it in everyday conversations and public life.

Shriver and the Hinckley Institute framed the Dignity Index as a practical countermeasure — an awareness tool aimed at reducing dehumanizing rhetoric and improving the tone of civic discourse rather than dampening passion or political advocacy.

The talk and question period lasted about an hour and generated extended discussion between Shriver and students, faculty and other audience members about where dignity practices might fit into activism, policy advocacy and campus life.