Mathematicians are accustomed in their professional discourse to conditions which are alien to all other disciplines: On any given issue, there is a universally recognizable correct answer. If there is disagreement, it is because one side or the other does not correctly understand the situation. Therefore, the proper response to disagreement is to attack ruthlessly until the truth becomes clear. Once that happens, those in error will admit it gracefully and move on.

We sometimes make the mistake of expecting the same conditions to apply in arguments about mathematics education. Particularly damaging is the belief that there is no such thing as being half-right; there is nothing to be salvaged in the practices of one's opponents. Unfortunately, Fran Lebowitz's quip describes only too well much of the debate about mathematics education. One of the great pleasures of organizing this conference was to have witnessed some genuine listening. For example, the working groups on The First Two Years of University Mathematics and on Outreach to High Schools contained prominent representatives from opposite sides of the debate on mathematics education reform, yet forged remarkably unified position papers after two days of intense debate.

This is only a first step, however. In addition to listening to each other, we need to take the next step and learn to listen to voices from outside our profession.