What Is Civility? Some Perspectives
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
ASJA LAW AND POLICY REPORT Thursday December 6, 2007 No. 272 **************************************************** ASJA Law and Policy Report (LPR) is written by Gary Pavela (www.garypavela.com) and published weekly (except weeks of national holidays; during the ASJA National Conference and Gehring Academy; from mid-December to mid- January; and the month of August). Copyright: ASJA and Gary Pavela: All rights reserved. Further transmission within ASJA member institutions is permitted, if the author and ASJA are credited as the source. Index, archives, and additional source materials will be available to ASJA members at www.asjaonline.org. The information and comments provided here are designed to encourage discussion and analysis. They represent the views of the authors (not ASJA) and do not constitute legal advice. For legal advice the services of an attorney in your jurisdiction should be sought. ***************************************************** TOPICS IN THIS ISSUE 07.44 What does civility mean? ***************************************************** 07.44 ETHICS/CIVILITY Editor's note: What follows is the text of a speech given by your editor on November 4, 2007 to a plenary session of the Southern Association for College Student Affairs in Dallas, Texas. We're using it to open our two-part LPR series on civility, concluding next week with excerpts from College Republicans at San Francisco State University v. Reed (N.D.Cal., November 19, 2007) (holding, in part, that the University's "civility" policy would "'chill' to a substantial degree . expressive activity . .that the First Amendment protects from governmental regulation. ."). What does civility mean? By Gary Pavela Civility is a hot topic these days. It's precisely for that reason we need to define what "civility" means. Visualizing images evoked by a word can help us define that word. I'll show you my mental image of civility, drawn from a great piece of art. However, before I do so, please take a moment and create your own mental image of civility. I wonder if we're not tempted to see civility as something akin to ducks floating serenely on a pond. But civility is not the same thing as serenity. If serenity is your goal you arranged to be born in the wrong species. Nor is civility properly understood simply as good manners--like learning how fold a napkin or eat asparagus properly. Colleges and universities that define civility in that narrow sense are relegating themselves to the role of finishing schools. According to the Oxford English Dictionary (OED) (Second edition, Vol. III, p. 256) the word "civility" has ancient Latin roots in the word "civilitas," meaning "community" or "city." OED further explains that "civility" was "connected with citizenship" and the "behavior befitting a citizen." Civility in this sense implies a recognition of duty, action and engagement, not simply "politeness." The OED also says civility can refer to "training in the humanities." More on that in my conclusion. Here's my visual image of civility [LPR readers can see the image by copying the URL to their browsers] http://www.artofeurope.com/raphael/rap7.htm In the centerpiece of his famous fresco "The School of Athens" Raphael depicted Plato (arm uplifted to point at heavenly forms) in earnest and affectionate debate with his prized pupil Aristotle (arm extended downward to emphasize what can be categorized on earth). This is the idealized image of Plato's Academy from which schools and colleges have claimed lineage throughout the ages. The instructional method of the Academy was dialogue. The aim of dialogue was closer approximation of truth. The following words seem to fit Raphael's artistic depiction of teacher (Plato) and student (Aristotle) actively seeking to discover truth together: [] truth-seeking and truth loving [] candid [] courageous [] devoted [] affectionate [] risk-taking [] assertive [] challenging [] free-thinking [] creative These words imply action, engagement, and relationship. The word "serenity" doesn't seem to fit. Raphael's fresco crystallizes the idea of civility because dialogue constitutes civility in practice. This idea was expressed by law professor James White in his article "The Ethics of Argument: Plato's Gorgias and the Modern Lawyer," 50 University of Chicago Law Review 849, 870-871, (1983): [R]hetoric naturally treats others as means to an end, while dialectic treats others as ends in themselves . Dialectic . proceeds not by making lengthy statements . but by questioning and answering in one-to-one conversation. Its object is to engage each person at the deepest level, and for this it requires utter frankness of speech on each side. This is not a competition to see who can reduce the other to his will, but mutual discovery by mutual refutation . The object of it all is truth, and its method is friendship (emphasis supplied). Understanding "uncivil" behavior helps us define "civility" Rather than participating in dialogue, Plato could have responded to Aristotle in several ways we might regard as "uncivil." Three come to mind, all combined in one hypothetical internal Academy memorandum: MEMORANDUM FROM: Plato TO: Aristotle SUBJECT: Your insufferable impertinence [] I'm in charge of this Academy. Sit down and Shut up! [] Debate is welcome except on matters of fundamental truth. I've discovered truth (perfect forms in a mathematical world are faintly reflected in this one). Disagree on this point and you're guilty of heresy. The penalty for heresy is expulsion [] You've hurt my feelings by challenging my fundamental beliefs in an open and demonstrative way. Hurting people's feelings is insensitive. It silences them. You, Aristotle, have created a hostile learning environment for every teacher and student in my Academy. The penalty for creating a hostile learning environment is expulsion. Imagining uncivil behavior helps sharpen our definitions. I think a workable definition if incivility is: "that which inhibits engagement, dialogue, and learning." Consequently, in the college and university context, the core definition of civility is active engagement in creating, protecting, and participating in a learning community. Formalistic politeness and "speech codes" as incivility Can uncivil behavior be polite behavior? Yes. Politeness as an end in itself (formalistic politeness) creates distance; it seems expressly designed to preclude engagement "at the deepest level." This is probably the most common form of incivility (grounded in indifference) we and our students inflict on each other. Can we be uncivil in the guise of protecting civility? Yes again. The college speech code movement actively discouraged engagement while claiming to promote it. This was a point made years ago by Pulitzer Prize winning reporter Barry Siegel in his analysis of the failed University of Wisconsin speech code ("Fighting Words," March 28, 1993 Los Angeles Times Magazine, p. 14): Beyond the desired diversity of color and gender, surely there was also an enforced orthodoxy of thought and expression...[And] amid all this talk of the [UW] code's value as symbol, it was a bit unclear just whom the symbol was meant to protect--minority students from harassment by racists or UW leadership from denunciation by minorities. Siegel reported that one of the initial supporters of the code, Associate Dean of Students John Howard, was dismayed to find that "[p]eople were perfectly willing to restrict speech when it served their agendas . ." Another problem Howard eventually saw in the code was its inhibiting impact on genuine dialogue: "No one knew what the code covered," he said. "I've heard of students saying 'shhh-- don't say anything about affirmative action, the university will punish you.' There was a McCarthy-esque venue. I think there was a chilling effect." Howard concluded: "I absolutely have come to the conclusion that it's better policy not to have a code. The human instinct--or the American instinct--for censorship is just too strong" (cited in Synfax Weekly Report, 93.86: "The politics of the Wisconsin speech code"). Looking beyond disruption: Is active engagement possible? Certainly there's a role for discipline when students disrupt classes or otherwise seek to inhibit learning. But punishment should not be inflicted as the first resort. A wonderful example of good educational judgment in this regard can be found in University of Virginia English Professor Mark Edmundson's book Teacher: The One Who Made the Difference (Vintage, 2002). The teacher referenced in the title (Franklin Lears) taught for a year in Edmundson's high school and transformed Edmondson's life. The following passage describes Lears' response to an incident of classroom disruption, when a group of African-American students stormed into Lears' classroom to conduct an unscheduled teach-in on the life of Malcolm X: Lears would make use of whatever came his way . 'Sit down, sit anywhere you like,' [Lears said]. 'Perhaps we could talk about Malcolm some.' And the group did, and suddenly they were no longer a gang but part of a seminar. They were there with something to teach. 'Now tell us,' Lears said softly, ' what we need to know about Malcolm X. He lived here in Boston for awhile didn't he? He worked at the dance hall in Roxbury . ' Thurston [the teach-in leader who then spoke] about Malcolm's greatness . seemed to be blown away-- proud and astonished at once--that white people (and the class was all white) would take something like this so seriously. But of course we probably would not have, at least on our own. Lears had shown us what it was to disarm someone's aggression and then, rather than gloating at your little rhetorical win, listen--genuinely listen--to what he had to say (p. 221-222) (emphasis supplied). Respectful listening is the essence of dialogue. Turning incidents of disruption into dialogue should be the educator's art, both in and outside of the classroom. Columnist Nat Hentoff described one example in a 1991 Washington Post article about the response of four black women at Arizona State University to a racially offensive flyer posted on a residence-hall door (also described in our 2006 Chronicle of Higher Education essay on this topic).