Do Civility Policies Work?

Civility polices are often used as a tool to respond to incivility. Colleges and universities were early adopters of civility policies. Today, civility-based policies are emerging everywhere. These policies run the continuum of simple and aspirational to complex and legalistic. For example, the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority has adopted a list of “rules and manners” for patrons, which include among others: be courteous, put trash in bins, and give your seat to someone who needs it more than you. 

On the other end of the continuum is the NFL. The NFL and 32 NFL teams have adopted an official code of conduct for fans. According to the NFL, the code of conduct is designed to “set clear expectations and encourage a stadium environment that is enjoyable for all fans.” The code restricts conduct such as foul or abusive language, obscene gestures, intoxication, and verbal or physical harassment of opposing team fans. Fans that violate the code of conduct will be subject to ejection and loss of ticket privileges for future games. In addition, several NFL teams require ejected fans to pass a four-hour online class that costs $75 before they can purchase tickets again. 

Many critics see civility policies as a threat to free speech. Over the years, students and civil liberties groups have challenged the constitutionality of civility policies that restrict speech. For example, in 2006, a Republican student group at San Francisco State University stepped on flags representing the militant organizations Hamas and Hezbollah during an anti-terrorism rally. Each flag had the word “Allah” written on them in Arabic. Others on campus complained that the conduct at the rally violated the institution’s civility policy, which was a system-wide policy adopted by all of the 28 institutions in the California State University system.

An investigation found the student group’s conduct during the anti-terrorism rally did not violate the civility policy, which prohibits “actions of incivility.” However, the group filed a lawsuit alleging that the civility policy was too broad and vague and could be used to chill freedom of expression. A federal district court agreed with the students and entered a preliminary injunction preventing disciplinary action based on a violation of the civility policy. The case ultimately settled with the college essentially keeping its civility policy in place, but amending it by adding a disclaimer that the policy could not be used as grounds for disciplinary actions against students.

With the proliferation of civility policies, one has to wonder what affect, if any, they have on the conduct of others. Are metro riders now more likely to give up their seats to pregnant women? Will NFL spectators refrain from using foul or abusive language during games? Can colleges and universities use civility policies to punish acts of incivility? It’s hard to say. Perhaps the more important purpose behind civility policies is to put the community on notice regarding expected standards of conduct. Clearly, civility policies cannot be seen as a silver bullet to eradicate bad conduct, but they certainly are a step in the right direction. Civility policies represent community values; however, real change requires cultural changes.

Kent M. Weeks