Naughty or Nice

The holiday season tends to brings out the best in people. Communities across the world are inspired to give to those less fortunate. Many campus communities and student groups organize efforts to support nonprofits like the Salvation Army, Toys for Tots, and local food banks.

However, for some people, Christmas brings out their inner Grinch. Grinches show up at shopping malls and fight over merchandise. They steal packages that are left on porches and front doors stoops. In fact, some Grinches have the audacity to destroy nativity scenes and steal decorations. For example, police in Philadelphia recently released a surveillance video of two people stealing decorations from a South Philly home in the early morning hours. These two thieves were caught on tape removing decorative candy canes, elves, and even Santa Claus. These Grinches are no doubt on the naughty list!

In contrast, eight-year-old twin sisters Maggie and Sophie Lile exemplify the spirit of Christmas. The Lile sisters have volunteered alongside their mother for the last four years collecting books and food for several homeless shelters in their Kansas City community. They were recently nominated and received the Presidential Call to Service Award for their efforts. Currently the Lile twins are working with their Girl Scout troop to create meal sacks and personal care packs for shelters that help homeless women and families in need. Maggie and Sophie definitely make the nice list.

As we delve full tilt into the holiday season, I hope you are inspired to be "nice." Take time to reach out to those in your community in need and for goodness sakes, don't be a Grinch! 

Wishing you a very happy holiday season!

Kent M. Weeks 

The Cyberbully Strikes Again

Cyberbullying seems to know no boundaries. Stories of cyberbullies tend to focus on students; however, recently cyberbullying has reared its ugly head in one of the most unexpected places—the NFL. 

Jonathan Martin of the Miami Dolphins recently opted to quit the team mid-season. What caused Martin--a 24-year-old, six-foot-five, 312-pound offensive lineman--to walk away from a prestigious well-paying position? The answer is bullying.

During Martin’s 18 months with the Dolphins, he claims that he was bullied and harassed by fellow teammate Richie Incognito. Martin alleges that Incognito regularly sent disturbing texts and voicemail messages to Martin containing racial slurs, threats of physical violence, and even death threats. Incognito and other veteran players on the Dolphins allegedly pressured younger players, such as Martin, into paying for expensive meals, binges at strip clubs, and extravagant trips—a system they referred to as a “virgin tax.” A team culture emerged where older players were able to intimidate, control, and extort younger players. Younger players simply endured the harassment. After all, once they paid the virgin tax, they could subject younger players to the same treatment. 

Like Martin, many college students experience similar forms of harassment from bullies both on campus and online. Recently a study conducted by researchers at Indiana State University found that 15 percent of the college students surveyed were bullied and 22 percent reported being cyberbullied. The prevalence of bullying occurring online has caused colleges and universities to focus greater attention to online civility.

Bullying involves the intentional systematic pattern of intimidation and harassment by one person designed to humiliate, frighten, or isolate another. Cyberbullies leverages electronic communication, such as texts, instant messages, and social media, to harass targets. The psychological impact of cyberbullying can be overwhelming. People who are subjected to cyberbullying may suffer from depression, decreased self-worth, hopelessness, and loneliness, which are often precursors to suicidal ideations.

Colleges and universities can play an important role in combating bullying both on campus and online. Anti-bullying and harassment policies are a good start. They establish a baseline standard that bullying is not an acceptable behavior on campus.

Another strategy used by institutions of higher education is social norming campaigns. These campaigns involve a campus-wide promotion and advancement of shared community values—values such as mutual dignity and respect for diverse people. These shared community values are then reinforced and infused in campus literature, orientations, and curriculum. Social norming programs look to establish a welcoming campus culture that encourages students to embrace common community values rather than simply regulate conduct.

Students may not appreciate the harmful effect cyberbullying has on other people. Incognito probably did not take his texts and voicemail messages seriously. Perhaps he thought it was all just a joke. Bullying, however, is no joking matter. Students must understand that bullying can be devastating to a target, even targets who are NFL players. 

Kent M. Weeks

Corporate Values, Faith, and Chicken Sandwiches

One of the most divisive social issues in the United States today is same-sex marriage. A recent USA Today/Gallup Poll found that 50 percent of Americans approve gay marriage and 48 percent oppose it. On both sides of this issue are impassioned people and organizations that hold strong convictions based on notions of equality, fairness, and religious beliefs.

The national discussion of same-sex marriage was recently stoked when Dan Cathy, the president of Chick-fil-A, told the Baptist Press that his company was “guilty as charged” in its opposition to same-sex marriage. Cathy later elaborated on his comment on a radio talk show stating “I think we are inviting God’s judgment on our nation when we shake our fist at Him and say, ‘We know better than you as to what constitutes a marriage.’” 

Cathy’s polarizing comments immediately energized the various factions for and against same-sex marriage. The Jim Henson Company immediately pulled its Muppet toys from Chic-fil-A kids’ meals. The mayors of Boston, Chicago, and San Francisco made public statements condemning Chick-fil-A for its position on gay marriage. Pro-gay organizations launched boycotts and demonstration denouncing Chick-fil-A’s “prejudice” and “hatred” of homosexuals. The Gays & Lesbians Alliance Against Defamation (GLAAD) planned a “National Same-Sex Kiss Day” to be held at Chick-fil-A restaurants across the country.

Not to be outdone, public figures and organizations opposing same-sex marriage rallied in support of Chick-fil-A. Reverend Billy Graham publicly commended Chick-fil-A for “never compromising their values” and expressed appreciation for Cathy’s “public support for God’s definition of marriage.” Former Arkansas governor Mike Huckabee organized a “Chick-fil-A Appreciation Day” which according to organizers drew hundreds of thousands of supporters. According to the company the event was a “record-setting day” with some stores running out of chicken.  

Should large corporations express opinions on controversial sociopolitical issues? A number of big name corporations, such as Target, Starbucks, and General Mills have publicly expressed pro-gay viewpoints. However, Amicus Reed, a marketing professor at the University of Pennsylvania, told NPR that “Most brands are keeping their heads down” choosing not to weigh in on controversial issues. According to Reed, a more neutral strategy probably makes good business sense. This may explain Chick-fil-A’s recent statement that “going forward” the company plans to “leave the policy debate overs same-sex marriage to the government and political arena.”

Civility does not require one to be neutral on issues such as same-sex marriage; however, it does require respect for other’s views and beliefs. Ultimately, whether a corporation supports or opposes same-sex marriage is a decision made by the corporation’s leadership. As consumers, we can ultimately choose whether we want to patronize a corporation based on its values, beliefs, and political positions. Perhaps this is the most civil solution to such a divisive issue. 

Kent M. Weeks

Piercing the Bubble

It seems only natural that communities form around common beliefs and values. Sometimes, these communities become so exclusive and self-absorbed that interactions with others who do not share the same beliefs and values result in unproductive conflict.

I would refer to these self-absorbed communities as “bubbles.” People inside the bubble create their own reality. They are inclined to only surround themselves with people who share their perspectives, they constantly feed themselves with information that supports their views, and they see others who are outside their bubble as inferior or misguided and may even develop prejudices.

The bubble provides a filter through which others outside are viewed. Engagement between members of conflicting bubbles is not based on mutual respect and understanding, but often unfair preconceived notions created within the bubble.

In a democratic society, we are free to express our own beliefs and associate however we please. Clearly we are entitled to disagree with others views, especially in an educational environment. In the context of civility, the issue becomes how do we disagree with others or challenge their beliefs in a way that is productive and does not involve bashing or personal attacks?

I would suggest that an important first step is to pierce our bubbles. This can occur when we engage others with mutual respect. In a civil democratic society, we must acknowledge that everyone is entitled to their own perspectives. When confronting differences, it may also be helpful to recognize the merit of other’s positions and attempt to understand why a person holds a particular position. By extending this respect and courtesy, the tone of the discourse is likely to change when differing positions are presented.  The key is respect.  Perhaps when we learn to genuinely respect the diverse views of the people in our community meaningful engagement and expanded learning can occur. We may learn that we are similar in more ways than we are different. 

Kent M. Weeks

The Uncivil Professor

The core of civility issues in higher education lies at the heart of education itself—the classroom.  The knee-jerk reaction to an effort to address classroom incivility might be to view students as the exclusive source of incivility.  As one commentator noted, “ill-mannered antics of college students are a tradition as old as academe itself.” While it’s probably true that most civility issues involve students and their attitudes and behaviors towards others, sometimes professors are to blame.  

The relationship between a student and a professor is a critical component of student learning. A professor’s ability to transmit knowledge and promote inquiry based on research, study, and practical experience is one of the fundamental purposes of education. While most instructors are committed to free discussion and open inquiry, there have been growing concerns that some college classrooms are becoming platforms for political and social indoctrination, where students are essentially attacked for reasoned views that are contrary to those of the instructor. When faculty publicly debase, humiliate, or invalidate students during classroom discussions, they essentially provoke student incivility.

Professors often rely on their right to academic freedom to justify uncivil actions taken in the classroom. Faculty academic freedom typically includes the right to study, discuss, investigate, teach, and publish. However, academic freedom does not give faculty the right to say or do whatever they want in the classroom.  Specifically, academic freedom does not protect a professor who compromises a student’s right to learn in an environment free of hostility or engages in controversial speech unrelated to the course.  For example, according to the American Association of University Professors (AAUP), professors should “encourage free discussion, inquiry, and expression” and that “students should be free to take reasoned exception to the data or views offered in any course of study” regardless of the professor's views. AAUP further recommends that “students should have protection through orderly procedures against prejudiced or capricious academic evaluation.” The AAUP policies, while not mandatory, provide guidance as to how professors should engage students.

Poor classroom management may also cultivate an environment that breeds incivility. Some professors ignore incidents of student rudeness or incivility in the classroom. However, there is research to suggest that failure to address uncivil student conduct in the classroom sends the messages that the behavior is condoned and that incivility can be repeated. When a professor is unable to manage the classroom, and student incivility persists unchecked, student grades, learning, and achievement will be adversely affected. (see Classroom Decorum: What Happened and Does it Matter?)

Faculty behavior is an important component of promoting civility on campus. The attitudes of professors toward students may have profound implications on learning and civility. When promoting civility, colleges and universities must be willing to look within. Are administrators, teachers, and staff modeling civil behavior? If not, efforts to push civility may appear to be insincere and somewhat hypocritical to students. 

Kent M. Weeks

College Sports and Civility

September is here, bringing with it shorter days, cooler weather, and college football! Not too far behind is the start of the college basketball season.  As the 2011-2012 college sports season begins, incivility has already hit headlines. Just three weeks ago, the Georgetown Hoyas men’s basketball team played a “goodwill” exhibition game against the Bayi Rockets, a Chinese professional team.  The game coincided with Vice President Joe Biden’s trip to China and was supposed to be an example of “sports diplomacy.” Unfortunately, there was little diplomacy on the court. In the middle of the fourth quarter with a tied score, players from both teams began to exchange punches which quickly erupted into a bench-clearing brawl. Fans got in on the action and threw water bottles and other objects at Georgetown players and fans. The game abruptly ended as the security situation deteriorated.

The incivility demonstrated in the Hoyas/Rockets game underscores how passion and enthusiasm can get out of control for both players and fans.  While a little smack talking is always appropriate, vulgar and offensive cheering, throwing objects on to the field of play, and rioting after big games is not. However this type of outrageous conduct is nothing new for most college sports fans and occurs occasionally.

Earlier this year, we witnessed a new level of outrageous fan conduct—tree poisoning. A University of Alabama fan poisoned two iconic oak trees located on Toomer’s Corner at Auburn University. Toomer’s Corner is the location on Auburn’s campus where fans traditionally gather to celebrate victories. The trees are estimated to be 130 years old. The tree poisoning was a deliberate act by a fan to attack a symbol of pride associated with Auburn’s athletic program.   

The overwhelming majority of college athletes and fans behave responsibly during and after games. However, as witnessed in the Hoyas/Rockets game, athletic competitions can quickly transition to violence between players and spark mayhem in the stands. In the past, such uncivil conduct has resulted in needless attacks on innocent people, criminal charges against fans, and property damage that can be hundreds of thousands of dollars. So go out and passionately support your team, talk a little smack, but remember that it’s just a game and so keep it civil! 

Kent M. Weeks

The Effects of Uncivil Political Theatre

The recent debate in Washington over increasing the national debt ceiling has brought the issue of civility front and center again. Although Congress was able to hammer out an eleventh-hour legislative compromise, the process was anything but civil. Noticeably lacking in the debate was any semblance of mutual respect for diverse ideas or meaningful consensus. Instead competing factions used the political process to vilify each other and try to score political points.  

According to a Washington Post/Pew Research Center poll released on Monday, 75 percent of the people polled were disturbed by the behavior of politicians during the budget negotiation process. The top five words used to describe the process were ridiculous, disgust, stupid, frustrating, and poor. Other adjectives included terrible, disappointing, and childish. Interestingly, the dissatisfaction expressed in the poll was consistent among people of all political persuasions. Michael Muskal of the Los Angeles Times noted that “the only good thing about this poll was that the battle seems to have brought people together.”

What affect does political incivility have on people? Bryan Gervais argues that political incivility “breeds distrust” and “substantially lower views of opposing sides” (see The Effects of Incivility in News Media on Political Deliberation) According to Gervais people exposed to uncivil media tend to “mirror that incivility.” When uncivil political discourse receives extensive media coverage, as was the case for the debt ceiling debates, it essentially “legitimizes the use of uncivil language and behavior.” 

Perhaps the incivility in Washington contributes to our own civility struggles. Are we mirroring the behavior of our elected leaders and political pundits? With so many American outraged by the dysfunctional political conduct in Washington, this is a good time to reflect on what it means to be civil, especially in high-pressure situations. Can meaningful consensus be achieved when people with drastically different ideologies work together? Clearly the model of leadership we witnessed over the past weeks has left many wanting to see less mudslinging and more civility. 

Kent M. Weeks  

Cheating, Plagiarism, and Civility

Incivility often manifests itself on campus in the form of cheating and plagiarism. According to an extensive four-year survey of 14,000 undergraduate students conducted by Donald McCabe, two-thirds of students admitted to cheating on tests, homework, and assignments. Research shows that while cheating occurs among students of all levels, students at the top and bottom tend to cheat the most. According to McCabe, “The top’s cheating to thrive, the bottom’s cheating to survive.”

Researchers believe that students are seduced into cheating for a number of different reasons. One of the main drivers is the intense academic pressure some students put on themselves to succeed. Competition to get into good colleges and universities is fierce. Admission into top schools is often seen as a ticket to future success, and many highly motivated students will do whatever it takes to get in—even if it means bending the rules. 

Another factor contributing to cheating is peer acceptance of the practice. According to David Rettinger, a cognitive psychologist at the University of Mary Washington, even when students know cheating is against the rules “most still look to their peers for cues as to what behaviors and attitudes are acceptable.” The belief that everyone is cheating creates a social norm among students that academic dishonesty is just a part of college life. This social norm of cheating may encourage students who might not otherwise cheat to do so just to stay competitive, especially when so many cheaters seem to get away with it.

Others cheat simply because they are not aware their conduct offends academic norms. This often occurs in the context of plagiarism when a student does not completely understand what is required for proper reference and citation. However, psychological research suggests that students that habitually cheat stop viewing their conduct as immoral.    

Students typically just don’t start cheating when they arrive on campus. Most cheating begins in high school. A study by the Josephson Institute of Ethics of 40,000 high school students released earlier this year found that more than half of teenaged students cheated on a test during the last school year and one in three admitted to using the Internet to plagiarize an assignment. Likewise, cheating does not typically stop when students leave academia. There is research that suggests that academic cheating continues with other forms of dishonesty later in life, such as breaking workplace rules, cheating on spouses, or lying to a customer. Accordingly, curbing academic dishonesty and creating new community norms about cheating is crucial to educating responsible and civil adults.

Kent M. Weeks

Does Civility Matter?

Common civility is becoming a lost art. In our busy and complex lives, simple gestures of politeness, such as smiling or saying “thank you” have become uncommon. We have come to expect some level of disrespect in just about every facet of our lives. People drive recklessly and without regard to others. Many engage in loud and obnoxious cell phones conversations in restaurants, buses, and movie theaters. Others deliberately litter. 

Chances are that there will always be rude, disrespectful people. So why should we be concerned about increased incivility?  Isn’t incivility an inherent byproduct of a democratic society? After all, there is this thing called the First Amendment. Why does civility matter?

A clue to these questions can be found by probing deeper into the definition of civility. While civility is technically defined as politeness and associated with good manners, the etymology of the word hints at a more expansive meaning.

The modern English word “civility” comes from the Latin word “civitas”, referring to the city or civic community. In this context, civility refers to civilized conduct of citizens. More than just politeness, the civitas element of civility calls for an individual commitment to strengthening the community, as opposed to focusing exclusively on one’s own wishes and desires.  Translated to a modern context, civitas includes acts of community service, such as helping a sick neighbor or serving with a volunteer organization aiding others in the community. 

Whether the community is a neighborhood, college campus, state, or country, civitas requires people to behave in a way that recognizes and respects the needs of others in the community. This more expansive application of civility is reminiscent of the Golden Rule, which encourages people to treat others in the same manner as they would want to be treated. 

As civil people, our conduct toward others should be guided by mutual respect. Conduct such as driving while intoxicated, plagiarism, and bullying would all be examples of uncivil behavior. Such conduct does not take into consideration the needs of others, and may be harmful to the community.

The growing culture of incivility is critically important because it represents more than just poor manners, but rather a lack of consideration for others. This lack of respect, left unchecked, can perpetuate incivility and can lead to even more dangerous uncivil conduct. Consider the string of Columbine-style shootings that have occurred in the high schools, colleges, and shopping malls over the last decade, including the latest in Tucson, Arizona, where a U.S. Representative was critically injured and six victims died.

Civility has once again become part of the national conversation.  Citizens, politicians, college students and scholars are opening a new dialogue, saying civility does matter.  The many voices don’t agree on all the details of civil conduct, but the fact that they’re having the conversation in the first place is a start. 

Kent M. Weeks