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

Hazing

Most people desire acceptance. Students are no exception, especially when they are new on campus. When acceptance into a group requires some form of “initiation” that humiliates, degrades, or risks emotional or physical harm, the group has engaged in hazing. 

The subject of hazing has recently gained national media attention following the death of Robert Champion—a drum major in Florida A&M’s high-profile marching band The Marching 100. According to university officials, Champion was punched repeatedly by a small group of band members on a bus following a football game. According to Fox News, he suffered blunt trauma blows to his body and died from shock caused by severe bleeding. Authorities suspect that the attack was part of hazing ritual.

The Marching 100 is internationally recognized and has performed at numerous prestigious events like presidential inaugurations, the Grammy Awards, and five Super Bowls. At Florida A&M, the popularity of the band exceeded that of its football team. Band members are treated like celebrities; however, celebrity status did not come easy. There is evidence to suggest that hazing incidents, such as the attack on Champion, was a part of the band’s subculture for decades. Unfortunately, Champion’s death was not the first serious hazing incident at the university.

The notion that acceptance into a group would be based on enduring violent physical attacks by peers is disturbing. Nevertheless, students seeking acceptance into certain groups often voluntarily subject themselves to hazing, while existing members readily participate in acts that put new members in danger. It could be that students do not fully appreciate the gravity of hazing. Many see hazing as just harmless pranks. Others view hazing as a rite of passage or a time-honored tradition that must be continued. However, in most states hazing is illegal and students who haze could be prosecuted and sent to jail. 

When hazing is assessed in the context of civility, one must determine whether the practice promotes mutual respect and dignity? Is the community strengthened when existing members use a power differential to coerce others to engage in dangerous activities?  I believe the answer to these questions is no. Furthermore, there may be intense social pressure not to report hazing incidents. No one likes a snitch. However, when the health and safety of another is in jeopardy, reporting could possibly save a life.

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

Incivility in the Library

Everyone knows that the library is a place of quiet study. Students and teachers alike can retreat to the library to research, study, and perhaps find a quiet table to catch a quick nap. In mid-March, however, two incidents burst into national headlines regarding student incivility in libraries. Yes libraries!

The first involved a dispute over a library study room at George Mason University.  According to the Washington Post, the study room was first occupied by Abdirashid Dahir, a Muslim student from Somalia. Dahir had left the room momentarily to get his laptop charger. When he returned, he found all of his belongings placed in the hallway and a female student occupying the room.  Both students claimed dibs on the room and during a heated exchange of words, the female student allegedly warned Dahir that if he did not leave she would get him in a lot of trouble. The female student made good on her promise, because within hours Dahir was arrested for felony abduction.

The second library incident occurred when Alexandra Wallace, a student at UCLA, posted a three-minute video on YouTube ranting on how Asian students were constantly disrupting others in the library by engaging in loud cell phone conversations. The video went on to make other disparaging and offensive comments about Asians. According to Wallace, the “hordes of Asian people that UCLA accepts” should use “American manners.”

Both of these incidents drew national attention and demonstrated how incivility can get out of control. The common thread of racial tension underscores the challenges students often encounter when living, learning, and working in a diverse global community.

So what eventually happened to Dahir and Wallace? The felony abduction charges were dropped against Dahir and the abduction allegations are currently being reviewed through an internal university process.  As for Wallace, she removed her video and issued a public apology in the UCLA student newspaper.  

Incivility, or the lack of regard for others in the community, can escalate into offenses that can be far reaching. While we may rightfully disagree with another’s conduct, uncivil responses rarely lead to productive outcomes.

Kent M. Weeks