CIVILITY
United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas recently gave a widely-reported speech on the subject of participation in civic life. He distinguishes between civility in manner and civility in conduct and urges that we abandon civility in conduct. That is, he urges good manners but not at the expense of strong advocacy of important principles. Justice Thomas recognizes that we can politely disagree with someone, that we don't have to back down from strongly held positions in the name of civility.
I had never thought of civility in this way. I thought only of good manners, of politeness in expressing our views, of keeping voices low as we debate, especially when we debate political issues. But on reflection, I think I agree with Justice Thomas if by civility in conduct he means abandoning our principles for the sake of avoiding arguments, accepting poor performance for the sake of being nice, falling into immorality for the sake of not appearing critical.
When I urge civility, I assume high standards, morality, healthy arguments, maintenance of principles. I don't urge that we stop standing up for what we believe, I simply ask that we be courteous and kind in expressing ourselves. There's no need to shout in arguments, to be unpleasant in disagreement, to be rude in demanding adherence to the highest standards. We'll be more effective if we quietly make our points, if we treat those who disagree with us nicely, if we stay calm in the face of other views, if we kindly urge others to improve their behavior.
I might disagree with Justice Thomas in the emphasis he seems to place on strong advocacy but he raises an important point. While maintaining good manners, we can't let good manners make us weak in advocating our positions, in asking for good behavior from others. But we'll get better behavior if we make our points in a civil manner. Be nice but don't be weak.
6-11-01
Archives 2001 Archives 2000 Archives 1999 Archives