As I am sure many of you have seen or read, President Barron came out with a letter and video last night on the importance of maintaining civil discourse particularly when discussing heated issues.
Dear friends:
For decades, few universities could match the considerate manner in which Penn Staters treated both friend and opponent. In particular, to see someone wearing a Penn State T-shirt while traveling was a guarantee of a common bond and warm conversation no matter how distant the location. Today, that rather remarkable bond is under stress.
Unfortunately, there are many examples in every university where differences of opinion lead to incivility. For Penn State, one issue is of particular concern. There are honest disagreements on fundamental issues related to whether our institution acted appropriately, how our institution handled a crisis, and whether the sanctions that resulted are appropriate. Reasonable people can be found on all sides of these issues. The reasons for this disagreement are clear. Much is still left to interpretation and the issues have considerable emotional significance to us all. We are likely never to have the full story. We are equally likely never to reach consensus.
The question is whether a lack of civility in discussing these issues will create a deeper divide, one that alters the remarkable bond that exists between all those who are a part of the Penn State community. Consider just a few examples that you may have also come across – the alumnus who says he lost his best friend over his opinion of the Freeh report; the alumni trustee candidate that faced dozens of unkind comments; the long time donor of time and treasure who no longer feels welcome.
Debate and disagreement are critical constructs in the role of universities in testing ideas and promoting progress on complex issues. But, the leaders of your University at every level, from the administration, faculty, staff and students, are unanimous in deploring the erosion of civility associated with our discourse. Reasonable people disagree, but we can disagree without sacrificing respect. The First Amendment guarantees our right to speak as we wish, but we are stronger if we can argue and debate without degrading others.
Today, civility is an issue that arises in many areas of campus debate. Some may argue that the lack of civility is a national issue, promoted by a growing community involved in posting anonymous comments on blogs or by acrimonious national politics. We cannot afford to follow their lead, not if we are to serve our students as role models, not if we expect to continue to attract the outstanding volunteers who serve our University in so many ways, and not if we wish to have Penn Staters take our University to new levels of excellence.
Respect is a core value at Penn State University. We ask you to consciously choose civility and to support those whose words and actions serve to promote respectful disagreement and thereby strengthen our community.
Signed,
Leadership at Penn State (http://news.psu.edu/story/325057/2014/09/05/message-leadership-penn-state)
I found this letter to be remarkably powerful. It starts characterizing the bond that so many of us Penn States can relate to with the words, “to see someone wearing a Penn State T-shirt while traveling was a guarantee of a common bond and warm conversation no matter how distant the location.” Reading this I instantly thought of the Penn State couple I met while I was traveling alone in Brussels. I felt comfortable to immediately approach them. The Penn State bond we had was so strong that after five minutes they had invited me to have lunch with them. I doubt my story is unique and I am sure many other students and alum reminisced on their experiences when reading this section of the letter. This letter from the start effectively brought forth emotions towards a bond that should continued to be cherished.
From there the authors lead into a discussion on the importance of maintaing civility in order to maintain the bond that we cherish. In this section the authors write, “Reasonable people can be found on all sides of these issues. The reasons for this disagreement are clear. Much is still left to interpretation and the issues have considerable emotional significance to us all. We are likely never to have the full story. We are equally likely never to reach consensus”. This in itself is a strong example of the civil rhetoric that we must use is discourse. The manner in which this is written is peaceful and explains the complexity of the issue. “Reasonable people can be found on all sides of these issues” and we must acknowledge that reasonable people have a variety of perspectives and avoid trying to make a critical judgement on who is “right” and who is “wrong”. Further by admitting there is no clear answer, we can open conversation up to a dialogue or discourse instead of a heated debate. Further I think this section acknowledges that there are students, alumni, beings that will disagree and “are equally likely to never reach consensus”. Underlying this message is that it is okay if we never reach consensus as long as we maintain civility and remember a bond deeper than a disagreement in opinions. Critical thinking requires a variety of perspectives but a variety of perspectives is not effective is not effective if we do not keep in a mind a common vision of uniting and ultimately improving this University.
How to maintain civil discourse is sometimes difficult when our emotions, ego or pride get in the way, but this letter reminds us that maintaining respect is imperative if we are to align with the core values of the University,
“Reasonable people disagree, but we can disagree without sacrificing respect. The First Amendment guarantees our right to speak as we wish, but we are stronger if we can argue and debate without degrading others.”
We should take the freedom to speak as we wish as an opportunity to make a positive impact on the people that surround us. We can “debate without degrading others”. We can begin conversation with questions instead of commands. We can remove the phrase “You’re wrong” from conversation. We can ask someone about their perspective instead of trying to force ours upon them. If we open our minds, and find that our main goal is to better understand the world around us and find solutions, instead of having a goal of being right, we will ultimately achieve a more peaceful discourse.
I want to choose civility. Moving forward I question how the institution can play a role in motivating this in the larger population. As the letter mentions, this may be a national issue, an epidemic in the manner in which we address ourselves and each other. If this is a problem so deeply rooted, I wonder what the strategy is for uplifting it. How do we promote students and alumni to be role-models? Should we expect them to take it upon themselves? Is raising consciousness the first step? Can we continue to openly remind each other to be civil? From my own experience it is simply a slight shift in consciousness that can make remarkable impact. Once you realize the manner in which word choice, tone can influence another, it makes you question how you want to influence the people around you. Once you make the conscious decision to strive for respect and to make a positive impact, there are a variety of tools in the way you act to ensure you do so. Many of these tools I have learned through classes like the Presidential Leadership Academy that require me to actively converse with my peers on controversial topics. I wonder if we can encourage this open discourse elsewhere on campus and provide students with an open environment to practice developing the skills that this University clearly wants to promote. Programs such as World in Conversation and classes that require engaging students projects are some example of things the University already does to accomplish these goals but there is always room for more engagement and I am happy to see that it is on the minds of University leaders.
