IS ATHLETIC COMPETITION

CIVIL?



Welcome to the GF Civility Project's "Civil or Uncivil" poll. From time to time we’ll post an example of communication, usually about politics. We invite you to read or view the item, then fill out the accompanying poll telling us whether you think it is an example of civility, or incivility. We’ll report poll results and a selection of interesting and/or representative comments. We will consider your insights as we revise our Public Civility Inventory, and develop other civility tools and materials.

It's March Madness time again! On the whole I am inclined to think of this as a good thing -- it's fun to watch, and that it's even happening means good things about the trend in the coronavirus. But there are some things to think about:

    • Will the tournament itself rekindle the spread of the virus?

    • How long will it take for the NCAA to even TRY to make facilities and amenities for women athletes match the men, without having to be shamed first? I wonder how many men's brackets get filled out for every women's bracket. ( 0 and 0 for me. At least it's even.)

    • Is athletic competition and the attendant focus on winning even consistent with Christian love for one's neighbor? I.e., is competing to win civil?

Greg Tweitmeyer, a professor at Mississippi State University, posed the third question today on the Christian Scholar's Review website. I recommend it -- but with one small reservation: today's post is the first of three he will make, so it does not include his complete thoughts on the matter. But I am impatient, unwilling to wait for the other two segments to dribble out to us. Oregon and Michigan (my law school alma mater) are on a collision course in the women's tournament, and Oregon State is still alive, too... I need to know now whether I can root for victory without dipping into incivility!!

So either with or without pausing to consider the Professor Tweitmeyer's argument, please tell me whether competing to win is civil or not. Use the form below -- and please take a moment to explain your answer as completely as you like.

Respect your mother! BOTH of you!

Case 1: Elder Son Washington:

Last week someone sent me a link to an article by Danny Westneat in the Seattle Times expressing admiration for how well Oregon has been doing at getting its residents vaccinated for COVID. Westneat refers to Oregon three times as Washington's "little brother state." I took mild offense, so I wrote a mild letter of reproof (or so I thought). Please read the letter and then use the form to tell if I did, or did not, manage to stay civil.

Here's the relevant part of my note to Mr. Westneat:

Dear Danny:

I was amused, reading your article about Oregon's "leadership" in getting people vaccinated, that you thrice described Oregon as Washington's "little brother" state.

Actually Oregon is your mother state. Or, to be even clearer, Washington is in reality Oregon's former northern province.

Oregon was the name for the entire Pacific Northwest, originally, at least among European descendants. The state of Oregon was created in 1859, carved out of the heart of the Oregon Country. Washington and Idaho came along 30 years later, as offspring often do. If you have a little brother state, it's Idaho.

The United States never refers to Great Britain as its little sister. Neither should you disrespect your mother...

Perhaps when Washington has grown a little older, it will be able to manage its affairs as well.



Case 2: Younger Son Idaho:

Also last week I encountered the website for Greater Idaho. This is a movement to have the states of Oregon and Idaho agree to change their border so it runs down the east side of the Cascades, and then west through the Siskiyous, severing the Willamette Valley and the northern Oregon Coast from the rest of the state, which would become part of Idaho. So far the movement's main achievement is enacting ordinances in a few Oregon counties requiring the county commissions to put on their agendas twice a year a discussion of the possibility of changing the border to allow their counties to switch states.

The website strikes a remarkable tone. Efforts are made to offer reasonable arguments. There's even an attempt to see the issue from the point of view of the Oregonians living in the rump Oregon left over after 75% of the state becomes part of Idaho! But is it civil?

Is it even civil to talk about dismembering a state? Would it be civil to forbid talking about it? (Kenneth Boulding, the eminent 20th century Quaker economist -- who I want to be like when I grow up -- thought a key to Stable Peace was to take borders OFF the agenda, agreeing to just leave them where they are. (Boulding, Stable Peace (Univ of Texas Press, 1978, pp. 109-112). If it is civil to discuss changing borders, how should the discussion take place? Is Greater Idaho going about it the right way? Are they respecting their mother state (Oregon)?

Go to the website, browse around there, then come back and tell us how civil it is. Thanks!!





Respect your mother! BOTH of you!
















CIVILITY POLL #7: John Woolman on remaining "unmoved at the sentiments of others.

John Woolman, the 18th century colonial American Quaker, is one of my personal heroes. I spent part of an afternoon searching for a civility related quote from him, but without luck... except this one? I couldn't bring myself to feature it on the front page of the website, because I don't know if I understand it. Is it civil? Or is it the opposite? What do you think?

CIVILITY POLL #6: The Middle

Among the ambitious Super Bowl ads this year was one by Jeep, featuring Bruce Springsteen and the Kansas chapel at the geographical center of the lower 48 states. Watch it here, and take the poll to tell us whether it is civil or uncivil, and why. This is a chance for you to contribute to one aspect of the Civility Project: deepening our understanding of what civility it. So far we're contenting ourselves with describing what civility does -- it heals our political culture, or involves behaving and communicating in ways that strengthen relationships among disputing people while improving their ability to resolve issues justly and peaceably. We are still grappling with identifying what those ways of behaving and communicating are.

Watch the ad -- it's 2:10 long. Then fill out the poll, below. (And you're free to complete any of our other civility polls, below, or #5, here.

Civility Poll #4: ( January 20)

The Hill We Climb

by Amanda Gorman

delivered at the presidential inauguration, January 20, 2021


When day comes we ask ourselves,

where can we find light in this never-ending shade?

The loss we carry,

a sea we must wade

We've braved the belly of the beast

We've learned that quiet isn't always peace

And the norms and notions

of what just is

Isn't always just-ice

And yet the dawn is ours

before we knew it

Somehow we do it

Somehow we've weathered and witnessed

a nation that isn't broken

but simply unfinished

We the successors of a country and a time

Where a skinny Black girl

descended from slaves and raised by a single mother

can dream of becoming president

only to find herself reciting for one

And yes we are far from polished

far from pristine

but that doesn't mean we are

striving to form a union that is perfect

We are striving to forge a union with purpose

To compose a country committed to all cultures, colors, characters and

conditions of man

And so we lift our gazes not to what stands between us

but what stands before us

We close the divide because we know, to put our future first,

we must first put our differences aside

We lay down our arms

so we can reach out our arms

to one another

We seek harm to none and harmony for all

Let the globe, if nothing else, say this is true:

That even as we grieved, we grew

That even as we hurt, we hoped

That even as we tired, we tried

That we'll forever be tied together, victorious

Not because we will never again know defeat

but because we will never again sow division

Scripture tells us to envision

that everyone shall sit under their own vine and fig tree

And no one shall make them afraid

If we're to live up to our own time

Then victory won't lie in the blade

But in all the bridges we've made

That is the promise to glade

The hill we climb

If only we dare

It's because being American is more than a pride we inherit,

it's the past we step into

and how we repair it

We've seen a force that would shatter our nation

rather than share it

Would destroy our country if it meant delaying democracy

And this effort very nearly succeeded

But while democracy can be periodically delayed

it can never be permanently defeated

In this truth

in this faith we trust

For while we have our eyes on the future

history has its eyes on us

This is the era of just redemption

We feared at its inception

We did not feel prepared to be the heirs

of such a terrifying hour

but within it we found the power

to author a new chapter

To offer hope and laughter to ourselves

So while once we asked,

how could we possibly prevail over catastrophe?

Now we assert

How could catastrophe possibly prevail over us?

We will not march back to what was

but move to what shall be

A country that is bruised but whole,

benevolent but bold,

fierce and free

We will not be turned around

or interrupted by intimidation

because we know our inaction and inertia

will be the inheritance of the next generation

Our blunders become their burdens

But one thing is certain:

If we merge mercy with might,

and might with right,

then love becomes our legacy

and change our children's birthright

So let us leave behind a country

better than the one we were left with

Every breath from my bronze-pounded chest,

we will raise this wounded world into a wondrous one

We will rise from the gold-limbed hills of the west,

we will rise from the windswept northeast

where our forefathers first realized revolution

We will rise from the lake-rimmed cities of the midwestern states,

we will rise from the sunbaked south

We will rebuild, reconcile and recover

and every known nook of our nation and

every corner called our country,

our people diverse and beautiful will emerge,

battered and beautiful

When day comes we step out of the shade,

aflame and unafraid

The new dawn blooms as we free it

For there is always light,

if only we're brave enough to see it

If only we're brave enough to be it

CIVILITY POLL #3 ( JANUARY 11)

Civility (or incivility) can occur in many ways. So far, in our first four versions of the Civil/Uncivil poll, we've looked at complete passages in a debate, and single lines from a debate. We've also used the poll to search for islands of civility in the raging seas of incivility from last week's assault on the Capitol.

This week we ask you to assess which of several possible aftermaths to the Capitol assault would best embody civility. That is, which would best strengthen our political system's ability to function as a healthy democracy.

We are pretty early in our common exploration of the concept of civility to introduce this question, because it is far more complex than assessing the impact of a single comment. It thrusts us into a significant point of potential controversy. On one hand, civility promotes openness to all voices, on two grounds:

    • every person has an equal right to be heard in a democracy, and

    • disagreement is a gift in that any perspective can have truth we should expect to learn from.

On the other hand, some kinds of actions may be destructive of civility, including those that threaten to destroy our ability to communicate disagreements, through

  • intimidation (terrorism, for example),

  • closure of the channels of communication (for all or for some), or

  • destruction of the polity itself (eg, civil war or constitutional collapse).

How you balance these interests is going to be the crux of this poll.

In this poll, which box(es) you check are important, but more important for our purposes is what reasons you articulate for your response. Remember: one of several purposes for these polls is to help us better understand civility. (Which reminds me: I'll post some summaries from previous polls later this week.)

January 6, 2021

Unprecedented events today in our nation's capitol. As I write this, the 6:00 EST curfew is about to go into effect, and it looks like things might be beginning to de-escalate. It's too early to say it's over, but it's plenty late enough to start thinking about this in terms of civility and the health of our political culture.

I doubt we could count the incidents of incivility today. But for our special January 6 civility quiz, let's see if we can identify any examples of civility -- of people strengthening our political culture, including its ability to make progress toward justice in the context of sharp disagreement.

I invite you to use the form to note examples of civility you've noticed today, and why you think it exemplifies good care of our political culture. If you can include a link to a source so we can all look at it, this would be useful.

Thanks for taking the time! This could be one of our most useful Civic/Uncivil quizzes! (You can also scroll down to our regular quiz for early January.)

January 4, 2021

The New York Times published its annual news quiz, covering 2020. One of the questions referred to comments in the first presidential debate between Donald Trump and Joe Biden, based on five quotes from the debate (one of which is fictional). Here are all five of the quotes. Use the Google Form below to rate them for their civility, using the form provided.

“Don't ever use the word smart with me.”

“Folks, do we have any idea what this clown is doing?”

“In 47 years, you’ve done nothing.”

“Sleepy Joe, Sleepy Joe, Sleepy Joe.”

“You're the worst president America’s ever had.”

NOTE: Do not worry about whether you have a precise definition of civility in mind. For now consider civility to be actions or words that tend to strengthen or improve our political system's ability to function as a health democracy. Any actions or words that erode our democracy's ability to function are uncivil.

Do not focus on the specific policies the candidates are discussing -- it is possible to be civil about bad ideas and uncivil about great ones. Focus on whether the candidates are strengthening or weakening our democratic political culture.

Your comments will help us sharpen our grasp of what civility is, and how to encourage it.

Here's the poll. To access the fillable form, click on it, then on the arrow that will appear in or near its top corner.