FULL Crepes on the Quad report

The Crepes on the Quad survey:

Conceptions of civility

among 249 students and employees

of George Fox University

An informal study

conducted for

the George Fox University Civility Project

Results and Discussion

By project director

Ron Mock

April/May 2021

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:

The three civility polls we did on the George Fox Campus quad on Friday morning April 23, as part of a free crepe giveaway, produced some interesting different responses, particularly among the items of advice survey respondents endorsed for hypothetical political candidates facing difficult choices.

We learned that, among the survey respondents (note: results are no generalizable to the general population), most seemed to be comfortably familiar with a conception of civility involving respect and empathy for someone we disagree with. We can call that Tier C Civility: being considerate toward one’s opponent.

But some of the responses contemplated at least two other broad conceptions of civility. The first is built on recognizing disagreements and diversity as opportunities for growth, and for moral and practical improvements in the lives of all concerned. To tap into the potential present when people disagree, civility works toward civil conversation, grace for opponents, and collaborations for better results, including justice, ending suffering, and maximizing opportunities for everyone to have means to meet their needs.

We can label this Tier B civility, marked by the practice of good stewardship of the opportunities present in disagreement. Given the right kind of scenario, our study indicates up to half of the this population of respondents was able to recognize and endorse Tier B opportunities in political conflicts.

We also found evidence that some people, possibly up to a quarter of the group, was prepared to see an even higher civility calling, where conflict and disagreement is an opportunity to strengthen a group’s political culture. By political culture, I mean the relationships, norms, attitudes, and practices that help diverse groups work collaboratively toward truer outcomes over time. Specifically in these scenarios, this Tier A view of civility sees the opportunity as not belonging to a political candidate or party, but to the community, especially the potential voters. The guiding principle in Tier A civility is careful and creative stewardship of disagreement, seeking the health and capacity of the political culture to listen to every voice and help people get information they need to make good choices, whether via negotiation with others, or via election, or any other democratic process.

There is also a Tier D approach, on the boundaries of civility, embodied in a “do no harm” attitude. Although doing no harm is better than doing harm, it is treated as not being civil when it leaves victims of wrong without a remedy.

These findings are conditioned by the non-random nature of our sample population, and by various prompts and other factors present in the informal setting where the surveys were conducted (ie, while standing in line waiting for a free crepe).

To see a chart and a short-ish (3 page) discussion of the survey results, go to the last three pages of this document, or search “Summary comments on all three polls”. For a full discussion of the results, keep reading here.

FULL DISCUSSION OF THE RESULTS

A couple of weeks ago I posted some observations from the 249 poll responses we received during the Civility Reading Group’s end-of-semester Crepes on the Quad event at George Fox University. We asked our crepe customers to answer a single question about one of three scenarios. We provided some options, lines of advice they could use, but we also let them choose to volunteer a different response they thought was better. And we asked them to explain why theirs was the most civil choice.

The explanations were the main point of the exercise. We wanted to get a range of responses to get an idea of how these George Fox University respondents conceptualize civility. What did they see in the response they chose (or volunteered) that made it the most civil?

As I reported, the responses tended to fall in four tiers. Here they are, tweaked somewhat as I have pored over the responses to more clearly define what distinguishes them from each other. I list the tiers here from the least ambitious vision of civility to the most ambitious, with sub-categories reflecting different motivations within each tier.

Tier D: Doing no harm

1. Not making alienation, polarization, misinformation or other dysfunctions any worse. Seen as on, or outside, the borders of civility.

Tier C: Personal civility – treating others as fellow children of God.

2. Being considerate, kind, or polite; respecting one’s opponents.

3. Showing empathy for one’s opponent, recognizing their humanity, giving them the benefit of the doubt.

Tier B: Civility as stewardship of disagreement – treating an specific disagreement, or a conflicted relationship with another, as an opportunity for making an optimal decision, doing justice, and/or moving toward a reconciled relationship.

4. Showing recognition of the disagreement of conflict as an asset/opportunity/ gift, and thus a providential resource which we should maximize as stewards.

5. Acting to nurture civil conversation to strengthen the relationship or help find a better outcome on which all might agree.

6. Acting to encourage collaboration toward a better result.

7. Acting to show grace for opponents, keeping them in the game.

Tier A: Civility as stewardship of the political culture – thinking beyond the immediate situation to consciously act as a steward of the relevant political culture in which disagreement is seen as opportunity, asset, and/or gift.

8. Thinking beyond the immediate situation, showing recognition of the political culture as a providential asset/gift.

9. Acting to help voters or other decision-makers get the best possible information about all their options.

10. Acting to strengthen political culture(s) by helping people (oneself, one’s opponent(s), and/or other members of the political community) improve their ability to draw on people’s diverse views and experiences to find better resolutions to political disagreements.

For this report, I went over every submitted survey, categorizing the respondent’s explanation of what was civil about their chosen response. I coded each one first as to which tier of civility the respondent had in mind, and then according to which specific motivation within that tier the respondent appeared be articulating.

Most of the categories within the tiers were suggested or reinforced by responses to the surveys. Hpwever, response number 10, the most expansive of the top tier responses (“Acting to strengthen political culture by helping people (oneself, one’s opponent(s), and/or other members of the political community) improve their ability to draw on people’s diverse views and experiences to find better resolutions to political disagreements”) was my own extrapolation from what I noted in the responses. It represents an ideal suggested by all the other forms of civility in the list, but not seen in the surveys.

One more note before we turn to the results: all the surveys began with this introduction:

Remember, we see civility as tending to the health and capacity of our political culture, seeking to resolve conflicts and achieve justice in ways that heal polarization and alienation rather than exacerbating them. So, in the poll you choose, tell us what you think a political candidate committed to civility should do, and briefly explain your answer.

This introduction no doubt had an effect on respondents. It represents a summary of how civility was presented to the campus and community in previous Civility Project events.

To see how this comes out, let’s start with the scenario which drew the narrowest range of responses in the study, Candace v Buford: (The link takes you to a blank copy of the the Candace v. Buford survey)

Case #2: Candace is running for the school board against Buford. They agreed to participate in a debate hosted by the local newspaper. During the debate, Buford keeps running over his time limits, constantly interrupts her, and calls her names, all of which violates their agreement. The debate moderator is unable to enforce the debate rules. What should Candace do?

As a reminder, 44.4% of the 63 respondents advised Candace to say “Buford, you promised in writing not to do what you’re doing now. Is your word worth anything?”. 39% suggested Candace should ignore Buford and keep talking in a normal voice. 12.6% thought Candace should just stop talking until Buford complies with the debate rules, or the moderator enforces them.

Below is the range of explanations people offered for their responses, coded by their location in the 4-tier model I’ve described. Note that the explanations do not line up completely with the chosen responses. Some people with similar conceptions of civility chose different responses, presumably because they differed on whether a response was feasible, and what it might achieve:

Tier B, item 5: Act to nurture civil conversation to 8 (12.7%)

strengthen the process or the relationship:

Tier B, item 4: Show recognition of the disagreement as 5 (7.9%)

an asset/opportunity/ gift needing stewardly care:

Tier C, item 3: Show empathy for the opponent, recognizing 2 (3.2%)

their humanity, giving them the benefit of the doubt:

Tier C, item 2: Being considerate, kind, or polite; 16 (25.4%)

respecting one’s opponent:

Tier D, item 1: Do no harm 23 (36.5%)

No responses or not classifiable: 9 (9.5%)

Candace v. Buford was inspired by the first Biden v. Trump debate from the fall of 2020, in which Biden struggled to respond effectively to Trump’s brazen disregard for the rules of the debate. The Crepes on the Quad crowd did not seem to think there was much opportunity for high-level civility work in that setting. Fewer than 13% of them could envision even the limited goal of having a civil conversation. Nearly half of them found it difficult to advise doing anything more than passive withdrawal from, or non-participation in, the debate until the rules were enforced.

I admit this scenario is difficult for a proponent of civility. Even with the introductory comment pointing to the health of the political culture as the goal of civility, no one’s comments referred to the political culture’s welfare.

One of the possible responses I suggested on the survey form was for Candace to say "Buford, you promised in writing not to do what you're doing now. Is your word worth anything?" This was the most popular option, chosen by 44% of the respondents. For coding purposes, it would have been a cleaner example without the “Is your word worth anything?”, which implies it isn’t, a dig that can be taken as uncivil. But it is consistent with Tier A civility for Candace to call on Buford to keep his word, to expect him act as an honorable, trustworthy person, so the voters can be confident their candidates are giving them a true picture of their characters and visions.

As it was written, however, Candace’s little added dig is at least partially an attack on Buford’s character. It’s not a pure Tier A response. But the dig might take it out of Tier B, too. At best it’s an attempt to build a basis for a productive conversation in this one instance, at about level 5 (Acting to nurture civil conversation to strengthen the relationship…)

Several respondents advocated ending the debate, or suspending it until there are guarantees the ground rules would be followed. This is attractive as a Tier D “Do no harm” response. Many people will see Buford’s rude behavior as degrading the political culture, both because of its own unproductive unpleasantness, and because it might encourage imitators. Ending the debacle early might limit the damage.

But it would also provide the basis for an accusation against Candace that she couldn’t handle the pressure of ordinary rudeness. Civility has a reputation in some quarters as weakness, or even accommodation to oppression. It is not civil to surrender the field to abusers, because that does nothing to heal the political culture. I rated those responses at level one, in Tier D, because they were trying to do no harm. But Tier D is on the extreme border of civility. When a response leaves an abuser without opposition, it is not civil in any sense we would accept in the Civility Project.

Case #1: Isabella is running for city council. She has one opponent, Baljit. Isabella doesn't know Baljit (it's a different Baljit, I guess), so she doesn't know why he's running, or what he's planning to do. People keep asking Isabella about Baljit but she can't tell them anything because she doesn't know anything about him. She invited Baljit to meet with her, and he seemed open to it, but hasn't gotten back to her. What should Isabella do?

64.3% of 115 respondents to the Isabella v. Baljit scenario said the most civil approach Isabel could take would be to try again on inviting Baljit. 21.7 % recommended that Isabel leave Baljit alone and explain to anyone who asked that she didn't really know Baljit enough to speculate about his values or motives. The third most common response was "Other" ( 5.2%), where respondents generally recommended trying again combined with other responses.

Here again I want to focus on the respondents’ explanations for the choices they made. Sometimes people with similar views of civility chose different responses. In this case, responses tended to focus on these two main options – renewing the invitation, or leaving Baljit alone – but the explanations differed much more widely.

Here is how the 106 explanations we received were classified:

Tier A, item 8: Think beyond the immediate situation, act as a 1 (0.9%)

steward of the political culture over the long run:

Tier B, item 7: Act show grace toward the opponent, 2 (1.9%)

keeping them in the game:

Tier B, item 6: Act to encourage collaboration toward 1 (0.9%)

better deliberations / decisions:

Tier B, item 5: Act to nurture civil conversation to 3 (2.8%)

strengthen the process or the relationship:

Tier B, item 4: Show recognition of the disagreement as 8 (7.5%)

an asset/opportunity/ gift needing stewardly care:

Tier C, item 3: Show empathy for the opponent, recognizing 26 (24.5%)

their humanity,, giving them the benefit of the doubt:

Tier C, item 2: Being considerate, kind, or polite; 43 (40.6%)

respecting one’s opponent:

Tier D, item 1: Do no harm 11 (10.4%)

No responses or not classifiable: 11 (10.4%)

This scenario did not put the respondent in the position of having to think quickly, under pressure, to find a path between the uncivil Scylla of repaying rudeness with rudeness, and the equally uncivil Charybdis of abandoning the arena. So it is perhaps not surprising that respondents’ explanations extended to more ambitious conceptions of civility.

Also recall there were almost twice as many respondents to this scenario than the Candace v. Buford poll.

Only one respondent’s explanation reached the long-term stewardly care for the political culture that marks Tier A. And most of the responses still clustered in the “be kind and respectful” Tier C - level responses.

I have no idea how often unacquainted political opponents make time to meet to get to know each other during the campaign. This scenario was inspired by my own recent race for re-election to the Newberg School Board. Soon after I learned I had an opponent, a man I did not know, I wrote an email to him suggesting we meet. My opponent responded saying he was open to it, but was busy through the next week, and might be available after that. Neither one of us pursued the idea further. I am not a gregarious person, and never worked up the courage to inquire again, despite the strong current of opinion in the poll that Isabel should renew the invitation to Baljit.

Case #3: Phineas is having a good campaign for state representative. It's hard to get people to pay attention to such a race, but his campaign staff has done a great job. Every week he has three or four events with turnouts sometimes as high as 100. But he notices that Ferb (no relation), his opponent, has been nearly invisible. He learns Ferb is trying to run his own campaign, has no signs, has events where no one comes, etc. What should Phineas do?

Of the 71 people who responded to Phineas v. Ferb, 39.4% advised Phineas to invite Ferb to join him at a campaign event so voters could meet him. 29.6% thought Phineas could quietly offer to help Ferb get his campaign together. 16.9% advised Phineas to leave Ferb alone.

I made this scenario up out of thin air. I have never heard of a candidate helping an opponent campaign more effectively. Why would anyone do this? One might if one believes the purpose of elections is to give voters an opportunity to make the most informed choice possible. However, I imagine it would be hard to get traditional political donors excited about donating to a campaign if some of the resources might be diverted to help the other side improve its campaign. Such a candidate would need support from people committed to a very high level of civility at least as much as trying to get specific policy outcomes.

However, for the purposes of our Crepes on the Quad study, this question produced some surprising results:

Tier A, item 9: Acting to help voters get the best possible 13 (18.3%)

Information about all the candidates:

Tier A, item 8: Think beyond the immediate situation, act as a 3 (4.2%)

steward of the political culture over the long run:

Tier B, item 7: Act show grace toward the opponent, 12 (16.9%)

keeping them in the game:

Tier B, item 6: Act to encourage collaboration toward 4 (5.6%)

better deliberations / decisions:

Tier B, item 5: Act to nurture civil conversation to 1 (1.4%)

strengthen the process or the relationship:

Tier B, item 4: Show recognition of the disagreement as 7 (9.9%)

an asset/opportunity/ gift needing stewardly care:

Tier C, item 3: Show empathy for the opponent, recognizing 13 (18.3%)

their humanity,, giving them the benefit of the doubt:

Tier C, item 2: Being considerate, kind, or polite; 4 (5.6%)

respecting one’s opponent:

Tier D, item 1: Do no harm 6 (8.5%)

No responses or not classifiable: 8 (11.3%)

This is an impressive spread of opinion. I would love to have had a chance to discuss this with the respondents. I suspect there is much here for every one of us to learn something significant about civility, the political culture, and the purpose and value of elections.

Summary comments on all three polls

Here are the results for all three polls: