by Nigel Westmaas
Dear
Spectator
Editorial Board,
Various units of, and spokespersons for, the college from time to time repeat the mantra of the need for ‘civil’ and ‘respectful’ political, social and academic exchange or discourse on campus.
This reiteration of ‘civility’ is disquieting at two levels. First, while it is true that incivility is a problem in the nation, I cannot understand the need to routinely repeat this on this campus, where, in my experience, there has not been a pattern of incivility.
Perhaps the repetition of the call to ‘civility’ stems from an unwarranted assumption that some mischief is afoot. Otherwise, why the tautology from campus spokespersons? Why not conclude, in the absence of any significant problem with incivility on campus, that civility already exists? The repetition of such phrases is frustrating in a context where real incivility actually prevails at the highest possible level in the land.
The second problem with the “civility” mantra is that it is historically laden, prioritizing the powerful and silencing expressions from ordinary folks and students who wish to make their voices heard.
Cornell University’s statement on academic freedom, citing an AAUP Investigative Report (April 2015), puts it very well:
“’Civility’ is vague and ill defined. It is not a transparent or self-evident concept, and it does not provide an objective standard for judgment. Historians have shown that over the centuries (whether used by aristocrats to distinguish themselves from the bourgeoisie, by the bourgeoisie to elevate themselves above the lower classes, or by Christians to establish their superiority to Jews and Muslims) the notion of civility consistently operates to constitute relations of power. Moreover, it is always the powerful who determine its meaning — a meaning that serves to delegitimize the words and actions of those to whom it is applied”
Could it be that those calling for civility view legitimate political or social anger as a form of incivility? If so, it would be unfortunate because ‘anger’ in itself is not or should not be considered a negative emotion.
While civility is certainly desirable, incivility should not be conflated with passionate expressions and anger at injustice. There is plenty to be angry about in the United States and the world at large, but there has been relative quiet on most college campuses.
For African-Americans, as Chauncy DeVega notes in “A Lot to be Mad about: Unapologetic Black anger can change the world for the Better” (2018) :
“Wearing the public mask that hides black anger, pain, and upset at a white society which has repeatedly failed to complete the necessary acts for full forgiveness (such as critical self-reflection about the nature of white privilege, and subsequently making those who suffered under its violence and bigotry, economically and politically whole) is a necessary life survival skill in the United States and the West.”
The only thing more horrifying than incivility in the nation is the sheer indifference and complacency of folks around us. And ‘civility’ in a certain way is part of the complacency over injustice and may well be deployed as suture to oppression. The fact is that terms like civility are value-laden and not as innocent as they may appear. I would argue that there is a certain kind of privilege to be able to blithely advise a campus about what constitutes ‘civility’ or ‘respectful’. And who is to advise the poor, the disadvantaged and the oppressed about what form or method their response should take to ‘incivility’ when it is thrown at them without remorse in the nation and perhaps, also, this campus?
Yours sincerely,
Nigel Westmaas
