Political figures and online commentators alike frequently stress the importance of respectful debate. Figures like Charlie Kirk and Rachel Maddow regularly highlight the need for civility when discussing opposing viewpoints. These calls for civility from public figures often mirror broader social norms, influencing how people are expected to communicate in everyday life.
It can be as small as two people debating, or as large as an organized protest, but we are always policing each other on how we should communicate. Speak quietly, protest peacefully, and always be “civil”. While civility is often framed as a positive norm, it can also act as a barrier, constraining the voices of those challenging the status quo.
The United States has an atrocious record when it comes to determining who was granted rights. From abolishing slavery in 1865 to continued discussion on LGBTQ+ rights, the struggle for equality continues. From the times of slavery up until today, the word civility continues to be something we aspire to uphold.
“I believe debate should always be conducted civilly. If it isn’t, you often cannot come to a mutual understanding. When debate isn’t civil, we can allow emotions to get the better of us and negatively affect the way we convey our argument.” Says Josiah Cruz, a Wilsonville junior. “However, I would ask for true civility, as a calm tone doesn’t make what you say civil.”
However, the idea of civility has been used to keep others down since the founding of this country. One of the first excuses we used when owning slaves was that we were civilizing them. We told women during the suffrage movement that leaving the house was uncivil, MLK’s marches were uncivil at the time.
All this to say, throughout our history, calls for civility have often accompanied and opposed struggles for equality. Rather than focusing on the issues themselves, attention frequently shifts to whether protests or debates are “civil,” effectively regulating how people can speak or act.
A clear example is the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests. While the goal was to highlight systemic mistreatment of Black Americans, many people instead wanted to examine the actions of protesters with a microscope and label any perceived incivility. This was distracting from the cause and ended up undermining its message.
The truth is, people can be extremely uncivilized while still maintaining composure. Saying something in a controlled tone doesn’t make what you have to say civil. For instance, in 2022, a bill was being passed called the Respect for Marriage Act. This bill made same-sex and bi-racial marriage legal in all states and made it illegal for states to refuse to recognize their marriage.
Senior Yaamini Aga explains, “As much as I don’t agree with other people sometimes, it’s important to respect their opinions. I think it’s important to be civil.”
Vicky Hartzler, a US congresswoman, gave a chilling yet “civil” speech about how it was her right to discriminate against LGBTQ+ and bi-racial couples. During this speech, Hartzler was quoted saying, “protect religious liberty, protect people of faith, and protect Americans who believe in the true meaning of marriage.”
What Hartzler meant by the “true meaning of marriage” is not specified but many interpret it as implying a heterosexual, racially white union. This speech was given calmly, and her tone was civil, but its contents are what make it as uncivilized as incomprehensible yelling – showing that civility in tone doesn’t guarantee civility in substance.
When people present hateful or disingenuous arguments, civility isn’t a priority. You won’t “win” that argument. Being civil with such individuals is pointless, because fostering beliefs of hatred under the guise of open and honest debate hurts everyone and allows for hateful and disingenuous ideas to flourish.
This applies to protests as well. Officer Derek Chauvin wasn’t being civil when he choked George Floyd to death, so why would the protests demanding equality under the law be subject to ideas of civility? Fighting for your rights often requires being uncivil, because those defending inequality will be far more uncivil than you could possibly imagine.