Dear Colleagues,

I will be, to use Bill’s term, a boor.

Let us think about what a boor is. A boor is a farmer (“boer”). Why do people not want to be farmers? Because farmers are not polite (“politus”: smoothed out).
Polite societies (and polite people) are not necessarily nice people. They act nice, but, because they are polite, they may not say (especially in public, especially to one’s face) what they really think.

The boor tells you what she believes. Accusations of “loutishness” are often used to suppress discourse that makes individuals uncomfortable. Farmers are accustomed to being uncomfortable. Boorishness is particularly disagreeable to those who are not used to being uncomfortable (polite society). Insistence on politeness is often used as a tool to maintain existing structures of power. It is boorish to (to use a cliché) speak truth to power.

For example, what if someone in a meeting (say in the College Senate) says something that is plainly false? The lout or, in my case “the boor”, will say, quite simply, that it is false. The polite speaker of untruth will feel uncomfortable. “That was so uncivil!” But such discomfort can be therapeutic. Perhaps next time the person will take care to get the facts straight. Or that person will raise concerns about the lack of civility.

One of the problems in Senate, for example, is that there often is too much civility. So much of the discourse is allusion (and, thus, elusive) rather than direct.
Civility has its uses, but it is not, in my view, intrinsically good.

As Bill wrote, if we are to engage in discourse we need to listen or read intently and sympathetically to what others say or write. But we should also question or challenge.

I also want to note, although this is an overly long email, that Amy’s original post was about a very specific issue: respectful discussion on a discussion board in an online course. I agree with Achim that the medium of exchange influences what is communicated. A classroom situation (online or not) is also a peculiar environment. The professor may act as Parliamentarian. In other arenas of discourse there is no authority a priori. Authority and standards are worked out discursively. One of the really interesting things about Amy’s class is how she had her students work out these norms. After which it only makes sense for them to agree to them and (mostly) follow them.

It seems a really nice job of anticipating a problem and using the potential problem as a means to educate. Thanks Amy.

Best Regards,
Michael

From: Joanne Curran <[log in to unmask]>
Reply-To: Teaching Breakfast List <[log in to unmask]>
Date: Thu, 30 Apr 2009 12:12:21 -0400
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Subject: Re: response to Achim

I agree with Paul. Bill’s response was impressive. Joanne
 

From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Paul Conway
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 12:05 PM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: response to Achim

Bill -

 

Your thoughtful and articulate response to Achim's inquiry deserves praise.

 

Thanks,

 

Paul

 

Paul Conway

Professor of Political Science

SUNY College at Oneonta

Oneonta, NY, 13820 - USA

Office phone: 607-436-3923

 


From: Teaching Breakfast List on behalf of William Proulx
Sent: Thu 4/30/2009 11:35 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Taylor Piece in NYT

Hi Achim,
We have often found ourselves on the opposite side of discussions and issues.  However, I can’t recall a single time when the discourse hasn’t been civil.  As you once commented, “ it takes place without the presence of poison.”  Hence, I have always walked away having equal to greater respect for you as a colleague.  I wish others could enter discussion with the same poison-less passion.   
In my opinion, the medium is not the cause.  Rather, it only provides the opportunity for the boorish to manifest their true characters.  A truly civil individual will be consistently civil regardless of the time, place, or situation.  On the other hand, a boor will cloak their lack of civility to one degree or another but eventually their churlish inclinations will come to light.   Fortunately, civil discourse is a learned skill and behavior.  As teachers and citizens we must teach and model that it is possible to be frank without being loutish and to disagree, even strongly, with civility.     
We should help our students and others understand that the goal of any civil discourse is for both sides to offer their opinions with honesty and frankness and listen intently to what the other side has to say, and when the conversation is done, despite passionate disagreement, we have a  better relationship for having done so.

Respectfully,
Bill

William R. Proulx, Ph.D., R.D.
Associate Professor of Nutrition and Dietetics
Department of Human Ecology
205D Human Ecology Building
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820
607-436-2147

From: Teaching Breakfast List [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Achim Koeddermann
Sent: Thursday, April 30, 2009 10:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Taylor Piece in NYT

Dear Collegues,

 

lately, I tried to move, as chair, some of the dept. discussions to the internet.

My experience was bad, to say the least.

Two fractions oppose each other re. email discussions: the one which likes the "fankness" or the all but civil discourse, and the other that feels so offended by it that to mend fences becomes almost impossible.

Problem: do you archieve the (flaming) exchanges? Especially junior faculty feel vulnerable in this, and it is not truly a free exchange. We also have a generation gap: how to include the non-media literate oldtimers?

Now, in my SUNY Senate expereince, none of this became an issue: the listserves have been very sucessful.

My STUDENTS seem to navigate this medium (not facebook) much more cautiously.

In my view, for the colleagues, the electronic medium is causing a decline in civil discourse.

 

What is your expereince?

 

Achim

 

 

 

 

 

 
                                                                                                 
"Thoughts without content are empty, intuitions without concepts are blind."
Immanuel Kant, Critique of Pure Reason, “Transcendental Logic,” Introduction, # 1
Dr. Achim D. Koeddermann, Chair, Philosophy Dept.
SUNY-Oneonta, NY 13820
"Gedanken ohne Inhalt sind leer, Anschauungen ohne Begriffe sind blind"
 


From: Teaching Breakfast List on behalf of Jim Greenberg
Sent: Thu 4/30/2009 9:46 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Taylor Piece in NYT

Some (many) or even all of you may have read the Taylor piece in the NYT on the end of the university.  The link to it is:

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/27/opinion/27taylor.html

The piece itself has generated a lot of discussion, but this email is on a different issue.  While reading the comments on this piece, I noticed there are many hostile remarks back and forth and wonder about "the decline of civil discourse." What has been your experience with students involved with electronic discourse in your courses?  What about outside courses?  What has been your personal experience?  Is the electronic medium causing a decline in civil discourse?

Thanks.

Mr. James B. Greenberg
Director Teaching, Learning and Technology Center
Milne Library
SUNY College at Oneonta
Oneonta, New York 13820

blog: The 32nd Square at http://32ndsquare.blogspot.com <http://32ndsquare.blogspot.com/>
wiki: The 32nd Square at http://32ndsquare.wikidot.com <http://32ndsquare.wikidot.com/>
email: [log in to unmask]
phone: 607-436-2701
fax:   607-436-3081
IM:  oneontatltc
Twitter: greenbjb


"Ignorance is curable, stupidity lasts forever"
P Think before you print! Please consider the environment before printing this email