Civility in Public Discourse – Tuesday, February 24th
The Village of Ridgewood will host a panel discussion on “Civility in Public Discourse” on Tuesday, February 24 at 7:30pm at the Ridgewood Public Library.
Panelists will include Lynne Algrant, Councilwoman, Englewood; Stephen Borg, Publisher / President, North Jersey Media Group; Jacqueline Luthcke, Captain, Ridgewood Police Department; Robert Sommer, Public Affairs Executive / Jersey City Official; James Tedesco, Bergen County Executive.
The facilitator for the discussion will be David Fine, Rabbi, Temple Israel. “This panel discussion will provide a good opportunity to take our conversation about civility to the next level,” explained Ridgewood Mayor Paul Aronsohn. “These community leaders each offer an important perspective, and we are fortunate to have this chance to engage them in such a meaningful way.” The event will be open to the public. WHAT: Panel Discussion on Civility in Public Discourse WHEN: Tuesday, February 24 7:30p to 9:00p WHERE: Ridgewood Public Library 125 North Maple Avenue, WHO: Panelists Lynne Algrant, Councilwoman, Englewood Stephen Borg, Publisher / President, North Jersey Media Group Jacqueline Luthcke, Captain, Ridgewood Police Department Robert Sommer, Public Affairs Executive / Jersey City Official James Tedesco, Bergen County Executive Facilitator David Fine, Rabbi, Temple Israel HOW: Remarks by panelists, followed by questions / answers.
I heard corruption-exposer extraordinaire James O’Keefe might attend the enforced public civility meeting in Ridgewood on Tuesday, 2/24. I don’t know exactly what he might do but this could be interesting. Does anyone know of other municipalities in NJ or elsewhere that have been dragged by the scuff of the neck through a similar humiliating process by which
residents who express disagreement with governing officials in ways other than those approved in advance by a quasi-public body of self-appointed tut-tutting nannies are identified, frozen, isolated and publicly ridiculed? It would be good to learn whether or how those towns effectively dealt with or countered such speech-chilling developments, or if they simply went along with the “process”, not realizing, or perhaps not being quite willing to acknowledge, the bad intent of the individuals who devised, organized, and promoted it for no other reason than to clear a path through which to force their own antisocial political agenda.
Maybe someone can talk to the police department and there officers foul mouths in public.
This is truly getting ridiculous!
This party has to be broken up!
What’s next? Will the Village Council eventually vote to make it illegal to go so far as to raise one’s eyebrow in response to misbehavior by public officials? Does anyone remember the Alien and Sedition Acts of the late 1790’s which made it illegal to publicly criticize the government? We don’t need a quasi-public civility panel composed in large part of non-residents to impose via subtle (or not-so-subtle) social intimidation tactics what was so clearly unconstitutional for the government to impose via the criminal code.
Do we really want the newly-elected Bergen County Executive telling us how to express ourselves in Ridgewood? This was a mistake for Mr. Tedesco to intrude on Ridgewood’s strictly local concerns. Tedesco should withdraw from the scheduled appearance immediately unless, of course, he plans to break out into a full-throated defense of the God-given free-speech rights held so dear by self-respecting Ridgewood residents (much to the chagrin of Mayor Aronsohn, who by now must be fed up with us “bitter clingers”).
Make no mistake, the North Jersey Media Group would like nothing more than to turn back the clock to a time when letters to the editor (never anonymous) and speaking at the public microphone (never anonymous) at public meetings were the only timely and reliable ways to get one’s point across to the wider public when attempting to register discontent as a resident or taxpayer with the activities (or unaccountable lack of activity) of local government. Anonymous commenting on local blogs, demonstrably on the increase both in terms of frequency and political effectiveness, is so clearly anathema to traditional news outlets (such as print newspapers) straining to prop up the remnants of the political power structure built up so carefully over time by the progressive elite. Accordingly, we in Ridgewood should not put up with people who live outside the Village seeking to impose their free-speech restriction ideas on us, whether they were invited to do so by our mayor, or not.
The steady march of technology, and the irrepressible desire of Americans to speak their minds freely and without fear of disproportionate political or personal retribution, is making things more and more difficult for progressive House Organs like the Record of Bergen County and The Ridgewood News to control the terms of political debate. And that, as Martha Stewart would say, “is a good thing!”
3/15/2012 City of Mountain View Media Release
City of Mountain View
Office of the City Manager
500 Castro St., 3rd Floor
Mountain View, CA 94039
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
MEDIA RELEASE 03122012
Subject :
Human Relations Commission Hosts Second Civility Roundtable Discussion
Contact :Kimberly Castro
Youth Resources Manager
(650) 903-6301
hrc@mountainview.gov
Mountain View, California — The City of Mountain View Human Relations Commission (HRC) will host its second “Civility Roundtable” to engage and inform the community on Thursday, March 22, 2012, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m., at the Mountain View Senior Center located at 266 Escuela Avenue in Mountain View. The topic will highlight undocumented workers in Mountain View.
The roundtable discussion will be facilitated by Chris Block, CEO of the American Leadership Forum – Silicon Valley. The discussion will include Santa Clara County District Attorney Jeff Rosen, Chamber of Commerce – Mountain View CEO Oscar Garcia, Mountain View Day Worker Center Executive Director Maria Marroquin, former Congressional – District 15 candidate Don Barich, and Pulitzer Prize winning journalist and founder of Define American, Jose Antonio Vargas.
HRC Civility Roundtables — In October of 2011, the City of Mountain View’s Human Relations Commission hosted the first Civility Roundtable. The goals of the HRC Civility Roundtables are:
· To bring civility, trust, and a greater sense of common cause to public discussions of the urgent problems we collectively face;
· To promote a shared responsibility and involve more Mountain View neighbors in the work of building a stronger and better city; and
· To reach these two objectives by engaging citizens in constructive discussions.
Human Relations Commission — The City of Mountain View Human Relations Commission was established in 1994, as an advisory body to the City Council. Ken Rosenberg, HRC Vice Chair and lead event organizer for the Commission noted: “Democratic governance requires participation, deliberation, collaboration, and inclusivity. The Mountain View Human Relations Commission is chartered with helping the City and its residents address various economic, political, educational, and social issues. The Civility Roundtable is specifically designed to do just that.”
(Commissioner Ken Rosenberg is available for interviews on this topic by emailing: hrc@mountainview.gov).
Event Details:
Thursday, March 22, 2012, from 6:30 to 8:30 p.m.Senior Center Social Hall located 266 Escuela Avenue, Mountain View
Admission is free. Residents and employees of Mountain View businesses are invited to attend. Light refreshments will be served. Visit the City of Mountain View on-line at https://www.mountainview.gov/ or Email hrc@mountainview.gov for more information.
For Further Information — Should you have further inquiries concerning this HRC event, please contact Kim Castro, Youth Resources Manager and HRC Staff Liaison at (650) 903-6397 or by E-mail at:kim.castro@mountainview.gov
West Palm Beach to hold civility roundtable
Posted: 5:00 a.m. Tuesday, Aug. 20, 2013
By Eliot Kleinberg – Palm Beach Post Staff Writer
The second in a series of roundtables on “public civility” is set for 5 p.m. today at the Flagler Gallery on the first floor of City Hall, 401 Clematis St.
Palm Beach Gardens attorney Gerald Richman has been retained to study the city’s code of conduct for public meetings.
OCEAN COUNTY COLLEGE
Civility Event: March 11, 2008
Outcomes Report
The Event: The Civility Team was pleased to be able to sponsor its second annual civility event on March 11 in the Solar Lounge. The event began with impromptu performances by Ocean County College’s Theater and Drama Club (advisor, Dr. Beth Brierley) that dramatized several possible examples of incivility in various campus encounters (student-student, faculty-student, student-faculty, employee-employee). Presented with humor and tact, the performances nonetheless illustrated sources for uncivil behavior and set the tone for the afternoon, relaxed, but issue-oriented. Each of the five roundtable discussions had a specific topic (see below) and a series of discussion prompts to get the talk flowing. Participants were encouraged to change tables whenever they wished and to take part in as many discussions as time permitted. The discussions were lively, wide-ranging, honest, and often insightful. What follows here is the collected wisdom of each group taken from the notes recorded by the facilitator at each table:
Table #1: The Origins of Incivility (Facilitator, Kathleen Bombery)
Participants in this group concluded that there were many reasons or causes for uncivil behavior-to get attention, to exercise an ego need, to cope with anger or frustration, to blame others rather than to look inside oneself, to practice behavior that is considered a form of entitlement (“I can be rude to you if I want to”), to deflect responsibilities, to reach a desired end (bringing attention to a cause), or to be the “squeaky wheel” that gets fixed.
The group thought that the causes for civility were very obvious. They cited “the golden rule,” the expectation of civil treatment in the maxim “do unto others as you would have them do unto you.” The discussion also identified the social contract in which members of a society agree to behave well in the expectation of the maintenance of social order. We behave civilly and expect others to do so in order to achieve the social order needed for us to survive and flourish as a group. “No man is an island.”
The group also felt that culture often influenced definitions of civility. What might be a norm to one group-like loud talking or vocal disagreements-might be considered “rude” in another, so the borders of civility and incivility are not always clearly drawn.
While there was agreement that there is never a good reason for incivility, all agreed that sometimes it happens due to personal discord. One might also note the theory of “civil disobedience” in which members of a group challenge a rule that governs the group by purposeful, peaceful or “civil” protest.
With regard to the climate at Ocean County College, most of the discussion participants believed that there was a sense of community at OCC, a personal atmosphere to which they felt a connection. Some, however, felt that there was sense of neutrality or even impersonality at the college due to the nature of the commuter environment. But it was clear to all that to create a civil environment one has to be civil oneself, one has to be empathetic, and one has to think before acting or reacting. Often, using a third person or neutral party can help resolve uncivil exchanges between two people or two campus groups.
Table #2: Parental Incivility (Facilitator, Bridget Root)
Participants in this group felt that often parents have not allowed students to be appropriately responsible for their own matriculation into college. The mentality is often, “I’m paying the bill; therefore, I’m in charge here” or, simply, that the student is still a “child” who needs parental support.
Frequently, because the enrollment process has many parts, parents find themselves having to talk to a number of different college staffers and this can be frustrating for them.
Often there are problems within a family in which the parents are angry with each other but direct that anger toward the college staffer with whom they are working.
As a commonplace event in contemporary student experience, cell phone calls to parents during the enrollment or registration process tend to add another layer of frustration as college staffers try to make complicated explanations to students who, in turn, try to relay these to confused parents on the other end of a cell phone call.
Frequently, parents who are not familiar with OCC enrollment procedures jump to conclusions and try to take action before obtaining all the necessary information. This tends to require a reduplication of effort, also a source of parental frustration and, then, anger.
The participants in this discussion concluded that parents can be valuable resources and should be involved, but only after campus resources are exhausted. The college is staffed to serve the needs of the students and in most cases of “business as usual,” parental oversight is not needed.
Table #3: Student Incivility (Facilitator, Carey Trevisan)
While student-student incivility was acknowledged, the participants also agreed that students are unwilling to confront other students about this issue-or at least reticent about doing so. Students who attempt to tell others how to behave will just be the targets of further incivility, so there seems no point in exerting peer pressure to be civil. It was agreed that student-student incivility in the classroom tends to take place in larger, elementary-level than in classes composed mostly of sophomores. There was also a feeling that there is more incivility now than in years past, but that this is a general societal phenomenon, not restricted to OCC.
Students felt that as education gets more costly, over the years and within one’s own educational cycle, the level of civility should increase (just as respect for the learning environment should follow) but, they observed, it has not. Participants re-iterated that self-discipline seems to be lacking more today than in years past, possibly a product of home life and “society.”
Others offered that attending a community college is often seen as just an extension of high school and, as a result, an extension of the incivilities of adolescent behaviors, even though in high school there tend to be more and deeper friendships which insulate against the incivility of other individuals or groups.
The discussion then turned toward student-faculty civility and several ideas were explored on this topic.
Students agreed that they believe faculty should take the initiative to keep order in the classroom. All saw this as a major faculty role because students are really not empowered to do so. Even though students insult some faculty members by whispering rude comments about them to each other during class, professors still need to identify and repudiate uncivil behaviors on the part of students. It was acknowledged that the more challenging the subject matter is for students and the more attention that is needed (such as in a science class), the fewer the incidents of classroom incivility that will transpire.
Table #4: Employee Incivility (Dave Wolfe, Facilitator)
Several causes of incivility or scenarios where uncivil behavior might be the result were discussed by the participants in this group.
Two primary examples given were lack of security or lack of janitorial services, especially at the Southern Education Center (SEC). The reason for this level of service was explained to be insufficient staff (rather than inefficient staff), but this explanation still is not useful when a teaching/learning environment is seen to be poorly maintained or insecure. Employees tend to vent their discontent on one another, no matter what the explanation is.
Also discussed in relation to employee incivility was the feeling some employees might have of being excluded or left out due to a variety of perceived circumstances such as lack of experience, age, and family background, ethnic, racial or religious prejudice. Since most of these exclusionary behaviors are violations of both college policy and constitutional guarantees, it behooves the college to provide sufficient awareness of what constitutes fair and equitable treatment as well as visible sources of help for these kinds of discriminatory practices. On the college’s web site, the Civility page (www.ocean.edu/civility.htm ) lists individuals who may be consulted by employees who need interventionist assistance.
The conflict between professors when one schedules an activity during a time when another professor’s class meets was also mentioned. This, too, of course, is in violation of college policy, a policy which, if enforced, would obviate this issue.
This group also veered into discussing student-faculty incivility by suggesting that a professor’s lack of “flexibility” in the attendance policy could cause frustration for students. Again, students should read the college’s attendance policy and not expect “flexibility.” Avoiding unrealistic expectations could eliminate the frustration that often causes uncivil exchanges. This group continued to talk about faculty-student interactions and causes, from the students’ perspective, of frustrations that lead to incivility regarding student lateness, grammar errors in writing, the expression of opinions contrary to the professor’s, and announcements of individual test results to the whole class. Additionally, the topic was vacated in order to further discuss hostile faculty who were sarcastic, critical, and used ridicule in class discussions. The group concluded its discussion with a further digression about how parents fail to understand a student’s responsibilities with regard to time for school and work.
In passing, it might be noted that this group seems to have redefined its topic and held a general gripe session. These kinds of sessions are very useful for venting feelings in a secure setting and for trying to gain perspective with regard to expectations. Unwittingly, this group seems to have discovered a deep source of incivility and that is the expectation that the world always works the way that serves us best. Having realistic expectations of other people and institutional parameters would be one major way to avoid incivility stemming from frustrations resulting from petty, unrealistic or ego-centric perceptions.
Table #5: Managing the Effects of Incivility (Facilitator, Al Longo)
The major consensus of the group with regard to coping behaviors when faced with an uncivil episode is that people should listen, remain calm, try to empathize, be positive (even if frustrated), and show respect for the “other,” regardless of whether or not he/she is showing respect for you.
Participants were very clear that countering uncivil behavior with equally uncivil behavior is inflammatory and will have very predictable negative consequences.
Some noted that faculty who show awareness of a student’s situation and use patience when dealing with problems are extremely helpful as opposed to faculty who are dismissive and without empathy and as a result tend to create a hostile environment. When asked how far faculty patience should extend to persistently delinquent or “uncivil” students, participants agreed that there was always a limit to how long unrequited civility could persist and that, sometimes, confrontation would be unavoidable. Still, these confrontations can be de-fused and handled with tact (rather than anger) or through an arbitrator under certain circumstances.
One participant felt that responding to an aggressive or uncivil person by identifying one’s own feelings of being offended is useful.
Sometimes offensive behaviors are unknown to or unrecognized by the offender and a simple statement is enough to raise awareness and to defuse the situation.
Like participants at Table #1, participants in this discussion believed that “the golden rule” is the best plan-but if this isn’t operative, then one must try not to take the uncivil encounter to heart and ruin the day. Also, taking deep breaths and counting to ten can still work wonders!
Janet Hubbs, Editor
3/26/08
PALO ALTO WEEKLY
News – February 6, 2015
Public Agenda
HUMAN RELATIONS COMMISSION … The commission plans to discuss its potential role in issues relating to affordable housing and the formation of a Housing Issues Subcommittee; consider recommendations for the Community Development Block Grant funding for fiscal year 2016; discuss the recently held Senior Summit; and hear an update on the planning for the Civility Roundtable. The meeting will begin at 7 p.m. on Thursday, Feb. 12, in the Council Chambers at City Hall, 250 Hamilton Ave.
Miami Middletown Hosts Discussions on Civility
March 1, 2013
Miami University Middletown’s Project Civility will host two discussions on Civility in March.
March, 4, Civility & Diversity, 2:30 p.m.in Room 117, Johnston Hall. Middletown NAACP President Dora Bronston will lead a discussion on civility and diversity in our community.
March, 18 Etiquette, 2 p.m. in Room 136/137, Campus & Community Center. Miami Middletown’s English faculty member DeAnna Shores will examine etiquette and its impact on civility.
These events are sponsored by Miami Middletown’s Student Government Association. Both events are free and open to the public.
Article from Time Magazine…will this fellow (illegal alien letting his freak flag fly), who attended a Civility Roundtable in Mountain View, CA, also attend one in Ridgewood?
U.S. IMMIGRATION
Not Legal Not Leaving
Jose Antonio
Vargas@joseiswriting
June 25, 2012
Read TIME’s cover story by the immigration activist who was detained by border patrol agents at a Texas airport on Tuesday.
UPDATE: Shortly after Jose Antonio Vargas’ story on the issue of the undocumented was published in TIME, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security announced that it would no longer deport young undocumented residents who qualify for the DREAM act. Those eligible will receive work permits.
‘Why haven’t you gotten deported?’
That’s usually the first thing people ask me when they learn I’m an undocumented immigrant or, put more rudely, an “illegal.” Some ask it with anger or frustration, others with genuine bafflement. At a restaurant in Birmingham, not far from the University of Alabama, an inebriated young white man challenged me: “You got your papers?” I told him I didn’t. “Well, you should get your ass home, then.” In California, a middle-aged white woman threw up her arms and wanted to know: “Why hasn’t Obama dealt with you?” At least once a day, I get that question, or a variation of it, via e-mail, tweet or Facebook message. Why, indeed, am I still here?
It’s a fair question, and it’s been hanging over me every day for the past year, ever since I publicly revealed my undocumented status. There are an estimated 11.5 million people like me in this country, human beings with stories as varied as America itself yet lacking a legal claim to exist here. Like many others, I kept my status a secret, passing myself off as a U.S. citizen — right down to cultivating a homegrown accent. I went to college and became a journalist, earning a staff job at the Washington Post. But the deception weighed on me. When I eventually decided to admit the truth, I chose to come out publicly — very publicly — in the form of an essay for the New York Times last June. Several immigration lawyers counseled against doing this. (“It’s legal suicide,” warned one.) Broadcasting my status to millions seemed tantamount to an invitation to the immigration cops: Here I am. Come pick me up.
So I waited. And waited some more. As the months passed, there were no knocks on my door, no papers served, no calls or letters from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), which deported a record 396,906 people in fiscal 2011. Before I came out, the question always at the top of my mind was, What will happen if people find out? Afterward, the question changed to What happens now? It seemed I had traded a largely hidden undocumented life in limbo for an openly undocumented life that’s still in limbo.
But as I’ve crisscrossed the U.S. — participating in more than 60 events in nearly 20 states and learning all I can about this debate that divides our country (yes, it’s my country too) — I’ve realized that the most important questions are the ones other people ask me. I am now a walking conversation that most people are uncomfortable having. And once that conversation starts, it’s clear why a consensus on solving our immigration dilemma is so elusive. The questions I hear indicate the things people don’t know, the things they think they know but have been misinformed about and the views they hold but do not ordinarily voice.
…
‘Why don’t you become legal?’
asked 79-year-old William Oglesby of Iowa City, Iowa. It was early December, a few weeks before the Iowa caucuses, and I was attending a Mitt Romney town hall at an animal-feed maker. Romney had just fielded questions from a group of voters, including Oglesby and his wife Sharon, both Republicans. Addressing immigration, Romney said, “For those who have come here illegally, they might have a transition time to allow them to set their affairs in order and then go back home and get in line with everybody else.”
“I haven’t become legal,” I told William, “because there’s no way for me to become legal, sir.”
Sharon jumped in. “You can’t get a green card?”
“No, ma’am,” I said. “There’s no process for me.” Of all the questions I’ve been asked in the past year, “Why don’t you become legal?” is probably the most exasperating. But it speaks to how unfamiliar most Americans are with how the immigration process works.
As Angela M. Kelley, an immigration advocate in Washington, told me, “If you think the American tax code is outdated and complicated, try understanding America’s immigration code.” The easiest way to become a U.S. citizen is to be born here — doesn’t matter who your parents are; you’re in. (The main exception is for children of foreign diplomatic officials.) If you were born outside the U.S. and want to come here, the golden ticket is the so-called green card, a document signifying that the U.S. government has granted you permanent-resident status, meaning you’re able to live and, more important, work here. Once you have a green card, you’re on your way to eventual citizenship — in as little as three years if you marry a U.S. citizen — as long as you don’t break the law and you meet other requirements such as paying a fee and passing a civics test.
…..
‘Why did you get your driver’s license when you knew it wasn’t legal?
Do you think you belong to a special class of people who can break any laws they please?”
These were the questions of a polite, mild-mannered man named Konrad Sosnow, who I later learned was a lawyer. In late March, Sosnow and I participated in what was billed as a “civility roundtable” on immigration in my adopted hometown of Mountain View, Calif. About 120 people attended. Sosnow had read my coming-out story and wanted to know why I had such disregard for laws.
“I don’t think I belong to a special class of people — not at all,” I remember telling Sosnow. “I didn’t get the license to spite you or disrespect you or because I think I’m better than you. I got the license because, like you, I needed to go to work. People like me get licenses because we need to drop kids off at school and because we need to pick up groceries. I am sorry for what I did, but I did it because I had to live and survive.” Sosnow nodded, not exactly in agreement but at least with some understanding. We shook hands as the evening drew to a close. Months later, Sosnow told me he’s written e-mails to the President and other elected officials, asking for immigration reform.
Check this guy out – who died and named him Miss Manners?
From:
https://civilityforum.com/page/15iyn/About_This_Site.html
Why C.O.W.s
The Civility Forum
Why C.O.W.s??
In the book,
You’re Not The Only One On This Planet: Observations On the Absence of Civility
Psychologist and author, Dr. John E. Mayer, identified a new social disease he named the “Center of the World Syndrome” and those who are afflicted with this disease he calls, COWs, for short.
People who think they are the center of the world, or COWs, inflict a wide range of bad behavior upon us. They spread such things as bad manners, rudeness, are obnoxious, are bad drivers, park in the handicap spaces, provide terrible service, do dumb things, litter, make us wait, use their cell phones at inappropriate times, etc. all of which burden us and make living all the more difficult. Also, COWs can be institutions, companies and services just as much as individual people.
(Please read the book for more details)
The remedies for COW behavior can be endless and that’s why we started this forum. We don’t just want to identify these behaviors, but we want to offer solutions which Dr. Mayer termed, “Tipping the COWs”. So please enter the forum and tell us about your COW, their behavior, your ‘tipping of that COW’ and read as others offer more tips and out more COWs.
So, Join the Moooovement!
Click on to the Civility Forum and
Let’s tip some COWs!!!!
Want to know more about Dr. Mayer, including other books and services? Visit his website:www.drjohnmayer.com
That’s it!! Invite Miss Manners! She might have plenty to say about the way we are being railroaded.
Many of the “forums” cited in comments above involved students/children–who in fact are often unspeakably rude. Teaching them how to phrase their objections more respectfully (if done well) is “a good thing.” For adults, not so much.