Recap of class sources so far.

1. Source Overview
Unpacking Civil Discourse

2. Benson
 Civil (citizenship) ≠ civil (politeness), but it sure helps with democratic deliberation.
 While politeness is not required to engage in civil discourse, we operate from the understanding
that words have effects.
Bottom line: being polite is helpful to have discussions and move policy forward. But civil discourse can
happen without politeness. While not required, we aspire and practice politeness in discussions to
minimize negative effects.

3. Benson continued
 Democratic deliberation is a key tool to civil engagement. It is a practice that both aims for polite
discussion while also working to tolerate incivility.
 Part of why we work to tolerate some levels of reasonable incivility is because the issues are real
and impact real people, who might be feeling justified moral outrage.

4. Benson continued
Rather than see incivility as a net total negative or unquestionably wrong, we might consider how both
(in)civility have communication purposes.
 Example purpose: civility can be an image or reputation of character that people develop and use. Ellen
DeGeneres is an example of civility as identity. When someone has a reputation for being a nice person, we
can tend to assume good intentions behind their words or actions.
 Example purpose: incivility can also be an image of reputation of character that people develop and use.
Donald Trump is an example of incivility as a form of identity.
 Example purpose: invective, or slight that would be considered uncivil, can be a tactic to target powerful
figures, highlight key facts, or express displeasure at a policy. Calling politicians by negative nicknames–
Tricky Dick or Meatball Ron--could be understood as an invective.

5. Boatright
 Civil discourse is for the people, by the people. That means that no academic discipline, political
party, or government institution owns it or its practices.
 Like history, we tend to see civil discourse in the past as either the best or worst, but it is pretty
much the same issues today just handled differently. Or adapted for newer technology.
 The National Institute for Civil Discourse was created after the assassination attempt on U.S.
Representative Gabrielle Giffords in 2011 over gun control policies.

6. Boatright continued
In civil and political discussions, we tend to aspire for moderation, which we understand to be a 50/50
compromise. But that’s problematic because:
 While it is mathematically fair to view moderation as 50/50, it is not realistic to the material conditions of
citizens. Citizens aren’t taxed the same because they have different incomes, and taxing everyone at the
same income rate would be unfair. Similarly, not all parties have equal stakes in all issues, so only accepting
a 50/50 compromise as productive can end up being unproductive.
 Instead of requiring a strict 50/50 split, we might be better served thinking about it as averages.
Compromise intends to find a reasonable stake from extreme positions or demands. A productive
compromise can be 40/60 or 30/70 depending on the issues and citizens involved.

7. Boatright continued
For Boatright, and authors in this collection, the goal is a “healthy society…in which there is a shared
purpose, and in which politics is a reflection of the people that have brought politics into being…In this
regard, moments of heightened incivility in our politics…can serve as a reminder to us to pay attention
to who we are as people and to develop an inclusive, shared language for how we might solve our
problems together.” (4-6)

8. Boatright continued
Civility, then, is more than just good manners or politeness. It is also learning how to:
 Cut your losses
 Move forward without full agreement or 50/50 moderation
 Set a reasonable and inclusive goal to work toward

9. Action Activists
Focuses on the citizenship part of civility, and overviews roles and responsibilities for citizens to engage
in civil discourse.

10. Action Activists
continued
The U.S. governing system exercises
democratic deliberation through
direct representation and
separation of governing powers.
Chart courtesy of Ryan C. MacPherson

11. Action Activists continued
 The Federal government is divided into branches with separate powers.
 Local government mimics this structure, also with separate branches and powers.
 Federal and local representatives are elected to office by citizens/voters. Federal and State
Representatives deliberate on behalf of their citizen constituents.

12. Action Activists continued
Brown v. Board of Education is an example of democratic deliberation, including direct action (action
taken for specific purpose). While the court case is famously known, events before and after are also
part of the democratic deliberation process.
 Pre-trial: local officials put a policy in place that forced certain children (children of color) to bus or drive to
farther school districts to obtain an education. The local school districts complied with the local laws to
avoid legal issues and continue to receive funding.
 Pre-trial direct action: students and their parents refused to use the buses or drive their children outside of
their home district. They protested and put legal pressure on local, state, and education board officials to
stop the discriminatory practices.
 Trial: The case went to the Supreme Court, which ultimately ruled in favor of students/parents and
instructed schools to end busing segregation.
 Post-trial: While the law tried to codify desegregation, it took years of continued protests and legal action
to implement and enforce the law in practice.

13. Action Activists continued
Each stakeholder played a role in the deliberative process according to their powers.
 Officials designed policy and ratified policy.
 Voters expressed concern about the policy and demanded changes to reflect more of the constituents’ needs.
 School districts followed policy guidance and laws to comply with funding requirements to remain open to any
students.
 The courts heard arguments and deliberated on the legal standing of the policies.
 The courts advised on how the law should be changed and hands it to enforcement to carry out.
 Schools change policy to comply with updated law to continue to receive funding.
 Voters again elect, or not, officials based on their needs.

14. Action Activists continued
This raises two questions: does direction action always equate to activism? How are activism and direct action
different? Let’s use Nia to work through that question:
 When she was younger, she identified a problem in her neighborhood. She researched the policy on public
camera use, gathered supporters to protest the cameras, and provided information to voters to change the
official or law responsible.
 When she was older and returned to her hometown, she researched running for office, took the required
steps to run and campaign, and was elected. While in office, she worked to change city policies on behalf of
constituents.

15. Action Activists continued
At what point did Nia engage in direct action, and at what point would you categorize her as an activist?
 As a citizen, Nia engaged in direct action to change city camera policies. In the role of citizen, this is often
understood or classified as activism. Activism is a method of challenging policies or officials in positions of
power to make or change policy.
 As an elected official, Nia engaged in direct action to change city policies. As an elected official, Nia has
power imbued to make and change policy. Because she is in a position of power, we don’t generally see her
direct action as activism because she’d be challenging her representative role, duties, and privileges.

16. Action Activists continued
When it comes to civil discourse, avenues of engagement are defined or limited by deliberative roles.
 People in positions of power (representatives, officials, judges, etc.) are proxies of the role, and must follow
policy to exercise the power of their positions. It is odd to think of a judge, who is following external legal
guidance, as an activist since his decisions represent the State rather than personal beliefs. As a
representative of the State, a judge has incredible power over citizens, and is expected to treat that poser
responsibly by following legal guidance.
 Private citizens, on the other hand, have little power to set or enforce policy. We can vote as a means of
influencing representation and policy, but we cannot ultimately determine policy. When representatives
vote contrary to their constituents, or ignore constituents’ concerns, voters can resort to activism or
strategic direct action to disrupt policy enforcement.

17. Action Activists continued
 Activism and direct action are related, and often activists engage in direct action to change policies or
procedures. However, a person can call themselves an activist without ever engaging in direct action. It’s for
you to decide the efficacy of activism without direct action.
 People in positions of power are often excluded from activism because they have power private citizens do
not. Thus, activism and direct action are seen as avenues that citizens can take to balance their lack of
policy-making power.
 However, Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Marjorie Taylor Green complicate this traditional approach. Again,
it’s for you to decide if elected officials can effectively contribute to or engage in activism while occupying a
position of power that private citizens are excluded from.

18. Key takeaways
 We aim for polite engagement to respect the citizens impacted by policies and to work toward resolution.
 However, incivility can have purpose and be a means to speak to positions of power and policy.
 Direct action can be taken by citizens or officials, but we tend to view activism as a method for citizens who
lack official or representational power.
 Everyone has a role and duties, and those roles and duties are intended to work toward a goal with checks
and balances.
 Civil discourse is a practice of achieving healthy deliberation toward shared goals.