How does a community reverse an unsettling trend toward divisive and disagreeable debate at our town boards, meetings, and in our elections? First, it has to recognize the behavior. Second, it needs to start a conversation. Third, it needs to find a constructive path forward.
Fortunately, Harvard is not alone, and a number of other communities have found a way out by promoting active listening, inclusiveness, respect for diversity of opinion, and acknowledgment of differing views. Many of them, including Oshkosh, Wis., have adopted a set of norms for participation in community governance. The norms (set forth in the sidebar) have focused on providing “guardrails” to make all feel welcome, reduce friction, encourage expression of diverse views, and reward constructive debate. They are introduced in workshops that give people practice in identifying and dealing with uncivil behavior.
With this example in mind, on Sunday, Nov. 10, about 40 concerned Harvard citizens gathered to talk about how civility matters to them. In three rounds of lively conversations, people talked to each other and then shared what they had discussed.
Although it is a difficult topic, there was a strong sense of energy and enthusiasm for being part of the conversation, which was captured in a graphic you can view at http://lwvharvard.org/lwvh_civilitymatters.htm. We’d like to share the questions we addressed, a few of the answers, and invite readers of the Press to think about how they would respond to each of the questions.
What do we value?
We started by affirming our appreciation for Harvard. In addition to the physical beauty and character of the town, we are proud of the quality of our citizens and the depth of talent we have; our strong sense of volunteerism and personal commitment to the community; and the ways in which we genuinely care for and support each other in times of crisis. “Being in a small town means that people can get to know everyone and can easily get involved in matters that are important to them.” This is what makes Harvard special.
What have we observed?
Speaking without identifying individuals or specific instances, attendees identified problems rooted in lack of dialogue, inability to compromise, and insufficient opportunities for meaningful conversation; increasing partisanship, observed obstructionism; and a great deal of incivility in contentious situations. While Annual Town Meetings are perhaps more civil, respect for each others’ views is not always evident at smaller committee or board meetings. The word “bullying” came up, as did a lack of tolerance or acceptance of others and a readiness to label people and assume what their positions are without listening to them first.
Fewer people are willing to volunteer; those who do volunteer often experience a negative environment. People who are prone to speaking forcibly, at length, and negatively dissuade others from speaking their own opinions. Lack of civility disrupts collaborative processes, including healthy disagreement and debate that are central to good governance. By avoiding or shutting down dialogue and discussion early in a process, we become more fractious and contentious and miss out on hearing others’ ideas and opportunities for compromise.
What would we like Harvard to look like?
Having more dialogue means we must be able to disagree, be able to explain our positions, and be open to hearing the positions of others, to honor facts, and to accept compromise. Stronger social norms and more opportunities to get to know one another can make it easier and more rewarding for people to volunteer. We must work collaboratively, from a basis of respect and trust, as soon as possible to address a problem facing the town. Better informed and engaged town boards and committees should be better able to work together to accomplish the will of the town, transparently and openly.
What’s next?
We asked for suggestions for steps we might take to get us closer to what we want Harvard to look like. There was enthusiasm for crafting and adopting our own set of civility guidelines to moderate behavior in our more challenging settings. Additional ideas ranged from providing training for board and committee chairs in dealing with difficult behavior; to connecting activities to civics instruction in the schools; and to clarifying the responsibilities of committees and their boundaries.
At the heart of what we need to do next is to find a way to deal with difficult issues. The goal of the Civility Matters project is not to drive a particular agenda for a specific town issue or problem but for us to find constructive ways to discuss difficult issues in an inclusive and civil way.
A year of civility?
At our next open meeting, we hope to see people who are interested in working to frame the path forward. What norms can we adopt and propagate to steer us back in a positive direction? Could 2014 be the Year of Civility in Harvard? Can we learn from what other communities have tried? What would it be like if not just our boards and committees, but clubs and civic organizations each defined a project with a civility theme? Is there one specific activity that, if we did it really well, can have the most significant impact on the town? Can we, in Harvard, take actions that make us a role model for other communities to show that it is possible to tackle this problem and become the better for it?
We are actively seeking additional team members for the project planning and coordination team, and we hope to see concerned citizens come out at our next meeting to join in designing the possibility for Harvard as a town where civility matters. To offer suggestions, to join the project team, or to request to be on the mailing list for this and subsequent meetings and calls to action, citizens are invited to send email to civilitymatters@lwvharvard.org.
Westcott Road resident Patti Anklam is the president of the League of Women Voters of Harvard. Bruce Leicher of Warren Ave. is a member of the Civility Matters Project Team.
