Publication Date: Wednesday Aug 11, 1999

Board of Contributors: Bringing more civility to public discourse

"Can't we all just get along?"

Rodney King's plaintive words were said in a different time and place on a different subject. But they can easily apply to the civil discourse in today's Palo Alto.

I think the quality of our public discourse has declined significantly in recent years. Just take a look at the discussion surrounding the Sand Hill Road project, the sit-lie ordinance, historic preservation and the proposed eruv, to name but a few issues. Accusations, name calling and polarization have been the hallmark of public dialogue about these issues.

What am I referring to when I speak about a decline in the level of civic discourse? I mean an increase in personal attacks and vilifying others. I mean dismissing people before hearing them out and being intolerant of differing points of view. I'm talking about being rude. I'm speaking of public meetings and letters to the editor, newspaper headlines and ads, as well as interpersonal communication.

No one group is totally to blame or blameless. At City Council meetings, for example, I've heard council members called fascists as they wrestle with very difficult issues and try to balance competing interests. But I've also experienced speaking to the council during oral communications and feeling as if almost no one was listening to what I was saying. As a result, it's easy to see why someone on the council would get defensive as they try to do their job the best way they know how, or why a member of the general public would feel as if council members aren't interested in hearing what they have to say.

As local news competition has heated up, we've witnessed an increasing emphasis on the more controversial and sensational aspects of stories, resulting in facts getting skewed. This is particularly true of headlines. In a more competitive marketplace, increased aggressiveness is needed to "sell" papers (whether they are free or not). Attempts to whittle down complex stories into eye-catching phrases often lead to the complexity of an issue getting lost and therefore the issue misrepresented, or to the story being wrong.

I'm also struck by how often motives are attributed to people without bothering to find out what the real motives are. Frequently, advertisements on political issues and quotes in news stories accuse the "other side" of sinister motives and bad faith, without any real discussion taking place to find out where people really stand. Often, we tend to paint others in broad stokes without seeing them as individuals.

I heard a story recently of a group of people who were taking turns sharing what they think should be done to improve life in Palo Alto. One person said the answer was to get rid of all the rich people. Imagine the outrage that person would have felt if someone else had offered the solution of getting rid of all the poor people. But they were guilty of the same type of intolerance and stereotyping they complain of in others.

Now certainly none of this is limited to Palo Alto. One need only observe the actions of representatives in the U.S. Congress to see that people all over the country are talking past each other rather than with each other. And I struggle with these things myself. I find it difficult not to attribute motives to people whose ideas and stances on issues differ from my own.

But I strongly believe this lack of a civil tone in our public discourse is destructive to our community. It polarizes us and keeps us from putting energy into crafting creative solutions that can work for everyone.

So what can we do about it? First, we need to focus on problems, not people. I'm in no way saying we should all agree on everything. That would be unrealistic and, frankly, pretty boring. But instead of attributing motives, or attacking people for having a different opinion from our own, we need to focus on the opinions, ideas and issues themselves, without resorting to personal attacks.

We also need to practice good, active listening. This particularly applies to those in local government, including council members, commissioners and staff. When people feel they aren't being heard, their frustrations rise, and they feel they have to be more strident to get their point across. This includes making eye contact and repeating back to people what they've said to ensure understanding.

We need to be open-minded and willing to consider alternatives. This means assuming the good intentions of those we disagree with. A good start would be working to find our common ground. We need to realize that we often have more in common than we have differences. Focusing on this first can help set a more constructive tone when we reach the issues about which we disagree. And if we can agree that we share some common interest and values, it is easier to live with differences.

We certainly can't legislate good behavior or outlaw verbal attacks. But if we all work to be polite and respectful in our public discourse, we will not only have a more pleasant public atmosphere but will be able to bridge our differences and make better public policy decisions.

Wynn Hausser, chairman of the city's Human Relations Commission, is a member of the Weekly's Board of Contributors. 

Back up to the Table of Contents Page