Recently I offered a column about civility in politics that related to two examples in Washington where it appeared that if politicians could come together socially, as well as in their work, civility might have a better chance of thriving.

It got me to thinking about civility in society in general, whether it is in Washington or in Shelburne; further, it compelled me to ask what principles support civil discussion in any group.
I spent ten years of my life as a university administrator in a period in which there was a lack of civil discourse between student and student; student and administrator; faculty and student; faculty member and faculty member - just about everyone fell into "uncivil" discourse. Good things actually came from some of these hostile discussions, although I think they came the hard way. A change in our Vietnam policies; minority rights; the advancement of opportunity for women, and the increasing belief that with authority there comes a need for transparency. But my observations from that time taught me that these goals could have been achieved more rapidly, and possibly, more effectively if there had been more civil discourse.

I think there are two essential underlying principles that govern civil discourse, and without either or both, civil discourse breaks down.

The first is this: you must be convinced that what you believe is open to question when someone else makes a valid argument. In civil discourse, the listener must be open and willing to hear challenges to his or her beliefs and say, "I was wrong," if the argument is valid. If the listener's mind is closed, no matter how valid the challenging argument, then civil discourse cannot occur.

The second principle comes from a phrase a president of Yale, Kingman Brewster, who used this in a speech in the heat of the 1960s: "The presumption of innocence is not just a legal term; rather, it lies in the commonplace belief in the innocence of the stranger." Brewster's most formidable quality, which made him the university leader of that time, was that he believed whoever came to see him - radical Weatherman; wild-eyed faculty member; impoverished community member - that person was worth listening to and deserved respect. Because the other person could sense this belief in Brewster, the conversation moved quickly from hostility to civility. We must believe that each person has something worth listening to and deserves our respect if we are to have civil discourse.

The column, "Musings" comes from the pen of Shelburne resident Sam Chauncey. His background includes a Yale education, a career in hospital and education administration, and inner city redevelopment. His goal in writing "Musings" is to offer "out of the box" ideas to generate thought and conversation.