What is the Modern Civility Quotient?
I am sure you know about IQ.
It is established as a measure of a person's intelligence as a measure of the intelligence of other people.
The 'quotient' is the ratio of personal intelligence using 100 as that of normal intelligence.
This concept of quotients has been applied to various other aspects of human life.
An interesting one is that of age, where chronological age, physiological age, and psychological age are often all different.
How about a civility quotient? In this age of road rage, drive-by shootings and murders, indiscriminant sexual assault, and hate crimes that permeate the news channels continually, where has civility gone? All of the legislation in the world will never produce civility, since the moment a law is passed there are those who will be trying to determine ways around that law; and even to change its meaning and interpretation despite what the words may be.
A long time ago, my father defined a gentleman to me using the words of G.
K.
Chesterton: "A gentleman is a person who never deliberately injures another person in any way.
" I still remember my first day at the University.
I was enrolled in Honors Mathematics and Physics, and it was a very hot mid-September day in 1947.
Many of my classmates had served in the Armed Forces during the Second World War.
Now, having completed their high school education, like me they were entering university.
We, of course, were wearing jackets and ties.
The first lecture was in the Physics Auditorium with about 300 present; but the second lecture was a spin-off class in English Literature with about 25 students.
The room was very hot.
There was no air conditioning in those days.
All of us removed our jackets.
The professor came in wearing an academic gown, gave us a stern look, and said, "Put on your jackets.
You're at the university now.
" I quietly did.
So did all the former flyers, sailors and soldiers in the room with me.
In 1961, I was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Waterloo.
All of my classes were in the graduate school where, of course, we wore casual clothing.
One day I was asked to proctor a second year Physics class.
When I walked into the room, the stench almost bowled me over.
I soon located the source.
It was a scruffy looking student who reeked of every odor imaginable, a mixture of those coming from his body and those from his clothes.
His hair was obviously wildly unkempt, his face was dirty, and unshaven, and his fingernails looked as if he had been grubbing in a mud pit.
I won't describe his attire.
I very quietly went up to him and told him to leave and not to come back to any class until he was cleaned up and classmates could stand beside him without getting nauseous and almost retching.
He left, and immediately afterwards, the room uprooted in loud applause and hurrahs.
None of the other students had the gumption to tell him what I had.
This was the beginning of the rebellious 60's.
This student returned to class the next day and had not only cleaned himself up, but had shaved.
Apparently it was a major wake up call for him because his regular professors told me that thereafter he was a model student and moved from an "F" to an "A".
The upshot of it was that I was voted the most popular professor on the campus because I cared enough for all of my students to exercise common sense.
I could have been accused of being uncivil to that one student, but I was really very civil towards all the other students.
I felt then, as I feel now, that what I did was necessary and vital for the common good.
In other words, I acted on behalf of the many - the majority.
I didn't worry about whether or not my action was politically correct.
In those days, of course, we never encountered that term.
As a matter of fact, having progressed through my university education with a lot of fellow students who had fought hard through a bitter war, some of them badly wounded, there would have been no time to exit from common sense and to start worrying about whether actions were politically correct.
Actions were taken because they had to be taken, because they were needed, and because they were of benefit to the majority of the people.
For them, there was nothing politically correct about warfare.
There was nothing politically correct about taking care of your fellow warrior; it was a privilege, a duty, and an honor.
Like me, they would have asked that student to leave because it was the right thing to do.
Of course, people don't come to class like that anymore - at least I hope not - but that's not the point.
Can you imagine the situation today? I would have to phone my lawyer to find out what I could or couldn't say.
I would have to be concerned about the threat of a law suit by the student.
He could accuse me of harassment, prejudice against the unclean, and denial of his rights to free speech.
You all know that free speech is now extended to actions associated with the freedom of expression.
This stretching of a very civil and needed right included by our fathers of federation within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to protect a fundamental right of freedom.
There is a major difference in my mind between absolute freedom and license.
As one associate justice of the Supreme Court stated, I believe it was either Justice Brandeis, or Justice Holmes, who stated something like the following: "Freedom of speech does not extend to hollering 'fire' in a crowded theater.
" It's about time common sense returns and we return to true civility in our relationships with others, taking into account our impact upon others.
Freedom of speech does not grant a license to be obnoxious and difficult, or to impose narrow single-minded opinions upon others under the guise of protecting one's rights.
In a democracy, it is the will of the majority that counts.
Somehow or other, we have turned this upside down and allowed the dictatorship of a minority, even a single person, to outweigh the desires of many.
Nor should persons with power and money be allowed to sway votes, influence policy, and satisfy their greed or lust for power at the expense of others.
The credo that 'People don't count' must be dismissed from the minds of those who would thwart the will of the people for their own ends.
Might must not be allowed to make right..
Perhaps we can return to what my father taught me from Chesterton.
After all, civility is nothing more than good manners, an agreeable way of living with each other.
People do count.
That would generate a high civility quotient.
It is established as a measure of a person's intelligence as a measure of the intelligence of other people.
The 'quotient' is the ratio of personal intelligence using 100 as that of normal intelligence.
This concept of quotients has been applied to various other aspects of human life.
An interesting one is that of age, where chronological age, physiological age, and psychological age are often all different.
How about a civility quotient? In this age of road rage, drive-by shootings and murders, indiscriminant sexual assault, and hate crimes that permeate the news channels continually, where has civility gone? All of the legislation in the world will never produce civility, since the moment a law is passed there are those who will be trying to determine ways around that law; and even to change its meaning and interpretation despite what the words may be.
A long time ago, my father defined a gentleman to me using the words of G.
K.
Chesterton: "A gentleman is a person who never deliberately injures another person in any way.
" I still remember my first day at the University.
I was enrolled in Honors Mathematics and Physics, and it was a very hot mid-September day in 1947.
Many of my classmates had served in the Armed Forces during the Second World War.
Now, having completed their high school education, like me they were entering university.
We, of course, were wearing jackets and ties.
The first lecture was in the Physics Auditorium with about 300 present; but the second lecture was a spin-off class in English Literature with about 25 students.
The room was very hot.
There was no air conditioning in those days.
All of us removed our jackets.
The professor came in wearing an academic gown, gave us a stern look, and said, "Put on your jackets.
You're at the university now.
" I quietly did.
So did all the former flyers, sailors and soldiers in the room with me.
In 1961, I was a Professor of Mathematics at the University of Waterloo.
All of my classes were in the graduate school where, of course, we wore casual clothing.
One day I was asked to proctor a second year Physics class.
When I walked into the room, the stench almost bowled me over.
I soon located the source.
It was a scruffy looking student who reeked of every odor imaginable, a mixture of those coming from his body and those from his clothes.
His hair was obviously wildly unkempt, his face was dirty, and unshaven, and his fingernails looked as if he had been grubbing in a mud pit.
I won't describe his attire.
I very quietly went up to him and told him to leave and not to come back to any class until he was cleaned up and classmates could stand beside him without getting nauseous and almost retching.
He left, and immediately afterwards, the room uprooted in loud applause and hurrahs.
None of the other students had the gumption to tell him what I had.
This was the beginning of the rebellious 60's.
This student returned to class the next day and had not only cleaned himself up, but had shaved.
Apparently it was a major wake up call for him because his regular professors told me that thereafter he was a model student and moved from an "F" to an "A".
The upshot of it was that I was voted the most popular professor on the campus because I cared enough for all of my students to exercise common sense.
I could have been accused of being uncivil to that one student, but I was really very civil towards all the other students.
I felt then, as I feel now, that what I did was necessary and vital for the common good.
In other words, I acted on behalf of the many - the majority.
I didn't worry about whether or not my action was politically correct.
In those days, of course, we never encountered that term.
As a matter of fact, having progressed through my university education with a lot of fellow students who had fought hard through a bitter war, some of them badly wounded, there would have been no time to exit from common sense and to start worrying about whether actions were politically correct.
Actions were taken because they had to be taken, because they were needed, and because they were of benefit to the majority of the people.
For them, there was nothing politically correct about warfare.
There was nothing politically correct about taking care of your fellow warrior; it was a privilege, a duty, and an honor.
Like me, they would have asked that student to leave because it was the right thing to do.
Of course, people don't come to class like that anymore - at least I hope not - but that's not the point.
Can you imagine the situation today? I would have to phone my lawyer to find out what I could or couldn't say.
I would have to be concerned about the threat of a law suit by the student.
He could accuse me of harassment, prejudice against the unclean, and denial of his rights to free speech.
You all know that free speech is now extended to actions associated with the freedom of expression.
This stretching of a very civil and needed right included by our fathers of federation within the Constitution and the Bill of Rights were meant to protect a fundamental right of freedom.
There is a major difference in my mind between absolute freedom and license.
As one associate justice of the Supreme Court stated, I believe it was either Justice Brandeis, or Justice Holmes, who stated something like the following: "Freedom of speech does not extend to hollering 'fire' in a crowded theater.
" It's about time common sense returns and we return to true civility in our relationships with others, taking into account our impact upon others.
Freedom of speech does not grant a license to be obnoxious and difficult, or to impose narrow single-minded opinions upon others under the guise of protecting one's rights.
In a democracy, it is the will of the majority that counts.
Somehow or other, we have turned this upside down and allowed the dictatorship of a minority, even a single person, to outweigh the desires of many.
Nor should persons with power and money be allowed to sway votes, influence policy, and satisfy their greed or lust for power at the expense of others.
The credo that 'People don't count' must be dismissed from the minds of those who would thwart the will of the people for their own ends.
Might must not be allowed to make right..
Perhaps we can return to what my father taught me from Chesterton.
After all, civility is nothing more than good manners, an agreeable way of living with each other.
People do count.
That would generate a high civility quotient.
Source...