Philosothon has much in common with Ethics Bowl. Both require civility and critical thinking. Both balance healthy competition with enlightened cooperation. And both feature exceptionally good-looking judges.
Alan Tapper and Matthew Wills recently wrote an article on just how good-looking these philosopher-judges are, especially when that Deaton fellow is involved. Kidding! It’s on the question of whether the cooperative nature of Philosothon can survive in light of its competitive elements, a topic relevant to Ethics Bowl for sure.
One argument Tapper and Wills consider is that since demonstrating cooperation is required to win, a team’s competitive spirit can (oddly) incentivize cooperation. Aggressive, obstinate teams who attack their opponents and interpret their arguments in the worst possible light may do well at a traditional debate. But not at a Philosothon, and not at an Ethics Bowl. Therefore, the competitive will to win can actually inspire cooperation, at least when judges are directed to assign points accordingly.
However, this raises the question as to whether an impure motive dilutes the laudability of an action. Surely a team with civility embedded in its culture, demonstrating respectful dialogue because it’s internalized in team members’ character, is more deserving to win than a group of fakers. All else equal, I, like you, want sincerely civil teams to win and superficially civil teams to lose. But this is almost impossible to guarantee. Could skilled debaters study our norms, rehearse, put on a show for the judges and win, only to revert to their true disrespectful selves in the hallway? Of course. However, if the result is heightened civility, we probably shouldn’t complain. A sincerely civil team is likely to be wise, patient and understanding, and able to take such a loss with grace. For the sneaky team, the more they practice pretend civility, the more likely it will eventually become sincere. And what better way to encourage teams of all sorts to participate and enjoy the mutual-benefits of both Philosothons and Ethics Bowls than to lure them in with exceptionally good-looking judges.
Hi Matt. Interesting topic. Thanks for raising it.
I was especially intrigued by a comment you made in your concluding section (which reminded me of Socrates’ discussion in the Meno dialogue on whether genuine virtues–like civility–can be taught: “For the sneaky team, the more they practice pretend civility, the more likely it will eventually become sincere.”) Presumably, your hidden premise here is that a “fake-it-till-you-make-it” approach to Ethics Bowl or Philosopthon civility (reinforced by judges’ scoring of the teams’ conversation manner) will result in the faking teams genuinely appreciating and practicing civility in the long run. Is that right?
I have no concrete answers, myself, on this inquiry; however, in the spirit of friendly, civil conversation on controversial topics, I’m wondering aloud if this assumption is warranted, given the actual evidence. I certainly hope this is generally true, but a sober and skeptical voice in my head encourages me to assess whatever quality evidence is available on the matter. (See Brief References List below)
Certainly, in my experience at least, the sentiment seems to motivate many enthusiastic advocates of the Ethics Bowl ethos. There’s obvious investment among many parties, especially the NHSEB organization, in the belief that “civility is contagious,” and that strong Ethics Bowl programs are likely to increase the net civility present in society–or at least offset the rampant incivility seemingly rampant everywhere these days. (1) The “institutionalizing of civility,” as it were, in the Ethics Bowl Scoring Criteria appears to function as a kind of “hope beacon” for the adults involved, dismayed as many of us are about the increasingly vitriolic character of our public spheres–especially online, but also in public discussions like school board meetings (cue 2022-23 Case #11 Parental Controls, for example).
For most people, including most students with regular experience in Ethics Bowls, my hunch is that, when consistently treated respectfully with civil language, we are likely to respond in kind. For most of us, this kind of reciprocal moral instinct is hardwired into us. But–importantly–it doesn’t just happen in a vacuum. It takes leaders who understand the fundamental need for civility (with firsthand insight into what it looks like when civility disappears) to plant the seeds of mutual respect, kindness and consideration for others, and tolerance for differences, in order for such a culture to take root. It’s worth asking though: “How much consistency is needed here for an Ethics Bowl-like culture of civility to be internalized?”
For example, we see this in the way a school culture develops: schools which normalize rude, derisive, elitist putdowns or insults, or those which feed on a style of cut-throat, winner-takes-all competitiveness, tend to become unsafe places for discussion of controversial topics real fast. Such normalized school behavior is likely to be echoed in debate-style interactions on civic issues in a manner similar to what coach Derek Barber noted in his essay for your site entitled, ““The Best?” – My Experience with Traditional Debate” (Aug. 31, 2022).
On the other hand, schools which exhibit a feeling of safety, vitality and enthusiasm for learning and discussion for everyone present make the cultivation of civic virtues a regular practice. This is not an easy task, of course. It requires consistent adult and older student modeling of civil behavior in order for a “culture of civility” to stick around. And such a culture requires constant monitoring and cultivation–like the way a skilled gardener keeps a lookout for weeds and invasive species. But (to continue the gardening metaphor for a minute) one doesn’t just change the quality of one’s soil overnight–just as one doesn’t turn around a hostile, extremely-competitive, stress-ridden school culture overnight. Sometimes it takes years to flip the predominant negative cultures of such schools (3), just as it takes years of nourishing a sterile yard with compost to make a flourishing garden. And the evident degree of consistency of civil behaviors in these positive school cultures is typically…daily and everywhere!
Like the cultivation of positive school cultures, wherein civility is a regularly-practiced virtue, Ethics Bowl programs that succeed in fostering civility need to be understood better for the daily and widespread ingredients evident in the way students habitually interact, and how the adults involved habitually interact with students. (Aristotle’s “virtue-as-habit” model comes to mind here.) It takes more than just regularly scoring students on seemingly-civil conversation tropes, since skilled faker teams can be quite adept at frequent “name dropping” of words that sound civil (on the surface) to the judges’ ears, all the while exhibiting a fierce, excessively-competitive style of interaction with other teams in order to maximize their chances of winning.
…Unfortunately, as both a coach and a judge, I’ve witnessed this style multiple times in Ethics Bowls both in Washington and in Oregon over the years. Even more unfortunately, oftentimes the judges from the community–despite the best efforts of bowl organizers to discourage it–tend to reward the teams who practice this aggressive (if on the surface “civil”) style of interaction with other teams. No doubt, this favoring of (what I will call) “shallow civility,” or merely giving the appearance of civility, is due to the community judges being so familiar with the default aggressive debating style manifest in the norms of our politics and media–especially social media. Even some “Ethics Bowl insider” judges, like fellow philosophy professors from the college or other university faculty supposedly familiar with the Ethics Bowl spirit, sometimes tend to reward this kind of surface-level civility on competition day.
My perspective might not be widely shared; however, several of my participating teacher colleagues, or parent observers, have echoed my concerns here concerning the bowls they have witnessed over multiple years. And if these concerns about “shallow civility” are indeed warranted by the social reality of typical Ethics Bowl competitions, then it’s all the more important to entertain a skeptical, or–more accurately–realistic, cautionary viewpoint about any “fake-it-till-you-make-it” civility, presumably brought to life by regular Ethics Bowl participation.
I genuinely do hope that my concerns about “fake-it-till-you-make-it,” or “shallow,” civility are wrong. I do sincerely hope that most Ethics Bowl participants out there, who witness and–if only on the surface–temporarily practice civil dialogue for a season or two, genuinely develop a deep appreciation for this civic virtue and seek to make it a part of their personal character. However, given my 21 years of witnessing the quality of public school cultures ebb and flow, and my experience advising Philosophy Clubs and running IB Philosophy and TOK classes, I think it’s worth a second look into the skeptical/realistic cautionary voices concerning learned civility among Ethics Bowlers out there.
In closing, I would recommend that the NHSEB place more emphasis on the civility ethos of the Ethics Bowl by increasing the (at-present) 5 points (of 60 possible) in the Scoring Criteria for “for engaging in respectful dialogue, as opposed to combative debate” (2). More importantly, it would help even more to place greater emphasis on the civility ethos of the Ethics Bowl in the language of the Judges Training and Organizer publications, highlighting that “genuine civility” is not likely to stick with Ethics Bowl participants over the long haul if the virtue is practiced in name only–i.e., as “shallow civility.” This could be followed by an “official” set of essays or coaches tips about a) how to recognize the difference between genuine and “shallow” civility, and b) guides on how to foster a culture of genuine civility in local Ethics Bowl programs and at regional bowls. Even a more rigorous discussion of the virtue itself in the community would help by modeling for students that we adults invested in the program are doing our best to walk our talk.
After all, these days, most young folk’s Insincerity Radar (and the resulting cynicism that results when they detect it) has become–justifiably–refined to the point of an ingrained reflex. Let’s not give them cause to further their skepticism of (or even cynicism about) adult advice about civility. Collectively, in the eyes of most young people, and over recent decades, adults have hardly earned a stellar reputation for public civility.
Cheers. Peace.
–Michael Andersen
Volunteer Ethics Bowl Coach and Philosophy Club Adviser
Vancouver School of Arts & Academics, Washington State
Brief References List:
1. Han, S.-H., Brazeal, L. M., & Pennington, N. (2018). Is Civility Contagious? Examining the Impact of Modeling in Online Political Discussions. Social Media + Society, 4(3). https://doi.org/10.1177/2056305118793404
2. National High School Ethics Bowl Scoring Criteria (2022): https://nhseb.unc.edu/rules-documents/
3. Redding, Sam, and Julie Corbett. “Shifting School Culture to Spark Rapid Improvement: A Quick Start Guide for Principals and Their Teams. The Center on School Turnaround Four Domains Series.” Center on School Turnaround at WestEd (2018).
4. Shukla, Aditya. “The scientific truth behind ‘Fake it till you make it’.” Cognition Today (Dec. 4, 2018; Updated: Feb. 14, 2022 ).
Spot-on commentary per usual, Michael. Agreed that deep civility is superior to shallow. One problem is the difficulty of distinguishing it during a brief bowl round. Another is deciding how many points to dock.
For example, Monday I served as a judge for the first collegiate-level Ethics Olympiad. The teams were universally thoughtful and kind. But during the second half of a late round, a student on Team A made a mocking comment during their commentary on Team B’s presentation. It was a bit of a straw man, and the Team A participant smiled and mildly scoffed at the questionable position they’d pegged on Team B. This seemed very out of character. During Team A’s presentations and the judge Q&A they had been exceptionally thoughtful and civil. I wondered whether this was revealing their true nature — if their prior performances had been just that, performances.
On the other hand, I knew I myself hadn’t set the perfect example! In an earlier round a student seemed to conflate being alive, being conscious and being rational during Q&A. My feedback was tactful, but I could have been even kinder. In the end, I gave both teams max civility points. Maybe I should have lightly dinged Team A. But I erred on the side of empathy, and didn’t draw the conclusion that their apparent civility had been an act based on one slip.
All that said, guidance on how to spot shallow sincerity and how heavily to punish it on the score sheet would be very welcome. Even if precise standards would be difficult to articulate, we could differentiate between overt rudeness without apology, superficial “thank you for your presentation” attack buffers, and isolated anomalies like this team’s.
Thanks as always, Michael! The Ethics Bowl community is lucky to have you on our team.