The Principle of Civility in Academic Discourse

Abstract

several months ago New York Times columnist David Brooks addressed the lack of civility in recent public discourse. “so . . . you get narcissists who believe they or members of their party possess direct access to the truth. . . . You get people who prefer monologues to dialogue. . . . You get people who . . . loathe their political opponents.”1 one might think that by contrast academia, and especially academic publications, would provide a bastion of civil discourse. alas, even academia has been infiltrated. at least it so appears to me when I read some of what has been recently published in the name of the philosophy of music education. I find that disheartening. However one defines “philosophy,” it minimally entails raising questions whose answers are reasonably debatable. the key word here is “reasonably.” those who are committed to philosophical activity criticize positions they oppose by formulating arguments, giving examples, calling on accepted facts, clarifying the meaning of terms, and bringing to bear the principles of formal and informal logic. and thus they open themselves to counter-criticism of the same