Can We Disagree Without Being Disagreeable?

People are writing on Forums, Web sites, and in e-mails. People are writing about things they are passionate about. And, in the July-August JCR, NCRA Executive Director and CEO Mark Golden reminded all of us that even if we are arguing about things that are exremely important, we are still obligated "to argue fairly and argue well, argue with respect for [our] opponent, and argue in service of the truth."

Jim DeCrescenzo, RDR, CRR, CLVS, of Philadelphia, Pa., agreed with Mark Golden’s assessment. His response, in part, is: 

What disturbs me most is the change in attitude when we’re not face to face, the willingness to accept and perpetuate unsupported claims as to a volunteer’s motives, skills, or interests.  There should be no room in any organization, let alone one that lays claim to being professional, for maligning anyone’s character because we disagree with a position. ...

I’ve never heard anyone who has served their association say that they regretted the time spent, what they’ve learned, the people they met. It’s all been good. However, if we continue to mercilessly critique those who give us and our profession their time, the time will come when no one will want to serve.

If you have any comments, please include them below or e-mail me at jschmidt@ncrahq.org.