Dignity vs Civility: Is there a Difference?
The Dignity Index® is a tool designed to score how political and public language promotes dignity or expresses contempt. It was created to address the growing problem of divisive speech in politics and public discourse, aiming to make “dignity” a measurable standard in communication.
Purpose and Philosophy
The following discussion is taken from the Dignity Index website.
The Dignity Index is based on the belief that words have political power — language rooted in contempt divides, while language rooted in dignity can unite. It was developed in partnership with behavioral scientists, political leaders, and communication experts, and tested by researchers at the University of Utah, the Kem C. Gardner Policy Institute, and the Hinckley Institute of Politics. Here is the way it works.
How It Works
- Scale: 1 to 8 points.
- Lower scores (1–4): Contempt, mockery, dismissiveness, stereotyping — language that dehumanizes or divides.
- Mid-range (5–6): Disagreement with respect, recognition of others’ humanity.
- Higher scores (7–8): Curiosity, respect — treating others with full dignity even when disagreeing.
- Focus: On the words and tone, not the person speaking, to ensure fairness and objectivity.
Why It Matters
Research shows that contempt in communication:
- Increases polarization and division.
- Prevents compromise and problem-solving.
- Damages trust and can contribute to violence.
By scoring and highlighting dignified speech, the Index aims to:
- Hold leaders accountable for how they speak.
- Improve public discourse in politics, business, and everyday life.
- Foster respectful, solutions-focused dialogue.
The Dignity Index website summarizes its value as “providing a structured, evidence-based approach to evaluating and improving communication, emphasizing respect, empathy, and constructive engagement across political, social, and personal interactions.”
Is the Dignity Index the Same as Civility?
Now that I have explained what the Dignity Index is, its purpose and application, and why it matters, it’s time for me to express my own views. I’ve blogged many times before about the lost art of civility in America. One reason is we tend not to think about it as a moral core value; instead, a behavioral characteristic such as kindness, empathy and compassion, which may differ for each individual. I’m not sure we need another tool to evaluate what should be common sense—to act with dignity in communication with others; to treat others respectfully.
I may be wrong—at least in view of the way AI explains the difference.
AI says that the “Dignity Index and civility are related concepts but differ in focus and application.”
Scope and Purpose
-
- Dignity Index: This is a specific tool that measures political speech on an eight-point scale, assessing how language promotes dignity or expresses contempt. It categorizes speech from level 1 (most contemptuous) to level 8 (most dignified).
- Civility: Generally, refers to polite and respectful behavior in discourse. It encompasses a broader range of interactions beyond political speech, focusing on maintaining decorum and respect in various contexts. There is no measurement system.
- Dignity Index: Aims to foster civil discourse by providing a framework for evaluating and improving political communication.
- Civility: Seeks to promote respectful interactions in all areas of life, not just politics, and can sometimes prioritize politeness over truth.
Summing Up My View
I was surprised to learn that the state of Utah has become the testing ground for the Dignity Index. The University of Utah will host the initiative at a cost to taxpayers of roughly $400,000 a year, plus $120,000 in contracts for its co-creator, Tim Shriver. I have to wonder whether developing the index, and the costs involved in terms of academic time and resources, is a justified way to use taxpayer dollars in the state.
In a post on “X” about core values in the military, Jammies points out that “West Point already teaches ‘dignity and respect.’ That’s been part of its core training for generations. So why bring in an outside nonprofit with a branded Index and start testing it inside one of the most elite military academies in the country? ‘Dignity sounds harmless until you realize it’s being turned into a scoring system. Once you can measure speech, someone decides what counts and what doesn’t.” Very well said! I also worry that by having such an index, those who have “failing scores” will be cancelled. Perhaps it’s a way for the cancel culture to ostracize those whose speech is offensive. At a minimum, the possibility exists.
As noted in an opinion blog by Jamie Renda and Corinne Johnson, “the Dignity Index attempts to quantify virtue by rating speech itself. But rating speech isn’t neutral. Once a score exists, the power lies with those who define the standards. The danger is institutional: universities and bureaucracies inevitably turn scoring systems into tools of pressure and conformity. The Index is sold as a mirror, but in practice, it risks becoming a muzzle.” My view is that we don’t need a subjective index to assess whether speech and interactions are respectful. Quite Frankly, it’s common sense.
What we need to do is start teaching civility in elementary school and build on it in middle school and high school. It is one of the foundations of ethical behavior. We need our leaders to become role models for youngers and be respectful in word and deed. Civility can be taught and, if embraced by society, it could improve the level of discourse not only in politics but in all walks of life.
We also need to do something on social media, which is a greater challenge because the communication is not face-to-face, which would make incivility less likely.
Do you believe that the ever-growing number of serial killings in society–in schools, businesses, government facilities and the like–would persist if civility was embedded in everything we do and speak? I certainly do not!
Finally, the whole discussion about dignity got me thinking about its message. For me, it’s like saying we need to teach people how to act like human beings.
Blog posted on April 28, 2026 by Steven Mintz, PhD, professor emeritus from Cal Poly San Luis Obispo. Visit Steve’s website to learn more about his activities.