It's reasonable to expect tolerance, not respect

[felipec]

The current version states the following as expected behavior:

• Being respectful of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences

However, as the recent debate regarding Cambridge University's freedom of speech policy demonstrates; respect cannot be mandated: Cambridge University rejects proposal it be 'respectful' of all views.

Respect cannot be manufactured at will. If you don't respect an idea (for example that the Earth is flat), then it doesn't matter how hard you try; you still will not respect it. In that sense respect is like belief; nobody can force you to believe the Moon is made of cheese. Either you do or you don't.

You can pretend to believe in something, and you can pretend to respect something, but you really don't. Any policy that asks people to pretend is not a good policy.

As Stephen Fry puts it:

A demand for respect is like a demand for a laugh, or demands for love, loyalty and allegiance. They cannot be given if not felt.

The commitment should be towards tolerance; which can be honestly given, not respect; which can only be faked.

Additionally, the purpose of the contributor covenant is to be enforced, not merely added as a dead document. Currently many projects do not enforce respect, in fact, differing opinions are constantly disrespected and dismissed.

Instead of demanding something that no project enforces, and cannot enforce, the covenant should request tolerance, which is what 86.9% of the governing body of Cambridge University ultimately decided was the sensible thing to do, after scrutiny from countless intellectuals, and the society in general, not only from the United Kingdom, but the world.

• Being tolerant of differing opinions, viewpoints, and experiences

That means even if you don't personally respect an opinion (hold it in high regard), you should still tolerate it (allow it to exist).