Civil discourse is a cornerstone of modern democracy.

It presumes tolerance, respect and a willingness to hear another’s side and where absent, descends into vitriolic outrage, hostile confrontation, tantrum and divisive hyperbole.

That does not mean we won’t disagree, sometimes passionately, with one another.

However, we are surrounded by growing intolerance and incivility increasingly infecting politics, university campuses, social media, mainstream media and the actions of activist groups.

Reason is progressively being displaced by feelings, usually hurt or otherwise aggrieved ones.

Such was the case this week when Black Lives Matter (BLM) supporters appeared before the Toronto Police Services board advocating an end to the city’s School Resource Officer (SRO) program, which places 36 police officers in 75 public and Catholic schools.

BLM objects to police in schools based on allegations black and marginalized students face harassment, brutalization and discrimination from police, even to the point of seeing “five-year-olds being handcuffed in schools.”

BLM believes black kids are targeted for arrest and harassment; that they don’t feel safe having armed and “intimidating” police officers patrol inside schools and that the program targets schools “with a high concentration of Black children."

They are serious allegations that deserve to be investigated and if merited acted upon.

However, that’s not what BLM wants. They rejected the decision by the board to instruct Police Chief Mark Saunders and two other board members to review the program.

They reject a third-party academic review by Ryerson University to study the program's effectiveness and look at alternative solutions in place elsewhere.

They also rejected, during Thursday’s board meeting at Police Headquarters, any suggestion by students, teachers, principals or police who support the program that there is tremendous even “life-changing” good associated with having police officers in schools, that it makes schools safer or that students feel safer having police there.

Instead, BLM supporters shouted down speakers who disagreed with them, badgered and intimidated students who told positive stories about their interactions with SRO officers and did their best to hijack the meeting. In short, as they did with Pride, BLM turned a public forum into a circus.

But they presented little hard evidence of the problems they contend justify shutting down the program immediately.

In the end, the board wisely followed the public suggestion by Mayor John Tory to have Chief Saunders seek public input and review the SRO program by August.

We believe the evidence will show parents and students want police in their schools, that schools are safer with police there and that police are doing tremendous and necessary work in our schools.

BLM should contribute specifics about any concerns, but the time is long past to entertain their hostile, divisive, self-serving and bullying tactics.

Instead, we must reject divisiveness that masquerades as social justice and learn to solve our actual problems and differences together.