Even through the muted TV audio, Will Smith’s ferocity was palpable. Smith’s aggression was a direct violation of the Quaker principle that nonviolent confrontation and peaceful resolution always eclipses violence. His slap will both forever brand the 94th Academy Awards as infamous and will be a reminder of the violence that seeps through today’s society. From a Quaker perspective, it was the right thing for Smith’s outburst to be condemned by the Academy.

There is an underlying evil residing in the greater culture that has justified Smith’s violent act and has therefore proven that the public lacks the sacred values of Quakerism. Maybe, the slap is an indication that the world should take a lesson from the peaceful Quakers.

Peace and community are two of the six pillars of Quakerism. These two core values were clearly not at play. The more obvious of the two values, peace, is the belief that “nonviolent confrontation of evil and peaceful reconciliation are always superior to violent measures.” Peace is the backbone of Quakerism, and although it was first stated to oppose war, it also highlights the necessity of mediation: “Friends’ opposition to all forms of violence imposes on them the responsibility to seek alternative responses to conflict and injustice.”

The emphasis on seeking discussion over violence, resolution over confrontation, and empathy rather than aggression is of the utmost importance. It is clear that at the Oscars, the metaphorical script was flipped. It was all confrontation between Smith and Chris Rock, no resolution. And some of their audience, whether in attendance or over a spirited Twitter rant, through their condemnation of the distasteful joke over the opposition of a violent reaction, showed that they view the latter as justified.

The absence of community may be less obvious but just as impactful. Quakers believe that community is an imperative to nurture others and ourselves, recognizing, in conjunction with the testimony of equality, that there is that of God in everyone. Smith, who is no stranger to Rock, violated this idea. Smith was not compassionate, or at the very least, respectful towards Rock when Smith’s wife, Jada Pinkett Smith, was the target of an insensitive joke. Smith did not attempt to see that Rock has that of God in him, as the Quakers would argue. Instead, Smith slapped the God right out of him.

It is important to note that although it was right to condemn Smith for his desecration of a nearly century-old ceremony, his outburst was influenced by the societal disappearance of these two values. In their place, there is the notion that certain words cause such harm that violence or shame should be induced. Rock’s “joke,” which one can imagine would hurt to be the butt end of, is not physically violent and shouldn’t be met with such rebuke. The justification of the slap, and as such, the justification of violence over speech, is a dark, dangerous turn in our social culture – one that Quakerism desperately seeks to combat.

Quakers have noticed this type of societal make-up, too, acknowledging that “society educates young people at best haphazardly and at worst quite destructively as far as conflict is concerned.” Many are taught that the one who wields the most power is the one to settle the conflict, leaving the weaker unable to formulate a more palatable solution. Quakerism seeks to redirect the teachings of conflict resolution towards the humane settlement of problems.

It is clear that the world at large should look for inspiration from the Quakers and learn how to adopt and uphold the values that allow us to live with dignity and respect for all. We’ll be better off.