Monthly Archives: September 2015

Constitution Day with the Kids and the Congressmen!

Posted on by
Reply
Congressman Gutknecht (R-Minn), Congressman Stallings (D-Idaho), Dr. Knuckey, Dr. Fine await the first question

Congressman Gutknecht (R-Minn), Congressman Stallings (D-Idaho), Dr. Knuckey, Dr. Fine await the first question

Today is, of course, Constitution Day. As part of the Lou Frey Institute‘s Constitution Day recognition, I had the distinct pleasure of attending a discussion involving two retired representatives: Congressman Richard Stallings (D-Idaho) and Congressman Gil Gutknecht (R-Minnesota). This session was also attended by about 150 high school students from local schools, and it was such a pleasure and a joy to see how utterly engaged they were today. While the original intent of the day was to discuss the Voting Rights Act, it became devoted to allowing the students to ask questions of the Congressmen about politics, government, society, and the Constitution. Some of the questions that these citizens-in-development asked:

  • What do you think of Trump?
  • What is your perspective on issues of climate change?
  • What might the Founders think about government and politics today?
  • Do you believe that Davis has a constitutional right to refuse to provide marriage certificates?
  • How can we use the Constitution to ensure gender equality?
  • Should Congress and state legislatures abolish the courts if they disagree?
  • What advice can you give me about getting involved in politics?
  • How can the ‘average joe’ gain the confidence to make decisions about government?
  • Should we interpret every word of the Constitution literally?

Gutknecht and Stallings debate immigration in response to a student question

Gutknecht and Stallings debate immigration in response to a student question

Now, these are certainly not all of the questions that were asked, but they reflect the thinking of the students, and every question prompted an excellent back and forth between Congressman Stallings and Congressman Gutknecht. It was refreshing to hear such honest debate between friendly but strong partisans, and the fact that they responded so well to the students was wonderful, even if they did not touch on the Voting Rights Act (which was the original intent). These are kids that will remember this for quite a while, and will, I believe, be engaged citizens. We are grateful for all those who participated, and for Professors Jonathan Knuckey and Terri Fine, who helped moderate the event. The fact that students asked so many excellent makes this civic educator proud! Kudos to the students and to the teachers.

Congressman Stallings talks politics and government with high school kids during lunch

Congressman Stallings talks politics and government with high school kids during lunch

Congressman Gutknecht chats with passionate students during lunch

Congressman Gutknecht chats with passionate students during lunch


Constitution Day with the Kids and the Congressmen!

Posted on by
Reply
Congressman Gutknecht (R-Minn), Congressman Stallings (D-Idaho), Dr. Knuckey, Dr. Fine await the first question

Congressman Gutknecht (R-Minn), Congressman Stallings (D-Idaho), Dr. Knuckey, Dr. Fine await the first question

Today is, of course, Constitution Day. As part of the Lou Frey Institute‘s Constitution Day recognition, I had the distinct pleasure of attending a discussion involving two retired representatives: Congressman Richard Stallings (D-Idaho) and Congressman Gil Gutknecht (R-Minnesota). This session was also attended by about 150 high school students from local schools, and it was such a pleasure and a joy to see how utterly engaged they were today. While the original intent of the day was to discuss the Voting Rights Act, it became devoted to allowing the students to ask questions of the Congressmen about politics, government, society, and the Constitution. Some of the questions that these citizens-in-development asked:

  • What do you think of Trump?
  • What is your perspective on issues of climate change?
  • What might the Founders think about government and politics today?
  • Do you believe that Davis has a constitutional right to refuse to provide marriage certificates?
  • How can we use the Constitution to ensure gender equality?
  • Should Congress and state legislatures abolish the courts if they disagree?
  • What advice can you give me about getting involved in politics?
  • How can the ‘average joe’ gain the confidence to make decisions about government?
  • Should we interpret every word of the Constitution literally?

Gutknecht and Stallings debate immigration in response to a student question

Gutknecht and Stallings debate immigration in response to a student question

Now, these are certainly not all of the questions that were asked, but they reflect the thinking of the students, and every question prompted an excellent back and forth between Congressman Stallings and Congressman Gutknecht. It was refreshing to hear such honest debate between friendly but strong partisans, and the fact that they responded so well to the students was wonderful, even if they did not touch on the Voting Rights Act (which was the original intent). These are kids that will remember this for quite a while, and will, I believe, be engaged citizens. We are grateful for all those who participated, and for Professors Jonathan Knuckey and Terri Fine, who helped moderate the event. The fact that students asked so many excellent makes this civic educator proud! Kudos to the students and to the teachers.

Congressman Stallings talks politics and government with high school kids during lunch

Congressman Stallings talks politics and government with high school kids during lunch

Congressman Gutknecht chats with passionate students during lunch

Congressman Gutknecht chats with passionate students during lunch


Q&A for Constitution Day

Posted on by
Reply

It’s Constitution Day. Thanks to an amendment included at the behest of the late Robert Byrd in 2004, every educational institution that receives federal money–from a kindergarten to a graduate school–must offer programs on this day that concern the Constitution. Eight years ago, I posed some gently subversive questions that could be the basis of a discussion on Constitution Day. Here are my questions again, with–for what they’re worth–my answers:

  • How, under our Constitution, can legislation be passed on the sole prerogative of one US Senator?

The Constitution leaves it up to each house of Congress to organize its own procedures. (Article 1, sec. 2: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings.”) The Senate can basically construct bills any way it wants.

There is no ideal way to legislate. Any parliamentary body faces a severe challenge in aggregating the opinions of its many members on the many topics that come before it. No legislature can discuss and separately vote on everything. Still, the Senate’s rules give an awful lot of power to individual members to insert provisions. I suspect the reason lies with the Senate’s filibuster rules, which make the passage of legislation extraordinarily difficult. To prevent even more filibusters than we actually have, Senators are allowed to slip in special provisions they especially care about.

Legislating this way is not “unconstitutional” in the sense of violating the text of the document. But we could say that in the broader meaning of the phrase “constitutional system,” our system includes the rules of the US Senate, which are very problematic.

  • How can Congress pass legislation without hearings or debate?

See above. But this second question underlines a particular disadvantage of the Senate’s rules: many decisions get no deliberation whatsoever. No teachers were asked to testify about the pros and cons of a Constitution Day mandate. Again, no process is prefect, but the Senate’s procedures seem to neglect the deliberative value that our constitutional order was meant to uphold: “the mild voice of reason, pleading the cause of an enlarged and permanent interest.”

  • Is it a constructive and appropriate use of federal power to determine the content and timing of educational instruction?

Strong conservative constitutionalists will say that Congress has no business in education at all, because education is not among the enumerated powers of Article 1, Section 8. Students should learn and consider that argument. For my part, I think we long ago rightly settled that the Congress may raise taxes and spend the money on education and may put certain conditions on the funding. I would especially argue for a federal role in supporting education for republican self-government, on the ground that this is “necessary and proper” for the survival of our system.

But that doesn’t mean that micromanagement from Washington is wise. To pick a day–right at the beginning of the conventional academic year–when every school (k-20) must teach the Constitution is a good example of meddling. It’s unlikely to yield positive results. Conservatives make a valid point that needn’t be rooted in an originalist reading of the Constitution: Congress should generally avoid micromanaging, especially in an ad hoc way, because it is too distant from local concerns, too likely to make one size fit all, and too remote from accountability. Characteristically, when the Senate passed a Constitution Day mandate, no one even dreamed of empirically evaluating the impact–whereas a school district that tried such an experiment might have to show that it was cost-effective and a “research-based best practice.” Congressional micromanagement violates the spirit of the Constitution, even when it passes legal muster.

Finally, I do think some good comes from the Constitution Day mandate. It gives an annual boost to the wonderful organizations that provide materials, lesson plans, and professional development for civics, and it yields an annual crop of articles and social media about civic education. Still, if I had to teach a lesson on Constitution Day, it might be about how the legislation that launched it is constitutional yet also problematic–so maybe we need some reform.

See also liberals, conservatives, and love of the Constitution; is our constitutional order doomed? and constitutional piety.

Register for NCDD’s October 15th Confab on Brain Science

Posted on by
Reply

Join us on Thursday, October 15th for NCDD’s next “Confab Call.” We’ll be talking with NCDD Members Mary Gelinas and Susan Stuart Clark about how brain science supports constructive dialogue and deliberation. The confab will take place from 2-3pm Eastern (11am-12pm Pacific). Register today to secure your spot!

What’s happening “beneath the surface” when peopConfab bubble imagele are participating in public meetings? Many conveners are nervous about emotions: those of the public and sometimes even their own. Understanding what evokes the potentially difficult emotions of fear and anger as well as the potentially constructive sense of compassion and hope, along with the conditions that help people notice and effectively manage such emotions, is critical to designing and conducting productive processes.

Mary V. Gelinas of Gelinas James, Inc. and Susan Stuart Clark of Common Knowledge both use the burgeoning findings from brain science to work with clients and plan interactive group processes that use emotions skillfully to help groups find common ground. They also use it to prepare themselves to facilitate such processes. They will share highlights about:

  • Triune brain theory;
  • What emotions are, along with why and how they get evoked in meetings;
  • Some key lessons from brain science for designing and conducting effective group processes;
  • How brain science can increase our ability to be instruments of change.

During this interactive session Mary and Susan will highlight the key elements of brain science they use in their work to provide a stepping off point for participants to ask questions and share their own insights and experiences.

Mary V. Gelinas, Ed.D. is the managing director of Gelinas James, Inc. and co-director of the Cascadia Center for Leadership. She is a committed student of how brain science and contemplative practices can strengthen the design and conduct of inclusive and collaborative processes. Her blog “How We Talk Matters” provides inspiration, tips, and tools to create constructive conversations about consequential questions.

Susan Stuart Clark is the founder and director of Common Knowledge, a mission driven organization dedicated to a more inclusive and innovative democracy. She works at the intersection of sectors and cultures, using insights about neuroscience to help people interact with “other.” A research deputy for the Kettering Foundation, Susan serves on the board of the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation and as an advisor to civic tech groups.

About NCDD’s Confab Calls…

NCDD’s Confab Calls are opportunities for members (and potential members) of NCDD to talk with and hear from innovators in our field about the work they’re doing, and to connect with fellow members around shared interests. Membership in NCDD is encouraged but not required for participation. Register today if you’d like to join us.

missing the civic empowerment messages of a Pope and a President

Posted on by
Reply

Michelle Boorstein compares the enthusiastic responses to Pope Francis in 2015 and Barack Obama in 2008 and collects several explanations for both:

  1. People have “an undeniable, sweeping affinity, a gut reaction to a new leader to whom we attach huge expectations …,  even though most Americans don’t know much about Francis.”
  2. “Does the pope’s all-embracing commentary, which seems to exclude no one, have particular resonance in an increasingly diverse country?”
  3. Does “Francis offer people hope of rescue with his confident proclamations about what needs to be done to fix the world? Cartoonists and graffiti artists have often drawn him as a caped superhero.”
  4. “Francis is an accessible father figure at the helm of one of the world’s largest organizations.”
  5. “People love the blank slate.”

Let me suggest an alternative. Both the president and the Pope talk explicitly about how we, active citizens, can and must address problems. These two men may have been caricatured as caped superheroes, but they are as clear as one can be that they are not the solutions to our problems; we are.

This was the main theme of Obama’s Springfield speech announcing his candidacy in 2007, an important note in his Grant Park speech on Election Night 2008, and a recurrent topic throughout the campaign. When he accepted the Democratic nomination in 2012, he put it concisely: “As citizens,” Obama said, “we understand that America is not about what can be done for us. It’s about what can be done by us, together through the hard and frustrating but necessary work of self-government.” I have collected many more similar quotes here.

As for the Holy Father, he said recently, “the future of humanity does not lie solely in the hands of great leaders, the great powers and the elites. It is fundamentally in the hands of peoples and in their ability to organize.”

I believe that people hear and are moved by these invocations of their power, agency, and responsibility. They do not treat Obama and the Pope as blank slates or as accessible personalities; they feel moved to take action.

Meanwhile, the press completely ignores these leaders’ talk of civic engagement. That theme was never covered in the 2008 presidential campaign, and no one mentions it when they cover the Pope. Obama’s critics especially misunderstand his civic appeal, thinking that it is narcissistic. (“We are the ones we have been waiting for” is literally misheard as “I am the one you have been waiting for”). And we see basically patronizing explanations of why these leaders strike a chord.

See also how to respond to a leader’s call for civic renewal; the encyclical Laudato Si and the power of peoples to organize; and Taking the President Seriously About Citizenship.

Data-ism

Posted on by
Reply

I had the opportunity today to hear a talk by Steve Lohr, New York Times technology reporter and author of the recent book, Data-ism: The Revolution Transforming Decision Making, Consumer Behavior, and Almost Everything Else.

Lohr said that “big data” is more than just a large collection of digital information, it’s a philosophical framework – a way of approaching the world. Big data, he said, allows people to see patterns in the world and to make better sense of the world around them.

Ultimately, he argued, big data is a revolution in decision-making.

This revolution can have many positive implications, making our lives simpler, faster, and better.

For example, according to Lohr, in 1880 the U.S. census took eight years to conduct. While the population swelled in 1890, this census took only a few weeks to complete. The difference was due to a technological innovation: the creation of a machine-readable punch card by a company that later became IBM.

Of course there are also possible pitfalls – one can imagine using big data to determine who gets a loan going terribly wrong. And, yes, this is something that “data science lenders” do, claiming that their methodology is more accurate than more traditional approaches.

Lohr was somewhat weary of these big data, automated, decision making processes, arguing that when data is used to make decisions affecting people’s lives, that process needs to be transparent.

But, he was more casual about the change than I might have thought. Perhaps it’s because he has covered technology’s evolution for nearly a decade, but – he was somewhat skeptical of concerns about privacy and the de-humanization of our lives.

Technology evolves and our mores will evolve with it, he seemed to say.

Lohr commented that when the handheld Kodak camera was originally introduced, it was seen as a invasion of privacy. Banned from beaches and the Washington monument, it was seen as a danger, a possible corrupting force.

Until privacy expectations evolved to meet the new technology.

Perhaps it is just nostalgia that makes us fear this brave new world.

It’s an interesting argument, and I think it’s good to be skeptical of our instinctual reactions to things. But pointing to the mistakes of our past fears seems insufficient – perhaps we should be more concerned with privacy, but have simply become slowly accustomed to not having it.

That could be a natural evolution, or it could be a slow degradation – with serious and lasting consequences.

facebooktwittergoogle_plusredditlinkedintumblrmail

“Violence Taught When Corporal Punishment Used”

Posted on by
Reply

Originally published in The Clarion Ledger, May 14, 2013, 9A.

The harsh treatment of prisoners in the U.S. causes much controversy, yet in our public schools, institutionalized
violence is commonplace.

This image is shows part of the scan of my 2013 Clarion Ledger article, 'Violence Taught When Corporal Punishment Used.' If you click on this image, you'll be taken to the full scan on my Academia.edu page.

In April, the Hattiesburg American reported that corporal punishment declined in Mississippi schools between 2007 and 2012 from more than 58,000 reported instances to around 39,000.

Photo of the map Southern Echo created of Mississippi counties and their use of corporal punishment in the 2009-2010 and 2010-2011 school years.The use of corporal punishment varies greatly by school district. For the Lafayette County School District’s roughly 2,700 students, there were seven recorded cases of corporal punishment in the 2009-2010 school year and none the following year. By contrast, the Quitman County School District enrolls just under 1,300 students, yet recorded 1,594 instances of corporal punishment in the 2010-2011 academic year, which is only about 180 school days.

In the U.S., all 50 states permit corporal punishment in domestic settings. For public and private schools, however, only 19 states still practice it, while in Iowa and New Jersey it is illegal to perform in schools.

Iowa is a helpful state to use in comparison with Mississippi, since it is largely rural and has a comparable population size. Of course, Iowa has its problems, with seven schools districts named “dropout factories” in a 2007 Associated Press report. The same report called 44 of Mississippi’s schools “dropout factories.”

At best, corporal punishment in schools is not helping Mississippi. At worst, it is part of the problem.

A public domain photo of a courtroom.According to studies, most parents find spankings in the home to be acceptable. It is important to distinguish parenting from schooling, however, and to watch out for institutional excesses. The 1980 federal case Hall v. Tawney said that excess corporal punishment in schools could violate a student’s “right to ultimate bodily security, the most fundamental aspect of personal privacy, (which) is unmistakably established in our constitutional decisions as an attribute of the ordered liberty that is the concern of substantive due process.”

Not all spankings in schools might be called excessive, of course, yet cases reported on in the Hattiesburg American raise serious concern. In 2011, 14-year-old Trey Clayton of Independence High School was paddled so severely that he fainted, “fell face-first onto the concrete floor … (and) had five shattered teeth and a lacerated chin,” according to reporter Marquita Brown.

Beyond legal concerns and the tragically severe cases, there are strong reasons to end institutionalized corporal punishment.

Bust of Socrates.

Bust of Socrates, Plato’s teacher.

First, students are compelled to be in school, and with good reason. Democratic societies must educate citizens to be self-governing. Yet Plato and other philosophers believed correctly, I think, that learning cannot take hold by compulsion. Socrates argued that “nothing taught by force stays in the soul.”

Compulsory schooling can address Plato’s worry, however, by showing students the value of education. It is vital to create an environment in which education is welcoming and inviting. Corporal punishment has the reverse effect.

Second, corporal punishment teaches students that when confronted with a challenge, adults use violence rather than reason to achieve our ends. It solidifies “school-to-prison pipelines” that the Justice Department is combating.

In Mississippi, we know that culture matters and that many of our schools are struggling. Corporal punishment is only one element of a culture which discourages students. Ending the practice, however, would contribute meaningfully to the reconstruction of an encouraging and positive culture of achievement in education.

Eric Thomas Weber is assistant professor of public policy leadership at the University of Mississippi and author of three books, including Democracy and Leadership (2013). He is representing only his own views. Follow @EricTWeber on Twitter. Visit EricThomasWeber.org.

PCP Launches 3 New Workshops this Fall

Posted on by
Reply

The good folks with Public Conversations Project (PCP) recently announced that they will offer three new workshops (and one of their classics) over the course of the next season, and we encourage our members to consider attending them! PCP shared the announcement below with us detailing the offerings, and you can find more info on their workshops by clicking here.

PCP new logoPublic Conversations Project: Fall 2015 Workshops

At the core of many of today’s most complex social problems is a breakdown in relationships that leads to mistrust, gridlock, and fractured communities. Our method, Reflective Structured Dialogue, addresses the heart of this breakdown: we work to shift relationships, building the communication skills and trust needed to make action possible and collaboration sustainable. Reflective Structured Dialogue helps participants engage in constructive, often groundbreaking conversations that can restore trust and lay the foundation for collaborative action.

Public Conversations provides workshops in facilitation, dialogue and communication to equip people in this field to communicate more effectively. In addition to our flagship workshop (Power of Dialogue), Public Conversations is offering three new workshops this fall that delve deeper into specific components of our work. To learn more about Public Conversations, find more information on our workshops and continuing education opportunities, and register for our workshops, please visit our website. All of the workshops listed will take place in the Greater Boston area.

Inside Out: Leading from a Connected Place (Oct. 2, 8:30AM – 5:00PM)

Learn how to harness a deep understanding of your sub-personality “parts” and essential “self” to communicate with calmness, curiosity and compassion. This is a specialty workshop combining the best of Public Conversations’ and Internal Family Systems’ approaches to constructive communication across difference.

Power of Dialogue: Constructive Conversations on Divisive Issues (Oct. 22-24, 8:30AM -5:00PM)

Public Conversations’ flagship workshop, the Power of Dialogue is a highly interactive, widely applicable workshop for anyone interested in transforming conflicted conversations – among a working team, in a town hall, on a college campus, and beyond. Participants will build and expand their facilitation skills to create conversations that foster mutual understanding between groups and individuals divided by differences.

The Power of Stories: Moving Beyond “Them and Us” (Dec. 3, 8:30AM – 5:00PM)

Stories are how we make sense of the world. Stories can connect people or – when it’s about “us” vs. “them,” – drive people apart. Learn how to integrate the practice of storytelling and deep listening into facilitated dialogues, classrooms, meetings, and personal relationships. Through stories, we hear and are heard.

Becoming the Communicator You Want to Be (Dec. 10-12, 8:30AM – 5:00PM)

Have relationships that feel stuck? Want to make a dreaded conversation feel hopeful? In this workshop, participants will learn how to reflect, listen, speak, and inquire in ways that help them understand themselves and one another more deeply and communicate more effectively.

About Public Conversations: The Public Conversations Project fosters constructive conversation where there is conflict driven by differences in identity, beliefs, and values. We work locally, nationally, and globally to provide organizations, institutions, and communities dialogue facilitation, training, consultation, and coaching to discover new possibilities for coexistence and collaboration.

thoughts on the College Scorecard

Posted on by
Reply

collegecost

The College Scorecard began as a promise/threat to rate US colleges and universities, but for now, it offers some digestible nuggets of information on more than 3,500 institutions. The results for Stanford are shown to the right, as an example.

I like some things about this. Mainly, it tells a prospective applicant’s family not to be put off by the sticker price. Tuition plus room & board at Stanford costs $64,477, but the average student pays much less than that, graduates quickly, and earns a lot of money. That makes it a good deal (in strictly economic terms) for most people who can get in. In contrast, Cambridge College costs an average of $23,792 and yields an average salary of $36,500 for those who graduate–who represent two percent of those who enroll.

I have three main concerns. First, the average cost overstates the relevant price for a lot of students. Stanford completely waives the parental tuition contribution for families with incomes up to $125,000 a year and waives the whole cost for most families earning below $65,000 (which is about 60% of US households). The average cost is $15k because a lot of Stanford undergrads come from families in the very top tier of the income distribution. If you have a median family income, Stanford will probably be free.

Second, this kind of presentation can mislead about the business model. It can suggest that the real price of a Stanford education is $64k, but thanks to alumni gifts, the university subsidizes attendance for needy students (who, in this case, may be upper-middle-class). I think the following is closer to the truth: there are a lot of highly academically proficient students whose families can easily pay $64k and want to go to Stanford. Their kitchen counters cost more than a year’s tuition. So Stanford charges that much and uses the income to help subsidize all the operations of a research institution. It uses a sliding scale, however, so that all of its students aren’t rich. I don’t necessarily think this is wrong: it depends on how much public good comes from the research. But the numbers give a somewhat misleading impression of the financial model.

Third, the measure of “salary after attending” is very problematic if we see education as a public good. The lowest-paid majors for recent college graduates are “early childhood education ($39,000); human services and community organization ($41,000); studio arts, social work, teacher education, and visual and performing arts ($42,000); theology and religious vocations, and elementary education ($43,000); drama and theater arts and family and community service ($45,000).” A college that produces a lot of preschool teachers, clergypeople, and community organizers is going to score a lot lower on the measure of “salary after attending” than Stanford does. The average salary for recent Hampshire College graduates is $30,800, much less than half as much as Stanford’s figure, but it would be misleading to infer that Stanford offers more value than Hampshire.