A snapshot of what we got up to in 2015.
Want to contribute to our work in 2016? Click here!
When I first heard that Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia had died I thought I must have misread. A Supreme Court justice passing away unexpectedly on the eve of a particularly volatile Presidential election cycle?
That’s the stuff Aaron Sorkin dramas are made of. Not real life.
This election cycle would make a great Aaron Sorkin drama.
After news of his death, it didn’t take long for the political pageantry to start. Senate majority leader Mitch McConnell quickly announced that the next president should appoint Justice Scalia’s replacement.
Supreme Court sessions typically run October – June, so delaying an appointment until after the start of 2017 would almost certainly mean not having a ninth Justice confirmed until the end of the next session.
Of course, President Obama was also quick to act, parrying McConnell’s announcement with his own declaration: I plan to fulfill my constitutional responsibilities to nominate a successor in due time.
If this is an Aaron Sorkin drama, perhaps we can get Edward James Olmos on the bench.
But, political posturing aside, the loss of this conservative giant has raised intriguing questions about the rule of law in a polarized nation and collegiality across political lines.
Justice Scalia had a notoriously positive friendship with liberal Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg – so much so that there’s apparently a comic opera about it.
They disagreed ardently, fervently, irrevocably, yet still they found space to genuinely get along.
Ginsburg once explained this friendship, saying, “As annoyed as you might be about his zinging dissent, he’s so utterly charming, so amusing, so sometimes outrageous, you can’t help but say, ‘I’m glad that he’s my friend or he’s my colleague.’ ”
I once has the pleasure of hearing Justice Scalia speak. I utterly disagree with nearly all his opinions, yet I was struck by – what I can only describe as intellectual charisma. He was so bombastic in his beliefs yet well-reasoned in his arguments, it was hard not to pay him some measure of respect.
At the end of his talk, he took questions from the floor. I saw student after student get up with well-prepared questions and commentary ready. Scalia handily took each and every one of them down.
Not through the artful dodging that we’ve grown familiar seeing from politicians, but with clever, sharpened responses and wit. He out-argued them all.
I imagine that arguing with him would be like arguing with Socrates: I myself might be likely to conclude simply stammering, “well, you’re wrong and your stupid,” yet the opportunity to debate might be worthy in itself.
Ginsburg certainly seemed to think so. Possessed, I imagine, with equal skills of argument and rhetoric, Ginsburg once remarked of Scalia:
“My opinion is ever so much better because of his stinging dissent.”
Our friends at with Public Conversations Project recently posted the story of a wonderful community dialogue project from Gloucester, MA, and we wanted to repost it here. The piece by Kathy Eckles shares some great history and reflections about the founding members of Gloucester Conversations’ efforts to build a culture of dialogue in their town, and there’s lots to learn from it. We encourage you to read Kathy’s piece below or find the original version here.
What does “all in the same boat” really mean? Focus. Balance. Lean in. Pull together. For a harbor city on the east coast the phrase seems appropriate. In fact, as Gloucester citizens we are trying to figure out how to keep our shared boat afloat. With our history, the sea, land, skies and all people on board, we must discover how to sail onwards together, and remain stable, listening, and helping one another. Are our relational skills up to the urgency of integrating the depth and breadth of our history, cultures, environment, economies, education, needs and interests? We’re working on it.
It’s no easy task to move from an establishment model of engagement to ‘we the people’, but that’s where we’re headed. The tensions of what we could lose – our rugged beauty, passionate individualism, hardworking harbor and our interdependence – hold all of us accountable to each other and our community when it may seem easier to simply sell, fight or fold.
In light of this need, Gloucester Conversations (GC) was formed. Through the generosity of our mentor organization, Public Conversations Project, Gloucester Conversations is helping our city develop a culture of dialogue. Thoughtful conversations are gradually replacing ‘my side/your side’ battles. A confluence of people are caring about ‘how’ we do ‘what’ we do. From city government and journalism, fishing and small businesses, arts and cultural groups to education, human and environmental services, we’re striving to use frameworks that make a place for people to be heard, respected and part of the decision-making.
How did Gloucester Conversations start?
Inspired by the successes of other communities, Gloucester resident John Sarrouf of Public Conversations talked with locals and eventually gathered a group of five interested in Gloucester becoming a more collaborative community. We met for what seemed ad infinitum to explore our values, vision, skills and personal styles and to develop a strategy and related materials to help foster a culture of dialogue.
The first step was figuring out how other people and organizations had done this work, and done it well. We reached out to Everyday Democracy and invited in leaders from Hands Across North Quabbin, Portsmouth Listens and Lawrence Community Works to share with our whole community their dialogue, decision-making and community engagement processes. We launched two cornerstone initiatives. First were two types of dialogue circles. We hosted small group dialogues for people to tell their stories and express their hopes for the city. In addition to discussing specific issues, participants reflected on the process of dialogue itself, what worked, and how dialogue makes a place for everyone. The other type of dialogue circles were called Kitchen Table Conversations, a framework for anyone to gather neighbors and friends for a deeper kind of conversation in their home.
Our second initiative was training a cadre of facilitators who could lead small group conversations within larger community dialogues. We shared our vision with leaders in government, journalism, education, arts and culture, asking for their support and seeking to understand how we could help them. In addition to in-person dialogue planning and facilitation support, our website offers dialogue and facilitation resources for anyone interested in pursuing a new conversation in Gloucester or another community.
What’s working?
Behind-the-scenes dialogue design, group facilitation and support for specific city projects. Here are two examples:
When tensions escalated over the placement of a donated piece of public art, city leaders asked Gloucester Conversations to help guide the conversation around developing a public art policy. We designed and facilitated a dialogue session for arts and cultural leaders, and later, a successful open community meeting. GC also supported a dialogue to resolve tensions between representatives of a day-center for homeless individuals and its neighbors. Participants discovered significant common ground, opened the possibility of collaborative problem-solving, and developed a plan for ongoing communication.
What have we learned?
The quality of conversations we have publicly is key to developing communication skills for every aspect of our lives, and visa versa.
While we might not always agree, our commitment to remaining in conversation with one another creates fertile ground for community, collaboration, and leadership. It helps us build strong families, raise kind children, and be good neighbors – people who listen, understand and act upon shared values for our shared future.
Gloucester is an amazing community. In the midst of major changes we are strengthening our capacity to steadily focus, balance, lean in, and pull together. May we become people and a community our children are proud of, and may the legacy we leave them be one they enjoy and tend lovingly for their children, and their children, too.
You can find the original version of this Public Conversations Project blog piece by visiting www.publicconversations.org/blog/we-are-creating-culture-dialogue-and-so-can-you#sthash.IbXMcZe4.dpuf.
The five-page article, Informing or Engaging: What Is the Role of Higher Education in Strengthening Public Life?, by Derek W. M. Barker was published Fall 2015 in Kettering Foundation‘s annual newsletter, “Connections 2015 – Our History: Journeys in KF Research”. Barker discusses how Kettering’s work over the last 20 years has explored the role of higher education and democratic citizenry. Kettering recognized the need for improved democratic processes to address the public’s deep frustration toward politics in this country and created a network of colleges to experiment deliberative practices within higher education. Below is an excerpt from the article. Connections 2015 is available for free PDF download on Kettering’s site here.
From the article…
Higher education is a key institution in our democracy, charged with shaping the next generation of our citizenry. From Kettering’s perspective, future citizens need more than information if they are to be effective actors in public life. They need to be able to come together with other citizens—across partisan divides—and make a difference in their communities. However, a key challenge underlying Kettering’s research is how higher education views its civic role. That is, as these institutions have evolved, rather than an engaged citizenry, they have in most cases narrowed their role to developing an informed citizenry. To address this challenge, over time Kettering has developed a small network of college campuses that are experimenting with deliberative approaches to civic education and public forms of scholarship that integrate the civic aspirations of academics into their professional work.
Kettering’s research on higher education, of course, was part of the foundation’s shift from technical innovation to democracy and citizenship. At the beginning of this shift, the foundation faced a critical puzzle. The dominant narrative was that the public was apathetic and uninterested in politics. Low rates of voter turnout and opinion data on attitudes toward government reinforced this view. There seemed to be no demand for the type of democracy that Kettering saw as increasingly necessary to address our nation’s problems. A key insight helped shape Kettering’s research agenda for the next 20 years: perhaps what appeared as apathy and disinterest was in fact a deep sense of frustration and alienation. While the public may be disgusted with politics-as-usual, perhaps citizens could be reenergized by a different kind of politics worthy of their time and attention. Indeed, researchers in Kettering’s network found evidence for this hypothesis in a series of focus group reports of public attitudes toward politics. Following the landmark Citizens and Politics: A View from Main Street America study of the public-at-large published in 1991, the Harwood Institute found this phenomenon to be especially true of students in the 1993 study, College Students Talk Politics. While frustrated with politics-as-usual, college students were enthusiastic about working together in their communities and engaging in public discourse across partisan divides. As David Mathews wrote in his foreword to College Students Talk Politics, “This study found that students have retained a remarkable ‘instinct’ for democratic practice; there is a buried civic consciousness in students.”
Sparked by the idea that people had a latent potential for civic awakening, Kettering began thinking about the possibilities for higher education to provide the sorts of experiences that students seemed to want. The foundation became aware of the larger possibilities for higher education’s civic role by looking historically at the major movements in higher education, from the liberal arts colleges of the founding era, to land-grant and minority serving institutions founded after the Civil War, and community colleges in the 1950s. In “The Public and Its Colleges,” an article that appeared in the 1998 issue of the Higher Education Exchange, Claire Snyder-Hall observed that, in each case, the colleges evolved in the context of larger civic movements. They were responding to particular groups, each demanding not only technical knowledge or vocational training but also education as full participants in our democracy. Although it seems strange to speak in this way now, at the most transformative moments in its history, higher education has been itself a civic movement.
Stirrings within the Academy
While Kettering was just beginning to focus its attention on higher education in the 1990s, within the academy interest in civic engagement was also beginning to take shape. A consensus emerged that universities seemed to have narrowed their vision and lost their way. Based on interviews with faculty at the University of Minnesota, Harry Boyte observed a widespread disenchantment among academics with their disconnection from public life—even among academics who joined the profession with hopes of their ideas contributing to social change. Academics began talking once again about civic education and their democratic role. In 1999, a “civic movement” was formally declared with a document now known as the Wingspread Declaration, in which a group of college presidents committed to an expansive vision of an informed and engaged citizenry. By the turn of the millennium, nearly every campus had courses and offices devoted to civic engagement.
Although something was stirring in higher education, from Kettering’s point of view, what it actually meant for democracy had yet to be determined. Would this civic movement aim to educate students in their civic capacities, to participate in politics and public life, to negotiate conflict and work together across their differences? Or would it teach students to make a difference by using their knowledge as individuals through direct service? Arguably, both goals represent coherent and complementary visions for higher education and its civic mission. Indeed, during the formation of the civic movement in higher education, both visions were part of the conversation. However, Kettering realized the civic engagement movement had become more focused on the application of expert knowledge rather than the relational norms and habits needed to revamp our politics; in the categories of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, it had prioritized instrumental reason over communicative rationality.
The civic education of college students, while much improved, has mostly emphasized individual community-service experiences. As Rick Battistoni, himself a proponent and practitioner of service learning, has argued in the 2014 issue of the Higher Education Exchange, such efforts are “a mile wide and an inch deep.” By emphasizing such programs, higher education sends students the signal that individual service is a more satisfying and direct way of making a difference than working through politics and public life. Students are taught to see communities as recipients of their expertise rather than ecosystems rich with their own civic assets. More than ever before, represent coherent and complementary visions for higher education and its civic mission. Indeed, during the formation of the civic movement in higher education, both visions were part of the conversation. However, Kettering realized the civic engagement movement had become more focused on the application of expert knowledge rather than the relational norms and habits needed to revamp our politics; in the categories of the philosopher Jürgen Habermas, it had prioritized instrumental reason over communicative rationality. The civic education of college students, while much improved, has mostly emphasized individual community-service experiences. As Rick Battistoni, himself a proponent and practitioner of service learning, has argued in the 2014 issue of the Higher Education Exchange, such efforts are “a mile wide and an inch deep.” By emphasizing such programs, higher education sends students the signal that individual service is a more satisfying and direct way of making a difference than working through politics and public life. Students are taught to see communities as recipients of their expertise rather than ecosystems rich with their own civic assets. More than ever before, students have opportunities to apply their knowledge in community contexts, but higher education seems to have reached its limit when it comes to educating their civic skills and capacities.
Similarly, academics in outreach and extension fields are talking about civic engagement more than ever before. However, what they mean by civic engagement remains unclear. Again, the dissemination of expert knowledge brings academics into communities and constitutes an important part of their civic mission. But might they also see a role for themselves in strengthening the civic capacities of communities? Reflecting on a series of research exchanges with cooperative extension and outreach professionals, David Mathews’ Ships Passing in the Night? posited a fundamental disconnect between the role of the university in disseminating technical knowledge and communities’ needs to come together to solve their own problems. Similarly, a recent study by Ted Alter, based on interviews at Penn State University, found that most faculty saw their civic role in terms of disseminating and applying their expert knowledge, while only a few saw themselves as strengthening civic life or addressing controversial issues…
If our goal is for the citizenry to be not merely informed, but also active and deliberative, what is the role of higher education? Reflecting upon 20 years of research on higher education, this is the question to which we have come.
About Kettering Foundation and Connections
The Kettering Foundation is a nonprofit operating foundation rooted in the American tradition of cooperative research. Kettering’s primary research question is, what does it take to make democracy work as it should? Kettering’s research is distinctive because it is conducted from the perspective of citizens and focuses on what people can do collectively to address problems affecting their lives, their communities, and their nation.
Each issue of this annual newsletter focuses on a particular area of Kettering’s research. The 2015 issue, edited by Kettering program officer Melinda Gilmore and director of communications David Holwerk, focuses on our yearlong review of Kettering’s research over time.
Follow on Twitter: @KetteringFdn
Resource Link: www.kettering.org/sites/default/files/periodical-article/Barker_2015.pdf
I am not going to blog this week because we are visiting colleges with someone who looked like this when I started blogging. I’ll be back on Feb 22.
The backlash to the corporate “sharing economy” is gaining momentum, and one key player is the movement to develop “platform cooperativism.” The New York Office of Rosa Luxemburg Stiftung has released a report critiquing the “sharing economy” and describing the alternatives. It’s called “Platform Cooperativism: Challenging the Corporate Sharing Economy” (pdf file). and it’s written by Trebor Scholz, an associate professor at the New School.
Scholz and journalist Nathan Schneider were co-organizers of a November 2015 conference that served as an historic flashpoint on this topic. People are starting to realize the many anti-social effects of the “gig economy,” as typified by Uber, Airbnb, TaskRabbit and Mechanical Turk, but the development of workable alternatives is barely underway.
The first half of the report addresses the many deficiencies of the so-called sharing economy. First of all, it’s not about sharing at all. It’s an “on-demand service economy” that relies on the same exploitative techniques of conventional capitalism, but with powerful tech enhancements.
While the system delivers amazing convenience and efficiencies, it also preys upon those who cannot obtain good-paying stable jobs with benefits. It re-introduces piecework on a massive scale, this time with sophisticated computer algorithms to ratchet down wages to below minimum wage. Since everyone is nominally considered an independent contractor, corporate platforms can shrug and exonerate themselves by saying that everyone is “free to choose” their working circumstances, in Milton Friedman’s classic phrase.
But as more jobs are sent abroad to countries that pay lower wages and have few worker protections, workers are in many cases victimized by a global race to the bottom. Corporate platforms act as lucrative intermediaries that shed the costs of conventional businesses – the capital infrastructure, regular paychecks and employee benefits.
Since last year, NCDD has been supporting an important new initiative called the D&D Climate Action Network (D&D CAN) that is being led by NCDD supporting member Linda Ellinor of the Dialogue Group. The Network’s purpose is build a community of practice that fosters mutual learning, sharing, and inspires collaboration around the complexities of climate change, and it has been doing great work since it’s launch.
We highly encourage our NCDD members to get involved in D&D CAN, and one of the best ways to to do that is to join their monthly networking and discussion conference calls. The calls are focused on a different climate-and-dialogue topic every month, but spots are limited, so make sure you sign up ASAP!
The Network is hosting its fourth conference call tomorrow, Tuesday, Feb. 16th from 5-7pm Eastern / 2-4pm Pacific. The call will focus on the theme of “Working with Faith Communities on Climate,” and it features the reflections of NCDD supporting member Mike Huggins on his work within a multi-faith Eco-Spirituality Working Group. The call will explore what D&D practitioners who have been having climate conversations in faith communities have observed and experienced, what we can learn or hope to learn from those conversations, and what values and challenges this form of climate work holds.
It promises to be a great conversation, so don’t miss out – register today!
You can learn more about the D&D Climate Action Network and tomorrow’s call by visiting http://ddclimateactionnetwork.ning.com. You can also learn more from our first announcement about the network at www.ncdd.org/19299.
This two-page activity from Everyday Democracy, Activity to Explore Community Demographics, is to improve efforts to be inclusive when creating a team or coalition. This exercise gives prompts for a group brainstorming activity, suggests doing previous research, and utilizing resources to find information on the community to build a diverse group of people. Read the activity below or find the original and download for free from Everyday Democracy’s site here.
From the activity…
Purpose of activity: Use this exercise to help your coalition make a list of the diverse people and groups in your community.
This list is helpful for recruitment and communications purposes, to help your efforts be inclusive.
Materials needed:
Flip chart
Markers
Part 1: Brainstorm activity
Brainstorming is a creative way for a group to come up with lots of ideas in a short amount of time.
As a large group, brainstorm responses to these questions:
Who makes up our community?
What kinds of people live, work and go to school here?
Make sure to think about ALL the different kinds of people who make up your community. Think about race and culture, economic background, religious or spiritual background, political background, profession, age, gender, etc.
Capture each response on a flip chart.
Part 2: Research the demographics of your community
Have some volunteers do research about who makes up the community. Bring the information back to the group at the next meeting. Or, you can prepare the information ahead of time to continue the conversation immediately after the brainstorm.
Compare the list you brainstormed with the information the volunteers researched. As a group, discuss these questions:
Are there any groups that we missed in our brainstorm? Why?
Is there any information you find surprising?
As you continue your work, keep these observations in mind so you can be sure to reach out to all groups in your community.
Resources for finding community information
The town hall or clerk’s office in your community might have data on what kinds of people are in the community.
Look up your community using one of these online resources:
American FactFinder is a Census Bureau tool that offers statistics on different areas of the country. You can view the available Census data (including the American Community or other available survey’s) for your town. This data may be older. There is “Guided Search” feature that allows you to look in depth at available data.
DiversityData lets you customize reports with the specific information you’re looking for. You can print or email them and convert them to a PDF document. The information is only available for large metropolitan areas.
ZipSkinny offers a simple layout of Census Bureau results with a quick search of a zip code. You can view the results in chart form or compare zip codes.
County Business & Demographic Map is interactive and lets you explore different types of statistics throughout the U.S. Choose the statistics you’re interested in such as race, ethnicity, population, housing status, etc., search any county, city, etc., and compare it with another location.
About Everyday Democracy
Everyday Democracy (formerly called the Study Circles Resource Center) is a project of The Paul J. Aicher Foundation, a private operating foundation dedicated to strengthening deliberative democracy and improving the quality of public life in the United States. Since our founding in 1989, we’ve worked with hundreds of communities across the United States on issues such as: racial equity, poverty reduction and economic development, education reform, early childhood development and building strong neighborhoods. We work with national, regional and state organizations in order to leverage our resources and to expand the reach and impact of civic engagement processes and tools.
Resource Link: http://everyday-democracy.org/resources/activity-explore-community-demographics