7 Lessons in Addressing Racism from Everyday Democracy

Posted on April 28, 2014 by Roshan Bliss

Our organizational partners are Everyday Democracy have been working for 25 years to make racial equity a central piece of their work in dialogue and deliberation, and they recently condensed some of the key insights that work has taught them. We learned a lot from ED’s lessons and share their belief addressing racism in our communities is a key to advancing democracy, so we hope you will take a few moments to read and reflect on their piece. You can read it below or find the original here.

When we were created as the Study Circles Resource Center twenty-five years ago, our founder, Paul Aicher, gave us a fundamental charge – to find ways to make dialogue compelling, routine and powerful for everyone in the country. He envisioned community settings where people of all backgrounds and views would engage with each other on pressing issues, form relationships across divides, create community change together, and improve democracy in the process.

In our quest to bring this vision to life, we began asking informal and formal community leaders about their hopes and the kinds of support they needed. Early on, people from all backgrounds and regions told us that people in their communities wanted to talk about race but didn’t know how. They told us that they needed ways to recruit people from different groups and bring them together. Within three years of our founding, we had decided to address the issue of racism head-on as we worked with and learned from community groups.

At that time, we were a small, all-white organization, just beginning to learn. Our journey led us to deep collaboration with community partners of every ethnic background, working on many different issues, in every region of the country.

As we learned from their experiences, we came to see that racism is more than just another issue area. We learned that systemic structures rooted in racism stand in the way of making progress on all types of public issues – and on realizing the promise of democracy. To meet these challenges, we became a multi-ethnic organization explicitly committed to inclusion and racial equity in all aspects of our work.

These lessons and organizational commitments enable us to support communities in developing their own capacity for large-scale dialogue that leads to personal, cultural and institutional change. As we partner locally and nationally, we reflect, learn, coach, write and talk about the need for equitable opportunities for voice and impact. We often serve as a bridge among the fields of deliberation, racial equity and social justice.

We are still learning, but at this 25-year milestone we want to highlight some lessons from along the way:

1. Diversity is essential across all phases of dialogue-to-change, whether in organizing, dialogue, or action. In addition to racial/ethnic diversity, it’s important to consider other kinds such as education level, economic status, gender, age, sexual orientation, and language. But racial/ethnic diversity is often the hardest to achieve. Tackling it first will help with all other forms of diversity.

2. Diversity is just the beginning. It’s important to build an equity lens in all aspects of organizing, dialogue, and action. Understanding the structures that support inequity (with a particular emphasis on structural racism) is essential for effective dialogue and long-term change on every issue.

3. Personal change and relationship-building are critical to addressing racism. Sharing personal concerns and stories throughout organizing, dialogue and action processes helps make it possible to address issues of privilege, power and inequity.

4. Personal change and trusting relationships are just the beginning. They bring energy and persistence to long-term democratic processes aimed at institutional, cultural and systemic change.

5. Measuring and communicating progress toward community change is essential.Doing so makes it possible to keep engaging new people in dialogue and action, to build on the change that has already happened and to sustain the work.

6. Racism affects all of us personally and in our communities, no matter what our racial/ethnic background is. We all have something to gain by working together and addressing racial inequities. Addressing it is hard work, and requires empathy, self care and long-term commitment.

7. We all need to be part of the change we are trying to create. At Everyday Democracy, we have been learning how to apply an equity lens to all our work. We are committed to “walking our talk.”

We have discovered that fighting racism goes hand in hand with creating communities where everyone has a voice and a chance to work together. We look forward to the next 25 years of learning and change.

See highlights of our journey to address racism.

You can find the original version of this piece from Everyday Democracy at www.everyday-democracy.org/news/7-key-lessons-25-years-addressing-racism-through-dialogue-and-community-change#.U1nEMvldUlo.

Managing Extreme Opinions During Deliberation

Posted on April 21, 2014 by NCDD Community

We are happy to share the reflective piece below from one of our newest NCDD supporting members, Donald Ellis of University of Hartford’s School of Communication. Donald’s post came via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

Even during those heavy late-night conversations in college about God the guy with an unmovable opinion, who just couldn’t see outside his own boundaries, was annoying. Extreme voices, and the harsh opinions and rigid sensibilities that accompany them, are always a problem during deliberation or any attempted genuine discussion.

The practicalities of deliberation require manageably sized groups that are small enough for sufficient participation in genuine engagement with the other side that is not defused throughout a large network of people. In fact, smaller deliberative groups provide a more empirical experience one that is more easily observed and measured.

Originally, deliberation was associated with existing political systems working to solve problems through liberal democratic means that include all of the normative expectations of deliberation. The “rationality” associated with deliberation is most realistic for intact political systems.

Deeply divided groups – groups divided on the basis of ethnicity and religion – were thought incapable of such discourse. But in the last few years authors such as Sunstein and myself have made a case for deliberation and ethnopolitically divided groups on the basis not of rationality but of the “error reduction” that communication can provide. And as the empirical work in deliberation has evolved numerous practical issues focusing on how people actually communicate has been the subject of research attention. Moreover, researchers form smaller deliberative groups that are more practical.

One of the variables or issues that emerged from the research that the smaller deliberative groups make possible is the matter of extreme opinions. Deliberators in the true sense are supposed to be engaging one another intellectually for the purpose of preference formation, along with all of the normative ideals of deliberation. But in the “real world” of deliberation people behave differently and sometimes badly. Individuals with polarized opinions and attitudes are supposed to moderate them and work toward collaboration, but this is an ideal that is not often achieved. There are individuals who do not fully appreciate or respect deliberative ideals.

This difficulty of extreme opinions is particularly pertinent to conflicts between ethnopolitically divided groups where the conflicts are deep and intense. Conflict such as that between the Israelis and the Palestinians is characterized by highly divergent opinions and tension. People hold firm and unshakable opinions and discussions between these competing groups are filled with individuals who hold rigid and extreme opinions.

At first glance, you would think that rigid opinions would be disruptive and certainly damaging to the deliberative ideal. And, of course, that is possible. Research has shown that sometimes when groups get together and talk the result is a worsening of relationships rather than improvement. Efforts to reduce stereotypes by increasing contact with the target of the stereotype can sometimes simply reinforce already present stereotypic images.

Almost all decision-making groups of any type, deliberative or not, struggle with the problem of members who have extremely rigid opinions and cannot be or will not be moved. Subjecting one’s influence to the better argument is an ideal of deliberation and this is thwarted if group members resist exposure to the other side. Those with rigid opinions typically pay little attention to any collaborative strategy since their goal is the imposition of their own opinions. But the communication process can once again come to the rescue and at least increase the probability of moderation mostly through the process of continued exposure to information, ideas, and counter positions. And although it’s more complex than that the basic communicative process is the initial platform upon which change rests.

It turns out that educating people about how policies and positions actually work tends to increase their exposure to other perspectives and improves the quality of debate. This is one more weapon in the “difficult conversation” arsenal that can serve as a corrective and ameliorate the polarization process. Rigid opinions will not disappear but improving knowledge promises to be an effective unfreezing of attitudes procedure.

The Importance of Completed Conversations

Posted on April 20, 2014 by NCDD Community

This reflective piece was submitted by NCDD member Katy Byrne, MFT Psychotherapist, columnist, radio host, and public speaker, via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

“We live in a time when there are so many sophisticated means for communication: email, telephone, fax, yet it is very difficult for individuals, groups, and nations to communicate with each other. We feel we can’t use words to speak, and so we use bombs to communicate.” – Thich Nhat Hanh, Calming The Fearful Mind.

Hairballs aren’t easy.

Why do we leave, abandon, disappear, walk away or never talk to someone again?

Those silly fights or sudden break ups, what’s that about? Twenty, thirty, forty years and vamoose… gone. What‘s up with that? Sometimes it’s a wife, a sister, a friend who just blows up and loses it. “Hey, what happened?” we ask ourselveswhile reading multiple emails with words in black and white.

Some of the past loves of our lives were important .Some died and we lost the opportunity for final closure. A few had unhappy endings. But don’t many of us have a couple past relations that were torn apart like a ripped sleeve?

As we age, don’t we want to be at peace with old friends or family? Don’t we want to feel complete with loved ones when we die? But it takes courage to reach out before it’s too late. It’s not easy to listen to unpleasant feedback or to risk speaking up.

I usually fear folks who yell or blame me. So, I excuse myself, “nuff of that…I’ve been around the bend and I don’t want to go there again.” Is it a way of letting myself off the hook? Or, is it time to let go? If I don’t step up to difficult conversations, who will?

Sometimes I still felt this edgy, lonely feeling inside about some people I cared for
who disappeared or maybe it was me who left them. So, what to do?

Hey, I wrote a book about the courage to speak up, but I have a helluva time doing it myself sometimes. I was writing about the importance of communication and self-responsibility, so I knew that I might have a part in these separations.

I wanted to risk knowing whatever I could about relationship rifts. It was for my own healing but also for the world – since splitting off from others and anger seems to be the problem of the planet. So I started a campaign.

With one old friend all it took was a phone call and we’re fine now. Later, I was a “wuss” with a relative and sent a hand-written letter using my skills to dwell on intention and wishes. I never heard back.

Another person didn’t want to talk about our break-up because she’s into meditation and love. I thought “what’s love got to do with it?” No, really I thought bridging gaps was love.

Anyway, to an old colleague, I said I didn‘t like doing this on email. Could we talk by phone? She insisted on computerized hairballs! So, I tried it, reluctantly.

Umpteen emails later we had different views of our split. She insisted it was nothing personal… just a new stage of life. I felt better that at least we “talked” about it.

Another acquaintance claimed he was just busy. I said, “Do you think there might be some other teensy, eensy thing, since I don’t hear from you anymore?” Bless his heart, he did finally send a loooooong email saying he was surprised to find that even though it was twelve years later, sure ‘nuff… he did have unexpressed feelings but needed more time to sort through them. It kinda left the hairball up in the air, but at least I practiced bravery.

One old pal surprised me. He came over for coffee after my call and we told the whole truth- judgments, different perceptions and all. We talked it through and ended laughing with deep belly laughs– hairballs gone!

This old world is so full of blame and separation; can’t we do our part to mend it? What matters most?

John Donohue says: “Your way of life has so little to do with what you feel and love in the world but because of the many demands on you and responsibilities you have, you feel helpless to gather yourself; you are dragged in so many directions away from true belonging.”

I believe completion is better, can it always occur? Maybe not. But, do we have the courage to try?

Position Opening with InterFaith Works of CNY

Posted on April 17, 2014 by Roshan Bliss

We recently heard about a position opening with our friends at InterFaith Works of CNY that we wanted to share. IFW is seeking a new Program Director for their Center for Dialogue, and the position sounds like a great fit for some of our NCDD members, so we hope some of you will be interested in learning more about the opening.

IFW describes the position this way:

Creation of the Center for Dialogue: IFW is creating the Ahmad and Elizabeth El-Hindi Center for Dialogue (CfD) to build upon several successful models of dialogue that are currently part of the agency: Community Wide Dialogue to End Racism, Courageous Conversations about Race, Seeds of Peace, Sustained Dialogues for Communities in Conflictual Relationships, InterFaith Dinner Dialogues, Interfaith World Harmony Assembly, and InterFaith Dialogues to Understand Islam. The Center for Dialogue will build the capacity within the organization and within the community to more fully actualize the use of the dialogue-to-action model to address critical issues through cross-cultural dialogues…

Position Summary: The Program Director, under the guidance of the IFW Executive Director, is responsible for the overall operation of the Ahmad and Elizabeth El-Hindi Center for Dialogue.

Qualifications: Individual should have experience in the practice and philosophy of dialogue as a tool for human and community transformation; skills in human service administration and program development and delivery; demonstrated management experience including supervision of staff, budget, finance and fund development; awareness of and interest in the Central New York region; high level of initiative and creativity; proven ability to be an effective manager and leader; ability to handle a variety of tasks and responsibilities simultaneously and effectively; ability to work with diverse groups of people with diplomacy and discretion; ability to assume leadership in planning and programming for all areas of the Center for Dialogue.

You can find more info by visiting InterFaith Works’ website at www.interfaithworkscny.org, or you can find the full job description and application details at www.interfaithworkscny.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/2014/01/Director-Center-for-Dialogue.pdf.

Good luck to all the applicants!

Thoughts on “Place” from Pete Peterson

Posted on April 4, 2014 by Roshan Bliss

We wanted to share a thoughtful note that Pete Peterson sent to our transpartisan listserv the other day. Pete is not only the executive director of the Davenport Institute and an NCDD organizational member, but he’s also running for Secretary of State in CA, and he has some great insights to share on “place” from a newly released book…

All,

I thought you might be interested in knowing about a new book project on the subject of “Place” and its relationship to civic engagement…

Why Place Matters: Geography, Identity, and Civic Life in Modern America was just released on Thursday at an event at Pepperdine (reviewed here in today’s Sacramento Bee). I have an essay in the book about how we should be incorporating an understanding of place into public policy formation and education.

Of particular note to this group is how the essays in this volume address the issues of ideology from a communitarian perspective. My experience has been that many friends from the left-side of the aisle see conservatives as viewing the world from a “rugged individualist” perspective, and that they are the more “community-minded.” You hear this many times from our President, who, when met with opposition to some of his policy prescriptions describes his opponents as those who say “you’re on your own.”

There is certainly a growing libertarian movement in America (that has both left and right components), but there is also a long history of conservative communitarians. A tradition that begins with Edmund Burke and runs through De Tocqueville to Russel Kirk, Wilmoore Kendall, Donald Davidson and (especially) Robert Nisbet, through to today’s Rod Dreher, Ross Douthat, and others.

I’ve thought for some time that one way to find some “common ground” between ideologies is in this communitarian arena. I see many strands of this way of thinking in the recent Slow Democracy by Susan Clark and Terry Teachout. And while I may draw the line differently in how centralized policies either inhibit or promote the creation of something called “community” than folks like Susan and Terry, I think we’re all trying to get to (nearly) the same… place.

Best,

Does Identity Trump Facts? (reflections from Greg Ranstrom)

Posted on April 3, 2014 by NCDD Community

We are happy to share the reflective piece below from NCDD organizational member Greg Ranstrom of CivilSay, which came via our great Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

Here’s a great example from the public health sphere about how hard it can be to arrive at shared facts: an NPR segment on vaccines and public opinion. The reporting suggests that the right information is not enough – people must reconcile self image with new information.

My own experience suggests this is right – if not a bit maddening. I am a fairly rational guy and I expect others to shift perspectives if the facts don’t add up. Trouble is – if I am really about smart action in the world – I have to figure out to keep people whole as they shift their sense of the world. Otherwise, they’ll stick to the old facts to preserve their sense of themselves.

I think the answer lies in deep respect for where people are coming from (regardless of the facts they hold to be true) and deep empathy for how they might land gracefully in a new reality.

What do you think?

We encourage you to share your reflections in the comments section below!

Job Opportunities for Senior and Lead Facilitators/Mediators with Center for Collaborative Policy

Posted on March 5, 2014 by NCDD Community

We are pleased to highlight the post below, which came from Susan Sherry of the Center for Collaborative Policy, an NCDD organizational member, via our Submit-to-Blog Form. Do you have news you want to share with the NCDD network? Just click here to submit your news post for the NCDD Blog!

The Center for Collaborative Policy, California State University, Sacramento is pleased to announce that is is now recruiting for both a Senior-Level and a Lead-Level Mediator/ Facilitator. Both of these positions call for a professional with demonstrated experience in mediating, facilitating and managing projects involving complex public policy and political issues that engage a diverse range of stakeholders and the public.

For detailed information and to view duties, qualifications and the application process, see www.csus.edu/about/employment. All submissions are done electronically through this University link. Application review will begin on March 7, 2014 and continue until the positions are filled.

If you would like a one-page summary of the job announcement, including the differences between the Senior and Lead positions, please make your request to: frontdesk@ccp.csus.edu

We would be very grateful if you could pass this announcement onto your professional colleagues in the field.

The Center for Collaborative Policy, established in 1992, is a self-supporting unit of the College of Social Sciences and Interdisciplinary Studies at California State University, Sacramento. The Center’s mission is to build the capacity of public agencies, stakeholder groups, and the public to use collaborative strategies to improve policy outcomes. With an exceptional track record of success that has been well documented in both academic and public media accounts, the Center works on many of California’s most challenging public policy issues such as governance and fiscal reform, social and health services, natural resources, water, land use, air quality, transportation, and emergency services and homeland security.

The successful candidate will join a team of respected and highly qualified professionals who are committed to advancing the art and science of collaborative public policy making.

For more information, see the Center’s website: www.csus.edu/ccp.

Invitation to join the new Transpartisan Listserv

Posted on March 4, 2014 by Sandy Heierbacher

On behalf of all the founding participants, NCDD is pleased to invite you to join the new Transpartisan Listserv. Our intension for this moderated email discussion list is to provide a simple, safe communication channel where individuals and organizations that are active in this boundary-crossing work can connect and learn from each other.

The list is hosted by NCDD through a partnership of NCDD and Mediators Foundation. The following amazing group of people are co-founding the list:

Mark Gerzon, Tom Hast and John Steiner of Mediators Foundation
Sandy Heierbacher, National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD)
Tom Atlee, Co-Intelligence Institute
Steve Bhaerman, humorist and author
Dr. Don Beck, The Spiral Dynamics Group
Joan Blades and Debilyn Molineaux, Living Room Conversations
Laura Chasin, Bob Stains, Dave Joseph and Mary Jacksteit, Public Conversations Project
Lawry Chickering and Jim Turner, co-authors of Voice of the People: The Transpartisan Imperative in American Life
Jacob Hess and Phil Neisser, co-authors of You’re Not as Crazy as I Thought (But You’re Still Wrong)
Margo King, Wisdom Beyond Borders-Mediators Foundation; John Steiner’s networking partner
Mark McKinnon, NoLabels.org
Ravi Iyer and Matt Motyl, CivilPolitics.org
Evelyn Messinger, Internews Interactive
John Opdycke, IndependentVoting.org
Michael Ostrolenk, transpartisan organizer and philosopher
Pete Peterson, Pepperdine University’s Davenport Institute
Amanda Kathryn Roman, The Citizens Campaign
Michael Smith, United Americans
Kim Spencer, Link TV and KCETLink
Rich Tafel, The Public Squared
Jeff Weissglass, Political Bridge Building Advocate

The purpose of this listserv is to introduce potential colleagues to one another, to expand our knowledge of transpartisan theory and practice, and to showcase ongoing activity in the transpartisan field.

Please consider being part of the Transpartisan List if any of the following are true:

You are interested in learning more, and sharing what you know, about current efforts to transcend and transform unproductive partisan politics.
You want to meet potential colleagues who share your concern and are working to improve research, dialogue, deliberation, collaboration, and improved decision making across party lines.
You want to share what you (or your organization) do in this field that you consider “transpartisan” – conversations that break out of the narrow, predictable ideological exchanges.
You believe this subject is vital to our country’s future and simply want to learn more about how you might get involved.

You can subscribe to the Transpartisan List by sending a blank email to transpartisan-subscribe-request@lists.thataway.org. Together, we can ask the questions that need to be asked about this challenging field, and seek the answers as a learning community.

This listserv is one of several exciting transpartisan developments that will be rolling out in the next few months thanks to the leadership of Mediators Foundation – including a strategic convening of transpartisan leaders that will take place the day before this year’s National Conference on Dialogue & Deliberation (October 16th if you’d like to mark your calendar!).

About a week from now, Mark Gerzon and others at Mediators Foundation will share some new resources that may be of interest, including:

“Transpartisan:”An Evolving Definition
A Map of the Transpartisan Field
The Transpartisan Reading List 1.0

As Katrina vanden Heuvel wrote in her Washington Post editorial on January 27th, “The Promise of Transpartisanhip”:

“At a time of paralyzing political polarization, partisanship has naturally gotten a bad rap. But a reactionary shift toward bipartisanship — toward an anodyne centrism — isn’t the solution. Passion, deftly deployed, is actually an effective political tool with which to advance good ideas. That’s the promise of transpartisanship.”

If you decide to join us on the Transpartisan Listserv, take a moment to read over the listserv guidelines first. The list will be moderated according to this set of ground rules, in order to ensure the list remains safe, productive, civil, and focused.

Next Generation Initiative Advances State Legislature Civility

Posted on March 4, 2014 by Roshan Bliss

We’re pleased to be able to highlight The Next Generation Initiative, a fantastic project driven by NCDD supporting member and former Ohio state representative Ted Celeste of the National Institute on Civil Discourse. Next Generation is trying to help state legislators find ways to be more civil with each other as they create legislation, and we think it’s fundamentally important work. To get a sense of what the initiative is about, check out this great article from Akron Legal News that recently covered Ted’s work. You can read more below or find the original piece here and on NICD’s blog here.

When former state representative Ted Celeste campaigned for his Lakewood seat in 2006, he said he chose to run with civility.

“All the political pros said that the only way to beat an opponent is to beat them up. Do nasty things, go negative,” he said. “I said the only way I’ll do it is if I can run a positive campaign.”

“We did that and won.”

After taking that lesson to the Statehouse, Celeste embarked along with Ohio Sen. Frank LaRose (R – Copley Twp.) to take the message throughout the state and nation through their work in the General Assembly and Next Generation, an offshoot of the National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD).

On Jan. 16, both lawmakers addressed their plan to bring politesse back to American politics at the monthly Akron Roundtable at Quaker Station.

After failing in his 2012 U.S. House bid, Celeste founded Next Generation as a state-level project of NICD, which focuses on promoting civility within mass media and the legislative and executive branches of national government. Former presidents George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton chair the nonpartisan center that formed in response to the shooting of former U.S. representative Gabrielle Giffords in 2011.

Celeste said he felt the need to launch Next Generation, which offers workshops to state lawmakers across the country, because over half of the United States Congress – hovering at all-time low approval ratings – consists of former state legislators.

“We are the feeder system,” Celeste said.

Next Generation offered an introductory workshop for state legislators that it has presented in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Nebraska and Washington, according to Celeste. Celeste also presented the workshop to the Council of State Governments’ Midwest and West conferences. He said he hopes to hold the workshop in a dozen other states by this year’s end.

“I’m excited for the fact it’s going so well nationally,” he said.

The project faces difficulty in the partisan culture that dominates state politics, and lawmakers received reprimands from their caucases for attending the civility sessions, said Celeste.

“Their leadership didn’t like the fact that they were working with a person across the aisle,” he said.

LaRose involved himself with Celeste’s mission after attending an NICD session soon after his election.

“When I first ran in 2010 I think I knew that policy tends to evoke strong emotions from people, but I didn’t really grasp it until I was out campaigning myself, then through service in Columbus,” he said.

“When it goes too far is when people take that passion they have and they manifest it in personal animosity against people that have a different opinion.”

LaRose, a first-term senator with a military background, has in only three years earned a reputation for reaching across the aisle. He and State Sen. Tom Sawyer (D – Akron) drew headlines for drafting legislation to fix Ohio’s much-maligned gerrymandering that passed the Senate but expired in the House the last legislative session.

LaRose told the assembled Akron-area professionals that he believes the nature of democracy tends to “actively discourage” mutual cooperation and courtesy, easily seen from the vitriol of recent Akron politics to the perpetually locked pitchforks in Congress. One of the underlying causes, according to the young lawmaker, is the lack of opportunities to personally interact with opposing politicians.

“Legislatures seem to have become in recent years a little more transactional than they used to be,” LaRose said.

“There are not the opportunities to build relationships and get to know one another, to learn about each other’s spouses and families, where you come from, what drives you and makes you excited.”

Celeste added that regulations that prohibit spending public funds on social gatherings have recently stifled social interaction between lawmakers.

Though LaRose acknowledged that mainstream media and cultural norms tend to exacerbate the problem, he focused on practical solutions to implement in the Ohio Statehouse.

For many, he said, the mindset remains “come to Columbus, make laws and go home.”

LaRose suggested launching a program in which legislators trade districts for a day to gain additional perspective. He also pushed for more training on civility at the mandatory new member orientation.

Redistricting reform, a topic for which he and Sawyer drew headlines last year, also presents a problem, he said. LaRose hopes their bipartisan plan will pass both houses this term.

“If we don’t get something done in the next few years, the window closes,” he said. “The closer we get to 2020, which is the next census and the next time we draw redistricting lines, the less likely we are going to be able to have bipartisan agreement on this.”

Both Celeste and LaRose also agreed that term limits hinder their mission for civility; by their estimation, more time to get to know colleagues translates to more amicable relationships.

“Civility isn’t caving in,” said LaRose. “It’s not sissy to be civil.”

Celeste and LaRose ended their presentation by answering a question from the audience: What can the average citizen do to promote civility in government?

Celeste and LaRose agreed that voters should support those that promote civility in that statehouse, but LaRose said they could do more.

“Don’t just vote for the person with the most yard signs out,” he said. “Pay attention to who you’re selecting.

“It’s also modeling that sort of behavior with your family and at work. It’s to change how we communicate with each other.”

The original version of this article can be found at www.akronlegalnews.com/editorial/9140. To learn more about the Next Generation initiative, check out the video below or visit http://nicd.arizona.edu/next-generation-initiative-state-workshops-civil.

Sustained Dialogue Campus Network Conference March 7-9

Posted on February 10, 2014 by Roshan Bliss

We are excited to announce that the Sustained Dialogue Campus Network will be hosting its annual conference this March 7th – 9th, and NCDD members, especially those working in higher education, are invited! This year’s gathering is being hosted at Dickinson College in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, and promises to be a great opportunity to deepen our work on campus and connect with campus dialogue practitioners from around the country.

The conference will be attended by NCDD members like Phil Neisser, Jacob Hess, Mark Gerzon, Carolyn Lukensmeyer, and Len & Libby Traubman, and hopefully, you! In addition, our very own NCDD director, Sandy Heierbacher, will be offering a dialogue and deliberation workshop AND hosting a breakfast or dinner for NCDD members who attend the gathering, so make sure to email Sandy at sandy@ncdd.org to let her know you plan on attending.

Whether or not your are doing sustained dialogue work on campus, this conference has a lot to offer:

The Sustained Dialogue Conference is an unparalleled opportunity to come together as a Network and learn from student leaders, administrators, alumni, and supporters from across the country. This year’s Conference, featuring expert guest speakers from social justice, dialogue, and civic engagement fields, will energize you for a strong semester of “dialogue-to-action” and will prepare you to meet your 2014 goals.

Specifically, at the Summit, you will:

Learn from and be inspired by the diverse network of individuals engaging in SD across the nation

Build your skill-set around moving from dialogue to action using the SD model

Exchange practices for tools to build more inclusive communities

Create a work plan of how to maximize Sustained Dialogue as a student group on your campus

Not doing SD? You’re invited too! We welcome those who are engaged in other dialogue and conflict resolution programs as well as those who are interested in starting SD in their context.

The registration deadline is this Saturday, February 15th, so make sure to register today! NCDD members should register as “Community Members” for $65 per day you attend.

You can find more information on the Sustained Dialogue Conference at their website by clicking here, or by checking out the conference trailer that SDCN created:

We hope to see you there!

Civic Studies

An intellectual community of researchers and practitioners dedicated to building the emerging field of civic studies

Category Archives: bridge building