In principle, there are at least two pieces to every puzzle, at least two parts to every solution. No solution to a problem is entirely in the hands of just one person.
For example, people at the back of a room might have a hard time hearing the speaker at the front. When this happens someone is apt to suggest to the speaker: “Speak up.” But another solution is in the hands of the listeners: “Move closer.”
If I have a problem with someone’s behavior, one solution is for them to change. Another solution is for me to change. I can change how I interact with them or I can change my attitude toward them.
When I assume my problem is entirely because of someone else, I am hiding an important part of the solution. When I deny my part, I am in the way of the group moving forward.
We can spend a lot of time and energy wishing our group was different, complaining about our group, questioning other group members about their ways. But there is only one question that leads to real change: “What am I going to do about it?”
Practical Tip: With every problem remember that there are multiple parts to the solution. Ask, “What’s my part?” If you want the problem solved, act in ways that will help solve the problem rather than talk about how others should solve it.
Be the change that you want for your group, for your world.
As we reflected this week on the meaning of Martin Luther King’s example for our work, we took quite a bit of inspiration from one of the stories shared in the most recent newsletter from our partners at Everyday Democracy that we wanted to share with you. The story of this Virginia town’s struggle to confront racism is a glimpse into what it might look like for our field to deal more with questions of justice in our democracy. You can read the story and see the video below, or find the piece on EvDem’s website here.
In 2006, racial tensions rose among Lynchburg, Va., residents as a result of the death of Clarence Beard Jr., a black man who died during a struggle with two white police officers. City leaders looked for a way to help residents grapple with issues of racism and racial equity in their increasingly diverse city. To make progress, they knew they needed to work together to address these racial tensions.
With the support from community, the city initiated the Community Dialogue on Race and Racism. To indicate their commitment to inclusion and systemic change, they recently renamed themselves “Many Voices – One Community” (MVOC). Their efforts have involved more than 2,000 people in dialogues, action forums, and task forces.
Many participants gained a new understanding of how racism and racial equity affect them on a daily basis: “I think what struck me most was…all the different ways that we could evade the issue of racism and not want to acknowledge our own involvement,” one participant commented. “I think it unsettles us in a good way. I think it’s both terrifying and at the same time, welcoming.”
The new understanding and new relationships that have formed continue to generate action. Action teams meet regularly to plan and implement ideas that emerge from the dialogue groups. Plans are in place to expand the program in the faith community, schools, and local businesses. Their efforts have led to:
A partnership with the U.S. Census Bureau to educate the public about the census and encourage people to be counted.
Improved diversity training in the Lynchburg Police Department, the Criminal Justice Academy, and the City of Lynchburg.
Efforts to bring more diversity to the workforce at the police department, and in local businesses and on boards and commissions in the city.
The creation of a non-profit organization, Beacon of Hope, that provides support for all students to have access to resources in order to reduce the achievement gap.
A Racial Support Group to help resolve institutional racial conflict.
With all of this, racial incidents and disparities have continued in the community. The leaders of MVOC know there is much work still to do.
So, in the fall of 2013, the dedicated MVOC organizers convened Lynchburg’s first Race, Poverty and Social Justice Conference. Plenaries and workshops provided participants with insights and tools for advancing justice in a variety of community arenas including policing, economic development, the arts and health care. In the conference opening, Everyday Democracy director Martha McCoy described a long-term vision of a just Lynchburg, noting “We need each other. We can’t do it alone. We can’t get to the beloved community by ourselves.”
At the 2012 NCDD Seattle conference a small group of us started a quest. We shared a desire to see dialogue and deliberation (D & D) become more widely understood, experienced, and available. But, we also knew that when many people hear words like “dialogue,” they envision scenes from political talk shows, “open mic” style municipal meetings, or dogmatic speeches from family, friends, and colleagues. The rich possibilities for successful engagement do not seem widely understood.
What to do? We decided to create a collection of specific, concrete examples of messages that practitioners have effectively used to help the general public or elected officials understand concepts related to D & D. Then, we’ll share the collection with you.
Can you help us? Can you provide specific examples of messages that have worked well for you?
Types of messages can include:
metaphors
brief anecdotes
evocative language
images
video clips
mini-experiences for potential participants
others
Please add your examples to the Comments section by clicking “Add Comments” above.
We look forward to working on this challenge from a variety of different angles, here, at the NCDD Listserv, and on Facebook. As we gather examples, we’ll post new queries to help flesh out the collection, and we’ll add some concrete memory ticklers to bring out treasures you may have forgotten.
Once we’ve gathered examples, we’ll organize them in a way we hope makes it easy for you to find what you need when you face a communication challenge. We’ll share the collection in as a document available among the free resources at the NCDD site.
We look forward to working with you on this project!
We are:
Myles Alexander, Project Coordinator at Kansas State University
Laura Chasin, Founder and Board Member at The Public Conversations Project
Kim Crowley, Principal Consultant at Training & Development Support
With help from:
Lisa Pytlik Zillig, Research Specialist at the University of Nebraska Public Policy Center
Nancy Glock-Grueneich, Faculty at Shandong Youth Univ. of Political Science
Sandy Heierbacher, Director, NCDD
In case you missed it, we wanted to share a post from the inCommon blog, a project of our partners at the Davenport Institute, about a project in Oregon that holds valuable insights and best practices for engaging Latino/a populations. You can read the post below or find the original here.
Like many part of the US, Lane County, Oregon is seeing tremendous growth in its Latino population. Unwilling just to say “this is a traditionally difficult population to engage,” the Latino Participatory Research Project is looking at ways to reach out to the Latino community to build lasting relationships for public engagement:
The Latino Participatory Research Project, led by University of Oregon Professor Gerardo Sandoval in partnership with Sightline Institute, was completed in the Spring of 2013. The project developed best practices and test outreach strategies to reach the Latino community and identified economic and social indicators of importance to the Latino community through outreach and participation with the Latino community. The project utilized a wide range of methods including individual interviews with Latino leaders and immigrants, small focus groups, and two interactive community planning workshops that engaged almost 100 people. Two local community-based organizations that serve the Latino Community, Huerto de la Familia and Downtown Languages, helped organize and recruit participants for the community workshops. Unique and valuable resources developed during the project below are linked below, and should be used for all efforts to connect with and better understand this unique community in Lane County.
You can read more and find links to the studies, reports, suggestions, and resources of the Latino Participatory Research Project here.
We wanted to share an interesting post from out friends at the National Issues Forums Institute that showed that, even amid the recent political turmoil that has gripped Thailand over the last few months, there have been encouraging steps taken toward fostering deliberation about the country’s future. You can read more about the project below, or find the original post (with more pictures) by clicking here.
King Prajadhipok’s Institute (KPI) has organized Public Deliberative Forums on Thailand Future in many provinces all over Thailand since 2011. The objectives are to help strengthening the public participation in being consulted on the ways out from Thailand political conflicts and establishing an atmosphere of hearing from others who think differently, in understanding and peace.
Before organizing the forums, Issues book, facilitators’ guide book and manual on deliberative democracy are prepared. There are 2 groups of participants; the first group consists of 80 people who are the eligible voters (over 18 years old). Their names are from probability systematic sampling form the vote list. The second group (20 people) is from representatives from the specific groups such as the youths, civil societies, NGOs, local government politicians, political support groups (extreme activists), religion leaders, and people with disability. All of them are invited and informed of the activities at least 1 month before the meetings.
The deliberative forums take one and a half days, starting from introduction on the deliberative democracy and public deliberation process, ground rules, and then continuing with the consensus building and relationship establishment. The deliberative forums are conducted afterwards. The common ground on Thailand future is what they would like to see and how to achieve it as well as who has to do it. In addition, they also mention what they have to do to help the country in moving forward to what they have imagined. Moreover, the pre and post questionnaires are distributed to check the people’s opinion on the deliberative process and the concept of Thailand future.
KPI also introduces this deliberative democracy concept and techniques for organizing deliberative forums to the Thai government and various policy makers as well as the parliamentarians so that they understand the new ways of public participation and conflict management.
More deliberative forums on Thailand Future will be organized in many provinces in the near future.
We know that there many talented and accomplished facilitators in the NCDD network, so we wanted to make sure to share that the International Association of Facilitators has launched its 2014 Facilitation Impact Awards. These awards are intended to honor “excellence in facilitation and its positive, measurable impact on businesses, governments and not-for-profit organisations around the world”, and we know that many of our facilitators’ work has exactly that kind of impact, so we want to encourage you to apply for consideration for the award.
The Facilitation Impact Awards program is open to facilitators living in North, South, and Latin America and are not a typical competition:
Non-competitive Awards
In keeping with the spirit of the International Association of Facilitators, the Facilitation Impact Awards is a non-competitive, inclusive awards program. All submissions meeting a given threshold of points will receive an award.
There is no application fee for applications submitted by IAF members. The fee for non-IAF members is $200/application and includes a single, one-year membership in the IAF. For each successful application, an organisation and its facilitator (or facilitation team) will be recognized. There are three award levels and the potential for multiple award recipients across a number of categories.
We think that these awards represent a great opportunity, and we encourage you to learn more about them at www.iaf-fia.org. You can find the submission form here, the rules for the program are here, and you can find the award criteria here.
The deadline to submit your application is February 17, 2014, so make sure to get started soon! Award recipients will be notified by March 10th, and the awards ceremony will take place at the IAF North American Conference in Orlando, Florida this April 9, 2014. To find out more about the conference, visit www.iafna-conference.org.
Good luck to all the applicants, and keep up the great work!
Our friends at the Interactivity Foundation recently published reflections from Dennis Boyer on his experience convening a conversation on poverty as part of the National Dialogue Network - one of the winners of the 2012 NCDD Catalyst Awards. We thought it was a great look inside the NDN process and wanted to share it with you. You can read the full article below or find the original on the IF blog by clicking here.
The National Dialogue Network (NDN) spent over a year planning and organizing the initial phases of a national dialogue on a topic of public concern, relying on practitioners within the public participatory sphere to assist and comment. Cooperating practitioners assisted in selecting and framing the concern of the first NDN dialogue project: poverty.
I first heard of the effort at the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation(NCDD) conference in Seattle, Washington in the Fall of 2012. It was my intent from the outset to personally facilitate a small group discussion for the project. I had advocated for a national discussion of either climate impacts or the role of money in political campaigns, but was satisfied that the chosen concern of poverty would provide a useful experiential basis for national dialogue.
By late Summer of 2013 the NDN was actively soliciting practitioner participation in facilitating “Phase 3” of the project: local discussion of the materials developed on questions surrounding poverty and wealth. I facilitated one such discussion in Iowa County, Wisconsin, a rural area about an hour’s drive west of Madison. Three of my participants had prior experience in public discussions sponsored by the Interactivity Foundation (IF) and one of those had participated previously in public discussion of material produced by Kettering Foundation/National Issues Forum (KF/NIF).
The NDN discussion materials are very different than IF discussion reports or KF/NIF discussion guides. IF reports usually pose six to eight contrasting conceptual policy possibilities and KF/NIF guides usually focus on three somewhat more developed policy approaches that often reflect some alternatives and some middle ground. When asked how to outline how IF’s approach differs from KF/NIF, I usually explain IF’s possibilities as discussion starters close to the origin point of the deliberative continuum, with KF/NIF materials representing more concrete ideas somewhat further out that continuum. NDN materials, on the other hand, may represent a location even closer to the deliberative origin point, calling upon discussants to explore some very basic thinking that shapes public impressions of the topic of concern.
I retain a spirit of openness toward the usefulness of all three approaches in their respective roles and harbor a belief that robust democratic governance discussion might harness all three in turn—and follow with approaches further out the continuum.
NDN poverty materials encourage some very basic personal introspection and group interaction that more developed policy materials might not. It is often the case that public conversation neglects the feelings and values that go into our impressions of a policy concern. Many deliberative practitioners seek to restore civility to public conversation, but in doing so may make participants more circumspect. NDN materials represent a move away from detachment and passionless pondering.
In that sense they reminded me of IF President Dr. Jack Byrd’s developmental materials on “Fairness” and “Freedom and Responsibility”. My own facilitative experience with Dr. Byrd’s materials have allowed me to see how participant exploration of the personal and experiential side of basic ideas that underlie social and political relationships opens many participants up to deeper understanding of their own positions, the positions of others, and the opportunities for common ground. My NDN discussion experience also exhibited these positive benefits.
The Iowa County NDN discussion group was not very representative of national demographics. We were very white (with one American Indian participant), somewhat older, more likely to be married (all were), and somewhat more clustered in lower-middle income brackets. By the same token, there were some indicators of diversity: a good mix of partisans and independents, backgrounds in different faith communities and secular outlooks, and broad life experiences (foreign travel, volunteer service, etc). Half claimed to have experienced economic deprivation at some point in their lives. All had family members or friends who had resorted to food stamps or public assistance at some point.
NDN materials definitely helped these participants tap their empathetic reserves concerning poverty. In the course of the discussion there was increased recognition of how hard it is for those who have not experienced poverty to understand how debilitating it can be. At the same time they were also made more aware of just how different rural poverty is from urban poverty. Until fairly recently the civil society side of dealing with rural poverty had been relatively strong, with extended families, churches, and fraternal groups playing major roles. Many stories were told about personally benefitting from these informal, non-governmental networks. And there was much speculation about what had made rural poverty harsher over the years: industrialization of agriculture, decline of subsistence living skills, declining population and out-migration, and disappearance of manufacturing jobs in nearby urban areas.
One major discussion thread that occurred independent of the materials was the extent to which informal mechanisms to deal with poverty are still workable. Some thought that certain aspects of the subsistence economy could be revived in rural areas. Others thought the complexity and skill needs of an information economy made it very difficult for the rural poor to overcome their disadvantages.
The arguments over these cleavages were not, of course, resolved. But through the exploration of values, experiences, and goals there was a sense that we as a society could do a better job in dealing with poverty. Where I saw the common ground emerge was around the notion of “good outcomes” that most, if not all, participants could share. This seemed to represent a pulling back from political positions and a refocus on a widely held vision of “what could be.”
We found a great post from Gillian M. Mehers’s blog “You Learn Something New Every Day” via her Twitter handle that we knew would be a great help for many of our NCDD members who are facilitators. We encourage you to learn more about her workshop report method below or find the original post here.
And it is true that when you use very interactive workshop methodologies, the meeting room after your workshop can look like this:
With walls covered with flipcharts, cards and post-its people usually say “what can I do with all this?”
Typing them up is the first thought, and that can take a very long time and often be challenging to organize (this of course is also part of the learning process from the workshop – identifying what is useful input and important for the next steps in the project or process and what is not.) In my experience, you will rarely get a volunteer willing to do this! I also find that typed flipcharts, when they come back to you in Word format, can lose a lot of the context, feeling and creativity that went into the workshop brainstorming and discussions that produced them.
Another option is a Photo Report, and this has been done for a while. I remember when we took photos with our digital cameras, then downloaded them off the data card, pasted them into PPT and then inserted the photo slides into Word documents, fighting formatting and creating mega-heavy documents that in the end we had to distribute by USB stick as they wouldn’t pass as attachments. (I will fully admit that even then this was probably not the most effective way to do this). Things have gotten a easier with smart phone and compressed files etc.
However, EVEN easier now is the winning combination of an iPad, writing stylus and a nifty app called Penultimate.
Penultimate was recently acquired by Evernote, which I also love, although even before this partnership I was a Penultimate fan.
To use Penultimate for a quick and easy Photo report, you just need to start a new Notebook in the app:
Start a new Penultimate Notebook
Once you are in, you can take photos of your flipcharts, your cards work, your exercises using the photo icon on the page of your notebook. Once you have the photo there on your page, you can resize it, change direction, copy it to multiple pages, and best yet, you can write on or around it (as above!)
I use my notebook to create a living memory of my workshops, from both the content point of view, and the process. For example…
I capture notes and maybe an important slide from a presentation that I want to remember: I capture a workshop exercise in action with some of the highlights of the discussion (and you can write more neatly than I did here!):
I record the results of a card activity theme by theme: I can remember how I set the exercise up and how it ran: And more!
The number of functions is pretty rich for the purpose of creating a Photo Report from a workshop.
As you can see you can select from a range of 10 pen colours (including white and yellow for writing on dark photos as on some of the photos above). There is also a selection of three line thicknesses, so you can make titles stand out or put emphasis on particular words or images. If you make a mistake you can undo it, or change your mind and re-do it. If you like lined paper, plain paper or graph paper, you can change it at any time. As you can see, I use the photo function most heavily. Once I take the photo I always change the size of the photo, move it around, and sometimes put multiple photos on a page (see an example of this in the photos above). If you really need to read the text however, then 1 per page, expanded will work best.
You don’t even have to worry about taking your photos in order. I walk around and snap images of key flipcharts or processes with my iPad when I have a free moment during my workshop, and then I reorder them afterwards with the drag and drop feature – which is very much like you would use to change slide order in PowerPoint in the slide sorter view. If you forget your iPad, you can also use your iPhone for the photos, but then you have to upload them to your iPad photo archive by email afterwards and then insert them one by one into your Penultimate Photo Report. It takes more steps, thus more time, but is relatively straight forward – it also means that other people can send you photos to incorporate.
Once you are happy with your Photo report, you can send it as a pdf by email (if it is not too too big – it can actually quickly get too big for this in my experience), or you can open it in Dropbox and then share the folder, other options include Skitch (also an Evernote product) and Day One (a journaling app). Because I am also an Evernote user, I have it sync to Evernote and then I can just share the URL for that Evernote file by email with my workshop participants. This step will take some fiddling around. I open it in Evernote on my iPad, then open Evernote on my ipad where I then see my Photo Report. Then I sync my computer Evernote until I see it there too. At the end of all this it is easy to use the “Share” button to get a URL that you can paste into an email. It sounds more complicated then it is!
Overall, if you are pretty quick with your photos, and then any notes you want to make on them, you can do it all in about 15 minutes – an immediate and super quick memory of a workshop. If you want to make it very pretty and take it on like a scrapbooking exercise, then of course it can take longer, but it feels creative and fun! Gone are the hours and hours of typing up flipcharts into massive, boring Word document Workshop Reports – of course, you could still let someone else do that after you send your Penultimate report. They will thank you for making it more manageable than struggling with a huge roll of unruly flipchart sheets and a teetering stack of facilitation cards!
We saw a job posting at the D.C.-based Democracy Fund that sounds perfect for many of our NCDD members, so we wanted to make sure to share it with all of you. You can read the posting below or find the original announcement by clicking here.
The Democracy Fund is seeking to hire a Network and Communications Associate to advance our mission of creating a stronger, healthier political system in the United States.
POSITION SUMMARY: The Network and Communications Associate will be responsible for coordinating communications about the Democracy Fund to external audiences, as well as developing relationships with and fostering collaboration among the Democracy Fund’s network of grantees, peer funders, advisors, and other leaders in the field. The Associate will be an integral part of the small Democracy Fund team – developing and implementing the initiative’s overall strategy. The Associate will report to the Director of the Democracy Fund. Specific responsibilities include, but are not limited to:
Work with the Democracy Fund team to develop and implement the initiative’s branding and communications strategy
Work with the Democracy Fund team to produce articles, case studies, and reports about what the Democracy Fund is learning and the impact that it is having
Work with grantees to highlight and promote their accomplishments through social media and other available communications channels.
Write and edit regular blog posts and other web content. Manage the Democracy Fund’s social media presence.
Work with Democracy Fund grantees to encourage communication and collaboration by convening of quarterly meetings, organizing conference calls on topics of special interest, moderating a Google Group, managing a mini-grant program aimed at encouraging collaboration among grantees, and other activities as needed.
Work with the Democracy Fund team to cultivate communication and collaboration among peer funders in the democracy reform field, including convening events and conference calls on issues of strategic importance and other related activities as needed.
Organize an annual strategy retreat of Democracy Fund grantees, peer funders, and advisors, as well as semi-annual strategy sessions with advisors.
Serve as the liaison between the Democracy Fund and its public relations consultants, as well as the communications staff of other Omidyar Group organizations and initiatives.
Manage the Democracy Fund’s internship program, recruiting interns and coordinating their activities to support general activities for the organization.
EDUCATION, EXPERIENCE, AND SKILL REQUIREMENTS:
Deep passion for strengthening American democracy
Excellent written and oral communication skills required
At least 3-5 years of experience in communications, coalition building, organizing, policy analysis, advocacy, or public affairs
Strong strategic mind set and proven ability to translate strategy into action
Success in developing and maintaining institutional, political, and personal relationships
Flexibility and initiative to work both independently and as part of a team
Familiarity with the field of democracy and political reform, as well as the organizations and leaders involved in the field, is preferred
BA required
BACKGROUND
The Democracy Fund aspires to the highest ideals of American democracy – government of, by, and for the people. We invest in organizations working to ensure that our political system is responsive to the priorities of the American public and has the capacity to meet the greatest challenges facing our country. At the heart of our vision for the future are three core commitments to a strong, healthy political system.
First, the American people must have the ability to make informed choices as they engage in the civic life of their nation.
Second, the American people must have confidence that their voices are the primary influence shaping the outcomes of policy and political debates.
Third, the American people need to know that their government has the ability to solve important problems and govern effectively.
The Democracy Fund was created in 2011 by eBay Founder Pierre Omidyar. It is a project of Omidyar Network, a philanthropic investment firm dedicated to creating opportunity for people to improve their lives by helping to scale innovative organizations to catalyze economic and social change. The Democracy Fund is based in Washington, DC. More information about the Democracy Fund may be found at www.democracyfund.org.
COMPENSATION
Salary commensurate with qualifications and experience. Excellent benefits package.
We hope our members in the New York region will take a moment to read the post below, which came from NCDD Sustaining Member Ron Gross of the University Seminar on Education at Columbia University via our greatSubmit-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 POWER OF CONVERSATION, a Seminar with Ronald Gross, will be held on Monday, January 27, 2014, 7:00-9:00 pm, at Faculty House, Columbia University, 117th St. & Morningside Heights in NYC.
Kindly RSVP to reserve a place, to grossassoc@aol.com Please bring this invitation and a photo ID for admission to the building.
Gross co-chairs the University Seminar on Innovation in Education; and is the founder of Conversations New York, and author, Socrates’ Way, Peak Learning, Radical School Reform, etc.
THE POWER OF CONVERSATION has propelled critical inquiry through the ages, from Socrates’ dialogues in the Athenian agora, to Occupy in Zuccoti Park.
Now, it is being harnessed afresh to foster not only civic discourse, but to enhance psychological well-being, strengthen learning (formal and informal), stimulate organizational development, and spark creativity.
This conversation will:
Review ten important benefits of Conversation as established by theory, research, and practice.
Trace the historical roots of Conversation in 17th century Salons, 18th century coffee houses, 19th century scientific societies, and 20th century social change movements such as Occupy.
Report briefly on 15 current projects and programs such as Meet-Up, Socrates Salons, Philosophers’ Cafes, Circles in Women’s Spirituality, Study Groups in Professional Education, Book Discussion Groups, and the National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation.
Review some important contemporary Conversation Studies such as those by David Bohm and Sherry Turkle.
Describe several techniques useful in conducting successful conversations, such as the Talking Stick, World Cafe, and Open Space.
Identify the 10 most notable recent books on Conversation.
Identify 6 crucial dimensions of Conversation: Everyday Spirituality, Educational Strategy (in schools and higher education), Organizational Development, High but Low-Cost BYOB Leisure, Creativity, and Civic Discourse.
Present the new program Conversations New York, and preview a mini-conference on Conversation at Columbia in June, which our Seminars will sponsor.
Faculty House is located on Columbia University’s East Campus on Morningside Drive, north of 116th Street. Enter Wien Courtyard through the gates on 116 Street between Amsterdam Avenue and Morningside Drive. Walk toward the north end of the courtyard, then turn right toward Morningside Drive. Faculty House will be the last building on the right.
To augment the fellowship among members, you are warmly invited to join other members for dinner at Faculty House at 5:30 PM. Dinner at Faculty House, a varied and ample buffet (including wine), is $25, which must be paid for by check made at the beginning of the meal. If you intend to join us for dinner you must let us know via email a week in advance.
BACKGROUND: This seminar is jointly sponsored by the Columbia University Seminars on Innovation in Education, and on Ethics, Moral Education, and Society.
The Seminar on Innovation in Education is co-chaired by Ronald Gross, who also conducts the Socratic Conversations at the Gottesman Libraries, and Robert McClintock who is John L. and Sue Ann Weinberg Professor Emeritus in the Historical and Philosophical Foundations of Education at Teachers College. Founded in 1970, the Seminar explores the process of learning in individuals, organizations, and society throughout the lifespan and via major institutions.
The Seminar on Ethics, Moral Education and Society, chaired by Michael Schulman, brings together scholars from psychology, philosophy, sociology, political theory, education, religion and other disciplines to explore issues in ethics, moral education, moral development, moral motivation, moral decision making and related topics.
Upcoming 2013-14 seminar dates: no February, March 3, April 7, May 5.
Columbia University encourages persons with disabilities to participate in its programs and activities. University Seminar participants with disabilities who anticipate needing accommodations or who have questions about physical access may contact the Office of Disability Services at 212-854-2388 or disability@columbia.edu. Disability accommodations, including sign-language interpreters, are available on request. Requests for accommodations must be made two weeks in advance. On campus, seminar participants with disabilities should alert a Public Safety Officer that they need assistance accessing campus.
For example, people at the back of a room might have a hard time hearing the speaker at the front. When this happens someone is apt to suggest to the speaker: “Speak up.” But another solution is in the hands of the listeners: “Move closer.”
