Category Archives: youth

Human Trafficking: How Can Our Community Respond to This Growing Problem? (NIFI Issue Guide)

Posted on by
Reply

The 8-page issue guide on National, Human Trafficking: How Can Our Community Respond to This Growing Problem? was posted on National Issues Forums Institute website and it was collective effort of a few groups. The guide was created in 2016 by the Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation, Spot 127 Youth Media Center, the Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research, Arizona State University School of Social Work. The issue guide can be downloaded for free from NIFI’s site here, and also available is a moderator’s guide and information on Human Trafficking to inform deliberation participants.

From the guide…NIFI_HumanTrafficking_guide

Many Americans are unaware of the extent to which human trafficking is an issue in their communities. Others may be aware of some aspects of the problem, but may feel powerless to do anything about it. But as law enforcement and others document a growing industry in human trafficking across the country, what can and should our community do to combat the problem?…

This discussion guide was compiled by the Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation, with support and guidance from Dr. Dominique Roe-Sepowitz, Director of the Office of Sex Trafficking Intervention Research, Arizona State University School of Social Work; and with input from the youth journalists at the Spot 127 Youth Media Center.

This issue guide presents three options for deliberation:

Approach One: “Focus on Families’ and the Community’s Roles”
According to this approach, many minors end up being trafficked after experiencing problems at home. This approach says we need to do more to help parents and families to be successful in providing safe and supportive homes. It also argues that community members in general need to do more to be informed about trafficking issues and engaged in looking for and reporting suspected trafficking situations.

Approach Two: “Focus on Schools, First Responders and Other Professionals”
This view says that professionals working in schools, medical and mental health professions, and emergency first responders are best suited to identify and respond to instances of human trafficking. It suggests having these professionals all be held accountable and provided support to more actively combat human trafficking.

Approach Three: “Reform Laws and Policies”
This approach says that we need to reevaluate how we arrest and prosecute crimes related to prostitution and gang activity in order to identify victims of human trafficking and get to the leaders and organizers of these criminal enterprises. Law enforcement reform should treat trafficking victims as victims in need of support, rather than criminals.

Below is a video produced by students at the KJZZ Spot 127 Youth Media Center for the Maricopa Community Colleges Center for Civic Participation:

NIF-Logo2014About NIFI Issue Guides
NIFI’s Issue Guides introduce participants to several choices or approaches to consider. Rather than conforming to any single public proposal, each choice reflects widely held concerns and principles. Panels of experts review manuscripts to make sure the choices are presented accurately and fairly. By intention, Issue Guides do not identify individuals or organizations with partisan labels, such as Democratic, Republican, conservative, or liberal. The goal is to present ideas in a fresh way that encourages readers to judge them on their merit.

Follow on Twitter: @NIForums

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/groups/human-trafficking-how-can-our-community-respond-growing-problem-issue-guide-maricopa

5 Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

The article, 5 Ways to Overcome Barriers to Youth Engagement by Rebecca Reyes and Malana Rogers-Bursen was published in 2016 on the Everyday Democracy site. The authors shared 5 common challenges to getting youth to participate and offer solutions to address each of these challenges. These tips are helpful when designing events that are more inclusive for youth and also good to keep in mind for other groups of people. Read a condensed version of the article below and find it in full on Everyday Democracy’s here.

From Everyday Democracy…

Challenge #1: Scheduling conflicts
Everyone is busy, including young people. They have packed schedules with school, extracurricular activities, work, and helping out at home. Some may be responsible for caring for younger siblings, or they may have young children of their own. If they are going to be giving up some of their time, they need to know it will be time well spent.

Possible solutions:
Recognize that “young people” as a group are very diverse – they have different levels of education, racial/ethnic backgrounds, and lifestyles. Think about the group you’re trying to reach and the scheduling challenges they might face. Evenings and/or weekends might be the best time to meet for many people. But, it depends on the group.

…

Challenge #2: Experience barriers
It is often assumed that more experience is always better. In addition, certain types of experiences like attending certain schools or working in a particular profession tend to be valued more than others. These values and assumptions privilege only certain types of experiences and they don’t leave room for young people. We need to recognize that young people do have valuable skills and knowledge and make room for different kinds and levels of experience.

Possible solutions:
– Aim to include people with a range of skills and knowledge in your group, instead of focusing only on those with many years of experience.
– Acknowledge that young people do have knowledge and skills to contribute, even if they don’t have related professional experience.

…

Challenge #3: Young people have a limited voice in meetings
As a young person, it can be intimidating to speak up in a group of adults, especially since young people are often outnumbered in meetings. Once they are at the table, it’s important to create an environment of respect that allows their voice to be heard.

Possible solutions:
-Set ground rules that you agree on as a group. Make sure the rules will make space for a respectful conversation.
-Practice active listening. As a group, talk about what it means to be an active listener. Consider doing a listening activity during one of your meetings. Continue reading →

Informing or Engaging: What Is the Role of Higher Education in Strengthening Public Life? (Connections 2015)

Posted on by
Reply

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…

KF_Connections 2015Higher 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
KF_LogoThe 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

What’s Race Got to Do with It? (Video)

Posted on by
Reply

The 49-minute video, What’s Race Got to Do with It?, published by California Newsreel in 2006, shows the journey of a diverse group of 16 UC Berkeley students who participated in a semester-long intergroup dialogue program sponsored by University of California, Berkeley Ethnic Studies Department and Stiles Hall. The students were part of the class, “FACING YOU, FACING ME: Race, Class & Gender Among UCB Student Leaders”, led by David Stark and co-facilitator, Jerlena Griffin-Destaco. An online facilitator’s guide is available on PDF here.

Below is a six minute clip from the video:

More about the film…
This excerpt comes from the film’s site, whatsrace.org.

More than 40 years after the Civil Rights Movement, America faces the paradox of being a nation “with racism, but without racists,” as sociologist Eduardo Bonilla-Silva has put it. Racial inequality is harder to recognize in a world where it no longer announces itself with white-only signs. Meanwhile, the idea of “colorblindness” conveniently allows us to condemn prejudice and bigotry while ignoring how racism contributes to the vast disparities that persist right under our noses.

Not surprisingly, many of today’s students, born in the post-Civil Rights era, don’t seek out opportunities to engage in diversity programs and interracial dialogue. They feel they’ve heard it all before or wonder why we’re still talking about a problem that ended a long time ago. More often than not in these discussions, structural racism is ignored and multiculturalism gets confused with equality. Even many students of color don’t realize how underlying conditions impact opportunity.

Too few resources exist to help young people scrutinize their own assumptions, beliefs and attitudes about race – using language they understand, spoken by their peers. At a time when campuses are struggling to close achievement gaps, foster inclusion, and promote diversity – while equity initiatives across the country are under attack – we responded to the demand for a new tool that is up to date and speaks directly to students’ doubts and concerns in today’s post-Civil Rights world.

What’s Race Got to Do with It? chronicles the journey of a diverse group of students participating in a 15-week intergroup dialogue program at U.C. Berkeley. As the students share personal stories, debate hot topics, and confront one another about the role race plays in their lives, they make discoveries about their preconceived ideas and assumptions, and in so doing, help us begin to disentangle our own.  The film goes beyond identity politics, celebratory history and guilt trips to help viewers “see through” achievement myths and create a safe space for open, honest exchange, particularly within educational environments.

In some ways, What’s Race Got to Do with It? is a “sequel” to our earlier release Skin Deep, because it highlights an interracial dialogue and provides a window into the different attitudes and assumptions that young people hold about race and equality.However, it goes further by highlighting the unique challenges and obstacles that students from disadvantaged backgrounds face compared to their peers (e.g., isolation, discomfort, underrepresentation, lack of encouragement and support, financial and emotional stress, societal disparities) and helping us understand the structural and institutional conditions underlying those difficulties.

In addition, the film focuses not just on what’s being said but also what’s not being discussed openly – the underlying fears, frustration, ignorance and confusion that render unproductive so many of our conversations about racism. The film spotlights the stories young people use to rationalize (to themselves and others) the persistence of racial disparities as well as the rhetorical strategies and often-loaded language they employ to evade, resist or deflect ideas that are unsettling. And it reveals just how different our experiences and perceptions can be of the world we ostensibly share – how something that is painfully obvious to one person can be invisible to another.

What’s Race Got to Do with It? does not attempt to replicate the experience of the class nor does it supply easy answers or address the concerns of every group. What it does provide is a starting point for a deeper, more productive level of conversation – one grounded in real-life issues and experiences. Whether one agrees or disagrees with the students on screen, their stories help get the “high stakes” topics out on the table, in a manner accessible to individuals who have never thought much about race as well as long-time activists. Perhaps most importantly, the film challenges each of us to reflect on existing disparities and the responsibility we all share – individually and institutionally – to create more equitable conditions for everyone.

For more information about the UC Berkeley class or to learn how to start your own intergroup dialogue program, contact David Stark at 510-841-6010 or info[at]stileshall[dot]org.

Resource Link: www.whatsrace.org/pages/film.htm

Separate and Unequal in 1963: How Can We Create A Fair Society? (DMC Issue Guide)

Posted on by
Reply

Separate and Unequal in 1963: How Can We Create a Fair Society?, is a 22-page historical issue guide developed in 2014 by the David Mathews Center for Civic Life, Alabama Public Television (APT), and additional partners for use in a classroom setting. Download the Issue Guide PDF here.

DMC_1963_guideIn Separate and Unequal in 1963, students are asked to place themselves in 1963 Birmingham, Alabama to deliberate together through the difficult choices faced by those working to address segregation and inequality. Additionally, students are encouraged to consider the ways in which their own civic engagement shapes the communities of today. The issue guide includes an opening essay from Dr. David Mathews, a Civil Rights timeline, a fictional editorial on inequality in Alabama, three framed approaches, two classroom activities, a glossary of terms, and a list of helpful primary and secondary sources.

This historic issue guide is an accompanying resource for Alabama Public Television’s electronic field trip series entitled Project C: Lessons from the American Civil Rights Movement. The issue guide was named and framed by a diverse group of Alabamians. More information about the naming and framing process of this unique guide is available here. APT’s entire Project C electronic field trip series and accompanying resources can be found at www.aptv.org/project-C/.

In introducing this issue guide, Dr. David Mathews asks students to carefully weigh the challenges faced by Birmingham residents during this historic period:

“[T]ry to imagine yourself and your classmates have traveled back to 1963 and are looking at the options people were considering then. How would you weigh the three options that are presented in this issue book? Can you give each of them a “fair trial,” even the options that you don’t like? You’ll need to say what you think and listen closely to what others say. (Deliberation requires both.) This exercise will strengthen your ability to deliberate; and, in addition, it will teach history in a way that will allow you to experience it.”

The issue guide outlines the following three approaches to addressing the historical issues of segregation and inequality in 1963 Birmingham:

Approach One: “Take a Legislative and Legal Stand”
We can achieve lasting equality only through laws that ensure fairness and justice. If the United States is the land of the free, then we must do more to make sure that everyone is treated fairly. To honor our founding principles of freedom and equality, we need to aggressively change laws to get rid of segregation. Lawmakers must enact and enforce federal laws prohibiting segregation and discriminatory practices. Federal courts must require states and cities to respect court rulings, then lawyers must work to ensure equality through lawsuits.

Approach Two: “Build and Strengthen Relationships”
Inequality is a serious problem, but we must be very cautious not to disrupt relations in our community as we work to deal with it. Rapid change would lead to a disordered society that threatens everyone regardless of race. We must work together in our communities to improve relationships between black and white citizens. We must study the issue, learn to work together, and push for change at the local level. We must search for common ground to unite us and work to eliminate fear. Cities, states, and local communities should work peacefully on policies that guarantee equality and fairness for all citizens.

Approach Three: “Take Direct and Immediate Action”
We cannot wait for gradual change. It has been 100 years since the Emancipation Proclamation, and segregation is still being practiced in communities across the country. People are being treated unfairly, and Washington D.C. and state capitols are not moving fast enough. We cannot expect legislation and lawsuits alone to create equal opportunities. If we want to make real change, all citizens must take direct action now. Rapid change in the community may lead to positive changes across the country and the world. It’s urgent that we protest, boycott, and educate immediately. We must be willing to risk jail, injury, and perhaps even death.

About DMC and the Issue Guides
The David Mathews Center—a non-profit, non-partisan organization—authors deliberative frameworks for people to carefully examine multiple approaches, weigh costs and consequences, and work through tensions and tradeoffs among different courses of action to current and historic issues of public concern.

David Mathews Center issue guides are named and framed by Alabamians for Alabama Issues Forums (AIF) during a biennial “Citizens’ Congress” and follow-up workshops. Alabama Issues Forums is a David Mathews Center signature program designed to bring Alabamians together to deliberate and take community action on an issue of public concern. Digital copies of all AIF issue guides, and accompanying post-forum questionnaires, are available for free download at http://mathewscenter.org/resources. For further information about the David Mathews Center or this publication, please visit http://mathewscenter.org/ or contact DMC Executive Director, Cristin Foster, at cfoster[at]mathewscenter[dot]org.

Follow DMC on Twitter: @DMCforCivicLife

Resource Link: http://mathewscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/DMC-ProjectC-Singlepgs.pdf

This resource was submitted by Cristin Foster, the Executive Director at David Mathews Center for Civic Life, via the Add-a-Resource form.

Deliberation in the Classroom

Posted on by
Reply

The 19-minute video, Deliberation in the Classroom, created for National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI), was published January 2013. The video shows examples of students engaging in deliberation using NIFI issues guides at two different schools, one in Alabama and one in Wisconsin. The video shows the students getting ready for their deliberative forums, during the forums, and reflections afterwards from the students and teachers. Read more about the video and watch it below, or find the original on NIFI’s site here.

From NIFI…

This 19-minute YouTube video features students in Wisconsin and Alabama as they participate in deliberative forums using materials from the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI). In Birmingham, Alabama, teacher, Zakiya Jenkins, with assistance from Peggy Sparks, of Sparks Consulting, reflects on eighth-grade student deliberations about Youth and Violence. And in Wausau, Wisconsin, teachers Sarah Schneck, Shannon Young, and Kevin Krieg, discuss student deliberations about America’s Role in the World. The student forums in Wausau were hosted by John Greenwood of the Wisconsin Institute for Policy and Service.

Watch the video below:

About NIFI
NIF-Logo2014Based in Dayton, Ohio, the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI), is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization that serves to promote public deliberation and coordinate the activities of the National Issues Forums network. Its activities include publishing the issue guides and other materials used by local forum groups, encouraging collaboration among forum sponsors, and sharing information about current activities in the network. Follow on Twitter: @NIForums.

Resource Link: www.nifi.org/en/groups/watch-video-deliberation-classroom