what sustains free speech?

Posted on by
Reply

My remarks last week at a small conference on “Tolerance, Citizenship, and the Open Society” at the Tisch College of Civic Life …

We human beings did not evolve to take a broad view of justice, to collect information from diverse sources, to reason impartially, and to be responsive to other people who differ from us. These acts do not come naturally to us.

But we are capable of building prosthetics. For instance, we did not evolve with the skill to tell time precisely, which is now useful for coordinating behavior in mass societies. So we wear wristwatches, hang clocks on our walls, and display the current time on most of our electronic devices. A clock or a watch is a prosthetic device that extends our natural capacities.

An invention (in this case, a clock) will not suffice on its own. Many people must use it. That requires some kind of system that creates incentives or requirements for producing the devices and using them widely. A market with supply and demand can work; so can a state mandate. Either one is an institution.

We have created institutions that extend our ability to deliberate about justice. An example was the metropolitan daily newspaper from ca. 1910 to ca. 1990. Always very far from perfect, it nevertheless delivered important, mind-broadening information to about 80% of Americans every day in the year 1970. They (and advertisers) paid for the local press because it also provided sports, classified ads, comics, and whole package of goods–but with the most important news on the front cover, where it could not be missed.

A university is another institution that supports inquiry and discussion about important matters. It is more complex than a newspaper. Its revenues may include tuition, government aid, grants, gifts, intellectual property transfers, and clinical fees, among other sources. The goods it produces include skills and knowledge of value to each learner; virtues and skills that have public value; the pure public goods of basic knowledge and culture; monetizable forms of knowledge, such as patents; services, such as meals, art exhibitions, and clinical care; and credentials and entry to the middle class.

The skeptical view of such institutions is that their underlying economic motivations determine the ideas and discussions that they support. For example, newspapers are owned by tycoons or faceless corporations that just want to maximize profits. Universities sell social stratification and individual advancement. This analysis always merits attention and explains some of the phenomena. But it is one-sided, because these institutions are also the result of human artisanship–of people creating the means to sustain better thinking at a large scale.

For instance, the metropolitan daily newspaper can be interpreted as the product of the media industry, but it should also be seen as the product of the press. Traditional newspapers tried to distinguish the two by separating the newsroom from the publisher’s suite, but those subsystems were connected. For instance, plenty of publishers were former shoe-leather reporters. Their motives were mixed. That is good because mixed motives produce scalable public goods.

Too simple a theory would yield two predictions about newspapers that both proved incorrect. In 1900, you might predict that millions of people would never spend their own money voluntarily to purchase relatively impartial and challenging daily news. But they did–in part because they were also buying comics and box scores. In 1970, you might predict that we would always have a press, because it meets a social need. But the press has collapsed (half as many people work as reporters today compared to ten years ago) because the Internet has killed its business model.

As with other forms of artisanship, nothing is for certain. Ingenuity, commitment, and perseverance are required. The institutional structures that support broadened understanding depend on intentional work.

The results are always flawed. The recent scandals with college admissions just bring home the flaws of universities, for instance. We should have a free, open, informed, and consequential discussion about how to improve them. But no discussion can occur outside of a viable forum that depends on an institution. We don’t spontaneously gather to discuss; the discussion always happens in a university or a school, an op-ed page of a privately-owned newspaper, Facebook, a union hall, a church basement, a party convention, the state legislature–somewhere that draws resources and assembles users.

These institutions then structure and limit the discussion. There is no view from nowhere, only a permanent struggle to discuss as wisely as we can in various forums. We don’t create these forums deliberatively; most of them arise as the result of accident, power, or leadership. Because they are all flawed and limited, it is essential to have many of them, with diverse forms, competing and checking one another.

This is a “civic” perspective because it emphasizes our ability to shape the world of discourse through artisanship. And it broadens our attention so that we consider not only the rules for speech within an institution (e.g., campus speech codes) but also–and usually more importantly–the underpinnings of the institution itself.

See also a civic approach to free speech; Sinclair and Bezos: media ownership and media bias; don’t let the behavioral revolution make you fatalistic; prospects for civic media after 2016; China teaches the value of political pluralism; polycentricity: the case for a (very) mixed economy.

Trump and Putin: the ideological angle

Posted on by
Reply

I think my working theory of Trump and the Russians (from June 2017) remains pretty consistent with what we now know. But the part of the story that has been mostly submerged concerns the ideological affinities between Trump and Putin and whether certain shared values have influenced their behavior.

Ideological affinities should not be legally investigated, litigated, or prosecuted. If Bernie Sanders wanted some assistance (other than cash) from European Social Democrats, he would be welcome to it. To view endorsements, exchanges of information, introductions, etc. as illegal campaign contributions would violate free speech rights. In reality, Sanders would be unlikely to seek European help, because American voters wouldn’t like that. But George W. Bush calculated that American voters would appreciate Tony Blair’s support for him. In all such cases, voters should observe, debate, and judge.

Regarding Trump and Putin, voters face two questions. One is whether these men have a real affinity and any kind of significant political alliance–not because that would be prosecutable, but because it would be important to understand and assess. The second question is the nature of their affinity. What values (if any) does it reflect, and what should we make of those values? (I leave aside financial ties, which might still be under investigation in the Southern District of New York and elsewhere. We should leave those matters to investigators with subpoena powers.)

One view would be that Trump and Putin share a white nationalist agenda. Casey Michel reports that “Richard Spencer, the current face (and haircut) of US’s alt-right, believes Russia is the ‘sole white power in the world.’ David Duke, meanwhile, believes Russia holds the ‘key to white survival.’ And as Matthew Heimbach, head of the white nationalist Traditionalist Worker Party, recently said, Russian president Vladimir Putin is the ‘leader of the free world’—one who has helped morph Russia into an ‘axis for nationalists.'”

This belief may not track reality. Stephen F. Cohen emphasizes that Putin “endlessly appeals for harmony in ‘our entire multi-ethnic nation’ with its ‘multi-ethnic culture.'” Those statements are arguably better than anything Trump has uttered about America. Russian nationalism of the Putin variety is probably better explained as a reaction to understandable grievances rather than a form of white supremacy. But the question is not whether Putin is a racist. The question is whether an American white supremacist would see him as an ally. The actual alt-right does, and Trump may have similar instincts. Both of Trump’s wives have been Slavic women, and I strongly suspect that he sees ethnic Russians as part of his own in-group, defined in contrast to Muslims and peoples of color.

Another view (mine, for what it’s worth) would be that Putin exemplifies a global tendency to concentrate power in charismatic macho male leaders who work closely with their security services and local billionaires, and who maintain popularity by demonstrating “strength” versus enemies, foreign and domestic. Then Putin is an example of a category that now covers more than half of the world’s population, starting with India’s Narendra Modi and China’s Xi Jinping. In this context, Trump is a wannabe. He has all the same instincts for crony capitalism, militant policing, resentment of outsiders, etc., but he’s not as smart, and he faces more domestic opposition.

A third view is that the real problem is global capitalism, undergirded by US hegemony. In that view, Putin is not high on the list of villains. In fact, he is a bit of a thorn in the side of US/NATO/EU power. The international partnerships that should evoke the most resistance are those within the G8 or Davos. Instead of being angry when Trump meets Putin privately, we should have objected to the bromance of Barack Obama and James Cameron.

These positions are separated by wide and deep gaps in values and worldviews. Ideally, the American people would consider them all and form a majority view. But I don’t expect this to happen, because it is in no one’s political interest to focus on the ideological questions concerning Trump and Russia. Democrats know that this is not a winning political issue for 2020, even if more people happen to agree than disagree with them about Putin. The issue also threatens inter-party harmony a bit. Republicans have principled reasons to oppose Putin but would then find themselves battling a Republican president on difficult terrain.

Lots of liberals have been hoping that the Trump/Putin relationship was felonious, which would shift the issue from politics to law. I suppose I was hoping that, but with some misgivings. For the record, I also opposed prosecuting Bush Administration figures like Scooter Libby, because I thought that was a way of criminalizing what should have been a political question. In a true democracy, we address even the most serious questions–matters of life and death at a mass scale–through open debate and elections, not by turning them over to lawyers. The end of the Mueller investigation is an opportunity for us to perform our civic responsibilities. Even if political leaders don’t especially want to discuss whether Trump and Putin share a worldview, that is the topic that deserves our attention.

Celebrating Women Who Are Making Democracy Stronger

Posted on by
Reply

This week marks the close of March and Women’s History Month, which is an intentional time to lift up the vital contributions women have given to history and society. It is in this spirit of celebration and honor, we share this piece from the Democracy Fund, Celebrating Women Who Are Making Democracy Stronger, written by Anne Gleich, Jessica Harris, and Jessica Mahone. The article offers an incredible list of phenomenal women across the nation working to improve our election systems, political representation, journalism, and who are leading efforts to build bridges across divisions and combat hate. Shout out to Shari Davis of NCDD member org The Participatory Budgeting Project who was mentioned for her work! We highly encourage folks to learn more about the work of these powerful women and to join us in congratulating them on their hard work and impactful accomplishments! Read the article below and find the original on Democracy Fund’s blog here.

Celebrating Women Who Are Making Democracy Stronger

In the first presidential proclamation celebrating women’s contributions to United States history, President Reagan observed: “American women of every race, creed and ethnic background helped found and build our Nation in countless recorded and unrecorded ways … Their diverse service is among America’s most precious gifts.”

As pioneers, teachers, mothers, soldiers, journalists, inventors, lawmakers, laborers and so many other roles, women have and continue to make vital contributions to American economic, political, and social life. Throughout our history, women have not only advocated to secure their own rights of suffrage and equal opportunity, but were also early leaders in the abolitionist, temperance, mental health, labor, and social reform movements, as well as the modern civil rights movement. It is not hyperbole to say that the United States has been transformed by these generations of women, and our democracy has been strengthened through their courage, creativity, and persistence.

As we commemorate Women’s History Month at Democracy Fund, we also want to take some time to celebrate our incredible women-led and women-focused grantees who today are continuing this long tradition of public service and leadership.

Women are leading efforts to improve our elections and make sure every vote counts.

At Democracy Fund, we believe that voting is the cornerstone of our democracy. Through our Elections Program, we are proud to support many innovative American women who are leading efforts to ensure our elections are free, fair, accessible, and secure.

Tianna Epps Johnson, founder of the Center for Technology and Civic Life, is building free and low-cost tech tools to help local election officials better engage with their communities and modernize elections. Electionline, run by Editor-in-Chief Mindy Moretti, is providing news and information about election administration and reform across all 50 states and has created a hub for elections officials to network, learn from each other, and collaborate on ways to improve the voting process.

When it comes to accessibility, many Americans still face barriers that prevent them from participating in the election process. Michelle Bishop and the National Disability Rights Network are educating election officials, equipment vendors, advocates, and the public on the need for fully accessible elections. Terry Ao Minnis, Democracy Fund Senior Fellow and Director of the Census and Voting programs at Asian Americans for Advancing Justice, is working to ensure a fair and accurate Census so that all Americans receive the resources and assistance they need to participate in our democracy. And Whitney Quesenbery and Dana Chisnell at the Center for Civic Design are bringing user experience principles to the design of forms and tools that will make voting easier for all voters. Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg at CIRCLE at Tufts University and the historic League of Women Voters, under the leadership of Virginia Kase, are innovating new ways to inform and engage women voters across the political spectrum.

Jennifer Morrell, a former Colorado election official, is working with state election officials to develop and implement new testing and auditing procedures to ensure votes are counted correctly, and results are reported accurately. And Mari Dugas and the Cyber Security Project and Defending Digital Democracy has published several playbooks to help campaign and election officials defend themselves against cyberattacks and information operations aimed at undermining trust in the American election system.

Women from both sides of the aisle are working together to create a Congress that looks more like America.

Even though we just saw a historic election cycle where a record-setting number of women ran for elected office and won, we still have a long way to go until women are fully represented in the United States. That is why, through our Governance Program, Democracy Fund is proud to support many leaders and organizations that are working to equip women with the skills they need to participate in politics, run for office, and lead once elected.

ReflectUS, a nonpartisan coalition working to increase the number of women in office and achieve equal representation across the racial, ideological, ethnic, and geographic spectrum, is fostering collaboration among seven of the nation’s leading training organizations to help equip more women to run, win, and serve. The Women’s Public Leadership Network aims to increase the number of women under consideration for political and government-related appointments and is growing a network and support system for conservative women who are interested in running for elected office or participating in our political system. Latinas Lead, a new program from The National Hispanic Caucus of State Legislators, helps current Latina state legislators scale the leadership ranks in their State Capitols, as well as recruit potential Latina candidates for state-level office.

Once women are elected, the National Foundation of Women Legislators provides resources and opportunities to develop leadership skills and build professional and personal relationships across the aisle through regular conferences, state outreach, educational materials, and more. The Women’s Congressional Policy Institute, lead by Cindy Hall and a bipartisan board of female former legislators, has been bringing women policymakers together across party lines to advance issues of importance to women and their families for over twenty years. With our support, they have also launched several programs to foster women’s leadership on Capitol Hill through the Congressional Women’s Caucus and the Women Chiefs of Staff Program. We are also supporters of the Congressional Women’s Softball Game— a yearly event to foster bipartisan relationships between women Members of Congress and their counterparts in the D.C. Press Corps.

Women journalists are holding our leaders accountable and creating opportunities for the next generation of reporters.

Women play a vital role in holding leaders accountable once they’ve been elected. Although the majority of journalism and communications graduates are women, the majority of newsroom workers, particularly leaders, are men. Holding leaders accountable to all Americans requires a news industry that is inclusive and represents all communities, which is why, through our Public Square Program, we are proud to support organizations and leaders that are working to change America’s newsrooms and create new resources to inform and serve their communities.

By pioneering innovative new methods that newsrooms can use to better listen to and collaborate with the communities they serve, Bettina Chang at CityBureau and Sarah Alvarez and an all-woman staff at Outlier Media are rethinking how journalism is done. The Obsidian Collection, led by Angela Ford, is working to promote the importance of Black media in the United States, preserve the stories of Black communities through archiving, and build a blueprint for future generations in Black media.

Founded by Nikole Hannah Jones, The Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting is dedicated to increasing the number of and retaining reporters and editors of color in the field of investigative reporting by providing low-cost regional trainings in the use of advanced technology, open records laws, advanced interviewing techniques and other investigative techniques. The Ida B. Wells Society partners with organizations such as the National Association for Black Journalists, Investigative Reporters and Editors, and Historically Black Colleges and Universities (HBCUs) to provide access to journalists and aspiring journalists of color who want to sharpen their investigative reporting skills and broaden their professional networks.

Take the Lead’s 50 Women Can Change the World in Journalism training program harnesses the collective power of women in journalism to build a more just and equal world, advance their careers, and work together to re-envision journalism. According to co-founder Gloria Feldt, Take the Lead’s goal is “nothing less than gender parity by 2025.”

Women are leading efforts to combat hate in America and build bridges across our divides.

Like many who care about the health of our political system, we at Democracy Fund have been alarmed by increasing tribalism and extremism across the United States, including the implementation of policies targeting immigrant and minority communities and the rise in hate-crimes against communities of color, and Jewish, Muslim, Arab, and South Asian communities. We’re partnering with leaders and organizations that are working to ensure the resilience and safety of targeted communities through our Special Project on Fostering a Just and Inclusive Society.

Grantees like Sherrilyn Ifill at the NAACP-LDF, Kristen Clarke at the Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights, Marielena Hincapie at the National Immigration Law Center, and Aarti Kohli at the Asian Law Caucus are leading efforts to protect those whose civil rights and safety are endangered in this volatile political moment. Purvi Shah and Movement Law Lab are incubating projects that combine law and community organizing to protect, defend, and strengthen racial justice movements. To inform national conversations, Meira Neggaz and Dahlia Mogahed at the Institute for Social Policy and Understanding provide case studies and data on the day-to-day challenges many Muslims face, as well as actionable recommendations for breaking the structural barriers that hinder the American Muslim community from full inclusion and participation. And Samar Ali is leading the Millions of Conversations campaign to engage communities across the country in changing the narrative about Muslims in America.

In this blog, we could only highlight a few of the remarkable women leaders whose organizations, programs, and projects Democracy Fund is proud to support. We hope you’ll take some time to explore the complete list below. By working to improve our elections, hold our government accountable, combat hate, and open doors for the next generation, these women are making their mark on American history right now—and our democracy will be stronger because of them.

ELECTIONS

Bonnie Allen, Chicago Lawyers’ Committee

Pam Anderson, Consultant for Voter Centric Election Administration

Michelle Bishop, National Disability Rights Network

Mitchell Brown, Capacity and Governance Institute

Jamie Chesser, National States Geographic Information Council

Dana Chisnell, Center for Civic Design

Kristen Clarke, Lawyers Committee for Civil RIghts

Lisa Danetz, National Voter Registration Act Compliance Consultant

Mari Dugas, Belfer Center Cybersecurity and Defending Digital Democracy

Tiana Epps Johnson, Center for Technology and Civic Life

Rebecca Green, William & Mary Law School eBenchbook

Astrid Garcia Ochoa, Future of California Elections

Kathleen Hale, Capacity and Governance Institute

Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause

Shanna Hughey, ThinkTennessee

Sharon Jarvis, Moody College of Communications, University of Texas

Virginia Kase, League of Women Voters

Kei Kawashima-Ginsberg, CIRCLE at Tufts University

Kate Krontiris, Voter Turnout consultant

Nsombi Lambright, One Voice

Susan Lerner, Common Cause New York

Amber McReynolds, Vote at Home

Gretchen Macht, RI VOTES at University of Rhode Island

Mimi Marziani, Texas Civil Rights Project

Terry Ao Minnis, Asian Americans for Advancing Justice

Mindy Moretti, Electionline

Jennifer Morrell, Risk-Limiting Audits consultant

Katy Owens Hubler, Common Data and Elections Process Model consultant

Katy Peters, Democracy Works

Wendy Quesenbery, Center for Civic Design

Ashley Spillane, Impactual

Wendy Underhill, National Conference of State Legislatures

GOVERNANCE

Erica Bernal, NALEO Educational Fund

Danielle Brian, Project On Government Oversight

Louise Dube, iCivics

Mindy Finn, Empowered Women

Sylvia Golbin Goodman, Andrew Goodman Foundation

Rosalind Gold, NALEO Educational Fund

Dr. Mary Grant, Edward M. Kennedy Institute

Cindy Hall, Women’s Congressional Policy Institute

Cherie Harder, Trinity Forum

Marci Harris, PopVox

Dr. Carla Hayden, Library of Congress

Audrey Henson, College to Congress

Lorelei Kelly, Beeck Center

Sheila Krumholz, Center for Responsive Politics

Frances Lee, UMD Interdisciplinary Polarization Research

Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer, National Institute for Civil Discourse

Tamera Luzzatto, Pew Safe Spaces Project

Maya MacGuineas, Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget

Angela Manso, Staff Up Congress, NALEO Educational Fund

Meredith McGehee, Issue One

Darla Minnich, National Issues Forum Institute

Joan Mooney, Faith and Politics Institute

Jennifer Nassour, ReflectUS

Beth Simone Noveck, NYU GovLab

Michelle Payne, Congressional Sports for Charity

Rachel Peric, Welcoming America

Lisa Rosenberg, Open the Government

Laura Rosenberger, Alliance for Securing Democracy at the German Marshall Fund

Sonal Shah, Beeck Center

Suzanne Spaulding, Defending Democracy Initiative, Center for Strategic and International Studies

Michele Stockwell, Bipartisan Policy Center Action

Jody Thomas, National Foundation for Women Legislators

Sarah Turberville, The Constitution Project at POGO

PUBLIC SQUARE

Sarah Alvarez, Outlier Media

Bettina Chang, City Bureau

Heather Chaplin, The New School for Journalism + Design

Meredith Clark, University of Virginia/ASNE Diversity Survey

Sue Cross, Institute for Nonprofit News

Gloria Feldt, Take the Lead

Leslie Fields-Cruz, Black Public Media

Angela Ford, The Obsidian Collection

Martha Foye, Working Narratives

Lackisha Freeman, WNCU

Sarah Gustavus, New Mexico Local News Fund

Elizabeth Green, Chalkbeat, American Journalism Project

Andrea Hart, City Bureau

Hadar Harris, Student Press Law Center

Rose Hoban, NC Health News

Deborah Holt Noel, UNC-TV Black Issues Forum

Janey Hurley, Asheville Writers in the Schools

Paola Jaramillo, Enlace Latino North Carolina

Nikole Hannah Jones, The Ida B. Wells Society for Investigative Reporting

Mollie Kabler, Coast Alaska

Regina Lawrence, Agora Journalism Center

Sally Lehrman, Trust Project

Joy Mayer, Trusting News Project

Stefanie Murray, Center for Cooperative Media at Montclair State University

Tamiko Ambrose Murray, Asheville Writers in the Schools

Amy Niles, WBGO

Angie Newsome, Carolina Public Press

Suzanne Nossel, Pen America

Erika Owens, OpenNews

Tracie Powell, Democracy Fund Senior Fellow

Angelique Powers, Field Foundation

Kristy Roschke, News Co/Lab at Arizona State University

Melanie Sill, Senior Consultant for North Carolina Local News Lab

Sheila Solomon, Senior Consultant for Chicago

Michelle Srbinovich, WDET

Talia Stroud, Center for Media Engagement at the University of Texas at Austin

Katie Townsend, Reporters Committee for Press Freedom Litigation Program

Naomi Tacuyan Underwood, Asian American Journalists Association

Mary Walter Brown, News Revenue Hub

Nancy Watzman, Colorado Media Project

Journalism and Women Symposium

JUST & INCLUSIVE SOCIETY

Samar Ali, Millions of Conversations

Rachel Brown, Over Zero

Kristen Clarke, Lawyers Committee for Civil Rights

Marielena Hincapie, National Immigration Law Center

Sherrilyn Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

Aarti Kohli, Asian Law Caucus

Dalia Mogahed, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

Meira Neggaz, Institute for Social Policy and Understanding

Catherine Orsborn, Shoulder to Shoulder

Purvi Shah, Movement Law Lab

Shireen Zaman, Rise Together Fund (formerly Security and Rights Collaborative)

OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

Shari Davis, Participatory Budgeting Project

Rachel Kleinfeld, Carnegie Endowment for International Peace

Melissa Rodgers, Immigrant Legal Resource Center

Prof. Susan Stokes – Bright Lines Watch, University of Chicago

You can find the original version of this article on Democracy Fund’s site at www.democracyfund.org/blog/entry/celebrating-women-who-are-making-democracy-stronger.

Recognizing Silence for Deeper Engagement

Posted on by
Reply

Some of the most challenging aspects of being in dialogue with someone is the ability to hold space for silence, yet not all silence means the same thing or has the same impact. Katie Hyten of NCDD sponsoring member org Essential Partners, recently wrote the piece, Positive and Negative Silence: Notes from the Field, which offers some distinguishing examples. We encourage you to check out the upcoming trainings on their website and remember that NCDD members receive special discounts on these workshops listed here. You can read the article below and find the original version on Essential Partners’ blog here.

Positive and Negative Silence: Notes from the Field

When I first trained as a mediator, I was awed by a demonstration from one of my early instructors: he would listen to people argue, he would ask a question or reflect something back in fewer than five words—and then he … waited. And waited. He waited until the people in conflict felt they could respond to the question.

Embracing silence lets people take ownership of the conversation, gives them time to think before speaking, and helps them be more intentional. It’s also one of the hardest things we ask of people in a dialogue.

Negative Silence: Awkward & Excruciating

Most people are familiar with awkward, uncomfortable silences, the kind of silence that means no one came prepared, or that people are unwilling to respond to a question. People are also all too familiar with the silence of being ignored. I think of these as negative silences.

Negative silence happens when I ask a question that doesn’t feel right to people, either because it doesn’t connect or because they aren’t ready to respond. Those moments can be excruciating, and endless—although they happen to every facilitator once in a while.

But I’m reminded of my first mediation coach’s advice: “negative feedback is more information.” Negative silence tells me how much work there is left to do. It tells me I need to adapt to meet the needs of participants, and lets me begin to collaborate with them on what needs to be done. Negative silence is tough, but it can be a learning moment.

Positive Silence: Care & Openness

There is also a positive silence, though: the silence of composing oneself before speaking, of being intentional about what to say. It’s a positive silence when others are taking in what someone else has said, the silence of committing to enter a tough conversation as your best self—or of waiting long enough to ensure there’s space for quieter voices.

This is the positive silence EP teaches people to cultivate when they’re facilitating difficult conversations about the differences that make a difference to their community.

Positive silence allows the toughest conversations to unfold intentionally and with care. It makes space for all voices, not just those who are most comfortable speaking up. It’s important to recognize positive and negative silences as we work to foster deeper engagement and trust in all our relationships.

If you’re struggling to hold the space for positive silence in your facilitation, consider joining us for our upcoming Advance Facilitation Skills workshop.

You can find the original version of this article on Essential Partner’s blog at www.whatisessential.org/blog/positive-and-negative-silence-notes-field.

Food system challenges: Public dialogue on food system challenges and possible solutions

Posted on by
Reply

Case: Food system challenges: Public dialogue on food system challenges and possible solutions

Mar 21 '19
Author: 
martin king
A public dialogue on food supply challenges and potential solutions in the UK. Workshops involving 49 participants sought to inform the public on the food system challenges and better understand public attitudes towards solutions, notably utilising agricultural technologies.