John Rogers and the research team of Michael Ishimoto, Alexander Kwako, Anthony Berryman, and Claudia Diera have produced a landmark study entitled “School and Society in the Age of Trump,” based on their survey of 505 high school principals and follow-up interviews of 40 principals.
The principals offered evidence about five challenges that confront schools at this moment: 1. “Political division and hostility,” 2. “Disputes over truth, facts, and the reliability of sources,” 3. “The crises posed by opioid addiction,” 4. “Vulnerabilities associated with threats of immigration enforcement” and 5. “The perils and frequency of gun violence.”
The report explores the frequency of these issues in various types of school: those with predominantly students of color, racially-mixed schools, and schools with mostly white students; schools in Trump, anti-Trump, and politically mixed communities; and schools in different regions of the country. Principals were also also asked how their schools respond. For instance, do they communicate the importance of respecting new immigrants? Do they discipline students for uncivil or demeaning behavior?
All the results make sense, but they are not always immediately intuitive. For instance, derogatory remarks about other racial/ethnic groups are more common than derogatory remarks about immigrants, and both are most common in predominantly white schools, but far from absent in the other schools. (See below.)
Principals are also most likely to report disciplining students for insensitive remarks in mostly-white schools, but they are much less likely to talk with their students about the importance of respecting immigrants in the mostly-white schools.
Many principals report proactive responses, such as meeting with student groups to ask for their help in promoting civility and respect or meeting with parents for similar purposes. But those responses vary greatly. Sixty-two percent of principals serving mostly youth of color met with parents for this reason, versus 37% of principals in mostly white schools.
It’s common today for parents to challenge the information or news sources that teachers assign or for students to reject assigned sources. The frequency of those events doesn’t differ dramatically depending on the schools’ demographics (although I imagine that the sources that are distrusted differ).
According to the report, “A little more than a quarter of principals report they have restricted topics or information sources in order to diminish the flow of unreliable or contentious information.”
A different kind of stress comes from the opioid crisis. It is worst in predominantly white schools but definitely present in racially-mixed schools and those that serve mostly youth of color.
Rogers and colleague write that “Sixty-eight percent of the principals we surveyed report that federal immigration enforcement policies and the political rhetoric around the issue have harmed student well-being and learning, and undermined the work of their schools in general.”
Students across the board are fearful of gun violence, but more so to the degree that their students are people of color.
These challenges vary by demographics and region, but I’ll show a final graph about politics. The opioid crisis is most widely reported in Trump country. Political division is also more often reported there than elsewhere, but by small margins. In Trump country, far fewer principals report immigration enforcement as a challenge for their students. (That is either because of where most immigrants live or because of problems of under-reporting in Trump districts, as Rogers notes.) Untrustworthy information is seen as a challenge everywhere, to about the same degree, but I am sure that what counts as untrustworthy varies.
These are just some snapshots from a rich and compelling report.
NCDD was thrilled to co-host our March Confab call last week with the National Conversation Project, featuring Net Impact and The National Issues Forums Institute! We were joined by 40 participants for this dynamic call to learn more about Net Impact’s youth engagement programs and their recent work with NIFI on a newly-revised national debt issue guide, the paid opportunity to host forums on this guide and how this can be part of the upcoming National Week of Conversation happening April 5-13.
On the call, we were joined by Net Impact’s Program Manager Christy Stanker who gave us an overview of Net Impact’s work and how the nonprofit works to inspire and equip emerging leaders to build a more just and sustainable world. Net Impact’s programs help new leaders broaden their thinking, build their networks, and scale their impact beyond just individual actions. Christy highlighted one of their particularly stand-out programs, Up to Us – a partnership between Net Impact, the Peter G. Peterson Foundation, and the Clinton Global Initiative University. Up to Us, is a rapidly growing, nonpartisan movement of young people who recognize that when it comes to securing their future opportunities, they have no better advocates than themselves. Amid high-profile debates over jobs and the economy, social mobility, healthcare, and tax reform, Up to Us is the only nationwide, campus-based campaign focused on building a sustainable economic and fiscal future for America’s next generation.
Christy shared more about the funding opportunity to host forums on the “A Nation in Debt” issue guide that Net Impact recently co-produced with NIFI. If you are a student, faculty, or administrator at an accredited U.S.-based college or university, then you are eligible to receive a $150 microgrant for hosting a deliberative dialogue forum using this newly updated national debt issue guide. All you have to do to receive the funding and free guide is fill out this form by May 15, 2019 and host a forum using the “A Nation in Debt” issue guide before June 31, 2019. Once you fill out the form, staff at Net Impact will follow-up with resources including a moderating training and the moderator “cheat sheet.” Don’t miss out on the opportunity to contribute to this meaningful dialogue! Reach out to Christy at cstanker[at]netimpact[dot]org with any questions. Apply for the microgrant here!
Pearce Godwin, Executive Director of our Confab co-hosting organization, The National Conversation Project, discussed the exciting application of this opportunity during the second annual National Week of Conversation (NWOC) happening Friday, April 5th to Saturday, April 13th. NWOC will be a week of intentional conversation, where folks around the country will be hosting or joining conversations, in hopes to better address the intense divisions in our society through dialogue, deepening understanding, and building relationships. Learn more here!
Here are some of our favorite snippets from the Confab:
We recorded the whole presentation in case you weren’t able to join us, which you can access on the archives page by clicking here. Access to the archives is a benefit of being an NCDD member, so make sure your membership is up-to-date (or click here to join). We saved the transcript of the chat discussion and it can be found here.
We want to thank Christy, Darla and Bill at NIFI, and Pearce and Jaclyn at NCP, for making this call happen! And an equally large thank you to all the Confab participants for contributing to this conversation! To learn more about NCDD’s Confab Calls and hear recordings of others, visit www.ncdd.org/events/confabs.
Finally, we love holding these events and we want to continue to elevate the work of our field with Confab Calls and Tech Tuesdays. It is through your generous contributions to NCDD that we can keep doing this work! That’s why we want to encourage you to support NCDD by making a donation or becoming an NCDD member today (you can also renew your membership by clicking here). Thank you!
Last week, my colleague Erin Kelly and I taught excerpts from John Rawls’ Theory of Justice along with Emily McRae’s chapter, “Empathy, Compassion, and ‘Exchanging Self and Other’ in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism,” from the Routledge Handbook of Philosophy of Empathy. I then attended a conference on empathy. As a result, I’ve been thinking about Rawls’ famous thought-experiment, Buddhist exercises for moral improvement–and how empathy relates to both.
Rawls argues that to know what justice demands, you should collect all the relevant available information about how the society in general works, but you should then imagine that you don’t know your own position in the society and ask what rules and institutions you would favor–in your own interest–under this “veil of ignorance.”
To make that method seem intuitive, imagine that I am considering (in the light of last week’s scandalous news about college admissions) whether it is desirable for such institutions as Yale University to exist. I should try to understand how Yale functions, today and in the past, in the broader society. But I should try not to be influenced by the fact that I was admitted to Yale and graduated from there. I should ask whether the existence of Yale would be a good thing if I did not know whether I would ever get anywhere near it. Thus general knowledge plus self-interest plus ignorance about my own circumstance equals justice.
We could think of this thought-experiment as a way of modeling justice. Just as we test a model of a new airplane in a wind tunnel, so we test a theory of justice by using Rawls’ veil of ignorance, because that will yield the same results as justice itself would yield if we could know directly what justice says.
Now compare Rawls’ method to those developed in Indo-Tibetan Buddhism. McRae begins her chapter: “Imagine yourself as an old yak … your back weighed down with a load far too heavy, a rope pulling you by the nostrils, your flanks whipped, your ribs bruised by the stirrups.” She is quoting the nineteenth-century Tibetan master Parrul Rinpoche, who offers it as an exercise in empathy.
McRae defines bodhicitta as a “radically altruistic moral orientation that centrally involves cultivating oneself in order to be the kind of person who can reliably, effectively, and wisely benefit others… . The cultivation involved in becoming a person with bodhicitta–a bodhisattva — … includes developing virtues such as patience, generosity, and wisdom, and moral skills such as mindfulness, moral reasoning, responsiveness, and, arguably, empathy. … .Empathy practices [such as imagining that you are a yak] are traditionally presented in the context of cultivating bodhicitta, since empathy triggers both virtuous emotionality (through the Four Immeasurable Qualities practices) and the realization of no-self (through exchanging self and other practices), both of which are necessary for bodhicitta.”
Here are some differences:
And here are some similarities:
If you happen to find both arguments persuasive, you’re left with an odd proof:
1. Self-interest plus [a specific form of ] ignorance = justice (Rawls)
2. Compassion plus radical altruism = justice [Buddhism]
So
3. Self-interest plus ignorance = Compassion plus radical altruism
True?
See also: empathy, sympathy, compassion, justice; empathy: good or bad?; “Empathy” is a new word. Do we need it?; Owen Flanagan, The Bodhisattva’s Brain: Buddhism Naturalized; the grammar of the four Noble Truths; avoiding the labels of East and West; Philosophy as a Way of Life (on Pierre Hadot)
We want to wish our friends at the Democracy Works Podcast a happy birthday as they ring in their one year anniversary! If you haven’t listened to this podcast yet, a great place to start is the much-anticipated episode released today: Jonathan Haidt on the psychology of democracy – click here to listen. Democracy Works is produced by NCDD member organization The McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State and the podcast examines all things related to making a healthy democracy work. We encourage you to read the announcement below, shared with us by McCourtney Institute’s Communications Specialist Jenna Spinelle, and to listen to the Democracy Works podcast here.
by Jenna Spinelle
This time last year, my colleagues and I in the McCourtney Institute for Democracy at Penn State launched our podcast, Democracy Works. We wanted to take a minute to thank the NCDD community for all of your help spreading the word about the podcast. We are honored to be included among shows like Find the Outside and Dialogue Lab.
As we enter year two, we also want to know who we should be talking to and what we should be talking about. Over the past year, we’ve talked with all types of thinkers and doers, from The Atlantic’s David Frum to Healthy Democracy Executive Director Robin Teater. We’ve covered civics education, economic inequality, and criminal justice — just to name a few.
Along the way, we’ve been surprised to see how much of a desire there is for political content that’s nonpartisan and educational. Reading comments from our listeners around the world makes me feel hopeful about the work that NCDD is doing to bring people from across the political spectrum together to tackle some of our most pressing issues through conversation.
As one listener from California told us, the podcast “helps soothe my worries for our democracy by creating the feeling that we are making progress toward understanding what’s going wrong, building the necessary bridges, and making the necessary repairs.”
In the coming weeks, we’ll be talking with Tim Shaffer about the new book “A Crisis of Civility?’ and Srdja Popovic, founder of Serbia’s Otpor! movement, about how to organize in turbulent political situations.
New episodes are released each Monday at democracyworkspodcast.com, along with Apple Podcasts, Spotify, and many other podcast apps. We hope you’ll check it out, then get in touch to let us know what you think and who we should be talking to next. Happy listening!
You can find the Democracy Works podcast at www.democracyworkspodcast.com/.