# data[].attributes.headline
Where Trump and Biden stand on the issues

# data[].attributes.subject
Where Trump and Biden stand on the issues

# data[].attributes.body
You might be thinking, "I already know!" or at least I did when I saw this article. But it's actually a handy run-down of their positions (or lack thereof) on several issues. Without all the the performance and commentary.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The courts have held LGBTQ+ issues to be political speech"

# data[].attributes.subject
"The courts have held LGBTQ+ issues to be political speech"

# data[].attributes.body
As you read this, notice how you're activated, what you believe, and how strongly. Whatever you feel or think about how this specific situation has been resolved (if, in fact, it has), what about the tensions and conflicts stemming from the concept of "free" speech? What is - and isn't - political? And when rights collide (ex. sexual orientation and religious rights, which, of course, are not necessarily in conflict to begin with). How do we reconcile our individual liberties with systemic justice for all?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teacher told she can't display LGBTQ decorations in her classroom finds the perfect solution

# data[].attributes.headline
Jonah Goldberg to Conservatives: ‘Just Because Being Rude is Politically Incorrect’ Doesn’t Mean Being Rude is Good

# data[].attributes.subject
Jonah Goldberg to Conservatives: ‘Just Because Being Rude is Politically Incorrect’ Doesn’t Mean Being Rude is Good

# data[].attributes.body
"... so much of what’s happening I think on both sides of the political aisle is this idea that you can do almost any horrible thing if it annoys the right people. And that’s a huge part of the defense of Donald Trump, which I just find intellectually bankrupt, which is ‘Well, he’s got the right enemies’ or ‘He’s making the right people upset.’ Well, you have to look at what is actually upsetting them.”

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
National Review senior editor Jonah Goldberg appeared on The Daily Show to promote his new book Suicide of the West.

His book tackles the harmful effects of tribalism, nationalism, populism, and identity politics. Goldberg said that there's "nothing wrong" with a little of them. He links the appropriate amount to a "pinch of salt" and that having way too much is "literally poisonous."

"This drives me crazy about my own side these days where I talk to young conservative activists, college students and say 'Look by all means, fight political correctness if that's what you want to do.' But just because being rude is politically incorrect doesn't mean being rude is good," Goldberg told Trevor Noah. "And so much of what's happening I think on both sides of the political aisle is this idea that you can do almost any horrible thing if it annoys the right people. And that's a huge part of the defense of Donald Trump, which I just find intellectually bankrupt, which is 'Well, he's got the right enemies' or 'He's making the right people upset.' Well, you have to look at what is actually upsetting them."

The conservative commentator specifically spoke about the downside of identity politics, which he argued reduces "whole categories of people to an abstraction" and that people should be more focused on "core values."

"All civilization is is the story we tell ourselves about ourselves," Goldberg elaborated, "and one of the reason why Martin Luther King was so persuasive was he was appealing to the best ideals of White America and saying you should take people as you find them."

Watch the clip above, via Comedy Central.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Jonah Goldberg to Conservatives: 'Just Because Being Rude is Politically Incorrect' Doesn't Mean It's Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
National Review senior editor Jonah Goldberg appeared on The Daily Show to promote his new book Suicide of the West. His book tackles the harmful effects of tribalism, nationalism, populism, and identity politics. Goldberg said that there's "nothing wrong" with a little of them.

# data[].attributes.body
I’ve been tempted more than once to tune it all out for now and pray it all turns around on Election Day.

The problem is that our troubled state isn’t temporary. I will be singing hosannahs from the rooftops if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are elected. But a Biden presidency won’t reverse global warming. It won’t stopper the geyser of poison spewing from right-wing media, and it won’t force Facebook to rein the poisoners in. This election is our only hope for positive change, but it doesn’t offer a miracle cure — to Covid-19 or anything else that ails us.

... I resolve to look for more hands-on ways to make a difference, no matter how small. I resolve to remember that while outrage is the currency of our era, it doesn’t actually buy anything. Action is what buys change.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
What are we supposed to do with all this fury?

Credit... Lindsey Wasson for The New York Times

NASHVILLE - Nurses always smile at me when they check my blood pressure: Nothing to worry about there. But at a routine appointment recently, I was shocked to get a reading in the hypertension range. It was a temporary state, back to normal an hour later, but the whole episode was worrisome. I have no chronic illnesses. In the absence of any change in diet, weight or exercise, what could possibly account for a red flag like that?

Then it dawned on me that my early-morning appointment meant I'd been listening to the news all the way to the clinic. And then I'd compounded the effect of drive-time radio by scrolling through Twitter in the waiting area.

The news feels nothing less than apocalyptic. Climate change on irrefutable display as wildfires turn California and the Pacific Northwest into a furnace, as hurricanes gather and floodwaters rise. Universities returning to in-person classes just in time to worsen the already raging pandemic. Deepening economic pain as aid to our most vulnerable communities expires. Black men still getting shot in the back. Russia interfering with our election, and a Russia-supported president using the White House - our house - as a backdrop for a political convention that promulgated nothing but lies.

I could keep going, nonstop, until Nov. 3, but I'll end the list right here lest your own blood pressure rise to a worrisome level.

I have friends who tell me that they can't follow the news anymore, that it makes them too upset to sleep. It's like the topless dancer's advice in John Prine's song "Spanish Pipedream":

Blow up your TV, throw away your paper
Go to the country, build you a home
Plant a little garden, eat a lot of peaches
Try and find Jesus on your own

But ignoring what's wrong has never made anything right. I completely understand the impulse to hide from what is happening to this country, to the very planet itself. I've been tempted more than once to tune it all out for now and pray it all turns around on Election Day.

The problem is that our troubled state isn't temporary. I will be singing hosannahs from the rooftops if Joe Biden and Kamala Harris are elected. But a Biden presidency won't reverse global warming. It won't stopper the geyser of poison spewing from right-wing media, and it won't force Facebook to rein the poisoners in. This election is our only hope for positive change, but it doesn't offer a miracle cure - to Covid-19 or anything else that ails us.

We will have to find some way to keep informed that doesn't induce a permanent state of high blood pressure. For me, it's clearly safer to read bad news than to hear about it, so I lean hard on text: this newspaper, The Washington Post, The Guardian, The New Yorker, The Tennessean, the Nashville Scene, plus a bunch of newsletters, including one from my indispensable local NPR affiliate, WPLN, which offers the most readable form of local news in town despite being a radio outlet.

I have also, from time to time, tried to consume news the way my parents' generation did: in twice-a-day doses. Several times I have attempted to ignore the news for one whole day each week - an Outrage Sabbath - but I appear to be too addicted to news to go an entire day without it. I've decided to try an Outrage Diet instead.

A diet doesn't require a person to stop eating; it just requires a person to start eating better. Just as a dieter substitutes salads for burgers, my new plan is to substitute resolve for outrage. I resolve to give more money to nonprofits fighting for fairness and reason. I resolve to look for more hands-on ways to make a difference, no matter how small. I resolve to remember that while outrage is the currency of our era, it doesn't actually buy anything. Action is what buys change.

When the Tennessee State Capitol Commission finally voted to remove a bust of Nathan Bedford Forrest from our State Capitol, it wasn't because Tennessee lawmakers suddenly became woke. It's because people marched, and people camped out on the Capitol steps, and people wrote letters to their representatives demanding change.

When Dominion Energy and its partner, Duke Energy, finally abandoned their plans for an $8 billion gas pipeline through rural North Carolina and Virginia, it wasn't because they had become environmentalists overnight. It was because of unrelenting community opposition and donor-funded legal defeats led by the nonprofit Southern Environmental Law Center.

In 2018, when Doug Jones, a Democrat, won the special election to fill Jeff Sessions's Senate seat, it wasn't because blood-red Alabama had flipped to blue. It was because of a huge get-out-the-vote effort by grass-roots organizers in the "black belt" part of the state, where voter suppression efforts have been concentrated since Reconstruction.

"Spanish Pipedream" was released in 1971, when John Prine was barely 25 years old, but by then he had already been drafted, served in the Army and knew something about being betrayed by the leaders of his own country. It always helps to plant a little garden, that's true, but Mr. Prine understood, even as he wrote, that hiding out from bad news was only ever a dream.

Commitment is what changes things. Hard work is what changes things. Powerless outrage doesn't help anyone, the outraged least of all.

Margaret Renkl is a contributing Opinion writer who covers flora, fauna, politics and culture in the American South. She is the author of " Late Migrations: A Natural History of Love and Loss."
The Times is committed to publishing Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email: letters@nytimes.com.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
What are we supposed to do with all this fury? NASHVILLE - Nurses always smile at me when they check my blood pressure: Nothing to worry about there. But at a routine appointment recently, I was shocked to get a reading in the hypertension range.

# data[].attributes.headline
"We have to tell the truth about even those we vote for" - Cornell West

# data[].attributes.subject
"We have to tell the truth about even those we vote for" - Cornell West

# data[].attributes.body
This is a partisan interview, in which Cornell West speaks non-partisan truth. We shouldn't have to be reminded that "We have to tell the truth about even those we vote for," but there it is.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Dr. Cornel West slapped down President Donald Trump's campaign talking points branding Kamala Harris a "far left" politician. West countered that he is a self-described member of the radical left and Harris is from far that.

"I want Trump people to know, I'm a radical," West said on CNN Wednesday night. "My dear sister Harris is not a radical - she's a centrist and a moderate. I love the sister and everything, but at the same time, I recognize that when it comes to serious class struggles that are going on, the class war of the bosses against workers, she's not always been on the side of the workers. Neither has Biden. Neither has Biden."

Trump and his campaign have argued that presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden and his running mate Harris represent the radical left, with Trump even baselessly labeling them as socialists on Wednesday.

"Kamala's a socialist," Trump had said. "Biden - you know Biden. He's shot. I guess he's a socialist. If you asked him 'What does socialism mean?', he couldn't give you an answer. He has no clue."

Earlier in his interview with West, Anderson Cooper also addressed West's history of being critical of Harris.

"I think at one point you called her a centrist candidate that acts progressive," Cooper said. "Do you think those who criticized her prosecutorial record, maybe her record as attorney general will be able to see past it? Obviously, right now the choices are Biden/Harris or Trump/Pence."

"We have to be part of an anti-fascist coalition of conscience," West said. "You see our dear sister used Martin Luther King's language, coalition of conscience. We have to make sure Trump leaves the White House one way or another. Either by election or if he loses and he won't leave, then some of us will have to go and escort the brother."

"We have to tell the truth about even those we vote for," West later added about Biden and Harris. "That's why I don't endorse them, I vote for them."

Watch above, via CNN.
Have a tip we should know? [email protected]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Cornel West: 'My Dear Sister [Kamala] Harris is Not a Radical'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Dr. Cornel West slapped down President Donald Trump's campaign talking points branding Kamala Harris a "far left" politician. West countered that he is a self-described member of the radical left and Harris is from far that. "I want Trump people to know, I'm a radical," West said on CNN Wednesday night.

# data[].attributes.headline
On "doing your work" if you're going to talk about politics

# data[].attributes.subject
On "doing your work" if you're going to talk about politics

# data[].attributes.body
This is another "partisan and" hopefully useful article across the political ideological spectrum: "

Why Jonathan Swan’s Interview With President Trump Is So Good." If we're going to talk about politics, we should: "Always have confidence in your assertions [if we're going to make any]. Know your facts... and make sure they are from unimpeachable sources." I don't think everyone needs to be held to the standard set forth in this article for journalists, but there are certainly layperson takeaways.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
He did the work. It's that simple.

If you haven't seen it yet, click on the photo above for the full interview

Indulge me for a second. Because I want to start today with a little story about myself. I promise it's not a brag, and it'll soon become clear to you why I'm wrapping it in.

Years ago, I was headed for an interview for my first real "big" TV news job. Not long out of college. As I sat on the plane bound for Atlanta (where CNN was still officially headquartered in those days), the newspaper I had with me fell open to the business section. "Should I take a quick look at what the Dow's doing?", I asked myself. And quietly chuckled at the thought anyone might ask me about that in the course of the interview.

When I arrived I was whisked into the office of a senior executive and on- air personality, fully expecting to get peppered with questions like "why do you want to work here?" And "what are your strengths and weaknesses"? And maybe even "what in your view are the most interesting stories out there today?"

Instead, he barraged me with questions like: "what are the names of the U.S. aircraft carriers currently in the Pacific?" And "who is the President of Argentina?" And "give me a definition of the economic term 'inflation'".

This grilling went on for hours. (About the only question I did get right was: "what's the Dow doing?") And very early into it I'd already realized he was just toying with me and I was not going to get the job. (I was offered a lower-level job though, and within a few years I'd worked myself up to be this same person's Executive Producer.)

Finally, my interviewer had to get ready for his show. So he asked me one last question: "do you know why I've been asking you all these questions?"

He continued: "They don't teach you this in journalism school" (I hadn't been to journalism school, but never mind), "but there are three things you need to know about being a journalist":

1. You need to know more about more things that are going on in the world than anybody else in any other job. You need to make yourself know more than anybody you will ever interview, even if they are experts on a subject and you're not, otherwise you'll never know if they are full of BS.

2. Always have confidence in your assertions. Know your facts backward and forwards and make sure they are from unimpeachable sources. You can have a notepad to help you with questions, but if you start fumbling around looking for figures and facts you look like an idiot. You've got to walk in locked down and ready to go.

3. A good interview subject will challenge you before you get a chance to challenge them. You get thrown by this; you're finished.

Ironically, the person who gave me all this advice about being a good journalist is now one of Trump's most unquestioning enablers in the media, but that doesn't mean the advice isn't valid.

And I'd add one more:

4. An interview should be a real conversation. Sure, sometimes there's an element of combativeness to it, and there are almost always ulterior motives. The interviewer is almost always looking to get the interviewee to tell something they don't want to tell, or at least some new nugget that can enhance public discourse. The interview subject will almost always be looking to amplify a message or belief. But still, none of that should get in the way of having a real, actual discussion as you would with anyone in the real world. And approaching it as a real conversation is often more successful ultimately than viewing it as a battle of wits because it's disarming.

I'm not saying any of that is the secret to anything, just that watching the Jonathan Swan interview, including Trump's preemptive challenge, masterfully parried, reminded me of those days and that lesson.

And the force of that interview - to me at least - comes from putting in the work in the way it was outlined to me years ago.

Of course, a lot of other people are talking and writing today about why the Axios reporter's interview with the President was so effective when few others have been.

One suggests Swan succeeded because he slowed things down. Another says it was simply " one of the few opportunities for a non-sycophant to interview the president ". And yes, technique and approach had something to do with it. Assuming the questions were presented largely in the same order they were asked, Swan didn't start off with anything highly confrontational. Instead, a rather neutral question about "positive thinking". Which allowed Trump to bloviate and sit there and make assertions, while Swan for a moment just acted like a potted plant. But there was a method to this, because then: ba-bam!

Still, Swan's success in drawing out the President and confronting him mostly had to do with being prepared, and ready on the spot. Just like my journalistic guru had advised all those years ago. And he showed that if you can challenge forcefully, real-time, you don't need to go back and do fact-checking. And that's the real success of it.

And at least part of the reason this type of interview doesn't happen too often is that fact-checking has become too much of a crutch for media. The President says something. He isn't challenged on the spot. But he's fact-checked. Job well done.

But it's not. Because fact-checking is really after the fact-checking. So it's often rendered meaningless by the time reporters get around to it, because whatever lie has been allowed to float around for however long and taken on a life of its own.

I won't argue that fact-checking isn't still necessary, but sometimes it even accomplishes the opposite of what it's meant to do. Just as a for instance: every time Trump claims mail-in voting causes massive voter fraud, it's followed by fact-checkers saying "it's safe, it's done all over the place, he's wrong." But that just makes it into a "he said/they said". And each time that happens - which is frequent - more doubt seeps in. So by fact-checking the President's claim that mail in voting causes fraud, media is playing Trump's game. Better to not fact check it and point out the only reason he's saying it is because he's trying to engineer a way to weasel out of losing, and his sole purpose is to cause confusion before, during, and after the vote.

Don't get me wrong: I'm not accusing reporters either of not working hard or being lazy. It's a very rare opportunity to get the President to sit down with you one-on-one for 30 minutes. And many, I'm sure, could make much of it.

But most of the time White House reporters get one question (if that) during a media briefing and then Trump veers off during his answer to whatever he feels like talking about, and then won't take a follow up. That can be exceedingly challenging and frustrating regardless of how well prepared you are. (At the same time, if you're gonna ask the President about the price of oil, you should know what the price of oil is. These are the big leagues, baby!)

Trump's former Ambassador to Germany and acting Director of National Intelligence and close advisor, Richard Grenell recently Tweeted this, which Trump Retweeted:

And while I actually agree with well, half of Grenell's bullet points, his overarching conclusion is absurd. Or perhaps his understanding of the word "advocate" is different than mine.

Because of course journalists are advocates. We are advocates for the American people. And if we're not there to light fires under people's butts from time to time, who else is going to do it?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Why Jonathan Swan's Interview With President Trump Is So Good

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Indulge me for a second. Because I want to start today with a little story about myself. I promise it's not a brag, and it'll soon become clear to you why I'm wrapping it in. Years ago, I was headed...

# data[].attributes.body
How will you prepare for 11/4/20, the day after the election, when we could have clear election results... or not? With all the information and misinformation that's already being internalized about the results of an election we haven't voted in yet, what do you need to teach and practice?

# data[].attributes.headline
How To Talk To Your Children About Coronavirus, Misinformation

# data[].attributes.subject
How To Talk To Your Children About Coronavirus, Misinformation

# data[].attributes.body
Actionable tips for talking about any topic that is fraught with controversy and partisanship.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How To Talk To Your Children About Coronavirus, Misinformation

# data[].attributes.headline
Fake news: How to spot misinformation (NPR)

# data[].attributes.subject
Fake news: How to spot misinformation (NPR)

# data[].attributes.body
Translate this into a couple clear steps. For example: 1. Find at least two sources that say so, that don't just cite each other. 2. Find a source that typically presents at least two perspectives (like The Week).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
subscribe to Life Kit podcast

subscribe to Life Kit podcast

Fake news has consequences.

Back in 2016, before the term was even part of our national vocabulary, it threw the government of Twin Falls, Idaho, into chaos.

Rumors of a government cover-up involving child molestation and Syrian refugees swirled. They soon leaped from the fringes of the Internet to kitchen tables and the mainstream media.

"Members of the local government, the mayor, the city council members, local judges, the county prosecutor, they were basically inundated for months on end with threats," says Caitlin Dickerson, who covered the story for The New York Times. "Violent threats. Very visceral and descriptive threats from all over the world."

But the outrage was not based on facts. The details were blurred in some cases, completely fabricated in others, depending on the storyteller and their agenda.

It was a grave example of how misinformation can have a terrifying real-world impact. But falsehoods aren't hard to come by in today's information landscape.

Here are five tips to help you spot misinformation. (Or if you would rather listen, check out the Life Kit podcast here.)
1) Exercise skepticism
Take in any new information, whether it's the news or on social media or from a buddy at happy hour, with a bit of doubt. Expect the source to prove their work and show how they came to their conclusion. And try to compare information from a number of different outlets, even if you have a favorite.
2) Understand the misinformation landscape
Misinformation, as a concept, isn't new. But the social media platforms for engaging with it are constantly changing and increasing their influence in the media world. Those platforms have no financial obligation to tell the truth - their business models depend on user engagement. Reducing your dependence on social media will be good for your news judgment (and your sleep).
3) Pay extra attention when reading about emotionally-charged and divisive topics
Misinformation is most effective on hot-button issues and immediate news. Ask yourself: Is this a complicated subject, something that's hitting an emotional trigger? Or is it a breaking news story where the facts aren't yet able to be assembled? If the answer is yes, then you need to be ultra-skeptical.
4) Investigate what you're reading or seeing
What does that skepticism look like in practice? It means asking some questions of what you're reading or seeing: Is the content paid for by a company or politician or other potentially biased source? Is there good evidence? And are the numbers presented in context?

(The News Literacy Project created an app to help people test and strengthen their media literacy skills.)
5) Yelling probably won't solve misinformation
It's important to value the truth, but correcting people is always delicate. If someone in your life is spreading objective falsehoods and you want to help, be humble. Don't assume bad intentions or stupidity, just meet the other person where they are and be curious - think about opening with common ground and a question. Try to have the conversation in person or at least in a private online setting, like an email.
If you want more resources, Media Literacy Now is a good place to start.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Fake News: How To Spot Misinformation : Life Kit

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where can you find accurate news? Life Kit wants to empower you to become a savvy, critical media consumer. This episode has five takeaways that will help you ask important questions to spot fake news and take steps toward correcting misinformation.

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching about Elections from the Anti-Defamation League

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching about Elections from the Anti-Defamation League

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Elections often bring about differences of opinion and strong feelings. Use this collection of resources in schools and at home to teach young people about civics, how government works, the electoral process and more.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Systems centered language" by Meag-gan O’Reilly

# data[].attributes.subject
"Systems centered language" by Meag-gan O’Reilly

# data[].attributes.body
Here's a quick intro to O'Reilly's article with a link to it.

# data[].attributes.headline
A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate - Part 2

# data[].attributes.subject
A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate - Part 2

# data[].attributes.body
And when you bring in the responses to this response, you can talk with students about the progression (or not) of political discussions, unhelpful tactics and patterns, as well as opportunities to have this vital conversation differently, and responsibilities (what's the point of this debate - how do we hope it will matter?)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On Tuesday, 153 of the most prominent journalists, authors, and writers, including J. K. Rowling, Malcolm Gladwell, and David Brooks, published an open call for civility in Harper's Magazine. They write, in the pages of a prominent magazine that's infamous for being anti-union, not paying its interns, and firing editors over editorial disagreements with the publisher: "The free exchange of information and ideas, the lifeblood of a liberal society, is daily becoming more constricted."

The signatories, many of them white, wealthy, and endowed with massive platforms, argue that they are afraid of being silenced, that so-called cancel culture is out of control, and that they fear for their jobs and free exchange of ideas, even as they speak from one of the most prestigious magazines in the country.

The letter was spearheaded by Thomas Chatterton Williams, a Black writer who believes "that racism at once persists and is also capable of being transcended-especially at the interpersonal level." Since the letter was published, some commentators have used Williams's presence and the presence of other non-white writers to argue that the letter presents a selection of diverse voices. But they miss the point: the irony of the piece is that nowhere in it do the signatories mention how marginalized voices have been silenced for generations in journalism, academia, and publishing.

Some of the problems they bring up are real and concerning - for example, they seem to be referencing a researcher being fired for sharing a study on Twitter. But they are not trends - at least not in the way that the signatories suggest. In reality, their argument alludes to but does not clearly lay out specific examples, and undermines the very cause they have appointed themselves to uphold. In truth, Black, brown, and LGBTQ+ people - particularly Black and trans people - can now critique elites publicly and hold them accountable socially; this seems to be the letter's greatest concern. What's perhaps even more grating to many of the signatories is that a critique of their long held views is persuasive.

The content of the letter also does not deal with the problem of power: who has it and who does not. Harper's is a prestigious institution, backed by money and influence. Harper's has decided to bestow its platform not to marginalized people but to people who already have large followings and plenty of opportunities to make their views heard. Ironically, these influential people then use that platform to complain that they're being silenced. Many of the signatories have coworkers in their own newsrooms who are deeply concerned with the letter, some who feel comfortable speaking out and others who do not.

The letter reads as a caustic reaction to a diversifying industry - one that's starting to challenge institutional norms that have protected bigotry. The writers of the letter use seductive but nebulous concepts and coded language to obscure the actual meaning behind their words, in what seems like an attempt to control and derail the ongoing debate about who gets to have a platform. They are afforded the type of cultural capital from social media that institutions like Harper's have traditionally conferred to mostly white, cisgender people. Their words reflect a stubbornness to let go of the elitism that still pervades the media industry, an unwillingness to dismantle systems that keep people like them in and the rest of us out.

The Harper's letter cites six nonspecific examples to justify their argument. It's possible to guess what incidents the signatories might be referring to, and it's likely that if they listed specific examples, most wouldn't hold water. But the instances they reference are not part of a new trend at all, as we explain below.

1. Editors are fired for running controversial pieces?

When the signatories claim that "editors are fired for running controversial pieces," they seem to be arguing it's a problem that James Bennet, the former Opinion editor of the New York Times, was fired. In reality, Bennet resigned because Black staffers risked their jobs to publicly point out that Bennet had signed off on an opinion piece that called for the use of the nation's military against its own citizenry for exercising their First Amendment rights. Bennet first defended the piece, then admitted to not reading it before publication. The Times itself admitted that the piece was not up to its own editorial standards and its publisher said in a letter to staff that the piece was emblematic of a "significant breakdown" in the editing process. The signatories of the letter seem to be suggesting that all viewpoints should be published in opinion pages, with no limits on what those viewpoints might be. They never tell us why opinion pages, like the ones in the New York Times, shouldn't publish opinion pieces by flat-earthers or explicit calls for violence. The answer is simple: Newspapers have editorial judgment and set the tone for what is published in their opinion pages. The Times chose to solicit and amplify a perspective from a senator, and backlash ensued, which is similar to what's happening in the Harper's letter - prominent people with huge platforms complaining they don't have enough latitude to share their views. A large number of Black, brown, and trans editors don't wield the same kind of power as white editors, because most newsrooms are already led by a primarily white and male workforce.

2. Books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity?

The signatories claim that "books are withdrawn for alleged inauthenticity." This could be a reference to American Dirt, a book by Jeanine Cummins - a non-Mexican white woman who recently began identifying as Puerto Rican - about a Mexican bookseller, which was roundly criticized by Latinx writers and authors like Myriam Gurba and Los Angeles Times writer Esmeralda Bermudez. That book was featured as a part of Oprah's Book Club, despite the fact that Latinx journalists like Bermudez said the story was a far cry from real-life immigrant experiences. It could also be a reference to Apropos of Nothing, Woody Allen's book that was dropped by Hachette, a major publisher, after employees protested Allen's history of sexual assault allegations. The book was later picked up by a different publisher.

Manuscripts for books written by nonwhite authors are not given such leniency. A recent Twitter hashtag highlighted that even when Black and brown authors do have book deals, they are not compensated at anywhere close to the same rates as their white colleagues. Additionally, the top ten banned young adult books in 2019 are ones that feature trans main characters, as journalist Katelyn Burns has pointed out. Rainbow Rowell, who wrote a book widely decried by Asian American book critics for its inaccurate portrayal of Korean culture, is now having that book adapted into a movie - with a Japanese director.

3. Journalists are barred from writing on certain topics?

The signatories claim that "journalists are barred from writing on certain topics."Here, they could be talking about how just last month, at the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette, a Black journalist was told she could not cover protests because she was biased because of one tweet on protests. But if this is the example they are referencing, then they misunderstand the situation entirely. Alexis Johnson's situation is not unique, nor is it a new phenomenon for a Black writer to be silenced by her editors. Black and brown journalists have been barred from writing on certain topics because of our perceived lack of "objectivity" for decades.

4. Professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class?

The signatories claim that "professors are investigated for quoting works of literature in class." This could be a reference to Laurie Sheck, a New School Professor, who said the N-word when referencing a James Baldwin piece in class. Yet, she is still employed and has classes listed for spring 2021. A similar incident occurred with Princeton professor Lawrence Rosen, whom Princeton defended. He ended up canceling the class, but he was backed by his institution. Black, brown, and trans professors have been harassed by conservative websites, threatened, and had careers ruined for speaking about our own experiences or confronting systemic racism.

5. A researcher fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study?

The signatories claim that a researcher was "fired for circulating a peer-reviewed academic study." This is likely about David Shor, who tweeted a summary of an academic paper by Professor Omar Wasow and was then fired from his job at Civis Analytics, a nonpartisan, nonprofit research firm. It could very well be true that Shor was fired for posting the study. The facts of the situation are unclear and the company has said it will not comment on personnel matters. If Shor was fired simply for posting an academic article, that is indefensible, and anomalous.

6. The heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes?

The signatories claim that "the heads of organizations are ousted for what are sometimes just clumsy mistakes." This is so vague that it seems hard to pick out a specific example, although in New York Times coverage of the Harper's letter, Willliams cites resignations at the National Books Critics Circle and the Poetry Foundation. The Poetry Foundation's president and board chair resigned after prominent Black poets criticized its recent four-sentence Black Lives Matter statement, writing that the organization had failed to tangibly support marginalized communities. The board of the National Book Critics Circle was not removed, but resigned after a former president made the racist suggestion that he had seen "far more of white people helping black writers than of black people helping white writers."

It could also be about Bon Appétit editor in chief Adam Rapoport, who was pushed to step down after a writer shared a photo of Rapoport in brownface - in a racist Halloween costume as a Puerto Rican - and accusations of creating a toxic work culture by underpaying BIPOC staff. It could also be a reference to the resignation of the CEO of CrossFit or to several CEOs of fashion and lifestyle companies who stepped down after reckonings with racism in their workplaces. The vagueness of the letter confers protection from criticism most especially in this section. You can read a specific list of examples here. None of the CEOs who stepped down made "clumsy mistakes"; many of them were deeply involved in creating racist and exploitative work environments that are just now being unveiled after years in which they collected paychecks and acclaim.

Not only is there no significant evidence of inappropriate censure linking these instances, it's unclear what examples the authors, some of whom are considered writing icons, are even drawing from to make their point. Exactly as Osita Nwanevu wrote recently in the New Republic: "Viral stories and anecdata that people focused on the major issues of our day might consider marginal are, for [Bari] Weiss and her ideological peers, the central crises of contemporary politics⁠."

What the signatories are describing are things that have happened to journalists, academics, and authors marginalized by their respective industries for years - just not in the ways the signatories want to highlight. The problem they are describing is for the most part a rare one for privileged writers, but it is constant for the voices that have been most often shut out of the room. When Black and brown writers are hired by prominent media institutes, NDAs and social media policies are used to prevent them from talking about toxic workplace experiences.

The letter talks about none of this.

While the Harper's letter is couched in the events of the last few weeks, it doesn't exist in a vacuum. It is actively informed by the actions of its writers, many of whom have championed the free market of ideas, but actively ensured that it is free only for them. It's ironic that the letter gives highly sought-out space to some of the most well-paid and visible people in media, academia, and publishing. These are the same people who possess the money and prestige to have their ideas shared in just about any elite publication, outlet, or journal. There will always be a place for them to have their voices heard. Some even started yet another publication last week. Most writers and journalists from backgrounds historically left out of the industry are not in the same position.

We recognize a few of the signatories of the Harper's letter have been advocates of the issues that concern us here, which is, in part, the root of our hurt and dismay. Yet, everyone who signed the letter has reinforced the actions and beliefs of its most prominent signatories, some of whom have gone out of their way to harass trans writers or pedantically criticize Black writers.

In fact, a number of the signatories have made a point of punishing people who have spoken out against them, including Bari Weiss (who made a name for herself as a Columbia University undergrad by harassing and infringing upon the speech of professors she considered to be anti-Israel, and later attempted to shame multiple media outlets into firing freelance journalist Erin Biba for her tweets), Katha Pollitt (whose transphobic rhetoric has extended to trying to deny trans journalists access to professional networking tools), Emily Yoffe (who has spoken out against sexual-assault survivors expressing their free speech rights), Anne-Marie Slaughter (who terminated her Google-funded organization's partnership with a Google critic), and Cary Nelson (whose support of free speech, apparently, does not extend to everyone) - just to name a few. What gives them the right to use their platforms to harass others into silence, especially writers with smaller platforms and less institutional support, while preaching that silencing writers is a problem?

Rowling, one of the signers, has spouted transphobic and transmisogynist rhetoric, mocking the idea that trans men could exist, and likening transition-related medical care such as hormone replacement therapy to conversion therapy. She directly interacts with fans on Twitter, publishes letters littered with transphobic rhetoric, and gets away with platforming violent anti-trans speakers to her 14 million followers.

Jesse Singal, another signer, is a cis man infamous for advancing his career by writing derogatorily about trans issues. In 2018, Singal had a cover story in The Atlantic expressing skepticism about the benefits of gender-affirming care for trans youth. No trans writer has been afforded the same space. Singal often faces and dismisses criticism from trans people, but he has a much larger platform than any trans journalist. In fact, a 2018 Jezebel report found that Singal was part of a closed Google listserv of more than 400 left-leaning media elites who praised his work, with not a single out trans person in the group. He also has an antagonistic history with trans journalists, academics, and other writers, dedicating many Medium posts to attempting to refute or discredit their claims and reputations.

It's also clear that the organizers of the letter did not communicate clearly and honestly with all the signatories. One invited professor, who did not sign the Harper's letter, said that he was asked to sign a letter "arguing for bolder, more meaningful efforts at racial and gender inclusion in journalism, academia, and the arts." The letter in its final form fails to make this argument at all. Another of the signers, author and professor Jennifer Finney Boylan, who is also a trans woman, said on Twitter that she did not know who else had signed it until it was published. Another signatory, Lucia Martinez Valdivia, said in a Medium post: "When I asked to know who the other signatories were, the names I was shown were those of people of color from all over the political spectrum, and not those of people who have taken gender-critical or trans-exclusionary positions."

Under the guise of free speech and free exchange of ideas, the letter appears to be asking for unrestricted freedom to espouse their points of view free from consequence or criticism. There are only so many outlets, and while these individuals have the ability to write in them, they have no intention of sharing that space or acknowledging their role in perpetuating a culture of fear and silence among writers who, for the most part, do not look like the majority of the signatories. When they demand debates, it is on their terms, on their turf.

The signatories call for a refusal of "any false choice between justice and freedom." It seems at best obtuse and inappropriate, and at worst actively racist, to mention the ongoing protests calling for policing reform and abolition and then proceed to argue that it is the signatories who are "paying the price in greater risk aversion." It's particularly insulting that they've chosen now, a time marked by, as they describe, "powerful protests for racial and social justice," to detract from the public conversation about who gets to have a platform.

It is impossible to see how these signatories are contributing to "the most vital causes of our time" during this moment of widespread reckoning with oppressive social systems. Their letter seeks to uphold a "stifling atmosphere" and prioritizes signal-blasting their discomfort in the face of valid criticism. The intellectual freedom of cis white intellectuals has never been under threat en masse, especially when compared to how writers from marginalized groups have been treated for generations. In fact, they have never faced serious consequences - only momentary discomfort.

About this letter

This letter was a group effort, started by journalists of color with contributions from the larger journalism, academic, and publishing community. While a few of us organized the writing process, our role was to facilitate the group's voice, not set the content or direction. Contributions were seen by all the collaborators and accepted through consensus. There is no particular order to this list of signatories, nor did any one person do the bulk of the work in writing the letter.
Many signatories on our list noted their institutional affiliation but not their name, fearful of professional retaliation. It is a sad fact, and in part why we wrote the letter.
Signed

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, NBC News

Brooke Binkowski, Journalism

Jonathan Dresner, Ph.D., Academia, Pittsburg State University, Kansas

Aída Chávez, Journalism, The Intercept

Joseph Hernandez, Journalism, Bon Appétit

Holly Piepenburg, Journalism

Shannon Clark, Academia, American University

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, NBC News

Michael Waters, Journalism, Freelance

Dawn Rhodes, Journalism, Block Club Chicago

Sydette Harry, Research/Freelance, USC

Arionne Nettles, Academia, Northwestern University

Andrea González-Ramírez, Journalism, GEN

Solomon Gustavo, Journalism, MinnPost

Tommy Christopher, Journalism, Mediaite

Alex Zaragoza, Journalism, VICE Media

Adriana Heldiz, Journalism, Voice of San Diego

Wil Williams, Journalism, Podcast Problems LLC

Rosalie Chan, Journalism

Janelle Salanga, Journalism

Gabe Schneider, Journalism, MinnPost

Joseph Hankins, Academia, University of California, San Diego

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, Verizon Media

Jasmine Snow, Journalism, Minnesota Daily

Karen Attiah, Journalism

Shoshana Wodinsky, Journalism, Gizmodo

Joan Summers, Journalism, Jezebel

Marina Fang, Journalism, HuffPost

Tauhid Chappell, Journalism, Free Press

Nicholas Trevino, Government Oversight

Naoko Shibusawa, Academia, Brown University

Jack Herrera, Journalism, Freelance Reporter

Carlos Maza, Journalism, Freelance

Azucena Rasilla, Journalism

Malaika Jabali, Journalism

Marzena Zukowska, Nonprofit, Radical Communicators Network / freelance writer

Mutale Nkonde, Journalism

Melissa Martin, Filmmaker/Academic, Freelance/Carnegie Mellon University

Mahsa Alimardani, Academia

Chia-Yi Hou, Journalism, The Hill

Joshua Eaton, Journalism, Freelance Investigative Reporter

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, E.W. Scripps

Jessica Schulberg, Journalism, HuffPost

Sarah J. Jackson, Academia, University of Pennsylvania

Tim Barribeau, Journalism, Wirecutter

Vasuki Nesiah, Academia, NYU

Kimber Streams, Journalism

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, Public Radio

Sarah Jones, Journalism, New York Magazine

Alyza Enriquez, Journalism, VICE

Unsigned, Journalism, The Hill

Siobhán McGuirk, Journalism, Red Pepper magazine (UK)

Elon Green, Journalism, Freelance

Razzan Nakhlawi, Journalism

Brandy N. Carie, Theatre & Film, Freelance Writer & Director

Pravin Wilkins, Playwright, City Books Writer-in-Residence

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, Wirecutter

Laura Wagner, Journalism, VICE

Joseph Hefner, Writer/Filmmaker/Stage Director, Freelance

Chelsea Cirruzzo, Journalism

Cassius Adair, Academia and Journalism, NYU Media Culture and Communication + Freelance

Princess Ojiaku, Journalism / Civic Tech

Chanda Prescod-Weinstein, Academia, University of New Hampshire

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, New York Times

Sasha Costanza-Chock, Academia, Massachusetts Institute of Technology

Wendy Lu, Journalism, HuffPost

Lucy Diavolo, Journalism, Teen Vogue

Lyz Lenz, Author, The Cedar Rapids Gazette

Unsigned/NDA, Colorado Public Radio News

Lisa Nakamura, Academia

Smitha Khorana, Journalism

Ben Schaefer, Academia, University of Illinois at Chicago

Callie Wright, Journalism

Tris Mamone, Journalism, Freelance Writer

Dawn Ennis, Journalism, Outsports

Akela Lacy, Journalism, The Intercept

Alexander Lee, Publishing, W.W. Norton & Company

Unsigned, Screenwriter

Angela Misri, Journalism

Minnah Zaheer, Journalism

Cordelia Yu, Civic tech, Corgi & Bun

Maya Srikrishnan, Journalism, Voice of San Diego

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, The New York Times

Kameron Burns, Journalism, WIRED

Adrienne Shih, Journalism

Carrie Gillon, Alt-ac, Freelance

Daniel Varghese, Journalism, GQ

Adrienne Mahsa Varkiani, Journalism

Shelby Weldon, Journalism, Outsports

Sarah Ruiz-Grossman, Journalism, HuffPost

Gaby Del Valle, Journalism, Freelance Writer

Kristine White, Journalism, Freelance Writer

Marlee Baldridge, Academia, University of Missouri

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, Slate Magazine

Michael Izquierdo, Journalism, Freelancer

Izz LaMagdeleine, Journalism, Freelance

Ella Chen, Journalism , The Triton/UCSD

Talia Lavin, Journalism, Freelancer

Ethan Edward Coston, Journalism

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, POLITICO

Kelsey D. Atherton, Journalism, Freelance writer

Unsigned, Journalism, Public Media

Amal Ahmed, Journalism, Texas Observer

Siri Chilukuri, Journalism, Block Club Chicago

Dylan Miettinen, Journalism, The Minnesota Daily

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, The New York Times

Ashley Feinberg, Journalism

Julia Llinas Goodman, Journalism

Jacob Sutherland, Journalism, Catalyst.cm

Lilly Irani, Academia, UC San Diego

NDA, Journalism, The Hill

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, McClatchy

Paula Chakravartty, Academia, NYU

Robert Mejia, Academia, North Dakota State University

Unassigned/NDA, Journalism, Wirecutter

Thom Dunn, Journalism, BoingBoing

Anna Merlan, Journalism

Hunter Boone, Journalism, Wirecutter/NYT

Tanvi Misra, Journalism

Zachary Clein, Entertainment (Theatre/Film/TV), Freelance writer

Maxwell Strachan, Journalism

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, NPR

Marie Cruz Soto, Academia, NYU

Unsigned/NDA, Journalism, NPR

Ariana Wilson, Journalism, Freelance

Myra Washington, Academia, University of Utah

Sameena Mustafa, Journalism, Hand Her the Mic LLC

Edward Ongweso JR, Journalism Motherboard, VICE Media

Nicole Cooke, Academia, University of South Carolina

Kerri Greenidge, Academia

Noah Berlatsky, Journalism, Freelance writer

Peter Odell Campbell, Academia, University of Pittsburgh

Thomas Wilburn, Journalism, NPR

Minh-Ha T. Pham, Academia, Graduate Program in Media Studies, Pratt Institute

Ritty Lukose, Academia, New York University

Unsigned, Journalism, Condé Nast

P. Claire Dodson, Journalism, Teen Vogue

Khemani Gibson, Academia, New York University

Bridget Read, Journalism, New York Magazine

Shamira Ibrahim, Journalism, Freelance Writer

Tiffany Bui, Journalism, The Minnesota Daily

Aria Velasquez, Journalism

Unsigned, Academia, University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign

Naseem Jamnia, Academia/Freelance Writer, University of Nevada

Anjali Vats, Academia, Boston College

Jordan Coley, Journalism

Kerry Jo Green, Academia, Brandeis University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
A More Specific Letter on Justice and Open Debate

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On Tuesday, 153 of the most prominent journalists, authors, and writers, including J. K. Rowling, Malcolm Gladwell, and David Brooks, published an open call for civility in Harper's Magazine. They write, in the pages of a prominent magazine that's infamous for being

# data[].attributes.headline
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate - Part 1

# data[].attributes.subject
A Letter on Justice and Open Debate - Part 1

# data[].attributes.body
This discussion should include at least:
1. discussion of the concept of free speech.
2. acknowledgment that speech isn't equal to start with (see also on this padlet: "The free speech 'versus' political correctness set-up")
3. Positionality, including authority to sign a letter on this topic with this opinion in Harper's (Harper's being a "prestige" publication in mainstream media)
4. who you "like" and "don't like" among the signatories. It's illuminating to realize that if you disagree with the letter, you're "disappointed" by some of the folks, willing to give others a pass, cheering some on no matter what they say...
5. takeaways about how to helpfully have conversations about politics, including how a one-way "open letter" is and isn't helpful.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
July 7, 2020 The below letter will be appearing in the Letters section of the magazine's October issue. We welcome responses at letters@harpers.org Our cultural institutions are facing a moment of trial. Powerful protests for racial and social justice are leading to overdue demands for police reform, along with wider calls for greater equality and [...]

# data[].attributes.headline
“And that’s why I do not believe in whatever it may mean. Systemic racism.” - Larry Kudlow

# data[].attributes.subject
“And that’s why I do not believe in whatever it may mean. Systemic racism.” - Larry Kudlow

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of the discourse of uninformed certainty (deCastell). And yes, this is also a partisan post. It is both “textbook” and partisan.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In a trainwreck of an interview, one of President Trump's economic advisors was asked to clear up past remarks he'd made about the non-existence of systemic racism in America and only made matters worse for himself.

CNBC's Closing Bell anchor, Sara Eisen, confronted Trump's director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, on Monday about his previous denials of systemic racism.

"You said, 'I don't believe there's systemic racism in the U.S.,' which I found surprising given the moment that we're in, Larry, and given the economic data, which has only exacerbated the inequality we've seen, post-COVID-19. Can you just clarify what you meant?" Eisen asked.

But Kudlow did not backtrack and instead boasted that the "American system" is about "equality."

"Well, I don't believe in systemic racism. I think the American system is the best system ever devised for mankind. For history. We are liberty. We are equality. We are fairness. We have come a long way in this country," Kudlow said.

Kudlow continued to minimize the problem of racism by citing the "bad apples" cliche. And then went on to authoritatively state as proof of his race relations wisdom the fact that millions of white people voted for Barack Obama not only once, but twice! (Someone needs to show Larry Kudlow .)

"Here's a thought. President Obama, the first black president, was elected twice and he got 79 million white votes, 79 million in two elections. Now, therefore I find it hard to understand something called systemic racism," Kudlow said.

Kudlow tried to build his case by talking about the country's incremental positive movement over centuries on race issues and struggled to find Thurgood Marshall's name during his rant.

He then explained that systemic racism would mean that American systems are inherently bad and that is not so because the country learns from mistakes and makes changes.

"So, my point is this. We can learn from our history. We can learn from our mistakes. Our whole history shows that," Kudlow said. "And right now we will once again, learn from certain mistakes. Is this a systemic problem? No. Systemic means America is bad. America is wrong. I don't believe that. I never have believed that."

Eisen then stunned Trump's economic advisor with economic facts that proved the reality of systematic racism in America.

"I don't think it means America's bad. I think you have to look at the explanations for why the net worth of a white family is 10 times more than the net worth for a black family," Eisen said. "Or a black family led by a household with an advanced degree doesn't make as much as a white family who is led by a household with a high school degree."

"I mean, the statistics are endless," Eisen added.

Kudlow, who had just defiantly spoken about the meaning of systemic racism while denying its existence, astonishingly replied, "I'm not sure what this systemic term really means."

Kudlow basically whimpered away saying, "This is a complicated matter," before hitting on some talking points about minority employment gains made before COVID-19. But then he wanted the world to know that even though he doesn't know what the term means, he doesn't believe in it.

"And that's why I do not believe in whatever it may mean. Systemic racism," Kudlow said.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
In Bizarre Interview Trump Advisor Denies Systemic Racism Because Whites Voted for Obama

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In a trainwreck of an interview, one of President Trump's economic advisors was asked to clear up past remarks he'd made about the non-existence of systemic racism in America and only made matters worse for himself. CNBC's Closing Bell anchor, Sara Eisen, confronted Trump's director of the National Economic Council, Larry Kudlow, on Monday about his previous denials of systemic racism.

# data[].attributes.headline
"'That's ridiculous.' How America's Coronavirus Response Looks Abroad."

# data[].attributes.subject
"'That's ridiculous.' How America's Coronavirus Response Looks Abroad."

# data[].attributes.body
I'm sharing this because watching it held a mirror up for me to see how partisan my processing of the pandemic has become. I have had the privilege of being able to work from home, and continuing to work, and didn't realize how effectively I've channeled my frustration, fear, sadness and anger into a partisan reaction to covid-19 news that... dehumanizes the crisis we're in. This is just under 7 minutes long and worth watching in full. I use it, as you can see, to talk about the effects of partisanship: it doesn't make me any more right or any more effective, except in being less human.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
transcript

All right. OK. "And I spoke with Angela Merkel today. I spoke with many of the leaders over the last four or five days. They all view us as the world leader, and they're following us." Hold on. [MUSIC PLAYING] Oh wow. Oh my God. That's ridiculous. Oh, they have mass graves. Even Third World countries like Senegal, where I'm from, isn't like this right now. Ugh. "Anybody that needs a test gets a test. They're there, and the tests are beautiful." "It's a nightmare. First denied testing, twice denied E.R. admittance. Iowa man dies of COVID-19." That just cannot be when a person wants to do a test and gets denied. [MUSIC PLAYING] In South Korea, either you can do drive-through test, or you can even do walk-through test, which looks like a phone booth, and you just go in. Germany, tests are for free. I think we tested, like, 350,000 people a week. I don't think anyone in New Zealand was denied a test. If you had even the slightest symptoms, it was here's a Covid-19 test. Please make sure you're OK. "You know what? Staying at home leads to death also." Whoa. You have this amount of person in a beach. I remember seeing those pictures and sitting in Germany and worrying about the world going down. It's contagious. Come on, everybody. "Some young people who are still converging on the beaches of Florida for spring break. Now, the state governor, what does he say? He says he's not going to shut down beaches amid the outbreak." Yeah, I don't think Americans know what a lockdown is. France, Germany, U.K. - Bulgaria, Cyprus - Zimbabwe, Angola, Uganda - Luxembourg - Russia, Italy - Albania, Montenegro, India, Iran - Eritrea, Guinea-Bissau, Nepal. Ooh, OK, that's a lot. So in Singapore, for example, we've got fines if we don't follow the rules. Here in Jordan, you couldn't leave your house. You couldn't even leave, like - you couldn't even walk downstairs to your neighbor. You weren't allowed. I understand that they're feeling worried about the small businesses that they've spent their lives building. I understand that. But you can rebuild that. You can't give someone their life back. "Well, I think the economy is going to do very well. Now, that's just my feeling." Here in the United Kingdom, the government is paying up to 80% of the wages of people who can't do their jobs. In Germany, you get 5,000 for three months. The Singapore government subsidized 75% of all the citizens' wages. "If your adjusted gross income is $75,000 a year or less, you will get a full $1,200 check from the U.S. government." Yeah, it's just a one-time payment. When you have to pay your rent, your food, your medical cares, that's not that big. On May 8, official figures on unemployment were released. Oh, that's part of the graph. Jeez. I thought that was like the end of the page, like a border. Yeah. No way. Oh my God. Did I read that right? 20.5 million jobs? "The pandemic is also causing many to go hungry. Thousands have been forced to wait for hours in long lines at food banks all across the country." No. Whoa. Whoa. What? It's really shocking, a superpower like the U.S. being, at this point, like a Third World country. "So supposing we hit the body with a tremendous - whether it's ultraviolet or just very powerful light. And I think you said that hasn't been checked, but you're going to test it. And then I said supposing you brought the light inside the body, which you can do, either through the skin." Oh my God. It's, it's - [SIGHS] "And we have to get our country open, Jeff." "Can you say, sir, what metrics you will use to make that decision?" "The metrics right here." The metrics right here. Right here. We see the [BLEEP] that he says. We see the decisions he makes. And it's funny, but when it comes to something as serious as this, it's just - it's not funny anymore. Are they mass graves? I'm sorry, America has mass graves? Oh my God. I've never seen this. What the hell? I'm covered in goosebumps right now. Same. OK, so by May 5, the United States has endured over 68,000 coronavirus deaths, more than 14 times the death of China. China, like densely populated China. It cannot be this. Really? "It's over 100,000 now." I really didn't know. I feel so sorry for the people.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | 'That's Ridiculous.' How America's Coronavirus Response Looks Abroad.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
transcript All right. OK. "And I spoke with Angela Merkel today. I spoke with many of the leaders over the last four or five days. They all view us as the world leader, and they're following us." Hold on. [MUSIC PLAYING] Oh wow. Oh my God. That's ridiculous.

# data[].attributes.headline
Blink's Can we talk about politics? slide deck

# data[].attributes.subject
Blink's Can we talk about politics? slide deck

# data[].attributes.headline
The AIM methodology for tough conversations

# data[].attributes.subject
The AIM methodology for tough conversations

# data[].attributes.body
"The AIM methodology is a four-step process that asks each participant to express their thoughts on a topic for each step: Intentions, Concerns, Boundaries and Dreams." Like Blink's principles of designing for purpose, possibility, safety, equity and inclusion, this methodology asks us to prepare for what we can reasonably anticipate in conversations that we can reasonably anticipate being tough to have. I appreciate that all parties should reflect on their intentions (purpose), dreams (possibilities), concerns and boundaries (principles of acting for mutual safety, equity and inclusion)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A four-step method that will stop conflict before it happens.
getty

There's no doubt about it: Communication can be really hard-especially when the topic is a difficult one to broach or when emotions are elevated. Often, we end up creating unnecessary conflicts that cause our productivity to nosedive and our issues to become even more tangled and unresolved.

Alexandra Jamieson and Bob Gower are here to change that with their book, Radical Alignment: How to Have Game-Changing Conversations That Will Transform Your Business and Your Life. A happily married couple and two dear friends of mine, Jamieson and Gower have developed the All-In Method (AIM), a communications framework that allows organizations, teams, couples, families and more share their thoughts and reach a common ground before conflict escalates, so everyone can move forward effectively with alignment and trust.

How does this work, and how can leaders best leverage it with their teams? I interviewed Jamieson and Gower to dig in.
Laura Garnett: The AIM methodology is a four-step process that asks each participant to express their thoughts on a topic for each step: Intentions, Concerns, Boundaries and Dreams. When should someone use AIM? Is it meant to defuse conflict or to avoid it altogether?
Alexandra Jamison and Bob Gower: The method is meant to provide clarity and to increase the amount and quality of information you use to make decisions. We suggest using it by yourself, as a journaling exercise, whenever you feel conflicted or unsure about a relationship or situation you find yourself in.

It is best used with others before tension is high. We like to use it before starting high-stakes projects or making significant decisions. The power of the method is that it forces us to have difficult conversations before conflict develops. It identifies potential relational landmines and helps us create rules to avoid them altogether or to detonate them in a controlled environment without a sense of urgency.

AIM is also a powerful way to lead with empathy, both personally and professionally. When you invite someone to have a potentially tough conversation, and provide them with this simple structure, the other people can relax because there is a map you're both following.
Garnett: Are there any best practices for what to do after you go through the steps with someone? Do you take notes or use the information to reference at a later date?
Jamieson and Gower: AIM is all about the process, not about the artifact, so we don't emphasize taking or preserving notes. We want participants to be fully present and listening to each other so an overemphasis on note-taking can get in the way.

That said, one of our favorite ways to run the process with teams is to give everyone a few minutes to sit with each prompt and put their responses on Post-it notes-one idea per note and as many notes per question as they like. In this age of remote work, a tool like Mural is perfect for this.

We put the notes up on a wall and have each person provide some narrative to their responses. Having all the notes on a wall like this allows us to ask questions that nudge us to deeper levels of understanding, such as: What do you notice? What themes do you see? Are there any responses that surprise you?
Garnett: What do you do when you have team members or partners who refuse to go through the AIM process with you?
Jamieson and Gower: This is good information to have and likely signals a lack of trust or psychological safety. If you are a leader and your team is not willing to be vulnerable with you, they likely have a good reason-and that reason may be you. The same goes for your partner.

We can't force anyone to engage in this kind of vulnerable dialog with us. The key is to be inviting and to make space for each person to participate at the level they feel most comfortable.

Both personally and professionally, we have seen that some people are just unwilling to enter into a high-stakes conversation "in good faith," meaning they aren't open to truly hearing your side, or they are so combative or defensive from the start that there seems to be little opportunity for true connection.

Bringing in an outside facilitator to set the stage and keep the meeting on track and free from personal agenda can make all the difference. Also, challenging yourself to go first and set an example for the level of vulnerability can be helpful.
Garnett: In a time of increased polarization, do you feel like you can use this method to increase participants' understanding of issues like race and equality?
Jamieson and Gower: The goal of the method is to give everyone equal space to be heard and to allow for difficult conversations to happen. And many of the difficult conversations happening now are about race, gender, health and equality.

While we are neither anti-racism teachers nor diversity, equity and inclusion experts, we have heard from several people who have used the AIM method to have these conversations with family and friends.

We believe that creating a space for deep listening and empathy is vital to creating more inclusive and equitable spaces. However, understanding and empathy alone are not sufficient. We also need to make changes and take action.
Garnett: What has been one of your most powerful outcomes of using this methodology with work or your personal life?
Jamieson and Gower: For me (Bob) it has allowed me to learn how to listen without needing to change anything. Previously, when someone would offer an opinion that countered my own, I'd often get triggered and feel like I needed to fix the situation in some ways. Developing my own deep listening skills-which means seeking to understand even when you don't approve-has helped find solutions to difficult interpersonal situations that at first seemed impossible.

I (Alex) used to struggle to bring up tough conversations because I felt I had to have all the answers in advance or provide irrefutable evidence for why I was right. Using AIM has helped me relax and bravely enter conversations because I now know that I don't need to know the solutions. I only have to be willing to invite in the important person and be present to truly hear them.
Garnett: Are there certain conditions that make this tool most effective? What are those?
Jamieson and Gower: Using the method as a deliberate practice is key-much like a musician playing scales. This means making enough time, being undistracted, and not intoxicated, hungry or upset (if at all possible). Do your best to come into the process with an open mind and open heart-treat it as important but not urgent.

We talk about A-HA!, an acronym meaning Angry, Hungry, Alcohol. Put off the conversation, or any tough topic or argument, until everyone is fed, sober, calm and well-rested.

I also recommend sharing the four-step process in advance when you invite someone to the specific topic to be discussed. Give them the cheat sheet from our book, and ask them if they will schedule a specific time with you to walk through the steps together. Giving someone advanced prep time is really helpful because this is a new topic, and it feels generous rather than springing it on someone.
Garnett: If someone wanted to use this method with their executive team today, how would you suggest that they attempt this with a group larger than five?
Jamieson and Gower: It's all about how much time you have and how to optimize for effective listening. The more people you have in a group, the harder it can be for each person to be heard and the process will take longer too. We've run this effectively with as many as 15 people in a single group, but this requires a bit of forethought and effective timekeeping. Big groups are especially suited to the Post-it note process mentioned earlier. You can also save time by giving people the prompt questions ahead of time and asking that they journal on their own before coming together.

All that said, remember that this process is the work so resist the temptation to cut it short. We've spent half a day on it with some groups who have reported back to us that it was one of the most impactful things they've done-and it actually saved time later by reducing missteps and easing planning and problem-solving.

... Read More

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Stop Conflict Before It Starts: The Game-Changing Communication Method Every Leader Needs

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There's no doubt about it: Communication can be really hard-especially when the topic is a difficult one to broach or when emotions are elevated. Often, we end up creating unnecessary conflicts that cause our productivity to nosedive and our issues to become even more tangled and unresolved.

# data[].attributes.body
Any conversation, especially a potentially contentious conversation, should have:

Purpose

Possibility

Safety

Equity

Inclusion

These require pre-flection and design, as well as active check-ins, feedback and redesigning together. Because I can intend mutual safety, equity and inclusion but I can't decide for you that you are safe, included and able to thrive.

# data[].attributes.headline
On your purpose when you talk about politics

# data[].attributes.subject
On your purpose when you talk about politics

# data[].attributes.body
Is it about advocating for an issue and building a coalition of support? Is it about being right? Or just "them" being wrong?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
On The Federalist and in Fox News appearances, some of President Trump's supporters don't really defend him. They attack the critics.

Conservative writers and pundits like Mollie Hemingway of The Federalist spend their time attacking President Trump's rivals rather than explaining his latest folly. Credit... Gage Skidmore

When President Trump ran for office four years ago, a conservative writer with a growing following vented the kind of doubt and cynicism that was common among people like her who worried about the damage he could do to their cause. She called him "a demagogue with no real solutions for anything at all." She accused him of betraying the anti-abortion movement. And she wrote that his constant complaining about being treated unfairly was "ineffectual and impotent."

Today, that writer, Mollie Hemingway, is one of Mr. Trump's favorites. Her pieces for The Federalist, where she is a senior editor, have earned presidential retweets and affirmation for their scathing criticism of Democrats and the news media, whom she accuses of lying about just about everything when it comes to the president. Recently she claimed that journalists had fabricated reports about tear gas and the excessive use of force against protesters outside the White House (law enforcement, in fact, has acknowledged shooting a pepper-based irritant into the crowd), and said "a large group of Democrats" was defending the destruction of federal property (there is no such group).

Ms. Hemingway is part of a group of conservative commentators - who have large social media followings, successful podcasts and daily Fox News appearances - that has helped insulate the president and preserve his popularity with his base, even as many Americans say they are likely to vote against him in November.

What these writers and pundits don't tend to do is make the doggedly pro-Trump defenses that appear on Breitbart and erupt from the mouth of Sean Hannity. Often, they don't bother at all with the awkward business of trying to explain away Mr. Trump's latest folly.

Instead, they offer an outlet for outrage against those the president has declared his enemies, often by reducing them to a culture war caricature of liberalism.

The capacity that many Trump supporters have developed to focus so intensely on the perceived wrongdoing of his opponents is a powerful asset for the president as he runs for re-election amid growing economic and social turmoil and a public health crisis that a majority of voters say they don't trust him to handle. This almost entirely white cohort of conservative commentators can spend ample time mocking the mainstream and liberal media for focusing on Mr. Trump's racist and divisive messaging without giving nearly as much consideration to the harm caused, for instance, when he promotes a video of someone shouting "white power."

Through this lens, Mr. Trump's transgressions seem irrelevant compared with the manifold misdeeds of everyone from the Clintons to CNN. Their portrayal of what the country would look like if the Democrats win big in November is indeed a frightening one to Trump supporters: a White House with Senator Bernie Sanders as the shadow socialist president; a Democratic House of Representatives where Representative Ilhan Omar calls the shots; a society in which mask mandates are the first step in a government experiment with social control; a political arena where conservatives are badgered into silence.

To many conservatives these scenarios seem perfectly plausible, especially as some prominent figures on the right contend that their voices are unwelcome in mainstream media - and even some liberals face a backlash for arguing that shaming and ostracism of opposing points of view has grown too common.

"There are a lot of conservatives reading '1984' right now," said Allie Beth Stuckey, who hosts a podcast, "Relatable" and is the author of a forthcoming book on self-esteem, "You're Not Enough (And That's OK)." Ms. Stuckey has a growing fan base and a large platform through her affiliations with right-leaning outfits like Turning Point USA and PragerU that are aimed at reaching millennials. While she does not go out of her way to defend the president, she said she got the sense from her audience that there are a lot of young women like her: socially conservative and religious, who sometimes cringe at Mr. Trump's behavior but don't let it bother them over all.

"There's fear. It's real fear. And I understand if you're not a conservative it's hard to be empathetic and it seems like an exaggeration," Ms. Stuckey said. "But like the same kind of fear on the left that Trump is a unique threat to the country, there's a real fear on the right, especially I would say from Christians, of what the country would look like under a Democratic president."

Image

Allie Beth Stuckey, right, has a growing fan base and a large platform through her affiliations with right-leaning groups aimed at reaching millennials. Credit... Jason Kempin/Getty Images

The thread of commentary that isn't explicitly pro-Trump as much as it is witheringly anti-left has blossomed into a big business, led by personalities like Ben Shapiro, the host of one of the most successful podcasts in the country and the author of best-selling books. His most recent is "How to Destroy America in Three Easy Steps," in which he offers a stark take on how the "rising tide of radicalism from the left" threatens to tear the country apart.

Mr. Shapiro isn't shy about calling out the president for his divisive and unfocused leadership. But far more often he takes shots at Mr. Trump's critics. In this line of attack, Mr. Shapiro echoes other conservatives who deflect: Mr. Trump wasn't helping anyone, for instance, by asking top public health officials to study whether disinfectant could be injected into the human body as a coronavirus treatment. But, Mr. Shapiro explained he didn't actually tell people to put bleach in their bodies. "That doesn't mean he was recommending actually injecting Clorox, people."

Some media scholars see the desire to pick apart Mr. Trump's critics as a form of entertainment disinformation. "They try to get you not to believe other kinds of information that you might hear in the larger media sphere, and it's just fun," said Khadijah White, a professor at Rutgers University who studies race, gender and the media. "It's really fun to see the other side lose. And that just buttresses the idea that maybe Trump is corrupt, but they're corrupt too."

The anti-liberalism that is flourishing now can be traced back to other moments when the American left was resurgent and conservatives fought back, such as when Richard M. Nixon helped stoke a backlash of the "silent majority" to the antiwar and counterculture elements of society that many Americans believed had grown too extreme. But historians said this sentiment's popularity today was a sign of how fragile unity is in a Republican Party led by a president who rejects many of the principles that conservatives have fought for over the last 40 years.

"The conservative ideology that had been cohesive during the Cold War is falling apart," said Nicole Hemmer, a research scholar at Columbia University. "It seems to me that 'owning the libs' is kind of the way you hold everyone together when your policy preferences are coming apart."

Undoubtedly The Federalist has been one of the biggest breakouts in this genre of commentary, diving headfirst into the culture wars. It debuted in 2013, inspired by what one of its founders, Ben Domenech, described as "a populist respect for the middle class reader outside of New York and Washington, and an abiding love for America." It leans hard into the culture wars. Its pieces have questioned the Me Too movement ("One Year in, Me Too Hasn't Made Me Feel Any Safer Or More Empowered To Speak Out") and called the effort to recognize transgender identity a "war on women."

The site's sweet spot is with stories that feature conservatives battling liberal politicians and journalists in a clash where questions of privilege, gender and race reveal starkly different worldviews - like Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh's confirmation or the boy from a Catholic high school in Kentucky who sued news outlets like CNN and The Washington Post for portraying him as mocking a Native American man and recently settled one of his defamation cases. (Ms. Hemingway, who wrote extensively about the Kavanaugh confirmation and co-authored a best-selling book on the hearings, did not respond to multiple requests for comment.)

The Federalist is often contrarian, sometimes to excess. Twitter briefly locked the site's account in March after it shared an article with the headline "How Medical 'Chickenpox Parties' Could Turn The Tide Of The Wuhan Virus." Publicly available web data for June shows that traffic for The Federalist is up 239 percent year over year, though the website's internal numbers put the increase higher.

Critics have asked who is funding the site, since ad revenue alone wouldn't be enough to sustain its staff of 14 and political websites often rely on wealthy donors for support. The Federalist has not disclosed its supporters, leading to criticism that it is not being transparent about its agenda. But according to two people with knowledge of its finances, one of its major backers is Dick Uihlein, the Midwestern packing supply magnate and Trump donor who has a history of giving to combative, hard-right candidates, like Roy S. Moore of Alabama, who make many Republicans squeamish. (After Mr. Moore was accused of assaulting underage girls in 2017, The Federalist ran an opinion piece that defended men who dated young women as a practice with a long history that was "not without some merit if one wants to raise a large family.")

Through a spokesman, Mr. Uihlein declined to comment.

Tim Miller, a former strategist for Republican candidates, said that the combative tone of outlets like the Federalist was a sign of the way conservative commentary is defined today by "an unquenchable desire to take everybody else down a peg."

Republicans who are no fans of Mr. Trump or the turn that their party has taken under him say that its fuming commentariat is a symptom of a deeper problem: its inability to govern. Though the G.O.P. controls half of Washington, its leading voices still often sound like the aggrieved opposition party.

"Ask them what they are building, and they can't answer," said Evan McMullin, who ran against Mr. Trump in 2016 as a third-party candidate. "They aren't trying to build anything. They're just tearing things down."

Personalities like Ben Shapiro, who hosts one of the most successful podcasts in the country, are leading the anti-left commentary industry. Credit... Mark Ralston/Agence France-Presse - Getty Images

This approach may not be enough to help Mr. Trump win again. Polls have shown that Democrats feel more intensity about voting than they did four years ago. And unlike in 2016, when exit polls found that voters who said they did not care for either presidential candidate broke overwhelmingly for Mr. Trump, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. has an edge with those voters now.

During the 2018 midterm elections, Republican candidates tried and largely failed with similar messaging, running ads that portrayed Democrats as socialists and radicals who would let drug gangs roam free on suburban streets. Republicans and the Trump campaign are pushing those themes again today, trying to use images of unrest from protests in Portland, Ore., and Seattle to paint a picture of lawlessness and disorder in Democratic-run cities. But there are signs that this messaging is out of step with the majority of Americans who support the overwhelmingly peaceful demonstrations nationwide against racism that followed the killing of George Floyd.

The subject of the protests - and the unrest in particular - is a frequent topic for Federalist writers like Ms. Hemingway. The other day she posted a query to her more than half a million Twitter followers: "I'm looking for videos of 'peaceful protesters' from the recent riots," she wrote.

Mr. Trump was pleased. And he retweeted her.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
These Conservatives Have a Laser Focus: 'Owning the Libs'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
On The Federalist and in Fox News appearances, some of President Trump's supporters don't really defend him. They attack the critics. When President Trump ran for office four years ago, a conservative writer with a growing following vented the kind of doubt and cynicism that was common among people like her who worried about the damage he could do to their cause.

# data[].attributes.headline
Why we have to talk about race when we talk about politics: John Lewis' Last Words

# data[].attributes.subject
Why we have to talk about race when we talk about politics: John Lewis' Last Words

# data[].attributes.body
Like so many young people today, I was searching for a way out, or some might say a way in, and then I heard the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an old radio. He was talking about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. He said we are all complicit when we tolerate injustice. He said it is not enough to say it will get better by and by. He said each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.

Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Though I was surrounded by two loving parents, plenty of brothers, sisters and cousins, their love could not protect me from the unholy oppression waiting just outside that family circle. Unchecked, unrestrained violence and government-sanctioned terror had the power to turn a simple stroll to the store for some Skittles or an innocent morning jog down a lonesome country road into a nightmare. If we are to survive as one unified nation, we must discover what so readily takes root in our hearts that could rob Mother Emanuel Church in South Carolina of her brightest and best, shoot unwitting concertgoers in Las Vegas and choke to death the hopes and dreams of a gifted violinist like Elijah McClain.

Explore The boy from Troy: How John Lewis' childhood in Alabama led him to the civil rights movement

Credit: bsanderlin@ajc.com

Like so many young people today, I was searching for a way out, or some might say a way in, and then I heard the voice of Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. on an old radio. He was talking about the philosophy and discipline of nonviolence. He said we are all complicit when we tolerate injustice. He said it is not enough to say it will get better by and by. He said each of us has a moral obligation to stand up, speak up and speak out. When you see something that is not right, you must say something. You must do something. Democracy is not a state. It is an act, and each generation must do its part to help build what we called the Beloved Community, a nation and world society at peace with itself.

Ordinary people with extraordinary vision can redeem the soul of America by getting in what I call good trouble, necessary trouble. Voting and participating in the democratic process are key. The vote is the most powerful nonviolent change agent you have in a democratic society. You must use it because it is not guaranteed. You can lose it.

Explore Special presentation: Remembering John Lewis 1940-2020

You must also study and learn the lessons of history because humanity has been involved in this soul-wrenching, existential struggle for a very long time. People on every continent have stood in your shoes, though decades and centuries before you. The truth does not change, and that is why the answers worked out long ago can help you find solutions to the challenges of our time. Continue to build union between movements stretching across the globe because we must put away our willingness to profit from the exploitation of others.

Credit: Steve Schaefer

Though I may not be here with you, I urge you to answer the highest calling of your heart and stand up for what you truly believe. In my life I have done all I can to demonstrate that the way of peace, the way of love and nonviolence is the more excellent way. Now it is your turn to let freedom ring.

When historians pick up their pens to write the story of the 21st century, let them say that it was your generation who laid down the heavy burdens of hate at last and that peace finally triumphed over violence, aggression and war. So I say to you, walk with the wind, brothers and sisters, and let the spirit of peace and the power of everlasting love be your guide.

Explore Final crossing: John Lewis' procession at Edmund Pettus bridge video and story

Explore Video and photos: Full recap of Congressman John Lewis' funeral in Atlanta

Explore Full coverage of remembrances for John Lewis from Alabama to Atlanta

Explore 'Honor him by getting in good trouble' | John Lewis' funeral's memorable quotes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Congressman John Lewis, who died on July 17, wrote this essay shortly before his death. He wanted it to be published on the day of his funeral. His staff provided a copy of the essay to The Atlanta Journal-Constitution on the morning of July 30, four hours before his 11 a.m.

# data[].attributes.body
As the Ebola epidemic raged in 2014, some West Africans resisted public health guidance. Some hid their symptoms or continued practicing burial rituals — like washing the bodies of their dead loved ones — despite the risk of infection. Others spread conspiracies claiming the virus was sent by Westerners or suggested it was all a hoax. In Conakry, Guinea’s capital city, an imam was arrested for violating his quarantine, and residents protested by not letting health officials check for fevers.

So the World Health Organization sent Cheikh Niang, a Senegalese medical anthropologist, and his team to figure out what was going on.

For six hours, Dr. Niang visited people in Conakry inside their homes. He wasn’t there to lecture. Residents asked him to write down their stories. When they finished, Dr. Niang finally spoke.

“I said, ‘I hear you,’” he told me recently over the phone from Senegal. “‘I want to and will help. But we still have an epidemic spreading and we need your help, too. We need to take your temperatures and we need to trace this virus.’ And they agreed. They trusted us.”

Turns out, the people Dr. Niang encountered weren’t selfish or anti-science. They were scared and felt stripped of dignity by officials who didn’t respect them or understand their traditions. What they needed was for someone to listen to them and to feel like they had some agency.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
You cannot force public trust; you have to earn it.

Some White House Coronavirus Task Force members: from left, Anthony Fauci of the National Institutes of Health; Deborah Birx, White House coronavirus coordinator; Robert Redfield, director of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention; and Surgeon General Jerome Adams. Credit... Jonathan Ernst/Reuters

As the Ebola epidemic raged in 2014, some West Africans resisted public health guidance. Some hid their symptoms or continued practicing burial rituals - like washing the bodies of their dead loved ones - despite the risk of infection. Others spread conspiracies claiming the virus was sent by Westerners or suggested it was all a hoax. In Conakry, Guinea's capital city, an imam was arrested for violating his quarantine, and residents protested by not letting health officials check for fevers.

So the World Health Organization sent Cheikh Niang, a Senegalese medical anthropologist, and his team to figure out what was going on.

For six hours, Dr. Niang visited people in Conakry inside their homes. He wasn't there to lecture. Residents asked him to write down their stories. When they finished, Dr. Niang finally spoke.

"I said, 'I hear you,'" he told me recently over the phone from Senegal. "'I want to and will help. But we still have an epidemic spreading and we need your help, too. We need to take your temperatures and we need to trace this virus.' And they agreed. They trusted us."

Image

A health worker inside an Ebola treatment center in Conakry, Guinea, in 2015. Credit... Samuel Aranda for The New York Times

Turns out, the people Dr. Niang encountered weren't selfish or anti-science. They were scared and felt stripped of dignity by officials who didn't respect them or understand their traditions. What they needed was for someone to listen to them and to feel like they had some agency.

More than five years later, Dr. Niang is having flashbacks. Amid a new pandemic, he's seeing public health officials dispense advice arrogantly, while frustrated populations rebel and endanger others. An epidemic is "a moment of truth between communities, health officials and the overall system of government," Dr. Niang said. "When I see the U.S. on TV, I almost don't believe it," he added.

It's a full-blown legitimacy crisis. Only this time it's happening in the United States.

Taiwan is welcoming baseball fans back into stadiums. As of June, more than 20 other countries have begun the process of bringing children back to school. Thailand, a country of 70 million, hasn't had an instance of local coronavirus transmission in seven weeks, as of last Thursday. And yet Americans are staring down nearly 150,000 virus deaths while governors and health officials pleading with citizens to wear masks are starting to sound like substitute teachers who've lost control of the classroom.

One indicator of how bad things are: Last week, Anthony Fauci, the United States' leading infectious-disease doctor, felt compelled to reassure his audience during an online talk, "You can trust respected medical authorities." He added, "I believe I'm one of them, so I think you can trust me."

Polls suggest that most Americans do still have faith in scientific expertise. A June New York Times/Siena College survey showed that "84 percent of voters said they trusted medical scientists to provide reliable information about the virus." That includes 90 percent of Democrats and 75 percent of Republicans.

But those figures are hard to square with the reality on the ground, where trust in science seems increasingly fragile.

That trust is endangered by what many public health experts I spoke with described as a messaging crisis. A big problem, according to Ranu Dhillon,a doctor at Harvard who advised the Guinean president during the Ebola crisis, is a lack of nuance.

"All advice ends up binary," he told me recently. "It's absolutely one way or absolutely the other way, when it should be shades of gray. It happened with the World Health Organization and denying asymptomatic transmission early on. It happened with masks. And it happened with states reopening."

School districts across the United States are considering whether and how to restart classes. Credit... Audra Melton for The New York Times

Early in the pandemic, federal officials instructed Americans not to buy or wear masks. The C.D.C. revised that guidance in April. Credit... Eduardo Munoz/Reuters

Given that this is a novel coronavirus, we're learning on the fly - things that are true one day might need to be revised the next. Dr. Dhillon suggests that in their desire to be authoritative, public health experts have eroded trust by not accurately communicating uncertainty and by being stubborn about correcting the record when our understanding evolved. He described the strategy as a light switch that toggles on and off only when scientific consensus reaches a certain threshold. What's needed, though, is something akin to a dimmer.

"When we do flip the switch, we rarely admit that we are pulling a 180," he said. "We don't apologize" (for instance, for the W.H.O.'s original assurances that masks were not needed). "Instead, we cast judgments and say, 'OK, you're not wearing a mask now and you are irresponsible and a bad person.' That destroys credibility, creates confusion, and it alienates people."

There have been similar unforced errors in messaging around outdoor transmission of the virus. Outdoor transmission is possible but much less likely, a nuance that wasn't properly communicated early on.

"My perception is that public health officials were hesitant to be too vocal about the outdoors being safe," Dr. Dhillon said. This was an example, he said, of experts hedging language to make sure the public didn't over- or underreact. But it's a gamble, trying to control how others receive your message. Dr. Dhillon argued that the same thing happened with masks, where officials and institutions were hesitant to suggest them early on because of supply chain issues. It's possible that the reversal opened the door for the culture war we're now experiencing around face coverings.

Other experts suggest that government failures run much deeper than communication problems. "It's not a lack of trust. It's a legitimacy crisis," Rhea Boyd, a pediatrician who teaches classes on structural inequality and health at Stanford,told me. "There's been an active movement from the far right to render major scientific institutions and practices illegitimate. I'm worried less about messaging and more about a failed government response."

Dr. Boyd cited the Trump administration's attempts to cut the budget of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, its ouster of the National Security Council's top pandemic response official, Mr. Trump's downplaying of Covid-19 and his downright lies about it (most recently on display during a Sunday Fox News interview in which the president said that the United States had "one of the lowest mortality rates in the world" from the virus) and the White House's muzzling of the C.D.C.

"We have the resources and the scientists and we didn't support them - we undermined them," Dr. Boyd said. "And so the cycle perpetuates itself. They've been gutted, so their response looks insufficient and ineffective. For those already prone to thinking public health was illegitimate, it's confirmation bias."

Indeed, almost every expert I spoke with cited the near-absence of the C.D.C. as a prime reason for the inept messaging.

Tom Frieden, former C.D.C. director, at a House subcommittee hearing in May on the Covid-19 response. Credit... Alex Wong/Getty Images

"I'm sorry to say, but I think there'll be long-term damage from the politicization and sidelining of the C.D.C.," Tom Frieden, an infectious-disease expert and former director of the agency, told me in June.

And that was before the Trump administration this month ordered hospitals to bypass sending Covid-19 patient data to the C.D.C., as was standard procedure.

"Without a unified public health voice, it's been left to individuals on places like Twitter to step up and fill the void," Julia Marcus, an epidemiologist and assistant professor at Harvard Medical School, said. "You're left with a highly fragmented set of muddled messages."

Mark Navin, an expert in the ethics of public health at Oakland University, said we need to dismiss the notion that what we're facing is new.

"There's this idea that people always used to trust science and that there was total solidarity around public health advice," he said. "But it strikes me as nostalgic and revisionist."

I reached out to Dr. Navin because a quote of his has been echoing in my head since I read it in early May. "Every generation has to come and decide if they're going to trust the government, and if they're going to trust medicine," Dr. Navin told BuzzFeed News. "And we've taken it for granted in the post-World War II era that people have this, but every generation has to come in and cultivate it."

It reminded me of the process of renewing one's wedding vows - a recommitment from both people in a relationship to continue to learn from each other and not take each other for granted. What would renewing America's commitment to public health look like?

According to Dr. Marcus, it would involve a great deal of empathy (from institutions like the C.D.C. and W.H.O., and governors and mayors and the company executives deciding when to bring employees back to the office) and meeting people where they are. She cites lessons learned from the H.I.V. epidemic, suggesting that shaming and stigma backfire. "We have to do everything we can to attempt to understand," she said, "and then acknowledge why people may not be adopting strategies."

Dr. Marcus pointed to New York City's messaging around sexual contact during the coronavirus pandemic as a successful example of this strategy. The guidance is clear: You're taking a serious risk having sex with new partners. But it spells out what actions are safer and which are more likely to result in spreading the virus. "They really nailed it," she said, "combining both harm reduction but while also acknowledging the basic human need of intimacy and providing guidance to bridge the gap."

New York City's sex education messaging during the pandemic has been successful. Credit... Sarah Blesener for The New York Times

Dr. Marcus has seen this strategy bear fruit in her own work. In a recent Atlantic article about men who don't wear masks, she acknowledged that masks don't feel cool, can be obtrusive and block important body language signals, while still arguing emphatically for their importance. Dozens of non-mask wearers contacted her to thank her for the piece.

"These men were universally grateful to read something about anti-maskers that didn't shame or demonize them," she wrote. "It made them want to hear what else I had to say about why it might be worth wearing a mask."

Aisha Langford, an assistant professor in N.Y.U.'s School of Medicine who specializes in public health communications, suggested tactics for rebuilding trustthat echo Dr. Niang's work in West Africa. She encourages local leaders and community physicians who've already built trust with their patients to take a leading role in creating tailored messaging.

For her own part, Dr. Langford told me, she is trying to reach out to people on places like Facebook. "I've tried to communicate what I know and what we don't and that, hopefully, they can trust me because I'm right here with them," she said.

But will this sort of thing be enough in communities where local leaders willfully flout public health guidelines? As the pandemic historian John M. Barry wrote in a Times Op-Ed last week, "when you mix science and politics, you get politics." Nakedly political state responses from governors like Brian Kemp of Georgia, Doug Ducey of Arizona and Greg Abbott of Texas have undermined the scientific community's already fragmented message. When your governor sues to prevent a mandatory mask requirement, as Governor Kemp did last week in Atlanta, how can individual public health officials hope to break through?

Normally, this is where the federal government would step in. But not now.

And do these solutions - tailored messaging and long listening sessions - scale? Or are they more like applying a Band-Aid to a gunshot wound?

"Trust alone is insufficient to save lives," Dr. Boyd told me. She argues instead that we need large-scale public health solutions like universal health care, housing reform, universal worker protections and a substantial rise in the minimum wage that can begin to reverse longstanding racial health inequities. Without them, she argued, we're just tinkering on the margins of a broken system. The more people that system leaves behind or fails completely, the less trust we'll have in it.

In the past month, my conversations with public health officials, which were already quite grim, have taken on a darker tone.

"What worries me most right now is that the distrust we're seeing today will happen with vaccines," Dr. Frieden told me. "There's already a huge amount of distrust in vaccines. We've got this scarily named Operation Warp Speed program for them. That kind of naming is just not the way to convince someone to put a needle in their arm. It runs the real risk going forward that whether or not the government cuts any corners on the construction of a vaccine, there will be a perception it has, unless we have very open and transparent communication about it."

An anti-vaccination sign at a May rally to reopen California. Credit... David McNew/Getty Images

Many experts are preparing for such a misinformation nightmare scenario atop a nightmarish pandemic. Signs point to a growing anti-vaccine movement far savvier at bending the internet to its whims than its public health counterparts. That we're even worrying about people refusing to get a coronavirus vaccine suggests something horrifying: that Americans' trust in public health and the institutions of government will be worse off after the pandemic subsides than it was at the start.

"My gut tells me that there will be a lot of work to be done to recover from the effects of what's happened," Dr. Marcus said. "And that we'll probably be in a worse place than when we started."

"Stable, liberal democratic societies are not inevitable," Dr. Navin told me. They need "care and maintenance from all of us."

You cannot force public trust; you have to earn it by being humble and transparent, and by listening. And you can't fake that care and maintenance - it's the grueling and deeply human work of democracy, which is never finished.

"An epidemic is not only technical and medical - they are not cured only by science or vaccines," Dr. Niang told me. His words have haunted me since. "Ebola was beaten back by many things, including building consensus inside communities and restoring dignity and trust. This is what we learned. Hopefully, it is not too late for you over there to learn it, too."
The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We'd like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here's our email:letters@nytimes.com. Follow The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | How to Actually Talk to Anti-Maskers

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
You cannot force public trust; you have to earn it. As the Ebola epidemic raged in 2014, some West Africans resisted public health guidance. Some hid their symptoms or continued practicing burial rituals - like washing the bodies of their dead loved ones - despite the risk of infection.

# data[].attributes.headline
Talking about politics is like talking about medicine

# data[].attributes.subject
Talking about politics is like talking about medicine

# data[].attributes.body
“Medicine is not an exact art. There’s lots of uncertainty, always evolving information, much room for doubt. The most dangerous people are the ones who speak with total authority and no room for error.

Medical schools have curricula now to teach students the imperative of admitting when something went wrong, taking responsibility, and committing to righting it.”
- Jerome Groopman, Harvard Medical School

# data[].attributes.headline
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” John Maynard Keynes, economist

# data[].attributes.subject
“When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do, sir?” John Maynard Keynes, economist

# data[].attributes.headline
"How to navigate difficult conversations" by Oren Sofer 

# data[].attributes.subject
"How to navigate difficult conversations" by Oren Sofer 

# data[].attributes.body
This first principle struck me as obvious and easily overlooked:
"Nourishing yourself before a difficult conversation can help you feel clear, balanced, and well resourced."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
We can't avoid difficult conversations altogether, but we can navigate them more adeptly by learning to listen and communicate mindfully.

The difference between ordinary conversations and challenging ones is a bit like the difference between canoeing on open water and running rapids. Both involve paddling with balance, but the stakes are much higher and the skills more demanding in white water. Think of a terrible argument you had with someone or a time when you tangled with a coworker. Intense emotions, personal blind spots, and mistaken assumptions can make high-stakes conversations unproductive and even explosive. The boat capsizes, your gear gets soaked, and you wash up on shore somewhere downstream.

Like any journey where risk is involved, knowing how to handle yourself when conversation gets complicated is key. Preparing ahead of time helps clarify what's important, reduces reactivity, and increases the likelihood that we will be able to engage in a way that is in line with our intentions. Paramount to this is our internal preparation:

1. Nourishing yourself before a difficult conversation can help you feel clear, balanced, and well resourced.

This means getting some empathy for any pain, anger, or upset you may feel. Empathy can reduce reactivity and create more space to hear the other person. Find someone you trust, and ask them to listen to what you want to say, and reflect back what they hear. This could be a friend you feel comfortable enough with to help you discern your core needs.

You can also use mindfulness to help sort through your feelings to get at what matters most to you in the situation. Thinking about what you want to say, gently bring awareness to any emotion you feel, asking yourself, "What matters about this to me?" Then, "If I had that, what would I have?"

2. Investigating what's at stake helps us recognize the most important aspects of a complicated or intense situation and can inform our choices about how to proceed.

What do you want from the conversation? Understanding? Resolution? Are you entering with a range of ideas that might work for both people? What specific requests can you make to move forward? Pay attention to any blame or judgments that you hold.

Try to discern what parts of the conversation for you are logistical and which parts are relational. For example, is your upset about the addition to your already full to-do list, or do you feel frustrated that the person hasn't clearly communicated with you or doesn't seem to respect your time?

Finally, consider if your goals are realistic. Do you have the capacity to have the conversation in the way you'd like? Does the other person? Is this the right time to have the conversation or even the right person with whom to talk? Are you asking someone to resolve something that they don't have the power to do?

3. Humanizing the other person requires the humility and empathy to step outside of your own story and consider other perspectives.

If you can put yourself in their shoes and imagine, even for a moment, what might be going on for them, it can → have a profound effect on the conversation. Whatever the situation, however confusing or harmful another's actions, there is some internal logic behind their choices. Decide how you want to show up in this conversation and focus on that, rather than on proving a point or being right.

Sometimes our best attempts at preparing for a difficult conversation aren't enough. We get triggered, the other person gets angry, and we realize we're headed straight for the rocks. This is when the time you spent running drills-honing your mindfulness muscle-comes in. Tuning in to your body, recognizing your own signs of upset, and skillfully riding the waves of activation can help guide you back toward calmer waters.

Redirecting the River

Conflict can send a cascade of physio-logical effects through our body. Our breathing changes, stress hormones release, and, if we lack skills to meet this swell of energy, our cognitive function alters.

Every time we respond by blowing up, running away, or shutting down, we retrace and strengthen the neural networks for that behavior, like floodwaters carving a riverbed into a hillside. Inundated with stimuli, our sympathetic system prompts us to react with aggression, fear, or confusion, and we fall back on one of the four learned conflict behaviors (avoidance, confrontation, passivity, and/or passive aggression).

With mindful presence and skill, we can shift these patterns by carving new conduits into the hillside of our mind and body, creating different streams for that energy to follow.

With mindful presence and skill, we can shift these patterns by carving new conduits into the hillside of our mind and body, creating different streams for that energy to follow. Progress is incremental, but every drop we redirect deepens the new riverbed, attracting more and more water to change the course of the river of consciousness.

In tough situations, the main thing to be mindful of is our nervous system. You can do this by recognizing when you're getting worked up, using mindfulness to help navigate the situation, and actively seeking out moments to pause in order to help integrate information and bring the emotion down a notch.

Recognize Activation

Under ordinary circumstances, our body and mind naturally ebb and flow through activation and deactivation, arousal and settling, like waves rocking a boat. Breathing itself follows this rhythm. The elasticity of our nervous system, its resilience, is our ability to navigate this cycle with ease, tolerating the stress of sympathetic arousal, allowing the settling of parasympathetic deactivation, and returning to a baseline state of "oriented awareness," when you feel relaxed but alert.

During interpersonal conflicts, the sympathetic arousal can snowball. Danger signals get amplified, and-to use a very precise, technical term-we lose it. Our ability to access higher cognitive function in the prefrontal cortex declines and we're along for the ride, like losing our paddle in white water and we get carried along with the churning, wild, and unpredictable rocks and river currents.

If the level of stimulation exceeds our capacity to respond, we freeze. We shut down, withdraw into ourselves, or zone out, effectively ending any attempt to create understanding.

Ride the Waves

Feeling activated is completely natural. Mindfulness doesn't aim to suppress activation or achieve some imaginary neutral state. The goal is to become aware and adept at riding life's waves.

We each already know something about how to ride the waves and handle activation without reacting impulsively. Ever felt the inner agitation of wanting to say something but needing to wait for the right moment to interject? Anytime you relate to that internal pressure wisely-taking a breath, shifting your weight, making a mental note-you're handling the activation. Doing this for even a split second can yield more choice about what to say and when.

Your ability to ride a wave of activation depends on your capacity to tolerate discomfort. In contemplative practice, every time you observe an itch, a knee or back pain, without immediately jerking, you are developing the inner balance to respond rather than react. If the wave is too big, step back, feel the energy in your body, and allow it to dissipate.

The paired practices of pausing and grounding are especially helpful in difficult conversations. Pausing-anything from a micropause to a full breath to a break in the conversation-creates the space to recognize activation. Then, grounding in the body (see practice below) provides an anchor to steady your attention instead of losing your center. Whenever possible, do your best to take things slowly so your system can adjust.

Settle Downstream (aka support deactivation)

Just as we learn to recognize and attend to the arousal, we can also train ourselves to notice any calming. This can occur at many points, during and after a conversation. If we're skilled, we're sensing it all along, continually enhancing these naturally occurring intervals in our nervous system.

Deactivation occurs both literally and figuratively as an outbreath. Any shift in the state of our nervous system is reflected in the breath's pace, depth, duration, or rhythm. We exhale. Muscle tension releases, our jaw slackens, our shoulders relax, our gaze softens, our breathing slows or deepens.

When we give mindful awareness to a feeling of ease or relaxation, it amplifies like a bell ringing, like the stroke of a bow resonating through the body of a cello. Taking small moments to feel the soothing quality of this deactivation nourishes us and strengthens resilience, in conversation and in life.

In conversations, find the transitional space between exchanges or phrases, pauses or breaks in the flow of dialogue. Notice any settling when you complete a cycle of communication.

In difficult conversations, even the smallest amount of agreement, acknowledgment, goodwill, or concession can provide a raft in the flood of words and emotions. If those moments aren't apparent, seek them out. Shift your attention to any sound or the space itself, or use your creativity to insert a pause or take a break.

In difficult conversations, even the smallest amount of agreement, acknowledgment, goodwill, or concession can provide a raft in the flood of words and emotions.

Shepherding a challenging dialogue to some resolution relies on our ability to find these moments. We can do this internally, with our own attention, drawing out small successes by naming and appreciating them.

As you practice with these stages-recognizing activation and riding the waves, noticing deactivation and allowing the churning waters to subside-you will learn to use them in other situations and in shorter periods of time. Simply notice what's happening: The seeing itself creates the possibility for shifting the pattern.

Over time, your body will begin to feel the potential for a new way of relating. You may experience a different order of being in tense situations, as new messages flow through your nervous system: "Ah, maybe I don't need to defend, attack, or try to disappear."

In whitewater canoeing, building skill slowly is essential: Start small in class 1 rapids, taking time to learn. When the waters are dangerous or the rapids are beyond your skill level, pull ashore, unload the gear, and portage to safer waters.

The guidelines for difficult conversations are the same: Slowly your capacity to deal with more difficult situations will grow. You can learn to trust your ability to hear someone else without losing yourself and to have a voice without trying to control or overpower another.

And if you find yourself headed for conversational rapids? You'll also have gained the wisdom to know when your best option might be to steer your boat safely to shore, for now.

A Practice for Grounding in the Body

Use one of these three physical anchors to feel more alert and present in conversation.

1) Notice the Force of Gravity
The downward force of gravity tends to balance the stimulating, upward movement of attention in conversations.
Sit comfortably. Start by taking a few moments to orient to your surroundings, looking around the room. Gently close your eyes and take a few deep breaths to help you settle in. Feel any sensations of weight or heaviness in your body. You might notice your body's contact with the chair, any hardness or give in the surface you're sitting on. You might feel the sense of your whole body sitting, its mass, or warmth. Let your attention rest with these sensations of weight. Can you feel the downward force of gravity? When you notice your attention has wandered, gently let go and bring it back to the feeling of weight or heaviness in your body. Anchor your awareness there.

2) Find Your Centerline
The centerline can bring
a sense of inner strength
and clarity.
Bring your attention to your upper body. Sense how your torso rises up from your waist and pelvis. Can you feel your back, shoulders, and neck? See if you can sense the midline or centerline of your upper body. Try feeling your spine, running from your tailbone, through your back, up to the base of your head. Rock forward and backward slightly, and side to side, until you feel the balance point in the middle. See if you can rest your attention here, on the centerline of your body. Can you feel how your body is upright?

3) Tune into Your Touch Points
Touch points can dissipate the intensity of emotions.
Explore specific areas in your body that tend to be rich in sensation. First, put all your attention in your hands. Feel any sensations there: warmth or coolness; tingling, pulsing, or heaviness; maybe moisture or dryness. Now shift your attention to your feet, feeling any sensations there: temperature, weight, texture, the contact with the floor, the pressure of your shoes. You can try this with any other part of your body that has strong sensations, such as your lips, tongue, or eyes. When your mind wanders, gently bring it back to one of these places.

The Principles of Mindful Communication
Listen
When in conflict, if we aim to listen to the other person first it increases the chances that they will be willing to listen to us.
Notice
Attending to our own reactivity-by noticing the rise of activation and supporting the calm of deactivation (see page 71)-can help us make wiser choices about what to say and when.
Reflect First
People are more likely to listen when they feel heard. To build understanding, reflect before you respond.
Try Understanding
The more we understand one another, the easier it is to find solutions that work for everyone. Therefore, establish as much mutual understanding as possible before problem solving.
Identify Wants
Conflict generally occurs at the level of our strategies-what we want. The more deeply we are able to identify our needs-why we want what we want-the less conflict there is.
Emotional Awareness
Being aware of our emotions supports our ability to choose consciously how we participate in a conversation.
Take Responsibility
The more we take responsibility for our feelings, connecting them to our needs rather than to others' actions, the easier it is for others to hear us.
Hear the Need
The more we hear others' feelings as a reflection of their needs, the easier it is to understand them without hearing blame, needing to agree, or feeling responsible for their emotions.

How to Have a Tough Conversation

If you have choice over where and when to talk, try to set supportive initial conditions: time, place, who's present. Consider how you can lay a foundation of curiosity and care prior to the conversation. For instance, a kind email or a few simple words can let the other person know that you're looking forward to talking and working together to figure things out. If you've initiated the dialogue, ask, "Is now still a good time?" This can create a sense of agreement and mutual respect from the start.

Pay attention to the pace of the conversation. Things tend to move quickly in heated dialogue; a lot of the work is about slowing down. The more you can find ways to naturally pause and deactivate, the easier it will be to stay clear, hear one another, and respond wisely. Taking time to reflect before you respond naturally downshifts the pace of a conversation.

The more you can find ways to naturally pause and deactivate, the easier it will be to stay clear, hear one another, and respond wisely.

Try genuinely to understand. This will show up in your body language, your tone of voice, and other nonverbal communication that supports an atmosphere of goodwill and collaboration. When appropriate, state your intention explicitly: "I'd really like to understand where you're coming from..." or "I'm committed to figuring this out in a way that works for both of us." Such statements can shift the entire tone of
a conversation.

Focus on what matters and keep your attention flexible. Instead of belaboring the story of "what happened," listen for what matters to both of you. If you're hearing demands, internally translate them into requests and respond in a way that honors the other person's needs.

If the situation is complex, consider breaking it down into multiple conversations on different days. Your initial pass might just focus on empathy, trying to listen and hear the other person. Next time, share your side and endeavor to build mutual understanding.
For the final pass, explore strategies for moving forward.

The Do Over

Life is messy. In spite of our preparations, training, and best intentions, we all blow it from time to time. In the heat of the moment, an emotion or reaction gets the best of us. A wave of arousal rises, lifts us up, and we crash onto the rocks.

A do-over is like pressing the reset button. We acknowledge where things went awry, restate our intentions, and ask the other person if they'd be gracious enough to let us try again. We can own our part for something as small as a single remark or as broad as an entire conversation. When we take responsibility for losing it, most people are happy to give us a second chance. It's rarely too late to ask for a do-over. Depending on the situation, this may be as simple as making a request:

* "That didn't come out quite right. Can I try that again?"

* "I'm concerned some of the things I said aren't helping. Can we start over?"

* "Things didn't really go the way I was hoping when we talked. Could we rewind and try having the conversation again?"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Navigate Difficult Conversations - Mindful

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We can't avoid difficult conversations altogether, but we can navigate them more adeptly by learning to listen and communicate mindfully. The difference between ordinary conversations and challenging ones is a bit like the difference between canoeing on open water and running rapids.

# data[].attributes.body
Consider this video for mid-elementary and up, and some takeaways for teaching - ex. the depictions of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, Ahmaud Arbery and other lynching victims are not depictions of the lynchings, but of each person as an individual with their own family and community. How do you teach racism as a crisis of humanity?

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Put-down words aren't all the same

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Put-down words aren't all the same

# data[].attributes.body
This is also embedded in the post: When you're naming identity, is it OK to say...? How should I say... ?

# data[].attributes.headline
Awkward silence is a critical tool in conversations about politics

# data[].attributes.subject
Awkward silence is a critical tool in conversations about politics

# data[].attributes.body
When a student says something or asks a question that challenges you, silence could be helpful. Here's an article: "Why Intelligent Minds Like Elon Musk and Steve Jobs Embrace the Rule of Awkward Silence. The rule of awkward silence is great for critical thinking--and a key in developing emotional intelligence."
And below is a video of Steve Jobs' "awkward pause." [The question starts at 50:25, it ends at 50:57, and he answers 26 seconds later.]

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.authors[].name
TheAppleFanBoy - Apple & Computer Archives

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Complete Apple WWDC | Steve Jobs talk and answer developers questions | 1997

# data[].attributes.body
The iceberg model of culture (also adaptable as the iceberg model of identity) can be useful in disrupting the tendency to jump to conclusions (also see: the ladder of inference). For example: people who refuse to wear masks just don't care about other people! That's assuming a lot. And it may not be helpful (if I want more people to wear masks regularly) to assume.
Applying the iceberg to identity, we can ask students what seems to be apparent "above the water line" (although it may still be misinterpreted), and what may not be apparent/what gets assumed "below the waterline" for each of us (that may or may not be accurate). Again, this is to disrupt assumptions, which short circuit critical and creative thinking. (It turns out that stereotypes aren't just socially problematic; they make us stupid.)

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: A prompt about how (not) to talk about politics

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: A prompt about how (not) to talk about politics

# data[].attributes.body
This clip of Reps Cedric Richmond and Matt Gaetz will activate partisanship. And there are some valuable dynamics to reflect on: (1) saying we're "friends" when we're really not (Richmond is clear that friendship is not his goal in speaking; this makes me think about how we confuse friendship with being nice, with being indirect, with not having hard conversations...); (2) how issues are emotional, moral, intellectual and require action; (3) what's the purpose? how are Richmond and Gaetz clarifying, distracting from or advancing the House's discernment; (4) how confirmation bias (whose "side I'm on") filters how sympathetically I see and hear them (even when I also disagree with what they just did); (5) how hard it is to have a conversation when we don't have language in common... Material to discuss includes: the video, the article from which I pulled it (written for The Daily Beast, so with a liberal slant) and then if you search for this video, look at all the headlines and claims of who’s yelling or who "blew up."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on police reform blew up when Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) took offense at remarks made by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) about race, asking the Black congressman "who the hell" he thought he was.

Debating the Democratic-backed Justice in Policing Act on Wednesday afternoon, Richmond began his remarks by noting that lawmakers of different parties tend to call each other "good friends" before noting that this may not be the case when he's done.

"By the time I'm finished, you will be clear that we are not good friends," he added sharply.

Taking issue with GOP members introducing extraneous issues and amendments, such as items addressing the leftist movement antifa-one of conservatives' current favorite bugaboos -Richmond declared, "You all are white men who have never lived in my shoes and you do not know what it is like to be an African-American male!"

"This is a crisis. People are losing their lives. So if we want to fix-fix it in another bill or at another time," he continued. "People are dying as we talk. I am not interested in moving at a snail's pace. I'm not interested in a watered-down bill that mandates nothing."

Richmond went on to say he wanted to give his Republican colleagues the benefit of the doubt that they were practicing "unconscious bias" with their treatment of the bill, but felt that "at worst, it is conscious bias."

Gaetz, meanwhile, jumped into the fray, saying that while he appreciated Richmond's passion he wanted to know if the Louisiana lawmaker was suggesting that the GOP congressmen didn't have any non-white children.

"Matt, I am not about to get sidetracked about the color of our children," an indignant Richmond fired back. "I reclaim my time!"

The Democrat noted that he was aware that there are GOP congressmen who have Black grandchildren before pointing out that "it is not about the color of your kids" but instead about "Black males, Black people in the streets getting killed."

"And if one of them happens to be your kid, I'm concerned about him too, and clearly I'm more concerned about him than you are," Richmond added, causing Gaetz to become irate. (Gaetz is not married and has no children.)

"You're claiming you have more concern about my family than I do," the pro-Trump congressman shouted. "Who in the hell do you think you are?"

Richmond, for his part, remained calm, needling Gaetz as the Florida Republican raged and demanded Richmond's words be stricken from the record.

"If the shoe fits," Richmond quipped. "A kicked dog hollers."

After Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) called on Gaetz to cease, Richmond coolly asked Gaetz, "Was that a nerve?"

"You're damn right it was a nerve," the conservative congressman snapped back.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Matt Gaetz Shouts Down Democratic Rep. Cedric Richmond: 'Who the Hell Do You Think You Are?!'

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Wednesday's House Judiciary Committee hearing on police reform blew up when Rep. Matt Gaetz (R-FL) took offense at remarks made by Rep. Cedric Richmond (D-LA) about race, asking the Black congressman "who the hell" he thought he was.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Medical School Taught Me How to Talk to Conspiracy Theorists" by Yoo Jung KIm

# data[].attributes.subject
"Medical School Taught Me How to Talk to Conspiracy Theorists" by Yoo Jung KIm

# data[].attributes.body
As a part of motivational interviewing [a form of conversation therapy used to assess and guide patients in the process of making positive changes], I ask my patients about their biggest barriers to changing their minds or habits; this way, I know which worries or misinformation to try to address. I never resort to guilt-tripping, fearmongering, or ridicule, because those who feel their beliefs are being threatened become even more entrenched in their views.

At the end of every discussion, I reassess my patients’ willingness to change. Most of my patients aren’t willing to give up their deep-rooted beliefs or habits after a single office visit, so I remain open to an ongoing conversation. Over the course of many visits, my patients get to know me and understand that I want the best for them. By fostering a sense of mutual respect, I can often nudge them toward healthy behaviors, like taking their medications or taking actionable steps to quit smoking.

So, now, when I encounter a Covid-19 conspiracy theorist, I approach the conversation like this: I empathize with them, acknowledging that Covid-19 is horrifying and that we all want our loved ones to be safe. I tell them that I don’t trust the conclusions of some of the conspiracy videos on the internet, and I offer to refer them to more trustworthy sources of information. Even if they don’t change their mind, they know that I take their concerns seriously. The conversation about Covid-19 will be an ongoing one, but in time, I hope that evidence-based views will win the conspiracy theorists over.

Viral misinformation has proliferated during the pandemic, and many of our friends and families have been afflicted. Fortunately, there is a potential cure: healthy doses of active listening, empathy, patience, and respect.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A few weeks ago, I took an uncomfortable trip down the rabbit hole of Covid-19 conspiracy theory videos. As a newly minted M.D. who will soon be taking care of patients at a safety-net hospital on the frontlines of an ongoing pandemic, I was especially pained by what I saw. There was the infamous "Plandemic" video, which asserts that a cabal of elite individuals and organizations is using Covid-19 to cement power. There were also false claims that the new coronavirus was created with the backing of Bill Gates, for the purposes of diminishing our freedoms.

Watching the videos pushed me to think about why so many viewers gravitate toward them - and how best to counter their misinformation. On both of those fronts, my experiences working with patients have taught me valuable lessons.

I've learned that conspiracy theorists are often neither malevolent nor unintelligent. Rather, many are afraid of their own powerlessness, and these theories offer them a semblance of control. Believing that Covid-19 was perpetuated by organizations with evil intentions allows conspiracy theorists to affix their anxiety onto a big, bad villain, rather than acknowledge our collective powerlessness against the whims of nature. It helps allay existential fears regarding the indifferent, arbitrary universe we live in. I recognize these emotions because I have seen them time and time again in my patients who are hesitant to heed medical advice, either due to misinformation or due to a reluctance to change their habits.

A second allure of conspiracy theories may be that they allow the believer to lay claim to a secret truth that is not limited by one's level of wealth or education. Previous studies have demonstrated that lower education levels correspond with increased reliance on conspiratorial explanations, with one concluding that "education may undermine the reasoning processes and assumptions that are reflected in conspiracy belief." The average Covid-19 conspiracy theorist has probably never received the training needed to interpret complex academic papers. I couldn't send them one of the dozens of research articles I've read over the past months and expect them to grasp its nuances. Yet, if I were to challenge them on their beliefs, it wouldn't be surprising if they accused me of being the one who hadn't done my due diligence in researching Covid-19. Conspiracy theories abound because they are easy to understand and fit neatly within their own twisted internal logic. The truth is often hopelessly complicated, but the best lies are simple and easy to believe.

Fortunately, physicians have a powerful tool to persuade patients on a wide range of issues, from smoking to vaccines: motivational interviewing, a form of conversation therapy used to assess and guide patients in the process of making positive changes. As a part of motivational interviewing, I ask my patients about their biggest barriers to changing their minds or habits; this way, I know which worries or misinformation to try to address. I never resort to guilt-tripping, fearmongering, or ridicule, because those who feel their beliefs are being threatened become even more entrenched in their views.

At the end of every discussion, I reassess my patients' willingness to change. Most of my patients aren't willing to give up their deep-rooted beliefs or habits after a single office visit, so I remain open to an ongoing conversation. Over the course of many visits, my patients get to know me and understand that I want the best for them. By fostering a sense of mutual respect, I can often nudge them toward healthy behaviors, like taking their medications or taking actionable steps to quit smoking.

So, now, when I encounter a Covid-19 conspiracy theorist, I approach the conversation like this: I empathize with them, acknowledging that Covid-19 is horrifying and that we all want our loved ones to be safe. I tell them that I don't trust the conclusions of some of the conspiracy videos on the internet, and I offer to refer them to more trustworthy sources of information. Even if they don't change their mind, they know that I take their concerns seriously. The conversation about Covid-19 will be an ongoing one, but in time, I hope that evidence-based views will win the conspiracy theorists over.

Viral misinformation has proliferated during the pandemic, and many of our friends and families have been afflicted. Fortunately, there is a potential cure: healthy doses of active listening, empathy, patience, and respect.
Yoo Jung Kim (@yoojkim), M.D., is a recent graduate of the Stanford University School of Medicine and is currently working at a safety-net hospital in San Jose, California. Her pieces on science and society have been published in The Washington Post, U.S. News and World Report, the San Francisco Chronicle, The Seattle Times, The San Jose Mercury, and The Korea Times.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Medical School Taught Me How to Talk to Conspiracy Theorists

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A few weeks ago, I took an uncomfortable trip down the rabbit hole of Covid-19 conspiracy theory videos. As a newly minted M.D. who will soon be taking care of patients at a safety-net hospital on the frontlines of an ongoing pandemic, I was especially pained by what I saw.

# data[].attributes.body
This version overlaps with the 7-12: same concepts, with some K-6 examples (recognizing that by middle elementary, some kids have more exposure, including to mis- and even dis-information than we may think they do).

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blink Talking politics K-8 curricular overview 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
I think you're wrong (but I'm listening)

# data[].attributes.subject
I think you're wrong (but I'm listening)

# data[].attributes.body
I just came across (and have not fully read) this book is by two "wives, mothers, recovering attorneys and women of faith" (who don't identify themselves ethnoracially, at least in the intro of their book), one of whom identifies as a Democrat, and the other a Republican. I'm checking it out... They also have a podcast, Pantsuit Politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Book Summary

Two friends on opposite sides of the aisle provide a practical guide to grace-filled political conversation while challenging readers to put relationship before policy and understanding before argument.

About the Book
"Sarah and Beth are an absolute gift to our culture right now. Not only do they offer balanced perspectives from each political ideology, but they teach us how to dialogue well, without sacrificing our humanity." -Jen Hatmaker, New York Times bestselling author, speaker, and founder of Legacy Collective "Sarah from the left and Beth from the right serve as our guides through conflict and complexity, delivering us into connection. I wish every person living in the United States would read this compelling book, from the youngest voter to those holding the highest office." -Emily P. Freeman, Wall Street Journal bestselling author of Simply Tuesday and The Next Right Thing
More than ever, politics seems driven by conflict and anger. People sitting together in pews every Sunday have started to feel like strangers, loved ones at the dinner table like enemies. Toxic political dialogue, hate-filled rants on social media, and agenda-driven news stories have become the new norm. It's exhausting, and it's too much.

In I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening), two working moms from opposite ends of the political spectrum contend that there is a better way. They believe that we can

choose to respect the dignity of every person,

choose to recognize that issues are nuanced and can't be reduced to political talking points,

choose to listen in order to understand,

choose gentleness and patience.

Sarah from the left and Beth from the right invite those looking for something better than the status quo to pull up a chair and listen to the principles, insights, and practical tools they have learned hosting their fast-growing podcast Pantsuit Politics. As impossible as it might seem, people from opposing political perspectives truly can have calm, grace-filled conversations with one another-by putting relationship before policy and understanding before argument.

Product Details

ISBN: 9781400208418

ISBN 10: 1400208416

Imprint: Thomas Nelson

On Sale: 2019-02-05

Pages: 224

List Price: $26.99

Publisher: Thomas Nelson

Publication Date: 2019-02-05

Trim Size: 145.000mm x 221.000mm x 21.000mm

Weight: 312.000gr

Category 1 : SELF-HELP / Communication & Social Skills

Category 2 : POLITICAL SCIENCE / Commentary & Opinion

Category 3 : RELIGION / Christian Life / Social Issues

Category 4 : RELIGION / Religion, Politics & State

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
I Think You're Wrong (But I'm Listening)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Two friends on opposite sides of the aisle provide a practical guide to grace-filled political conversation while challenging readers to put relationship before policy and understanding before argument. "Sarah and Beth are an absolute gift to our culture right now.

# data[].attributes.body
According to a 2019 survey by Care.com:

About 46% of parents talk to their children about politics

For those who don’t talk politics, almost 90% believe that their children are too young to understand

This makes me think about when families think kids are "old enough" to talk about race, gender, the family's finances... and how, typically, the kids are already learning (sometimes incorrect information), whether or not their adults are teaching. Educators and parents/guardians can start with knowing your purpose, identifying the building blocks that a 5 year old can begin to play with and practice (in order, someday, to be able to talk about federalism during a national crisis), activating prior knowledge, and asking and inviting questions.
And check out this resource on "Teaching Your Children about Politics and Government"

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Learn how you can prepare your children to be active participants in the political process as adults by teaching about politics today.

During an election year, politics are bound to be a topic in your home. Children learn a lot about the subject simply by listening to our conversations, but have you ever wondered how to teach your children about politics with more intention? Children need to understand the privileges and responsibilities that come with democracy so they're ready to become active participants in the political process as adults. In this article, we explore engaging, age-appropriate ways to introduce your child to the world of politics.

Teaching Preschoolers about Politics

Concepts to Explore

Young children might not have the cognitive ability to understand our complex political system, but they're very aware of issues of justice and fairness. Talk with your young child about the role of the president: to lead our country and help make decisions. Discuss the idea that we vote for leaders who we think will do the best job. Try creating voting opportunities for your children and the whole family by holding votes on where to go out to eat, what family game to play, etc.

Civic Activities to Try

Young children readily absorb our views on democracy, political activism, and social justice, mostly through what we do and say. Take your child with you to the voting booth or political rallies. Visit historical museums and state buildings. Get involved in local issues that matter to you, such as improving schools, working on conservation efforts, or feeding the homeless. While not directly tied to politics, children learn a great deal about what you value from what you spend your time on.

Books to Read

Books about the government are a wonderful vehicle for introducing children to politics. Read these books together to start the conversation:

"Duck for President" by Doreen Cronin, illustrations by Betsy Lewin

"F is for Flag" by Wendy Cheyette Lewison, illustrated by Barbara Duke

Teaching Elementary-Age Children about Politics

Concepts to Explore

Elementary-age children can begin to understand political parties and their platforms. They can also learn about democracy, patriotism, and American history. At this age, children often become aware of political messaging. Talk with your children about negative political advertisements on television and social media. Share your own views and help them understand how to research the issues to separate fact from fiction.

Civic Activities to Try

Elementary-age children enjoy visiting the voting booth, historical museums, and state buildings, just as preschoolers do. At this age, though, children can begin to understand abstract concepts. Learning is deepened as they read and explore concepts independently. Children may begin to develop their own passions and interests around activism and volunteerism. They may be interested in attending political debates or other events.

Political Books to Read

Longer books help elementary-age children understand the political process and how the U.S. government works. We also think it's important for children to be familiar with U.S. history and the principles of democracy. Here are a few books about politics for kids to try:

"Bad Kitty for President" by Nick Bruel

"Grace for President" by Kelly S. DiPucchio, illustrations by LeUyen Pham

"Vote" by Eileen Christelow

"A More Perfect Union: The Story of Our Constitution" by Betsy and Giulio Maestro

"The Fourth of July Story" by Alice Dalgiesh

Visit Time for Kids or Scholastic News Kids Press Corp for current events and news presented from a positive, age-appropriate perspective.

Learning about U.S. history and politics doesn't have to be dry or dull. Include your child in thoughtful conversations and get involved in community events. Read high-quality children's literature together and visit historical sites that interest you. These simple steps can help your children become civic-minded adults who embrace the political process.

More on Politics and Government:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching Your Children about Politics and Government

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn how you can prepare your children to be active participants in the political process as adults by teaching about politics today. During an election year, politics are bound to be a topic in your home. Children learn a lot about the subject simply by listening to our conversations, but have you ever wondered how to teach your children about politics with more intention?

# data[].attributes.body
Students seeing photos of our congress and other leaders matters because:
1. There's still a stereotype about what a Congressman looks like (that is still typical in 2020 for our senators and representatives) that we can challenge to provide mirrors and models for under-represented and well-represented students.
2. What if we asked students what they see and what they wonder when they look at this picture (Congress, Class of 2019), alongside a photo of all of Congress, and maybe a photo of Congress broken out by party? It would be a great opportunity to practice talking about diversity, equity and inclusion. Yes, it might feel tricky to answer why there aren't more women in office, but that's when we can wonder with students and activate their prior knowledge (spoiler alert: toddlers are already aware of bias).

# data[].attributes.body
I find this article inspiring, exhausting and enraging because of the disproportionate burden shouldered willingly, necessarily, unequally and graciously by this student, who invites his community to ask him anything, for 7 hrs a day in the Texas heat. Our takeaway should not be to stand back and let our under-represented students have to educate their peers and us. Our takeaway could, though, be: what it we opened with our students' questions, instead of asking for their thoughts or opinions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Nifa Kaniga stands alone on a street corner in 100-degree heat in his town of Dripping Springs, Texas, waiting for fellow townsfolk to stop by. From noon to sunset, around 7:00pm, according to CBS Austin, Kaniga answers questions about race and racism from his perspective as a Black man living in a mostly white and Hispanic community. (Dripping Springs has a population of less than 5,000 people, less than 1% of whom are Black).

The 20-year-old holds a sign that says, "ASK ME ANYTHING. MAKE YOURSELF UNCOMFORTABLE." He even offers sample questions, such as "Why is everything about race?" "Black lives matter or ALL lives matter?" and "Institutional racism exists?"

"Many people have asked me, 'What's up with all lives matter versus black lives matter?'," he told CBS Austin. "Nobody said only black lives matter or black lives matter more than white lives. We're saying when black lives are taken unjustly and nothing is being done about it, it sends the sentiment that black lives don't matter."

Kaniga, who attends UT Dallas, said that he has experienced racism in the community and has concerns about the police. But he also feels that change will come if people are willing to listen to different perspectives and discuss the tough questions.

"It's uncomfortable talking about race. It's uncomfortable having to put yourself out here, but I mean that's why I put on this sign, 'make yourself uncomfortable,'" he said. "Because it is uncomfortable to talk about racial issues and political issues."

He doesn't expect everyone to talk to him, or for everyone who talks to him to agree with him. But the conversation is important.

"It's easy to get mad, and it's to be like, 'Wow, you're so wrong, you have no idea what you're talking about', but everybody has their opinion for a reason, and I think [it's important] having empathy and just hearing their point of view," he said.

Kaniga has begun using his Instagram account, which he'd previously used mainly for skateboarding pictures and videos, as a place to discuss these issues further. He has also put together a Google doc in which he shares some of the racial bias experiences he's has living in New Jersey and Texas, and some notes about institutional racism, U.S. history, and white privilege.

While it's a gift that Kaniga is inviting direct questions about his personal experiences with racism, not all Black Americans should be expected to do the same thing. Racism is painful, and for some, asking to share personal racism experiences is like asking to open a wound. Answering such questions isn't just an intellectual exercise; it's difficult emotional labor. And while white folks might find it helpful, it shouldn't be expected (especially for free).

Thankfully, there are many Black authors, speakers, activists, and social media educators who have put loads of information out for non-Black folks to learn from. Some, such as Doyin Richards, offer occasional "Ask Me Anything" sessions. Others, such as Ally Henny, share daily free education on their social media pages with the opportunity to pay for more. Currently, the NYT non-fiction best seller list is filled with books on racism by Black authors, so people can learn while also compensating people for their work.

Hopefully, the people of Dripping Springs appreciate what Mr. Kaniga is offering and take him up on the offer to have these uncomfortable conversations. "We have to be uncomfortable if we want change," he says. Indeed, when has change ever been comfortable?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
College student spends 7 hours a day answering questions from fellow townsfolk about racism

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Nifa Kaniga stands alone on a street corner in 100-degree heat in his town of Dripping Springs, Texas, waiting for fellow townsfolk to stop by. From noon to sunset, around 7:00pm, according to CBS Austin, Kaniga answers questions about race and racism from his perspective as a Black man living in a mostly white and Hispanic community.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: But if I say something, then I become the target...

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: But if I say something, then I become the target...

# data[].attributes.body
This is what kids tell me about speaking up online or in person when peers are using racist, homophobic, miosgynist or other hate speech. So I ask them to:
1. Be and stay safe.
2. If they're safe, use their social capital to disrupt the conversation/text, by...
3. Giving a speech about the history of homophobia. (JK.)
4. Because a lecture, to their point, is probably not going to be helpful, here we brainstorm how they can interrupt, redirect or step back from the interaction.
5. And I encourage them to practice showing up when it feels less risky (ex. when they're an avatar online) to develop that reflex and muscle.

# data[].attributes.headline
Private Facebook groups are using 'Justice for George Floyd' as a cloak for racist behavior

# data[].attributes.subject
Private Facebook groups are using 'Justice for George Floyd' as a cloak for racist behavior

# data[].attributes.body
According to CNET:

Experts say these groups serve to indoctrinate and radicalize like-minded people with racist rhetoric.
... On the surface, this group could be dismissed as a den of racists to troll others. While it's nearly impossible to know its true motives, experts believe using a major news event to entice members could represent something more insidious -- it could be an effort to indoctrinate and radicalize people who have sympathetic views, but who wouldn't necessarily seek out racist groups.
"It's a way to penetrate and get your ideas and goals across in a fashion that you would not be able to if you said, 'Hi, I'm a white supremacist, I'm here to screw up your society,'" said Paul Barrett, deputy director of the New York University Stern Center for Business and Human Rights. "Instead you say, 'Hi, I'm someone just like you and think this about that.' That's a way you win people's confidence" [emphasis added].
... The idea is to lure in as many people as possible, troll the ones who may be offended... and get like-minded people to join the cause. It's a textbook recruitment tactic for white supremacists, experts say. It's how the neo-Nazi site The Daily Stormer gained a following when it launched in July 2013, according to the Anti-Defamation League. Early on, the website gave trolling instructions and techniques on how to harass people of other races and religions online.

# data[].attributes.headline
Jon Stewart on the "unfortunate 'evisceration expectation'”

# data[].attributes.subject
Jon Stewart on the "unfortunate 'evisceration expectation'”

# data[].attributes.body
This is worth discussing with students, regarding how they talk about politics and what they consume on social media:

On interviewing then Fox personality Bill O'Reilly on The Daily Show:
Stewart: The question was always, Why would you talk to him? Why do you have him on the show if you can’t destroy him? If you want to talk about the worst legacy of ‘‘The Daily Show,’’ it was probably that.
The NY Times: That everyone you spoke to who you disagreed with had to be Jim Cramer’d¹⁵  [15: In what is probably the ne plus ultra of interview-as-evisceration, the CNBC ‘‘Mad Money’’ host was a guest on ‘‘The Daily Show’’ in 2009. Stewart took him to task for what he saw as dishonesty around the 2008 financial meltdown. Cramer did not acquit himself well]?
Stewart: That’s right. That’s the part of it that I probably most regret. Those moments when you had a tendency, even subconsciously, to feel like, ‘‘We have to live up to the evisceration expectation.’’ We tried not to give something more spice than it deserved, but you were aware of, say, what went viral. Resisting that gravitational force is really hard.

# data[].attributes.headline
"The stories that bind us" by Marshall Duke 

# data[].attributes.subject
"The stories that bind us" by Marshall Duke 

# data[].attributes.body
The Dukes' research on well-being and resilience in children points to family cohesiveness and the processes through which family's communicate information about the family across generations. What are some relevant, useful takeaways for educators striving to have safer challenging conversations with students?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Since the publication on Sunday, March 17 of Bruce Feiler's New York Times column entitled " This Life: The Stories that Bind us," Robyn Fivush and I have received a large number of requests for what he referred to as the "Do You Know Scale" (DYK). The DYK comprises 20 questions seeking knowledge about family history. The major criterion for inclusion in this set of questions was that they test knowledge of things that children could not possibly have learned first hand, either because they happened before the children were born or they involved family members that were less familiar to them than parents and grandparents. Given this limitation, the children who knew the information would therefore have had to receive it from others through stories, writings or other indirect sources. As was mentioned by Bruce Feiler, in our research, higher scores on the DYK scale were associated with higher levels of self-esteem, an internal locus of control ( a belief in one's own capacity to control what happens to him or her), better family functioning, lower levels of anxiety, fewer behavioral problems, and better chances for good outcomes if a child faces educational or emotional/behavioral difficulties.

I write this blog post because many people have written and asked us to send them the list of twenty DYK questions so they can be sure their children know what our test children knew. However, correlation is not causation. Simply knowing the answers to questions will not produce the good outcomes described above. The good outcomes as well as the knowledge of family history that the children possessed were all the result of something else. We have written about this "something else" in several publications and I quote from one of those publications here:

"If simply knowing family history could make for better states of well-being, some might propose (confusing correlation with causation) that we simply teach children various facts about their families and they will become stronger. Clearly, this approach would not work! Rather, it is our belief that knowledge of family history reflects certain processes that exist in families whose members know their histories. One such process is the communication of family information across generations; important questions about this process would include "Who is passing this information?" and "When is this information transmitted?" In our study of family stories at the Emory University Family Narratives Project funded by the Sloan Foundation, we found that family stories seem to be transferred by mothers and grandmothers more often than not and that the information was typically passed during family dinners, family vacations, family holidays, and the like. Other data indicated that these very same regular family dinners, yearly vacations, and holiday celebrations occur more frequently in families that have high levels of cohesiveness and that they contribute to the development of a strong sense of what we have called the intergenerational self. It is this intergenerational self and the personal strength and moral guidance that seem to derive from it that are associated with increased resilience, better adjustment, and improved chances of good clinical and educational outcomes." -- [Duke, M.P., Lazarus, A., & Fivush, R. (2008). Knowledge of family history as a clinically useful index of psychological well-being and prognosis: A brief report. Psychotherapy Theory, Research, Practice, Training, 45, 268-272.]

The 20 items of the DYK scale are provided below. However, please remember that these are only a representative sample of the kinds of questions that kids should be able to answer. You can make up others. The main criterion, as mentioned above, is that the questions are about things that the children could not have learned on their own or experienced directly. Each family will have different stories and different key moments and memories that are shared. It is not the content of what is known that is the critical factor, but the process by which these things came to be known. This process is, in our opinion, the causational factor. In order to hear family stories, people need to sit down with one another and not be distracted. Some people have to talk and some have to listen. The stories need to be told over and over and the times of sitting together need to be multiple and occur over many years. The most convenient times traditionally have been family dinners, family trips in the car, vacations, birthday gatherings, etc. As Bruce Feiler notes, however, given the complexities of modern family life families can also sit and talk over a snack after school or before everyone goes off to work, or at any other time that they can focus on each other. These gatherings -- short or long -- are at the heart of the process by which the intergenerational stories can be told and learned and through which children can grow stronger and healthier. No quick fix. No simply learning the answers to the questions. Just coming from a family in which the opportunities to learn family history and to create a family narrative are regular, multiple, predictable and inviolable. As Bruce Feiler implores in his book, " The Secrets of Happy Families": Talk. A lot.

Please answer the following questions by circling "Y" for "yes" or "N" for "no." Even if you know the information we are asking about, you don't need to write it down. We just wish to know if you know the information.
1. Do you know how your parents met?Y N
2. Do you know where your mother grew up?Y N
3. Do you know where your father grew up?Y N
4. Do you know where some of your grandparents grew up?Y N
5. Do you know where some of your grandparents met?Y N
6. Do you know where your parents were married?Y N
7. Do you know what went on when you were being born?Y N
8. Do you know the source of your name?Y N
9. Do you know some things about what happened when your brothers or sisters were being born?Y N
10. Do you know which person in your family you look most like?Y N
11. Do you know which person in the family you act most like?Y N
12. Do you know some of the illnesses and injuries that your parents experienced when they were younger?Y N
13. Do you know some of the lessons that your parents learned from good or bad experiences?Y N
14. Do you know some things that happened to your mom or dad when they were in school?Y N
15. Do you know the national background of your family (such as English, German, Russian, etc)?Y N
16. Do you know some of the jobs that your parents had when they were young?Y N
17. Do you know some awards that your parents received when they were young?Y N
18. Do you know the names of the schools that your mom went to?Y N
19. Do you know the names of the schools that your dad went to?Y N
20. Do you know about a relative whose face "froze" in a grumpy position because he or she did not smile enough?Y N

Score: Total number answered Y.

Important Note : About that last question! Fifteen percent of our sample actually answered "Yes!" This is because the stories that families tell are not always "true." More often than not they are told in order to teach a lesson or help with a physical or emotional hurt. As such, they may be modified as needed. The accuracy of the stories is not really critical. In fact, there are often disagreements among family members about what really happened! These disagreements then become part of the family narrative. Not to worry!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
parenting  parents resilience well-being grandparents families psychology

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Stories That Bind Us: What Are the Twenty Questions?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Since the publication on Sunday, March 17 of Bruce Feiler's New York Times column entitled " This Life: The Stories that Bind us," Robyn Fivush and I have received a large number of requests for what he referred to as the "Do You Know Scale" (DYK).

# data[].attributes.headline
"Elmo and his dad Louie talk about racism and protesting"

# data[].attributes.subject
"Elmo and his dad Louie talk about racism and protesting"

# data[].attributes.body
A protest is when people come together to show they are upset and disagree about something. They want to make others aware of the problem. Through protesting, people are able to share their feelings and work together to make things better.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Elmo and his dad Louie talk about racism and why people protest | CNN

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
During the CNN Sesame Street town hall, Elmo discusses racism and what it means to protest with his dad, Louie.

# data[].attributes.headline
"How to Talk with Your Kids about Donald Trump" by Dr. Allison Briscoe-Smith (April 2016)

# data[].attributes.subject
"How to Talk with Your Kids about Donald Trump" by Dr. Allison Briscoe-Smith (April 2016)

# data[].attributes.body
While written to/for parents/guardians, Allison's article is also relevant for educators:

Make sure you listen to how your children are thinking and understanding.

This is hard for everyone, including me. My [7 yr old] son later said, “I think that [my friend] Peter is going to vote for Trump.” I immediately assumed that he heard Peter say this—and so I launched into a lecture about different people’s opinions. He (thankfully) interrupted me and said, “I think he wants to vote for Trump because he’s white.”

He added: “Do all white people vote for Trump?”

I was so preoccupied with the “right” thing to say, that I hadn’t paused to ask him more questions about his thinking. I wasn’t really listening. He was making a generalization about white people, one that I could have missed if his interruption hadn’t slowed me down enough to listen some more. Instead, I could have asked, “I wonder why you think that?” Wondering with children about their understanding is a great way to listen a little harder.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"Mama, I sure do hope this Trump guy doesn't win."

That's what my son said to me as he hopped into the back of the car after school.

I was caught off guard. I wasn't even aware that my seven year old knew about real estate developer, reality-TV star, and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump. Like many parents, I assumed that I was protecting him by limiting his exposure to television.

I asked, "Why don't you want him to win, baby?"

"Well, if he wins, he wants to send people back to the countries where they are from," said my son. "So what is he going to do with me? Send my arm and leg back to Africa, send my other arm and leg to Mexico, and the rest of me back to different countries in Europe?"

This is the message that many children are getting from Donald Trump's campaign for President of the United States. In speeches and interviews, Trump has repeatedly painted whole categories of people as rapists, murderers, terrorists, and more. Worse, many of his followers act aggressively hostile toward people who don't look like them: People of color who have dared come to his rallies have been targeted for physical and verbal violence, which Trump has explicitly condoned. As he said at one press conference about violence at his rallies: "The audience hit back, and that's what we need a little bit more of."

None of this is covert or secret. It's all over the news, and kids do talk amongst themselves about what they see and hear in the media. While he is not the first or the only political candidate to promote racist beliefs and practices, ubiquitous media coverage of his campaign has amplified his message-and kids like my mixed-heritage son are hearing what he has to say. When Donald Trump speaks, he creates fear and confusion in children, especially kids of color.

Of course, negative messages from the media about race will be a problem even long after Trump is defeated. So when we talk with kids about Trump, we're really learning to talk about a subject that defines American history and daily life. How can parents and educators deal with children's concerns and questions about race and racism, while instilling some hope and a sense of empowerment?

The "smog" surrounding Trump

In a PBS interview a few years back, Beverly Tatum, a clinical psychologist and former president of Spelman College, explained that messages about race are like a smog, filling the environment with ideas about who is good, who "counts" as a person, who is to be feared, and who is revered. When our kids see a white man on TV sucker-punch a black man at a Trump rally, they go to school and have conversations amongst themselves about what they've seen.

Young children are breathing this smog and learning very quickly about who "belongs" and who doesn't. But we need to remember that young children, and even adolescents, are doing this with their young brains. Even as bright, sophisticated, and smart as all of our children are, they are still learning about race within the context of what their developing brains can understand. They're still learning how to categorize-who belongs in what group-and what counts for membership: "Are all Mexicans bad people?" "Are all brown people Mexican?" "Are all Spanish speakers bad because they are Mexican?"

Rebecca Bigler at the University of Texas and her colleagues have shown that children under the age of eight tend to make big generalizations because they have a hard time seeing people as individuals; instead, they tend to see them through their group membership. These generalizations in the context of the current smog are leading to distress for many children, especially those who are getting the message that they and their families are bad and deserve to be sent away. Children can and do put themselves in one category and their parents in another, which in this smog can trigger anxieties. Another mixed-heritage little girl in my son's class worried that she would be separated from her mother because Trump wanted to send brown people away-and she was dark while her mother was white.

Canadian researchers Anna-Beth Doyle and Frances Aboud have found that children under the age of eight tend to think of race like my son did, as something flexible that can be altered or shared-by, say, rubbing on someone's arm, or laying in the sun and getting dark, or being divided into legs and arms. As our brains mature, for better and worse, we come to see race as a fixed trait. In a way, my son's accurate perception of himself as mixed is coming into conflict with the tendency of the adult world to push human beings into single racialized categories that are closely tied to power differences. The upshot of the research is that kids are working hard to make sense of race-categories of belonging and difference-and they do this differently than we adults do.

This process leads them to both overgeneralize and think that perhaps race can be changed or manipulated. But these are typical stages in their human development. When a child overgeneralizes, it's developmentally appropriate-and not "racist." When an adult like Trump-in a position of power to influence others and, potentially, policy-makes a generalization about an entire group of people, he does meet the dictionary definition of "racist."

© Associated Press

For many of the children I know as a mother or in my work as a psychologist, this smog is making them feel like they don't belong-and it may, I'm sorry to say, be feeding a sense of entitlement among other children and teens. In other words, the rhetoric and behavior of the Trump campaign is divisive, and it can have a real social impact, as we saw when white high school students in Indiana chanted "Trump" and "build a wall" to predominantly Latino students from another school.

This is coming up on playgrounds, when kids tease each other with "He's gonna send you back to your country." It comes up clinically, when (as a white therapist recounted to me) her Latino eight-year-old client asked her, "Who are you voting for? Do you not like Mexicans either?" It even comes up in the back of my car, as I have to answer my son's question about whether he'll be sent away.

The success of Donald Trump's candidacy isn't just a political problem. It's also a psychological and cultural one that needs to be addressed by parents, educators, and mental health professionals. So what can we do? Here are three suggestions.

1. Ask questions and listen to the answers

Children need our help to see the smog-and once they do, they'll need our help to navigate through it.

Pretending the smog doesn't exist-or that we "don't see race"-is not a solution, from a psychological perspective. Even if we choose a strict media diet, our children-yes, even young children-are breathing in messages about race, citizenship, and belonging. It's up to us to check out this smog by asking questions about their understanding of what's going on, how they are making sense of the world around them.

Many parents worry that by asking questions about Trump, they will bring him and his message into their children's awareness. It's compelling to think that our silence as parents protects our children... but it doesn't. Silence in the face of discriminatory statements about women, different races, and immigrants makes us complicit in Trump's message. If we don't talk to our children about these messages, we are allowing others to dictate how our children understand race. Maybe that's OK with you-but if it's not, you will need to create a different narrative by having a conversation with your child.

How to start? You can explicitly ask, "So what do you think of this Trump guy? You can also ask:

Have you heard about the election?

Who are the candidates?

What do you think they are like?

Who do you like and why?

You can (and probably should) also check out what might be happening in their environment: "How are kids getting along at school?"

After you've posed the question, your new job is to listen. You have to be willing to listen as much-or even more-than you talk. Make sure you listen to how your children are thinking and understanding.

This is hard for everyone, including me. My son later said, "I think that [my friend] Peter is going to vote for Trump." I immediately assumed that he heard Peter say this-and so I launched into a lecture about different people's opinions. He (thankfully) interrupted me and said, "I think he wants to vote for Trump because he's white."

He added: "Do all white people vote for Trump?"

I was so preoccupied with the "right" thing to say, that I hadn't paused to ask him more questions about his thinking. I wasn't really listening. He was making a generalization about white people, one that I could have missed if his interruption hadn't slowed me down enough to listen some more. Instead, I could have asked, "I wonder why you think that?" Wondering with children about their understanding is a great way to listen a little harder.

2. Take a stand and get organized

© Harry Huggins/MEDILL

The election is a great opportunity to talk about differences of opinions, how to disagree, and how to advocate for a cause. It's a chance to help children learn about our perspectives and our values.

When parents ask me how to have tough conversations with their children, I encourage them to do a bit of homework first-by studying themselves. What's important to you? What kind of world do you want your kids to live in? What would your family motto be? What is your family mission statement? What kind of messages does your family want to send about race, politics, and politicians like Trump?

In his 2013 book The Secrets of Happy Families, Bruce Feiler has several exercises to help create such statements, and he cites a host of research that shows that when families have shared values, they are often happy. These exercises aren't just about coming up with the right words. They provide an opportunity to get organized and take action. When it comes to this year's presidential race, that could mean that you try any or all of the following:

Come up with a family statement about how you feel about the election.

Write a letter to the candidates.

Watch inspiring anti-racist speeches on YouTube.

Put up campaign signs.

Go to a rally.

Take your kids with you to vote.

These are all ways to teach our children about how we feel and also to help them develop strategies of coping. If the smog is making kids feel bad, taking action can help them feel empowered, connected, and supported. In the case of relatively privileged children, participating in action can help them counter feelings of bias against people who are different from them.

3. Talk about how people should treat each other

Much of the behavior we are seeing this primary season is "childish": name calling, pushing, shoving, finger pointing. I find that when children see this behavior, they are often shocked, and they may find it silly that adults would act this way. It's a great opportunity to talk about how they feel when they see such behavior and how we think about it-and it's a way for us to draw lines about what kind of behavior is appropriate.

Albert Bandura's social learning theory tells us that children watch the behavior of the grown-ups around them-and then "try on" behavior by doing things that they see at home, on the TV, or even in the streets. When our children see presidential candidates spew insults or endorse violence against peaceful protesters, they are learning from these messages how to treat each other. Check in to see how they understand the behavior they're observing and what they think about it:

Did you notice how those people were treating each other?

What do you think about it?

Then directly tell them how you feel about it, as their parent:

We are not a family that believes that we should use violence to get our point across.

We think it's really important that people get to express their opinion even when they disagree.

These conversations matter to our kids. The way our most influential grown-ups behave and speak about women, immigrants, and each other matters. When a presidential frontrunner claims that all Mexicans are rapists or that Muslims should carry a special ID, those are not innocuous sound bites. They can become part of the foundation of how children understand our government, civic life, and relationships. And they can seep into the smog that affects children, influencing how they get along with others and how they view themselves.

In short, these messages are shaping what kind of society we are becoming. There are children having a hard time going to sleep tonight because they fear being separated from a parent. I, like many others, thought we were done with having to put our children to bed with such fear-but clearly I was wrong. Today, we have an opportunity and a responsibility to speak up and be role models for our children.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Talk with Your Kids about Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"Mama, I sure do hope this Trump guy doesn't win." That's what my son said to me as he hopped into the back of the car after school. I was caught off guard. I wasn't even aware that my seven year old knew about real estate developer, reality-TV star, and GOP presidential candidate Donald Trump.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Applying the CC Compass to coverage of the anti-vaccination movement

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Applying the CC Compass to coverage of the anti-vaccination movement

# data[].attributes.body
What's your reflexive response? Where is it happening (head, heart, gut, impulse to/already in action)? Check in with your other three "points" of processing. What do you need and hope for, if we're going to have a conversation about this? (Article sourced from The Week, 6.12.20)

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Applying the CC Compass to representations of the BLM protests

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Applying the CC Compass to representations of the BLM protests

# data[].attributes.body
What's your reflexive response? Where is it happening (head, heart, gut, impulse to/already in action)? Check in with your other three "points" of processing. What do you need and hope for, if we're going to have a conversation about this? (Cartoon reproduced from The Week, 6.12.20)

# data[].attributes.headline
Teaching Tolerance's Social Justice Standards

# data[].attributes.subject
Teaching Tolerance's Social Justice Standards

# data[].attributes.body
A K-12 developmental framework with applications in how we show up when we talk about politics.

# data[].attributes.body
In conversations about politics, the content isn't just politics; it's also our capacity (understandings, skills and tools) to talk about politics.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Blink Talking politics 7-12 curricular overview 2020

# data[].attributes.headline
The free speech "versus" political correctness set-up

# data[].attributes.subject
The free speech "versus" political correctness set-up

# data[].attributes.body
From "White Supremacy’s Monopoly on Free Speech: Using 'Political Correctness' to Silence People of Color" (Rosenwong with Ishii, Lee, and Park; POCC, 2018)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
POCC White Supremacy's Monopoly on Free Speech Public

# data[].attributes.headline
"All of civics boils down to the simple question of who decides, and you have to play that out in a place, in an arena."

# data[].attributes.subject
"All of civics boils down to the simple question of who decides, and you have to play that out in a place, in an arena."

# data[].attributes.body
- Eric Liu, TEDCity2.0, 2013

# data[].attributes.body
"I want you to write a narrative, a narrative from the future of your [school], and you can date it, set it out one year from now, five years from now, a decade from now, a generation from now, and write it as a case study looking back, looking back at the change that you wanted in your [school], looking back at the cause that you were championing, and describing the ways that that change and that cause came, in fact, to succeed. Describe the values of your [students] that you activated, and the sense of moral purpose that you were able to stir. Recount all the different ways that you engaged the systems of government, of the marketplace, of social institutions, of faith organizations, of the media. Catalog all the skills you had to deploy, how to negotiate, how to advocate, how to frame issues, how to navigate diversity in conflict, all those skills that enabled you to bring folks on board and to overcome resistance. What you'll be doing when you write that narrative is you'll be discovering how to read power, and in the process, how to write power. So share what you write, do you what you write, and then share what you do." - Eric Liu, Citizen University

# data[].attributes.headline
From "5 Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy" by Parker Palmer

# data[].attributes.subject
From "5 Habits to Heal the Heart of Democracy" by Parker Palmer

# data[].attributes.body
"... these days, 'We the People' have a great deal of trouble talking across our lines of difference about the common good—so much trouble that many of us doubt the very concept of a 'common good'... [And e]very time we fail to bridge our differences, we succumb to the divide-and-conquer tactics so skillfully deployed by individuals and institutions whose objective is to take us out of the political equation."  - Parker Palmer

# data[].attributes.body
According to the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) in civics, 24% of US 8th graders were "proficient" in civics in 2018. That may correlate with NAEP's finding that only 22% of those students had "teachers with primary responsibility for teaching civics to their class."

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Baseline fluency to talk about politics 

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Baseline fluency to talk about politics 

# data[].attributes.body
We can't talk about politics if we don't have some shared understandings, vocabulary and cultural competency skills that we're committed to practicing together.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Wait, why are so many of these resources about race and racism (isn't this a workshop about politics)? Yes, and...

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Wait, why are so many of these resources about race and racism (isn't this a workshop about politics)? Yes, and...

# data[].attributes.body
Right now in the US, we can't talk not about race and racism when we talk about politics. Honestly, I don't think we ever could or will be able to, because our political systems, outcomes and even our discourse are informed by and perpetuate white supremacist culture (see Tema Okun's article on this page). Not only race (to the exclusion of gender, sexual orientation, class), but definitely including race, and hopefully, race intersectionally. This is an example of articulating a vital diversity priority. Just as I'm letting you know why we're going to talk about race, and not just "diversity," you can and should let your students/colleagues know whether and why your conversation about politics will vitally prioritize some aspects of identity (again, not to the exclusion of others; it's just not always useful to try to "include all diversity." In fact, that can hinder progress because you can't advance "justice for all" without addressing what that requires for different groups. Furthermore, the antiracism resources on this page can be adapted - for example, Jay Smooth's video is helpful in distinguishing the political view from the person's character.

# data[].attributes.body
While Vera is a kindergarten teacher and models talking to young kids about racism, let's be clear that older kids and adults may not have any (more) practice talking about racism, and may never have learned what racism is. So this may be helpful, even if you teach high school.

# data[].attributes.headline
"How to tell someone they sound racist" by Jay Smooth

# data[].attributes.subject
"How to tell someone they sound racist" by Jay Smooth

# data[].attributes.body
This video is also useful for thinking about how to keep the focus on the political issue, not the person espousing an opinion. The undercurrent of personalization ("are you saying I'm a bad person because I believe...") is distracting and ultimately unhelpful if you want to advance your position on the issue.

# data[].attributes.body
only one right way

either/or thinking

worship of the written word

individualism

objectivity

right to comfort

How do these mindsets show up in conversations about politics?

# data[].attributes.headline
"Do you have white teenage sons? Listen up" by Joanna Schroeder

# data[].attributes.subject
"Do you have white teenage sons? Listen up" by Joanna Schroeder

# data[].attributes.body
"I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists.
Here's how..."
This is a great post about pointing out to youth how they're being "set up" and how they can choose not to be used for someone else's cause. The same goes for adults falling for the "PC" debate.

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.text
Do you have white teenage sons?

Listen up.

I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists. 

Here's how:

# data[].attributes.wish_content.attachment_props.original_text
Do you have white teenage sons?

Listen up.

I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists. 

Here's how:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.embed_code
Do you have white teenage sons?

Listen up.

I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists.

Here's how:
— joanna schroeder (@iproposethis) August 13, 2019

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props_source.data.text
Do you have white teenage sons?

Listen up.

I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists. 

Here's how:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.original_text
Do you have white teenage sons?

Listen up.

I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists. 

Here's how:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.metadata.attachment_props.text
Do you have white teenage sons?

Listen up.

I've been watching my boys' online behavior & noticed that social media and vloggers are actively laying groundwork in white teens to turn them into alt-right/white supremacists. 

Here's how:

# data[].attributes.headline
"Sometimes you have to decide whether you want to be right or effective" (Crutchfield, 2013)

# data[].attributes.subject
"Sometimes you have to decide whether you want to be right or effective" (Crutchfield, 2013)

# data[].attributes.body
This is an example of how I (Alison) write when I am right and that's all that matters to me. And then, in the annotations, I take a breath and remember Orpheus' advice.

# data[].attributes.body
This is a resource "bulletin board" for Can we talk about politics? Please feel welcome to read, post and download from here.
Alison has color-coded Blink's posts:
Purple notes like this one are for the workshop itself.
Blue notes are resources shared by Blink.
Green notes are resources created by Blink.
Yellow notes are Blink's working definitions.

# data[].attributes.headline
"Preparing students for active participation in a democratic society requires the development of specific skills" from Respect Differences? Challenging the Common Guidelines in Social Justice Education" by Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo

# data[].attributes.subject
"Preparing students for active participation in a democratic society requires the development of specific skills" from Respect Differences? Challenging the Common Guidelines in Social Justice Education" by Özlem Sensoy and Robin DiAngelo

# data[].attributes.body
"Speak for yourself instead of generalizing—use I statements.

Respect differences—everyone’s opinion matters.

Challenge ideas not people.

Stay open and engaged—be responsible for your own learning

Having used such guidelines ourselves, we have come to believe that rather than creating an equitable and open classroom space, they actually increase unequal power relations in the classroom. They do so through an embedded assumption that it is possible to create a space that is experienced by all students as respectful, validating, and protective, regardless of their social locations."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Abstract

In social justice education, it is common to establish guidelines for classroom discussions. We examine the limits of these guidelines in achieving the goals of social justice education, arguing that they are not adequately responsive to power relations. Rather than creating a supportive space for dialogue, these guidelines can actually interfere with achieving social justice education goals. We also describe our efforts to engage alternative strategies for responding to power in the social justice classroom.

Recommended Citation

Sensoy, Ö. , DiAngelo, R. (2014). Respect Differences? Challenging the Common Guidelines in Social Justice Education. Democracy and Education, 22 (2), Article 1.
Available at: https://democracyeducationjournal.org/home/vol22/iss2/1

DOWNLOADS

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Respect Differences? Challenging the Common Guidelines in Social Justice Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
In social justice education, it is common to establish guidelines for classroom discussions. We examine the limits of these guidelines in achieving the goals of social justice education, arguing that they are not adequately responsive to power relations. Rather than creating a supportive space for dialogue, these guidelines can actually interfere with achieving social justice education goals.

# data[].attributes.headline
Courageous Conversations Compass from Glenn Singleton and Curtis Linton

# data[].attributes.subject
Courageous Conversations Compass from Glenn Singleton and Curtis Linton

# data[].attributes.body
This is a useful individual and group tool.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Social justice - a working definition

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Social justice - a working definition

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: A working definition of cultural competency

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: A working definition of cultural competency

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Working agreements for this workshop

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Working agreements for this workshop

# data[].attributes.body
Also see Fakequity's Color Brave Space practices.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: When you're naming identity, is it OK to say...? How should I say... ? 

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: When you're naming identity, is it OK to say...? How should I say... ? 

# data[].attributes.body
Because harm can happen in a conversation (even one intended to advance social justice), we have to talk about how we talk about identity and diversity.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: Can we talk about political correctness?

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: Can we talk about political correctness?

# data[].attributes.body
A "yes, and..." exercise to discern how PC can help and hurt conversation and relationships.

# data[].attributes.headline
Color Brave Space practices (also useful to be Politics Brave) 

# data[].attributes.subject
Color Brave Space practices (also useful to be Politics Brave) 

# data[].attributes.body
From the Fakequity blog

# data[].attributes.headline
"Chances are, you're not as open-minded as you think" by David Epstein

# data[].attributes.subject
"Chances are, you're not as open-minded as you think" by David Epstein

# data[].attributes.body
People who are actively open-minded "imagine their own views as hypotheses in need of testing."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
(Michelle Kondrich/For The Washington Post)

Do you think of yourself as open-minded? For a 2017 study, scientists asked 2,400 well-educated adults to consider arguments on politically controversial issues - same-sex marriage, gun control, marijuana legalization - that ran counter to their beliefs. Both liberals and conservatives, they found, were similarly adamant about avoiding contrary opinions.

When it came to same-sex marriage, for example, two-thirds of those surveyed passed on a chance to pocket money if, in exchange, they took some time to just look at counterarguments, never mind seriously entertain them.

The lesson is clear enough: Most of us are probably not as open-minded as we think. That is unfortunate and something we can change. A hallmark of teams that make good predictions about the world around them is something psychologists call "active open mindedness. " People who exhibit this trait do something, alone or together, as a matter of routine that rarely occurs to most of us: They imagine their own views as hypotheses in need of testing.

They aim not to bring people around to their perspective but to encourage others to help them disprove what they already believe. This is not instinctive behavior. Most of us, armed with a Web browser, do not start most days by searching for why we are wrong.

As our divisive politics daily feed our tilt toward confirmation bias, it is worth asking if this instinct to think we know enough is hardening into a habit of poor judgment. Consider that, in a study during the run-up to the Brexit vote , a small majority of both Remainers and Brexiters could correctly interpret made-up statistics about the efficacy of a rash-curing skin cream. But when the same voters were given similarly false data presented as if it indicated that immigration either increased or decreased crime, hordes of Brits suddenly became innumerate and misinterpreted statistics that disagreed with their beliefs.

A separate study by Yale professor Dan Kahan and colleagues found the same phenomenon in the United States when voters were given made-up data about skin cream and gun control.

But researchers such as Kahan and colleagues have also found a reason for hope, a personality trait that seemed to war with biased judgment: They called it science curiosity.

Science curiosity is different from science knowledge. Science-curious folk always chose to look at new evidence, whether it aligned with their beliefs or not. Less science-curious adults became more resistant to contrary evidence and more politically polarized as they gained subject matter knowledge.

This should not be entirely surprising. University of Pennsylvania psychologist Philip Tetlock made a similar finding in a 20-year study that tested the ability of experts to make accurate predictions about geopolitical events. The results, in short, showed that the average expert in a given subject was also, on average, a horrific forecaster. Their areas of specialty, academic degrees and (for some) access to classified information made no difference. Some of the most narrowly specialized experts actually performed worse as they accumulated credentials. It seemed that the more vested they were in a worldview, the more easily they could always find information to fit it.

There was, however, one subgroup of scholars that did markedly better: those who were not intellectually anchored to a narrow area of expertise. They did not hide from contrary and apparently contradictory views, but rather crossed disciplines and political boundaries to seek them out.

Tetlock gave the forecasters nicknames, borrowed from a well-known philosophy essay: the narrow-view hedgehogs, who "know one big thing" (and are terrible forecasters), and the broad-minded foxes, who "know many little things" (and make better predictions). The latter group's hunt for information was a bit like a real fox's hunt for prey: They roam freely, listen carefully and consume omnivorously.

Eventually, Tetlock and his collaborator, Barbara Mellers, assembled a team of foxy volunteers, drawn from the general public, to compete in a forecasting tournament. Their volunteers trounced a group of intelligence analysts who had access to classified information. As Tetlock observed of the best forecasters, it is not what they think but how they think. They argue differently; foxes frequently used the word "however" in assessing ideas, while hedgehogs tended toward "moreover." Foxes also looked far beyond the bounds of the problem at hand for clues from other, similar situations.

A reasonable conclusion is that curiosity - and a broad range of knowledge - might be a kind of superpower. Hedgehog experts have more than enough knowledge about the minutiae of an issue in their specialty to cherry-pick details to fit preconceived notions. Their deep knowledge works against them. More skillful forecasters depart from a problem to consider completely unrelated events with structural commonalities - the "outside view." It is their breadth, not their depth, that scaffolds their skill.

Letter to the Editor: A testament to the power of a liberal arts education

Joel Achenbach: Why science is so hard to believe

J. Peter Scoblic and Philip E. Tetlock: We didn't see Donald Trump coming. But we could have.

Christine Emba: It's okay - even good - to change your mind

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Opinion | Chances are, you're not as open-minded as you think

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Do you think of yourself as open-minded? For a 2017 study, scientists asked 2,400 well-educated adults to consider arguments on politically controversial issues - same-sex marriage, gun control, marijuana legalization - that ran counter to their beliefs. Both liberals and conservatives, they found, were similarly adamant about avoiding contrary opinions.

# data[].attributes.headline
From Blink: A prompt to talk about how (not to) talk about political issues with other people

# data[].attributes.subject
From Blink: A prompt to talk about how (not to) talk about political issues with other people

# data[].attributes.body
Also: notice how your own partisanship filters what you hear people say when you agree with them, and when you disagree with them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Exchange between Stephen Miller and Jim Acosta on Statue of Liberty & Immigration (C-SPAN)

# data[].attributes.headline
Pre-flection: What's an issue you reflexively don't see even two sides of, let alone "multiple perspectives"?

# data[].attributes.subject
Pre-flection: What's an issue you reflexively don't see even two sides of, let alone "multiple perspectives"?

# data[].attributes.body
Example from Alison (experienced viscerally on June 4): the Emmett Till Antilynching Act. Even more specifically, I was not open to Rand Paul's objection to this legislation.