Bob Daley: 50 Years with the National Press Club
Posted: February 11, 2013 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: Bob Daley, journalist, Kettering Foundation, national press club, public engagement Leave a comment »Bob Daley, a long time veteran of public engagement work, and a journalist, was featured in a Dayton Daily News article on January 16, 2013. The following is excerpted from the article:
Bob Daley
Bob Daley became a copy boy for the Dayton Journal-Herald when reporters wrote stories with manual typewriters and pasted copies of stories with flour and water.
Throughout the years, Daley has been a copy boy, political reporter, press secretary, assistant to the governor, and director of public affairs. He’s also always retained his membership with the National Press Club. A few months ago, the Washington Twp. man was honored for his 50-year membership with the National Press Club.
“I still consider myself a journalist, rather than in public relations,” said Daley, who retired from the Kettering Foundation where he was the director of public affairs and communications. “All I ever wanted to be and enjoyed so much was a reporter,” he said. Read the full article here.
Offering an Alternative to Polarized Debate – “How Can We Stop Mass Shootings in Our Communities?”
Posted: February 4, 2013 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: communities, deliberating, framework, gun control, issue, policy options, public Leave a comment »(The following is by Brad Rourke, Kettering Foundation program officer and executive editor of issue
guides.)
On Friday, February 1, 2013, National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI) released an Issue Advisory that contains materials that communities might wish to use in deliberating over the issues raised by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut in December last year. It’s not a full issue guide, but a basic outline of the options, entitled How Can We Stop Mass Shootings in Our Communities? It’s available here.
Developing the framework for this issue posed challenges. In the first place, the issue is raw, happening now, and strikes deep emotional chords. This can make it hard to deliberate — which requires that people face the downsides of their favored actions. In emotional situations, this can be difficult. A good issue framework will make it easier for people to get past their reactions and begin to make judgments together — to weigh options.
The other difficulty is that the dominant public discourse has already become polarized around the issue of gun control (more vs. less). A public framing of an issue will start with people’s core concerns, rather than with ideology. When issues are framed with policy options at the outset, this can lead to “solution wars” where people battle over their favored solution without examining the value tensions inherent in it.
An issue that is framed around people’s chief concerns will illuminate the things held valuable by people so that they can be weighed against one another. The result is very often a different kind of conversation — not universal agreement, necessarily, nor even always a clear sense of common ground. What we can expect and hope for, from deliberations over issues framed with the public in mind, is a movement toward shared public judgment.
With this framework, we have tried to offer an alternative to the polarized debate already unfolding. We typically engage in months of research and testing before releasing issue guides. There was not time to do that in this instance. So, we are eager to learn what use you make of the issue advisory and, if you use it to spark public deliberative forums, what you learn. Please tell us what happens, what you learn, and other thoughts you might have in the comments.
Preventing Mass Shootings – How Should We Help the Public Work on this Problem?
Posted: January 15, 2013 Filed under: News and Views, Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? | Tags: discussion, discussion guides, issue framing, mass shootings, national issues, Newtown shootings, public issues, school shootings Leave a comment »by Patty Dineen
The December, 2012 shootings at an elementary school in Newtown, Connecticut re-ignited public talk about what “we” as individuals, and especially, what ”we” as a society should do about it. Can we do anything to prevent the next one? Can we identify likely future shooters? Can we make public places safer without turning such places into prison-like settings? Would we have to give up some cherished personal freedoms in order to get the results we seek? These and many other questions are being asked, discussed, debated, and argued about.
This public issue–what can, and what should we do to prevent this kind of violence?–as we all know, is presently being framed by many entities; media, interest groups, government, experts, and individuals in all segments of our society. You might think that would be enough, but we don’t think it is. The National Issues Forums Institute has a 32-year-long interest in a particular kind of issue framing; that is, framing a public issue in a way that can help people deliberate; or carefully consider a spectrum of approaches to dealing with the issue. Deliberation also requires unflinching consideration of the possible consequences, costs, and tradeoffs inherent of each approach.
Some people who have found this kind of issue framing helpful in the past have expressed their desire for an NIFI issue framing that would help people talk about Newtown,and other mass shootings that have happened in recent years. In response, there is a group presently working to produce such an issue framework. Here is what Brad Rourke, executive issue book editor, Kettering Foundation, has announced about this work:
Many in the National Issues Forums network have asked whether there are materials available to aid communities in deliberating over the issues raised by the tragic events in Newtown, Connecticut. We anticipate making such materials available here (on the National Issues Forums website) shortly. For more information please contact Brad Rourke at brourke@kettering.org.
In the meantime the following are some presently available resources that may be helpful to those who would like to deliberate about violence, and/or to frame violence-related issues.
What do you think? We welcome your posting of links to other discussion guides or issue frameworks related to the issues raised by the Newtown and other shootings; and especially your thoughts and comments in the comment section. As always, thank you.
Naming and Framing Issues to Make Difficult Decisions http://kettering.org/publications/naming-and-framing-difficult-issues-to-make-sound-decisions/
Naming and Framing Local Issues for Public Deliberation http://www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=3238&itemID=18703
From the National Issues Forums Institute (NIF): Youth and Violence: Reducing the Threat http://nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=12&itemID=19890
From the Mathews Center for Civic Life: Bullying: What Is It? How Do We Prevent It? http://mathewscenter.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/12/Bully-Brochure_press_PMS.pdf
From the Teaching Deliberatively Workshop in Des Moines, Iowa: Bullying: How Should Schools Address This Growing Problem? http://www.nifi.org/issue_books/detail.aspx?catID=15&itemID=22874
From the West Virginia Center for Civic Life: How can we build safe and strong neighborhoods in West Virginia? http://www.wvciviclife.org/neighborhoods.htm
From the Oklahoma Partnership for Public Deliberation: Intimate Partner Violence: What Can We Do? http://www.okdeliberates.org/Documents/Intimate%20Partner%20Violence%20Final%2010%2006.pdf
From Everyday Democracy: Confronting Violence in Our Communities http://www.ncdd.org/files/etc/ConfrontingViolenceInOurCommunities-1994.pdf
Citizenship as Education, by Jim Strickland
Posted: September 26, 2012 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: citizenship, community, democracy, Jim Strickland, public education 1 Comment »The foundation of democracy is the very human act of just talking with each other…This kind of citizenship is the most transformative kind of education there is. You cannot emerge unchanged because continuous and responsible change is the name of the game.
The term “public education” can be understood in a couple of different ways. One common meaning is related to its funding source. Public education is education that is publicly funded, as in our public schools and other publicly financed educational programs.
Another meaning of public education, however, is related to its primary purpose. In this view, public education refers to our intentional efforts to create a public – that is, a body of citizens who have the inclination and the capacity to participate in the ongoing and responsible practice of self-government. This broader understanding of public education encompasses the work done by our public schools, but extends far beyond them to include the institutions and political, economic, and social structures of the larger community.
This kind of public education – citizenship education – is a community responsibility. And, as is the case with other types of learning, it is best learned by doing. In other words, the best way to become a true citizen is in the actual practice of citizenship. Citizenship is its own education. And to make this education possible, it is our job as a community to ensure that real opportunities for citizen participation are widely and continuously available, known to the community, and actively supported.
So what does the practice of citizenship look like? I like to think of citizenship as simply doing my part to make my community work. And in a democracy, that means participating at some level in the practice of self-government. Voting, yes, but much more than that. Democracy can be understood as a continuous process of mutual transformation. It is a respectful “give and take” that results in beneficial growth to all those involved.
And this process is driven by, more than anything else, ongoing and thoughtful dialogue. Yes, the foundation of democracy is the very human act of just talking with each other. It is through this never-ending public conversation that we come to understand each other, grapple with new ideas, enlarge our thinking, and ultimately solve problems and make decisions together. This kind of citizenship is the most transformative kind of education there is. You cannot emerge unchanged because continuous and responsible change is the name of the game.
But this kind of public education – citizenship education – doesn’t just happen all by itself. We have to intentionally create the forums for it to flourish. Here are a few suggestions to get us started. We could begin by:
1) Creating more opportunities for nonpartisan dialogue around issues that are important to us (this could include regular citizens’ forums and neighborhood assemblies).
2) Finding ways to integrate the practice of citizenship more seamlessly into our daily lives, even at the workplace (this could include an increase in workplace democracy and giving employees paid time off for participation in citizenship activities).
3) Raising expectations for citizenship by empowering citizen groups with real decision-making authority and promoting a culture of ownership.
4) Exploring new ways to increase participatory citizenship in our schools (this could include more participatory modes of school governance, regular civic action involving school-community partnerships, and making citizenship a primary measure of student success).
Citizenship, like democracy, is a way of living that stretches us to grow and brings out the best we can be. It is the common arena in which we define ourselves both as individuals and in terms of our relationships with others. Citizenship is how we hammer out a vision for community that works for us all – today.
But what works today may not work tomorrow, so this process can never stop. I want to live in a world where growth never stops, where learning never stops, where the human conversation never stops. And to me, that’s what public education is all about.
Jim Strickland is a veteran public educator in Marysville, WA and an Agenda for Education in a Democracy scholar. He can be reached at livedemocracy@hotmail.com .
Watch and Share Your Comments – Shaping Our Future, Launching a National Conversation about the Public Purposes of Higher Education
Posted: September 5, 2012 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: American Commonwealth Partnership, deliberation, dialogue, Higher Education, national conversation, National Issues Forums, national press club, Shaping Our Future 3 Comments »
Muriel Howard, President of the American Association of State Colleges and Universities, spoke during the “Shaping Our Future” launch at the National Press Club
We hope you will watch the video and share your comments, questions, and feedback.
You can now watch the video (approximately 2 hrs.) recorded during the September 4, 2012 launch of Shaping Our Future: How Can Higher Education Help Us Create the Future We Want? – A national conversation about the public purposes of higher education. Through this initiative, students, faculty, administrators, employers, and members of the general public are invited to reflect on how colleges and universities might help the country tackle some of its most vexing problems. Shaping Our Future is organized by the American Commonwealth Partnership and the National Issues Forums.
The launch, which included a presentation and panel discussion, was held September 4, 2012, at the National Press Club in Washington, DC, and featured the following speakers and panelists:
Martha Kanter, U.S. Undersecretary of Education
Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Syracuse University
Muriel Howard, President, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
Bernie Ronan, Chair, The Democracy Commitment
Kaylesh Ramu, President, Student Government Association, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Scott Peters, Co-¬Director, Imagining America
Harry Boyte, National Coordinator, The American Commonwealth Partnership
Bill Muse, President, The National Issues Forums
David Mathews, President, The Kettering Foundation (via video)
The “Shaping Our Future” issue materials are available to download online (free through June 30, 2013).
The following is a preliminary listing of colleges and universities that have committed to holding “Shaping Our Future” forums:
Morehouse College
Clark Atlanta University
Spelman College
Tougaloo College
Atlanta Metropolitan State College
Ft. Valley State University
San Diego State Univ. and Univ. of California at San Diego
Florida A&M University
University of Washington
Alabama A&M University
Lawson State Community College
Tennessee State University
Morgan State University
The Citadel
Clemson University
University of South Carolina, Sumter
Central Carolina Technical College
Morris College
Coastal Carolina
Albany State University
Albuquerque, New Mexico
Ashland University
Augsburg College
Bemidji State University
Broome Community College
Carleton College
Century College
College of St. Benedict/St. John’s University
Concordia College-Moorhead
Concordia University-St. Paul
Franklin Pierce University
Georgia College and University
Gulf Coast State College
Gustavus Adolphus College
Hofstra University
Inver Hills Community College
Minnesota State University-Mankato
Normandale Community College
North Hennepin Community College
Providence College and City of Providence
Portland Community College
St. Cloud State University
University of Georgia
University of Michigan
University of Minnesota-Duluth
University of Minnesota-Rochester
University of Minnesota-Twin Cities
University of Virginia
Virginia Tech University
Winona State University
Minnesota Campus Compact
Central Lakes College
Hamline University
University of Minnesaota-Morris
Northeastern Illinois University
Southwest Minnesota State University
SUNY Cortland
University of St. Thomas
Washington State University Vancouver
For more information about participating in this national conversation contact Bill Muse, by e-mail at bmuse@nifi.org, or by phone at 800-433-7834 or Harry Boyte, by e-mail at boyte001@umn.edu, or by phone at 612-330-1453.
Watch Online, Sept. 4, 2012, Launch of a National Dialogue about Higher Education
Posted: August 30, 2012 Filed under: Possible Issues to Frame for Deliberation - What do you think? Leave a comment »
Shaping Our Future How Can Higher Education Help Us Create the Future We Want?
Watch the launch online (A brief registration is required)
Join us online on Tuesday, September 4, 2012, to kick off Shaping Our Future, a year-long national dialogue on the future of higher education. Through this initiative, students, faculty, administrators, employers, and members of the general public will reflect on how colleges and universities might help the country tackle some of its most vexing problems. Shaping Our Future is organized by the American Commonwealth Partnership and the National Issues Forums. The kick-off event will include information about forums now being planned on campuses and in communities nationwide.
Tuesday, September 4, 2012
The National Press Club Washington, DC 20045
Presentation and Panel Discussion 9 to 11 a.m. Eastern Time, National Press Club
Speakers and Panelists:
Martha Kanter, U.S. Undersecretary of Education
Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Syracuse University
Muriel Howard, President, American Association of State Colleges and Universities (AASCU)
Bernie Ronan, Chair, The Democracy Commitment
Kaylesh Ramu, President, Student Government Association, University of Maryland Baltimore County
Scott Peters, Co-¬Director, Imagining America
Harry Boyte, National Coordinator, The American Commonwealth Partnership
Bill Muse, President, The National Issues Forums
David Mathews, President, The Kettering Foundation (via video)
Click here or on the link above to watch the launch online, September 4, 2012, 9 a.m. (ET) For more information contact Phil Lurie at plurie@kettering.org or Jean Johnson at jjohnson@publicagenda.org.
At the University of Montana – Using Deliberation and Radio to Battle Rape
Posted: June 15, 2012 Filed under: News and Views | Tags: National Issues Forums, radio, rape, The Footbridge Forum: Without Consent, University of Montana Leave a comment »The following is guest editorial that was written by Denise Dowling, denise.dowling@mso.umt.edu, Associate Professor and Chair, Radio-Television Department, at The University of Montana.
For the full list of suggestions and to listen to the audio.
The University of Montana is not a happy place to work these days. We’ve had the wind knocked out of us as we’ve been pummeled with accusations of rape, complicity and cover up on our campus. It’s forced a collective gasp from us, the employees of UM, for this is not the place we know. But there it is, like a hard, cold slap in the face. Horrible things have happened here and now we must work through the calamity.
When the details of sexual assault among our student body began to unfold this winter, students in my advanced audio course took on the topic in a series of radio programs called The Footbridge Forum. This program began in The School of Journalism in 2004 with a grant from The Kettering Foundation and is modeled after that organization’s National Issues Forums. A citizen panel is educated on an issue and deliberates on possible solutions with the help of a moderator. The student producers invited parents, officials, students and athletes to participate on the programs aired on KBGA College Radio this spring.
The panelists say they learned a great deal about sexual assault over the course of their deliberations. They learned rape is a crime of power, not sex and that very often rapists are known as “good guys who would never do such a thing.” The panelists came into the process thinking many rape charges came after what they called “regret sex,” when a once-willing partner has regret or embarrassment after the fact. But they were surprised to learn the overwhelming majority of rape allegations are true, and almost never a result of “regret sex.” They heard from those who would like to quit qualifying rape with terms like “date rape” or “acquaintance rape.” As one prosecutor put it, “It’s rape, it’s rape, it’s rape!” They learned sexual assault is an underreported crime because of the social stigma placed on the victim. They heard of the tendency to blame those who have been attacked for “bringing it on themselves” and were surprised to learn women are more likely to victim-blame than men.
Over the course of their deliberations, the panel came up with suggestions for preventing and dealing with sexual assault in Missoula. Their suggestions target many different stakeholders, from educators to citizens, administrators to law enforcement. You can see the full list of suggestions at www.footbridgeforum.org. The panel wanted each and every member of the community to examine his or her own role in the culture of sexual violence and work toward eliminating it.
Among their suggestions:
- Examine your own tendency to victim blame and stop victim-blaming talk when you hear it.
- Learn how to support victims and encourage them to report the violence to law officers.
- Educate yourself on the rules and laws governing communication among agencies and the public in cases of sexual assault.
- Consider how the treatment of victims may reinforce the notion that rape is somehow shameful.
- Educate young people on the role alcohol plays in sexual violence and give them tools for responsible partying.
- Focus on educating our boys and men about consent, respect and the consequences of sexual assault.
- Encourage a peer “zero tolerance” policy and support intervention when there’s potential for assault.
- Model good behavior and learn to talk to your children, especially boys, about sexual assault prevention.
- Question the role the community plays in a culture of violence and entitlement, especially among athletes.
- Demand clear communication from the university, law enforcement and the media.
- Don’t blame the media, law enforcement or the university for the problem. Place the blame where it belongs, on those who assault and rape.
We all have some very rough days ahead as we seek the truth about the violence in our community and learn from our missteps in dealing with the aftermath. But I’m confident we will work through this challenge and do the right thing. We have much to be proud of at UM and in Missoula and I hope one day we can get back to focusing on those things. For now we can all consider how we might work toward eliminating sexual violence in our community.
Denise Dowling
Associate Professor and Chair
Radio-Television Department
The School of Journalism
The University of Montana
On behalf of the student producers of The Footbridge Forum: Without Consent
Jonathon Ambarian, Jamie Bedwell, Jacquelyn Coffin, Emily Creasia, Clark Hodges, Josh Nierstheimer, Mike Powell, Emily Wendler
For the full list of suggestions and to listen to the audio.
