civic engagement Archives - The Institute for Civility in Goverment

Twenty Years Later

April 30, 2018 Institute Staff

April 1, 2018 marked twenty years since we launched the Institute on Capitol Hill. We thought it was going to be easy. We thought that the essential nature of civility in public (and private) discourse was obvious. We thought thousands of people would join our organization and within a few years we would be working for the Institute full time. For many reasons, we were wrong.

In the first place, we were way ahead of the curve. The larger population would not become aware that civility within our larger culture was seriously declining for at least another ten years. When we first brought it up, people wondered why we were concerned. What were we talking about? What was civility anyway?

So we defined it. We say that civility is “claiming and caring for one’s identity and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process.” That definition is now quoted far and wide.

Then people wondered if civility EVER happens in the governing process, and if it did, would it work? So we wrote a book with ten rules we had learned through our experiences on Capitol Hill, along with true life stories from the Hill illustrating each rule. It’s called Reclaiming Civility in the Public Square – Ten Rules That Work. They do.

Then people asked us how to maintain civility when we truly disagree with someone else. So we developed Civility Training. We have now done Civility Training with schools, faith communities, public libraries, businesses, non-profits, state legislators, and surgeons. Demand is only growing, and we travel all over the U.S. and Canada.

In 2006 a high school principal asked us to take her students to Washington, DC and teach them civility and civic engagement. Now our small group Student Legislative Seminars are among our most popular programs.

People are now beginning to understand that civility is essential to a healthy democracy, but they seem uncertain we can bring it back and/or do not even know how to start. We can bring it back. But it will take all of us.

There are now hundreds of local initiatives to build civility at the community level. We celebrate that. But to bring it back to the national conversation is going to take more. That is why the Institute has always been a membership based organization.

Weber-Shandwick has been taking an annual poll about the public perception about civility for eight years now. It provides a good snapshot of where we are. But it is not enough to bring about change.

It has taken us twenty years to build an impeccable record of non-partisanship, and for more than a thousand people to join the Institute. Keep in mind that when we started, the internet was in its infancy, few people had cell phones, and social media did not exist. Getting the word out took longer, and we ourselves have been on a learning curve since day one. But learn we did.

And join they have. Every voice makes us stronger, more influential, and enduring. Don’t sit on the sidelines. Join the Institute today and help us build a more civil tomorrow. We’ve got the track record. Now let’s win the race and bring civility back – as the norm, not the exception.

– Cassandra Dahnke and Tomás Spath,
Institute Co-founders

“They Work for Us”: Learning about Civic Engagement in Washington, D.C.

June 26, 2015June 26, 2015 Guest Blogger

Jakob Lucas is a junior at Texas City High School and a freshman at College of the Mainland, attending both in a dual-credit program. Jakob loves writing, volunteering, and traveling. Upon high school graduation, he plans on attending a major university to study global politics and international law. He is a 2014 alumnus of the Institute’s Student Legislative Seminar program.

Every school year, the Institute for Civility in Government sends a representative to Texas City High School to lead a group of high school students to our nation’s capital. While there the group visits cultural landmarks like the Kennedy Center and the Washington National Cathedral, important political locations such as the White House and the Capitol, and well-known attractions and locations such as the Lincoln Memorial, the Smithsonian museums, and the Washington Mall. The trip is not something unique to my hometown of Texas City. In fact, around the state, the Institute reaches out to political clubs and other communities within high schools and picks a handful of students who seem willing to learn and explore.

For our small high school, I am the president of the Young Americans for Liberty club, a libertarian-leaning organization dedicated to raising awareness of the effect that government and politics has on our personal lives, our school, and our city. As this year began, I realized that most of the YAL members last year, who voted for me to become president, were seniors and now out of high school! Ever the optimist, I was determined to view this as a fresh start for the club. By the time the Institute came knocking to talk about the trip once again, we had ten capable members ready to travel and learn from the Institute for Civility in Government.

The Institute’s goal: bringing civility back into the politics of our nation. The Institute’s hope: that bringing civility back into our national conversation will help some of our nation’s most prominent problems.

Institute co-founder Tomas Spath has been Texas City’s guide for years, and at the very start of the trip he made it clear just what civility is, by having us write it down several times in the notebooks provided by the Institute to document our trip.

With our varied group of outcasts, band geeks, dancers (or “Stingarettes” as we call them on our football field), and political nerds, the words:

“Civility = claiming and caring for one’s identity, needs and beliefs without degrading someone else’s in the process”

were written in very different styles and handwriting, with varying levels of legibility.

In Washington D.C., we spent our days with Mr. Spath, riding subways, taking pictures, being tourists and enjoying the trip. Every night though, we departed from the usual tourist experience, as we worked together to decide on three issues that we wanted to talk to our Senator and Congressman about.

Our three issues: Government Spending, Immigration, and Veteran Affairs. And through the Institute, we were able to meet with the staff of Senator Ted Cruz, and directly with our Congressman Randy Weber, and make our opinions heard.

The situation was enlightening as every member of the Texas City High School group realized just how deep the lack of civility ran in the city of Washington DC, especially when dealing with our issue of immigration.

During our trip, we caught a speech by our very own Texas Senator John Cornyn against President Obama’s executive action over immigration reform. During the speech, Cornyn characterized the President’s negotiation tactics as I want everything I want, or I want nothing, and said that when a person does that [they] always get nothing. The tactic of the speech, to make the President seem incompetent or immature, taught our group the depth of incivility in the speeches and interactions of politicians running our country.

Earlier in the trip we met with financial experts to learn about tax reform, advocates to discuss immigration issues, and leaders of the Veterans of Foreign Wars organization. Equipped with expert data and adding our own opinions and insight, we presented our ideas and solutions to Senator Ted Cruz’s staff and to our Congressman himself, Randy Weber.

It was an amazing realization to see the effect that normal American citizens can have on the political process. Mr. Spath was quick to remind our group that they work for us, and that it is our responsibility to hold our representatives to a high standard.

Unfortunately the day our group feared the most arrived. The day we left DC and went back to Texas. Notice the word, “Texas.” I have known for years that I wanted to work in politics, but the trip changed me in ways I could never foresee.

Growing up, I was taught that my home was Texas. I drew the distinct Texas shape on hundreds of social studies assignments, and maps of the state decorated my house. But my perception of geography completely changed after the trip.

After my trip to our nation’s capital, I felt that despite being born and raised in the Lone Star state, when I returned to Texas I was not going home. I was doing the exact opposite. The Washington DC trip, facilitated by the Institute for Civility in Government, brought me home for the first time in my life. A home that I wish to see again, sometime soon.

Posts by guest authors reflect their own views and opinions, and not necessarily the views and opinions of the Institute for Civility in Government.

Dave Meslin Talks about Apathy at TEDx

May 15, 2014May 15, 2014 cassandra.dahnke 2

Increasingly popular since the late 2000s, TED talks cover a wide gamut of topics — political, scientific, and creative. The organization was founded in 1984, and the website — which features more than 1,500 openly licensed videos from TED conferences around the world — has become a place where creativity and curiosity merge, and where anyone can listen in on a world of ideas.

As co-founders of a nonprofit organization seeking to impact the governing process and our lives in community, we have taken on a rather large task. We seek to motivate people not only to make changes in how they interact with others in the midst of conflict, but also to come together to form a civility movement that will shape our culture into a more civil one.

It hasn’t been as easy as we thought it would be.

One issue that we have run into over and over is the entrenched belief that one person cannot make a difference. We at the Institute espouse that every voice counts — that voices raised together in chorus are the means by which change happens. But for many, it is difficult to see the connection between what I have to say, and what we have to say together.

History illustrates the value of speaking out. Time and again, from independence, to abolition and women’s suffrage, to civil rights for racial and sexual minorities, social change has happened not by top-down decree, but when people have gotten involved, and organized to make their voices heard. So why are people who otherwise believe in our cause so slow to join in? We believe that Canadian activist Dave Meslin has some valuable insights that help answer that question.

In Meslin’s TED talk, The Antidote to Apathy, he looks at some of the structural and cultural barriers to civic participation. He asserts that yes, people really do care about their communities and their world, but that the architecture of ideas and the architecture of physical spaces are designed to discourage participatory change. You might think that hearing about the enormity of the barriers to civic participation might discourage us. But far from it! Identifying a problem is often the first step to solving it. So here, in Dave Meslin’s words, is some of what you need to know:

Give it a listen and be encouraged. And then redefine your relationship to the barriers that Meslin points out. We can open up city hall, Meslin says. We can reform our electoral systems. We can democratize our public spaces. We can identify obstacles to more and better participation, and if we can work together collectively to dismantle those obstacles, then anything is possible.

There are a lot of people who care about civility. If you are reading this, you are probably one of them. Yes, we are trying to bring about significant change. Yes, there are challenges. But be encouraged! New Ideas generate more new ideas. Creativity sparks creativity. You are not alone, and together we can make a difference.

Join us, and make your voice heard, too!

McCutcheon vs. FEC: At the Supreme Court

April 4, 2014March 4, 2018 Institute Staff 1

Regardless of where your political convictions lie, there is no escaping that McCutcheon vs. FEC, the recent Supreme Court decision striking down most limits on political donations by individuals, was both controversial and important. The controversy is immediately evident: the court split five to four along partisan lines, with Justices Roberts writing the majority opinion, and Justice Breyer writing the dissent.

McCuthcheon vs. FEC

Echoing Citizen’s United vs. FEC in 2010, Roberts writes that money in politics may at times seem repugnant to some, but so too does much of what the First Amendment vigorously protects. He writes that the Government has a strong interest… in combatting corruption and its appearance but that this interest must be limited to a specific kind of corruption — quid pro quo corruption. And he writes that in the end, aggregate limits on contributions do not further the only governmental interest this Court accepted as legitimate.

Breyer writes that the majority opinion misconstrues the nature of the competing constitutional interests at stake.

It understates the importance of protecting the political integrity of our governmental institutions. It creates a loophole that will allow a single individual to contribute millions of dollars to a political party or to a candidate’s campaign. Taken together with Citizens United v. Federal Election Comm’n, 558 U. S. 310 (2010), today’s decision eviscerates our Nation’s campaign finance laws, leaving a remnant incapable of dealing with the grave problems of democratic legitimacy that those laws were intended to resolve.

The court has again ruled, in other words, that money is a form of speech. And it has ruled that wealthy citizens on both sides of the political aisle are now free to donate unlimited sums to whomever they choose, as long as contributions to any single candidate do not exceed the current limit of $5,200. While the court’s dissenters warn that such a ruling undermines the legitimacy of the legislative process.

This decision, of course, will be greeted with glee by some and dismay by others.

But no matter where we stand, it raises questions that are key, and that we must all answer together: to what degree do we wish to be governed by financial interests? And in what sense — financial or ideological — are we willing to invest ourselves in the governing process?

While we do not all possess the kind of material wealth that catches headlines and drives campaigns, McCutcheon vs. FEC does not mean that we, as citizens are without resources — very far from it. That very same First Amendment guarantee of freedom of speech that makes campaign contribution limits unconstitutional also guarantees each of us the right to be heard — and the ultimate platform is our vote.

Voting, however, is not enough. It is the culmination of the election process and not the determiner of which issues are important — which are on the table. The most important way that we can influence the political agendas of this country, and the nature of debates, is to get involved.

Volunteer for campaigns
Attend precinct meetings
Build relationships with elected officials
Organize on the grassroots level
Network

Pay attention and participate.

The political landscape of the United States was founded, formed, and grown on ideas. Regardless of any Supreme court decision, it has never been easy, and it never will be easy, to make our voices heard. But it has always been worth it.

To read the unabridged opinions in McCutcheon vs. FEC, have a look here [PDF].

Civility Linkblogging: Civic Engagement and Gay Rights

February 10, 2014February 10, 2014 Adam Zolkover 2

This post is part of an ongoing series that highlights discourse about civility online. We glean the articles for civility linkblogging from a broad cross-section of blogs, newspapers, and magazines, from the United States and abroad.

This week, our linkblogging segment is embedded with questions of demeaning language, gay rights, and gay marriage across three states: Michigan, Indiana, and Utah. In all three, amid heated words about who counts as a member of those communities, prominent citizens are standing up to insist on respect. In the latter two, we see civil words about the essentialness of civility from speakers on college campuses. While in the former, it is Republican Governor Rick Scott who, in his State of the State address, called for a greater degree of civility and respect to others of different backgrounds and different views.

If you have an article that you think would be right for future civility linkblogging posts, please do not hesitate to email it to us at editor@instituteforcivility.org. Include the title, url, and a short summary, and we will gladly review it for publication.

Now — the list:

Ex-Giant Martin Tackles Gridiron Civility
Posted by Rich DePreta at The Stamford Advocate, January 14, 2014

One might believe there isn’t much to say about “Civility on the Gridiron.”

Former New York Giants defensive end George Martin, however, would beg to differ.

“The shaking of hands before the coin toss. The sizable rules of the game or rules of engagement. The equipment worn by both sides. Not hitting players above the neckline without penalty,” Martin said. “Those are all acts of civility.

Citizenry Can Lead Congress Back to Civility
Posted by Pat Williams at The Bozeman Daily Chronicle, January 15, 2014

America has many problems: unemployment, education, environment, poverty, war; but watching the Congress’ lack of accomplishment, civility, and compromise one might have the thought that all is well across this land. In these difficult and dangerous times, we should not abide our broken legislative mainspring, rather we ought to be looking very closely to determine what has gone wrong and fix it.

In our relatively well-designed legislative system, the entire difficulty can’t lie only with those who represent us. We need to examine not only Capitol Hill but also ourselves. Are we, as citizens, attentive to our governmental system? Perhaps not, when 70 percent of Americans don’t even vote on Election Day.

Did Gov. Rick Snyder Reference Dave Agema in His State of the State Speech?
Posted by Brian Smith at MLive.com, January 16, 2014

Gov. Rick Snyder called on Michigan residents to avoid “derogatory” and “negative” comments in an apparent rebuke of controversial comments made by Dave Agema, a Michigan Republican National Committeeman.

“In recent days and recent months in the state of Michigan, we’ve had people make comments that were derogatory, that were negative towards other people,” Snyder said. “Publicly tonight, I’d like to make a call to all citizens of Michigan to ask us have a greater degree of civility and respect to others of different backgrounds and different views.”

Civility is Possible Even in Gay Marriage Debate
Posted by Russ Pulliam at The Indianapolis Star, January 17, 2014

John Krull is pursuing an American tradition that gets fewer headlines than the fireworks that come with big social issue debates. When ideological opponents do the hard work of personal friendship, they usually don’t make news. They don’t walk out on each other and halt legislative sessions. They don’t call each other names. They don’t lead a nation or state to the brink of bankruptcy over tactical disputes. They tend to head off the conflicts that create the dramatic news stories. But they can learn the names of one another’s children or play basketball together or go into a triathlon as teammates.

They do not make news with these efforts, but they do resolve many personality problems behind the scenes.

LGBT Leader Promotes Message of Civility
Posted by Whitney Evans at The Desert News, January 21, 2014

Kate Kendell was invited to speak by the college’s LGBT-focused student group, OutLaws, sponsors of the presentation. She encouraged those in attendance to be civil to those with whom they disagree:

“Your part of seeing to it that this ends the way we know it’s going to sooner rather than later is that you engage them. You have a conversation — no matter how threatening it is.”