By Timothy K. Eatman and Jamie Haft
At the January 10 White House launch of the American Commonwealth Partnership, Syracuse University was invited to be one of 17 campuses across the country to host a youth summit as part of the “White House Young America Series.” We seized the opportunity to rally high school and college students in Central New York. The event’s framework was Syracuse University’s call for Scholarship in Action, and the national coalition Imagining America: Artists and Scholars in Public Life’s vision to realize the democratic purposes of American higher education. The program planning committee included representatives from the Central New York Chapter of Publicly Active Graduate Education, Imagining America Engagement Fellows, and the student government associations of Syracuse and Cornell University. The April 18, three-hour event provided a platform for 150 students in the region to share their experiences partnering with communities to address local problems, and for students to engage two young White House representatives: Victoria McCullough, Office of Public Engagement, and Samuel Ryan, Department of Education.
Participants discussed race, class, and disability issues in the education system; environmental sustainability; and how the humanities, arts, and design can be used to positively affect these issues. To probe the issues’ complexity, a mix of formats was employed: panel discussion, personal testimony, presentation, spoken word performance, and dialogue with the audience. Using a Twitter hashtag, there was virtual exchange during the event among attendees and those watching via live web stream. To view the event video, go to http://syr.edu/whitehouse/.
Recognizing that all organizing is reorganizing, Imagining America and Syracuse University are using the event’s energy to launch the contest, “From Story to Screen,” in which students submit narratives about their civic engagement. The winners will have their stories professionally produced as a short video for national distribution.
Other participants, too, are using the momentum to act on change, and discussing how to connect their efforts to the movement building of the American Commonwealth Partnership.
Timothy K. Eatman is research director for Imagining America and assistant professor of higher education at Syracuse University. Jamie Haft is communications manager for Imagining America and is completing her master’s degree at Syracuse’s S.I. Newhouse School of Public Communications.
Click here for more stories about the work of the Student Organizing Group.
In September 2011, Auburn University students Marian Royston and Blake Evans traveled with Dr. Mark Wilson, College of Liberal Arts Director of Civic Learning Initiatives, to the Newnan Public Library in Georgia to interview Willie B. Wyatt regarding his role as one of thirteen students who filed the historic suit, Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, which desegregated Tuskegee High School in 1963. The oral history interview was one of several taken as part of the CLA Community and Civic Engagement Initiative’s participation in the Appalachian Teaching Project. The historic graduation event described below on May 23, 2012 is the result of this collaboration.
MACON CO., AL (WSFA) – You can hear the drum line of Notasulga High school miles away as band members welcome the graduating class of 1964 back to Macon County for a ceremony that’s been long overdue.
“I kind of thought I was a forgotten person from a graduation standpoint,” Willie Wyatt Jr. said.
Wyatt and Anthony Lee along with 10 other students paved the way for integration in Macon County and the state when they integrated two schools in the county.
“On the first day we were turned away by the state troopers. We just wanted to have the same opportunity as the other students did,” Wyatt said.
Lee and Wyatt say they would have graduated on May 25th, 1964 from Notasulga High School, along with now deceased classmate Robert Judkins. But after resistance and violence, the school mysteriously burned.
“[The principal was told] give them there diplomas, let that be there last day of school,” Wyatt said.
He says they were also denied class rings. But with the help of Auburn University and the Macon County School Board and current students who are celebrating them, these men will finally be in their high school cap and gown.
“We’re going to give them the full salutations that they deserve,” Macon County Superintendent Dr. Jacqueline Brooks said.
They will walk with the graduating class of Notasulga high school Wednesday at 7p.m., something they say will be very emotional but will serve as closure.
“To let them know how things were and how things are now and how they can with dreams and preparation and determination accomplish almost anything,” Lee said.
Finally getting the recognition they should have gotten 48 years ago.
The 12 students who integrated Macon County schools are a part of an exhibit on display at the Tuskegee Human and Civil Rights Multicultural Center.
Momentum is building in the American Commonwealth Partnership, and we have a unique opportunity to leverage support for our work. The Center for Democracy and Citizenship has a challenge grant that will match any new and increased gift made by May 31st!
The ACP strives to democratize higher education by opening access, improving curricular and co-curricular teaching and learning, and creating an ethos of public engagement to make life better for all of us.
So far, generous supporters like you have contributed $13,785 . Help us reach our goal of $20,000 by making a contribution today. Please click here to make a contribution of $50, $100, or $250 today.
The skills needed in both the workplace and our society as a whole require cooperative and productive citizenship to build an equitable, sustainable democracy. To develop such capacities, higher education needs to tap the full participation of all, and integrate science with arts, humanities and design. This requires bold action. ACP develops strategies to help realize these goals.
Higher education must rise to the occasion, and ACP aspires to be the resource and a meeting ground for this great work.
Help us to build a better tomorrow for students and America as a whole. And please spread the word by sharing this link on Facebook,twitter and other social media.
Harry Boyte, National Coordinator, ACP
The room was surging with energy as members of Occupy Wall Street mingled with attendees at the town hall meeting. Harry Boyte and Dennis Donovan, organizers of the event and long time community organizers, invited students, colleagues, and all others interested in learning more about a variety of controversial social issues. This week’s topic: Occupy Wall Street.
The over-arching theme of all ‘Town Hall Meetings’ is the regular practice of democracy. It is assumed that all persons attending understand and respect the fundamental principle that guides the town hall meetings: with democracy comes a responsibility as citizens, to learn about what is going on in this country and to delve into discussion and debate, freely, as we decide for ourselves what we believe in. Free and open debate, unhindered by intimidation nor disrespect is critical to the success of the meetings. The clock struckseven o’clock and it was time for the meeting to begin.
Mr. Donovan directed the crowd to chairs positioned in a circle, an arrangement intended to facilitate open discussion. He began the meeting by emphasizing key points. “Democracy is argument,” he explained. He reminded the participants, “the freedom to express differing opinions and to debate high profile and controversial issues is a privilege that never should be taken for granted. SeveralOccupy Wall Street [OWS] members interrupted his remarks to suggest changes to previously established discussion guidelines. The OWS ideas were overruled respectfully, and the meeting resumed with the customary participant introductions. “We are the 99%… We are the 99%…” Attention was once again directed to a group of OWS members chanting in unison. As their voices swelled, the room seemed to fill with a sense of unease and tension. What was the reason for their behavior? Did the group misunderstand the purpose for and principles of the meeting? What were the motives? Whatever the reason, the tenacity of the group was evident as members indirectly intimidated other speakers, challenged Town Hall motives, and criticized the Town Hall image as detrimental to its cause.
Sam, a college aged participant, had observed and listened intently to the interaction between the OWS members and the other attendees. He was intrigued by the interaction and curious about how the OWS responded to several questions. Finally, he could hesitate no longer, boldly raised his hand and was invited to speak: “Currently, I am taking a history class designed to go over American history from 1945 to the present…with that said, it seems that your intentions are good, but it doesn’t seem like the OWS has clear goals and therefore, lacks in credibility. Also, the end goals they do have are not necessarily tangible.” He paused in anticipation of a response.
A response soon followed. Scott, a self-proclaimed ‘leader’ of OWS, spoke candidly and passionately about his work experience and observations of the movement. “My experience during my first day with OWS triggered a ‘what do YOU want’’ question and made me feel like there were forty people and forty different messages… a bit of a narcissistic movement”. Scott concluded by explaining that OWS had no other goal but to achieve active involvement. “We cannot all agree…the trouble is getting involved and the problem is the process”.
Harry Boyte, co-planner of the Town Hall Meetings and seasoned organizer, joined the discussion by acknowledging that the movement exposed very vividly the issue of inequality inAmerica. However, he warned the group about the inherent harm of fostering and furthering divisiveness. Boyte used the example of a woman at the meeting. He described her emotions by saying that she “felt hopeless, OWS gave her hope”. He cautioned, “You cannot go about dividing the world into good and bad and expect to gain momentum and ultimate success”.
The discussion intensified and emotions heightened. Respectfully, Oliver, a middle-aged gentleman, stood to respond to Boyte’s comment, “Polarization is incredibly dangerous. Yes. But OWS is bringing together a diverse group. Although, I do not see a middle ground, there is an awful lot of one-liners and rhetoric flying as the gap is widening, and I am seeing a deep fractioning of society”. Likewise, another participant addressed the divisive nature of the “99%” chant. “Why”, it was asked, do you eliminate the 1% from the discussion table? Isn’t it more productive to include the 100% in the conversation? You advocate for involvement, political change, and empowerment of the citizenry. Why would you exclude 1% of the population? It has the image of divisiveness and hypocrisy.” The OWS member responded, “The reason why we do not invite the 1% to the table is because they own the table.”
Several participants voiced their opinions regarding the tactics used by the OWS to attract public attention. Hate speech and vulgar actions, it was noted, would eventually destroy the OWS public image and the group’s message. The OWS member placed blame on media’s reporting of events and the tremendous emotional response that ensues when confronting established power. “False media interpretation”, he said, “It gets intense when people go up against power”. Many who sat in the circle of chairs may have considered the OWS GROUP ‘intruders’. Yet, despite this unexpected and uncomfortable intrusion, those in attendance learned much about both sides of the issue. Discussion became intense at times. Yet, the non-OWS participants had an opportunity to hear the issues of the OWS first hand, observe their passion, and gain a better understanding of their position.
The OWS, on the other hand, was the recipient of excellent advice. They learned that the public was confused by the inconsistency of the message, impatient with the polarizing strategies and tactics used, and saw hypocrisy in the group’s policies and beliefs. It became clear that if the OWS movement is to continue and earn public attention and respect, it must achieve a very clear and consistent message, redesign strategies, and invite the 100% to the table.
As a witness to this event, this writer learned a tremendous lesson about democracy. Some participants may have left the meeting feeling angry and disappointed. They may have thought that the meeting had failed in its purpose due to the unexpected conflict and intense dialogue. Some may be disappointed because the meeting did not ‘come off’ as planned. Others may get lost in determining who one or who lost. Many may be uncomfortable with the tenacity and persistence demonstrated by the participants. However, this observer believes the meeting was a great success and it fulfilled its intended purpose. Information was shared, opinions were discussed, and both sides were heard. All one has to do is review Mr. Donovan’s introductory comments:
“Democracy is argument. The freedom to express differing opinions and to debate high profile and controversial issues is a privilege that never should be taken for granted.”
On April 19, 2012, Winona State University hosted the inaugural civic summit on the National Issues Forum and American Commonwealth Project Deliberative Dialogue Initiative on Shaping Our Future: How Should Higher Education Help Us Create The Society We Want? The first national conversation using this issue guide was held in honor of WSU’s retiring president, Judith Ramaley, who is a tireless advocate for higher education and its civic mission. President Ramaley serves as a member of the President’s Council for the American Commonwealth Partnership.
Over 110 participants attended the Civic Summit at Winona State University. Individuals came as high school and college students, university faculty and staff, community members, higher education experts, media editors and journalists, local law enforcement, and business people. It was quite the range of participants and they were mixed in groups with WSU students as trained moderators through the Minnesota Campus Compact moderator training series.
When organizing the Civic Summit, we immediately determined the event should be student led, as moderators, participants and organizers. This stems from our rich experience in student organizing and mobilizing efforts. It also reflects our experience with the Center for Democracy and Citizenship’s training led by Harry Boyte and Dennis Donovan in the “We the People” series held with the Minnesota Campus Compact in Spring 2011. For many of the fifteen plus students who became moderators, this was a new experience. Despite its unfamiliarity, the students rose to the challenge, prepared their notes, and were comfortable enough to welcome others to their tables. Each group of approximately 10-12 guests had two students—one as moderator and one as recorder. Each group was designed to have a variety of individuals from different backgrounds, however the structure was very minimal to encourage open and honest discussion. With little formality, students forged ahead, were indeed taken seriously by others, and extolled confidence and credibility to members of their groups.
“Seeing the different levels of a university present in one group with community members truly provided unique input regarding the different approaches. Seeing the differences between the views of students, professors, and members of the administration was extremely interesting, however, what was more exciting, was seeing the areas they agreed upon – that higher education does indeed help us create the society we want…” Laura Lake
One particular group that was indicative of the principles behind the NIF process included a local and well-respected business person from the Winona community. Known for his conservative underpinnings and his large contributions (nearly a quarter of a million annually to local grants and scholarships for students and community members), this community member began with strong support of American exceptionalism and Approach One. It was evident of the potential generation gap experienced within the group as the local businessman began the discussion by voicing his stereotype that young people were lazy, took out too many loans, and used the money to go on vacation. As one student shared his personal experience in joining the army (ROTC) to fund his education and his education at MCTC and transferring to WSU, without adequate financial aid and the lack of family support to co-sign loans, group members visibly recall the local businessman becoming more favorable and open to thinking about other ideas and other perspectives, with genuine respect towards the student advocating for and needing more student and financial aid. It became clear the businessman had changed his mind after he heard the student’s personal experience and was open to seeing the other side as the group’s discussion continued. In the end for the local businessperson, Approach II received support to train responsibility through community service. While there was not an overall consensus regarding one approach over the other in this group and many others, this particular experience in the Winona Civic Summit: NIF Forum demonstrated a student and a businessman taking each other seriously and respecting their differences on the shared purpose of higher education.
One aspect of the Civic Summit that makes it so exceptional is that people of all walks of life participate in the democratic process together. Having such a diverse group of individuals discussing a public issue or good can cause participants to feel hesitant about what the outcomes of the dialogue will be. Student-moderator Courtney Juelich, had first-hand experience with this principle within her democracy pod:
“At first many of the students, both college and high school, were apprehensive about talking openly with adults. They were not quick to answer the posed questions and often looked to myself or to the three older members of the group after a question was stated. After introductions and finding common ground on themes and experiences, communication was fluid and respectful between all members in my democracy pods.” Courtney Juelich
Even though participants came from all sorts of backgrounds but with a shared interest and common purpose, in the end the differences we previously used to distinguish ourselves were less important and noticeable than the sense of community, which was established over the shared principles of mutual respect and open discussion. Student-moderators thoroughly enjoyed the process and felt empowered to be taken seriously and welcomed in a group of diverse generations and members. We feel very fortunate to have launched this national conversation on the role of higher education in communities such as ours. We also want to thank all of the participants for thoughtfully contributing to the health and well-being of democracy and deliberative dialogue in Winona. Special thanks are extended to the Kettering Foundation, the National Issues Forum, and the American Commonwealth Partnership for granting us permission to pioneer this dialogue. We wish President Ramaley the best in her retirement from Winona State University and appreciatively recognize and celebrate her support of the civic mission and the civic responsibility of the university with Winona and beyond.
Courtney L. Juelich is a junior at Winona State University and a major in Political Science and Public Administration with a minor in Economics. She was one of the student organizers of the Civic Summit. Her hometown is Chanhassen, Minnesota. She was the creator and writer of the 2012 Warrior Grant named “The Green Grant”, which after winning the student referendum vote will create a self-sufficient composting system for the Winona State campus to collect organic food scraps as well as to educate the student body on the process of composting and how it is beneficial to the environment.
Laura A. Lake is a junior at Winona State University and a major in Political Science and Public Administration with a Music minor. She is involved in Pi Sigma Alpha, Political Science Association, Student Senate, and National Residence Hall Honorary, and is currently a Resident Assistant, and will be an Assistant Hall director in the following year. Laura was the lead organizer of the Civic Summit. Her hometown is Hillsboro, Oregon.
Kara Lindaman serves as the American Democracy Project Coordinator at Winona State University, where she is an associate professor of political science and public administration. She also serves on the Steering Committee of the American Commonwealth Partnership and enjoys collaborating with civically minded and passionately motivated students such as these.
By Megan Felz, Freshman, University of Minnesota
In our ever-changing society, we are constantly faced with the challenge of evolving and adapting to what the world and its situations demand from us. Along with that, I believe it is important to constantly challenge what we thought we previously knew and develop our beliefs in addition. I was given the ability to do just that when I attended a debate at Trinity Church. Trinity church, a recent addition to the Cedar-Riverside intersection, is located at what was once St. Martin’s Table, a restaurant where 85% percent of their profits were donated to charity. Though St. Martin’s Table is no longer in business, Trinity church does an excellent job at keeping its spirit and values of community alive.
One way they are doing that is by serving as a public forum for people to address and talk about issues that they are passionate or want to learn more about. This debate, moderated by Harry Boyte, was centered around Patriotism, and included a diverse group of individuals of different ages, socio-economic statuses, professions, and beliefs. Accompanying this diverse group of people, came a diverse group of opinions in regards to patriotism, both positive and negative. On a positive side, there were people who were intensely proud of their country and felt a deep connection to it. On the opposing end, others felt detached and under represented by the idea of patriotism. One person mentioned that they couldn’t identify with “the face” of patriotism, and therefore didn’t feel patriotic. Nonetheless, accepting and building off of these differing viewpoints is part of what makes a debate so exciting and inspirational. And it is through this wide range of people that I was able to get a better idea of what patriotism means to me.
The very idea of debating how we feel about patriotism is, in essence, patriotic. The spirit of democracy is highlighted in a passionate, fervent, and controversial debate. Being merely a presence at such an event, addresses the need to nurture and channel beliefs and opinions, as well as challenge others to do the same. Growing up, I never gave much thought to the idea of patriotism; honestly, prior to this debate, I hadn’t even thought much of it. I thought, since I am American, I was automatically patriotic; I thought I was entitled to carry the label of patriotism and everything that it stands for. I didn’t feel the need, or the urge, to earn the right to use it. Being patriotic is more than just a label; it is a sense of pride. It is a sense of pride in the values that your country stands for, and a pride that you are able to be a part of it. Having the freedom to share our opinions and the luxury of listening to those of others is one of the most fundamental values of America, and using these values to their utmost extent is just as important.
Another core value that I found in patriotism is taking an active involvement or interest in the well being of your country. I feel that it brings you closer to your country when you have a stake in its well-being. This promotes a sense of unity, responsibility and accountability, which further solidifies the bond of citizen and country. This also holds true on a smaller scale as well. Taking an active role in your community or a common area, such as Trinity Church, I feel is patriotic because it allows for growth as an individual, and the ability to identify with others, by being exposed to other people and experiences.
No matter the extent to which someone believes or identifies with the ideals of patriotism, I still believe that there is a constant need to challenge what society has deemed “patriotic”, and encourage people to form their own ideas in regards to the word. It is important to nurture and cultivate diversity and use these assets as a means of growing and maturing as individuals.
We need to stop harping on contradicting others and worry less about the need to prove ourselves right, and focus on growth. We need to grow as individuals, in order to help America grow as a country and to see the change that we talk so much about. It is easy to ridicule someone; it is hard to listen and to see the world from their perspective. If the overall goal is to achieve a united front, we first need to clear out the baggage that each person is individually predisposed towards. We need to figure out how to foster a sense of community; but before we ask how, we need to ask why. Why is it so important to create a sense of community? I personally believe that it is because we can get more accomplished together than we can alone. First, we need to foster cooperation in order to eventually establish it. We need to get everyone’s perspective on it, before we can understand our own, and work together on establishing a mutual and unanimous feeling towards accomplishing it. Once we are able to understand and establish a basis of what patriotism means to each of us, we can begin to mold the beliefs of individuals together and construct the role of patriotism in America.
Megan Felz is currently a freshman at the University of Minnesota. She is a student in the College of Liberal Arts, and at the moment, undecided in her major, with the intent of a Spanish minor.
The American Commonwealth Partnership (ACP) is an alliance of community colleges, colleges and universities, P-12 schools and others dedicated to building “democracy colleges” throughout higher education. A Presidents’ Advisory Council, composed of distinguished college and university presidents who have long been leaders in engaged higher education movement, offers continuing counsel and wisdom (see list below).
Launched at the White House on January 10th, 2012, the start of the 150th anniversary year of the Morrill Act which created land grant colleges, signed by President Lincoln in 1862, ACP uses the concept of democracy colleges from land grant and community college history. Democracy colleges convey the idea of colleges and universities deeply connected to their communities, which make education for citizenship a signature identity.
The work of building democracy colleges draws on a rich tradition, dating back to Abraham Lincoln’s presidency:
The White House meeting, “For Democracy’s Future – Education Reclaims Our Civic Mission”, marked a new stage of coordinated effort to bring about a commitment to civic education and education as a public good. It was organized in partnership with the White House Office of Public Engagement, the Department of Education, the Association of American Colleges and Universities, and the Campaign for the Civic Mission of the Schools.
At the White House, the Department of Education released its Road Map and Call to Action on civic learning and democratic engagement, described in remarks by Secretary of Education Arne Duncan. The National Task Force on Civic Learning and Democratic Engagement released A Crucible Moment, a report to the nation on the need for a shift in civic learning from “partial” to “pervasive.”
ACP highlighted institutions that have taken steps toward becoming democracy colleges, including community colleges, liberal arts colleges, state colleges and universities, and research institutions. ACP continues to consult with Undersecretary for Higher Education Martha Kanter and her Office of Postsecondary Education on policies to strengthen higher education’s public engagement and is also helping to organize state level policy initiatives on the topic.
The ACP coalition promotes several initiatives including:
The Deliberative Dialogue Initiative, in partnership with the National Issues Forums Institute (NIFI), is organizing a discussion on campuses and in communities on higher education’s role in America’s future. It is to be complemented by a communications effort to convey the potential of higher education in teaching skills, such as listening, deliberation, teamwork, negotiating different interests and views, to work across differences on public problems. Research by NIFI suggests that the public is largely unaware of higher education’s contributions to such skill development – seen as an urgent need by citizens of many views and backgrounds in order to turn around the growing divisiveness and polarization in America.
Citizen Alum Initiative, directed by Julie Ellison of the University of Michigan, aims to change the framework of alumni relations, partnering with alumni as “do-ers” as well as donors. Citizen Alum aims to find the hidden treasure—the creative, civic, intellectual, and social capital of alumni – especially recent “gap alums” and alums who opt out of conventional roles, supporting them as contributors to their home communities and as allies in education.
Student Organizing Initiative is a campaign to deepen the civic identity of college students, develop skills of deliberative public work, and strengthen the DemocracyU social media campaign and website as resources for students to share their stories and address their concerns for America’s democracy. This initiative is also exploring strategies for putting cross partisan citizen-centered politics back at the center of the highly polarized election campaign of 2012.
Pedagogies of Empowerment and Engagement Initiative is an organizing effort spearheaded by Blase Scarnati of Northern Arizona University. It will identity and collect the details of effective pedagogies of empowerment and engagement across the country that teach skills to work across differences. The group will also recruit new sites and partners.
Public Scholarship Initiative is organized by Scott Peters of Cornell University, Tim Eatman of Imagining America at Syracuse University, and John Saltmarsh of NERCHE (UMASS Boston). The team have began a participatory research project with various institutions on the work of building democracy colleges in the 21st century.
Campus-Community Civic Health Initiative, coordinated by the American Democracy Project in partnership with the National Conference on Citizenship, is developing ways to assess the impact of colleges and universities on community and campus civic health.
Civic Science Initiative is organized by John Spencer at the University of Iowa, Scott Peters at Cornell University, Molly Jahn at the University of Wisconsin, Rom Coles at Northern Arizona University, and Harry Boyte at Augsburg College and the Humphrey School of Public Affairs, University of Minnesota. Civic science is a framework for understanding scientists as citizens, working with other citizens in ways that respect different ways of knowing, deepening collective wisdom on public questions, and developing civic agency.
ACP Policy Initiative, building on policy discussions with the Department of Education in 2011, focuses on state level policies strengthening engagement, and is consulting with the DOE on an ongoing basis about policies to strengthen engagement.
Presidents’ Advisory Council
Nancy Cantor, Chancellor, Syracuse University
Brian Murphy, President, De Anza College
M. Christopher Brown, President, Alcorn State University
Thomas Ehrlich, President Emeritus, Indiana University
Freeman Hrabowski, President, University of Maryland Baltimore County
David Mathews, President Emeritus, University of Alabama
Paul Pribbenow, President, Augsburg College
Judith Ramaley, President, Winona State University
Inaugural Host Institution
Augsburg College, Minneapolis
Harry Boyte, Director, Center for Democracy and Citizenship
For more information or to submit a blog, please email Karina Cherfas (firstname.lastname@example.org) or Karin Kamp (email@example.com).