How many Americans think believing in the principles of the Declaration of Independence is more important for being American than...
— YouGov America (@YouGovAmerica) August 2, 2025
Supporting the U.S. Constitution 25%
Being a U.S. citizen 47%
Obeying U.S. laws 56%
Having American parents 87%https://t.co/uCSIg8lHz5 pic.twitter.com/AWd4rVI1FS
Not all Americans have been as quick to abandon public spaces and communal activities. A recent report from the Survey Center on American Life found that college-educated parents remain very involved in their communities, spending much more time engaged in civic activities than other Americans. The report, Disconnected: The Growing Class Divide in American Civic Life, documents a range of activities that college-educated mothers engage in at higher rates than other Americans.
...
Becoming a parent does not instantly make someone a more caring or empathetic person. In fact, some research suggests the opposite. But for engaged caregivers, the experience of raising children fundamentally alters the incentives for being community-minded. Parents are incentivized to get to know their neighbors, take care of local parks and playgrounds, and support local schools—and they have shown a tendency to act on these incentives. They take more of an interest in local affairs and participate more regularly in community events and activities.
American social and civic life was once defined by diverse clubs, groups, and organizations. However, it has declined by every conceivable measure since the mid-20th century.[i] Today’s Americans have fewer civic opportunities—that is, places, institutions, groups, programs, and activities in which they can experience community life.[ii] Americans participate in organized activities less often and join fewer community groups than they once did.[iii]
Relatedly, Americans have smaller social networks and fewer friends, and they spend less time with their friends, neighbors, and family members.[iv] This state of affairs has led Surgeon General Vivek Murthy to declare the United States is facing an “epidemic of loneliness and isolation.”[v]
But America’s civic decline has not affected all groups equally. Americans with college degrees often reside in communities with abundant civic opportunities and thriving civic cultures. They participate in associational life at high rates and have robust social and friendship networks.[vi] In contrast, the relational lives of Americans without college degrees have contracted dramatically—compared to Americans with these degrees today and without them in the past.[vii] Two institutions that were formerly crucial sources of civic connectedness for less educated Americans, unions and churches, are now more likely to serve college graduates.
Other civic opportunities are becoming stratified along educational lines. Americans with a high school education or less are more likely to live in civic deserts, lacking commercial places (e.g., coffee shops) and public places (e.g., community centers, parks, and libraries) that are hubs of community connection.[viii] Partly as a result, these Americans are less likely to participate in associational life and more likely to be socially isolated. As Timothy P. Carney writes in Alienated America: Why Some Places Thrive While Others Collapse, associational life has apparently become “a high-end good” that most people can’t access.[ix]
Despite the importance of community and relationships to human flourishing, there are substantial gaps in our understanding of how race and class constrain opportunities for community connection.[x] This report aims to build on previous social capital research by documenting the racial and class divisions in social capital creation, including in civic opportunity, participation, membership, friendship, and social support. Our research is based on a large national survey of more than 6,500 American adults. We conducted follow-up qualitative interviews with 20 survey respondents to contextualize and extend the survey’s findings. This survey’s findings meaningfully contribute to the research on Americans’ changing communal and relational lives. The educational gap has persisted—and even expanded—since we published our previous survey research, and it is the dividing line across nearly every domain of social capital we measure. We find substantial disparities by educational attainment and race: For instance, black Americans without college degrees are significantly more disconnected than every other group in American life. For Americans without degrees—particularly black Americans—the civic opportunities, responsibilities, and relationships that imbue life with meaning seem increasingly out of reach.
From Democracy in America [eds. J. P. Mayer and Max Lerner, trans., George Lawrence, Harper & Row, 1966, pp. 249-53]
To regard the jury simply as a judicial institution would be taking a very narrow view of the matter, for great though its influence on the outcome of lawsuits is, its influence on the fate of society itself is much greater still. The jury is therefore above all a political institution, and it is from that point of view that it must always be judged. ..
The jury system as understood in America seems to me as direct and extreme a consequence of the dogma of the sovereignty of the people as universal suffrage. They are both equally powerful means of making the majority prevail.
Juries, especially civil juries, instill some of the habits of the judicial mind into every citizen, and just those habits are the very best way of preparing people to be free.
Juries teach men equity in practice. Each man, when judging his neighbor, thinks that he may be judged himself. That is especially true of juries in civil suits; hardly anyone is afraid that he will have to face a criminal trial, but anybody may have a lawsuit.
Juries teach each individual not to shirk responsibility for his own acts, and without that manly characteristic no political virtue is possible.
Juries invest each citizen with a sort of magisterial office; they make all men feel that they have duties toward society and that they take a share in its government. By making men pay attention to things other than their own affairs, they combat that individual selfishness which is like rust in society.
Juries are wonderfully effective in shaping a nation’s judgment and increasing its natural lights. That, in my view, is [the jury system’s] greatest advantage. It should be regarded as a free school which is always open and in which each juror learns his rights, comes into daily contact with the best-educated and most-enlightened members of the upper classes, and is given practical lessons in the law, lessons which the advocate’s efforts, the judge’s advice, and also the very passions of the litigants bring within his mental grasp. I think that the main reason for the practical intelligence and the political good sense of the Americans is their long experience with juries in civil cases.
I do not know whether a jury is useful to the litigants, but I am sure it is very good for those who have to decide the case. I regard it as one of the most effective means of popular education at society’s disposal.
From the State Bar of California:
In a 128-page ruling, California State Bar Court Hearing Judge Yvette D. Roland found licensee John Charles Eastman (SBN 193726) culpable of 10 of the disciplinary charges filed by the State Bar’s Office of Chief Trial Counsel (OCTC) and recommended that he be disbarred. Absent a challenge, the recommendation goes to the California Supreme Court for review.
As is the case for all State Bar Court disbarment recommendations, Eastman is ordered by the court to involuntary inactive status and cannot practice law in California while the Supreme Court considers the case. The order to inactive status is effective three calendar days after the order is served.
“Every California attorney has the duty to uphold the constitution and the rule of law,” said Chief Trial Counsel George Cardona. “Mr. Eastman repeatedly violated that duty. Worse, he did so in a way that threatened the fundamental principles of our democracy. The substantial evidence presented over 35 days of trial showed, and the court has now held, that Mr. Eastman abandoned his ethical and legal duties as an attorney to conspire with then-President Donald Trump to develop and implement a strategy to obstruct the counting of electoral votes on January 6, 2021, and illegally disrupt the peaceful transfer of power to President-elect Joseph Biden, knowing that there was no good faith theory or argument to lawfully reject the electoral votes of any state or delay the January 6 electoral count. Mr. Eastman’s efforts failed only because our democratic institutions and those committed to upholding them held strong. The harm caused by Mr. Eastman’s abandonment of his duties as a lawyer, and the threat his actions posed to our democracy, more than warrant his disbarment.”
Summarizing the court’s findings, the decision states, “Eastman’s wrongdoing constitutes exceptionally serious ethical violations warranting severe professional discipline,” and recommends his disbarment.
The hollowing of civil society has threatened effective implementation of scientific solutions to pressing public challenges—which often depend on cultivating pro-social orientations commonly studied under the broad umbrella of social capital. Although robust research has studied the constituent components of social capital from the demand side (that is, the orientations people need for collective life in pluralistic societies, such as trust, cohesion and connectedness), the same precision has not been brought to the supply side. Here we define the concept of civic opportunity—opportunities people have to encounter civic experiences necessary for developing such orientations—and harness data science to map it across America. We demonstrate that civic opportunity is more highly correlated with pro-social outcomes such as mutual aid than other measures, but is unequally distributed, and its sources are underrepresented in the public dialogue. Our findings suggest greater attention to this fundamentally uneven landscape of civic opportunity.
When asked about their civic and political participation in the past year, one-third of Americans (33%) said they signed a petition either in person or online; 24% said they commented about politics on a message board or internet site, including social media; 20% said they contacted a government official; 13% said they served on a committee for a civic, nonprofit, or community organization or event; 11% said they put a sign in their yard or a bumper sticker on their car supporting a candidate for political office; 7% said they attended a political protest or rally; and just 5% said they volunteered or worked for a political campaign.
Americans who attend church at least a few times a year are notably more likely than those who seldom or never attend church to have contacted a government official (23% vs. 19%), served on a committee (17% vs. 10%), put up a sign supporting a political candidate (13% vs. 10%), or volunteered for a political campaign (7% vs. 4%). By contrast, Americans who attend church more frequently are less likely than those who seldom or never attend to have commented about politics (22% vs. 26%).
White Americans participate in civic and political activities more than nonwhite Americans do. For example, white Americans are more likely to have signed a petition (35%) or contacted a government official (24%) than both Black Americans (29% and 15%, respectively) and Hispanic Americans (26% and 14%, respectively). White Americans are also more likely than Black Americans to have commented about politics (27% vs. 15%) and are more likely than Hispanic Americans to have served on a committee (14% vs. 10%) or put a sign in their yard supporting a candidate (12% vs 8%).
When examining religious attendance together with race and civic and political participation, white churchgoers are notably more likely than white non-churchgoers to have served on a committee (17% vs. 12%), but are less likely to have commented about politics (24% vs. 29%). Black churchgoers are more likely than Black non-churchgoers to have contacted a government official (20% vs. 11%), served on a committee (19% vs. 7%), or volunteered for a political campaign (9% vs. 3%). Hispanic churchgoers are also more likely than Hispanic non-churchgoers to have contacted a government official (20% vs. 11%), served on a committee (15% vs. 6%), or put up a sign supporting a candidate (12% vs. 5%). Churchgoers of other racial groups are more likely than non-churchgoers of other races to have served on a committee (20% vs. 7%) or volunteered for a political campaign (12% vs. 3%).[5]
Just 13 percent of the nation’s eighth graders were proficient in U.S. history last year, and 22 percent were proficient in civics, marking another decline in performance during the pandemic and sounding an alarm about how well students understand their country and its government.
The findings, released Wednesday, show a five-point slide since 2018 in the average history score on the National Assessment of Educational Progress, or NAEP, often called “the nation’s report card.” In civics, eighth grade scores fell two points, the first decline ever recorded on the tests, which cover the American political system, principles of democracy and other topics.
Peggy G. Carr, commissioner of the National Center for Education Statistics, referred to the results as “a national concern,” saying that “too many of our students are struggling … to understand and explain the importance of civic participation, how American government works and the historical significance of events.”
Around seven-in-ten U.S. adults (69%) say it’s very important to vote in elections to be a good member of society – more than say the same about any of the other activities included in a Pew Research Center survey conducted earlier this year.
Civic engagement is a key indicator of adulthood. Young adults respond to the social and political issues of the day in a variety of ways. After the police killings of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor in 2020, young people demonstrated against racial injustice in more than 10,000 peaceful protests around the country.
footnote1_g6xcuor1 That fall saw record numbers of youth turn out for the presidential election; half of eligible voters ages 18–29 participated, compared with 39 percent in 2016. footnote2_3ycctnz2 Climate change likewise catalyzed young people, as nearly 30 percent of Generation Z and Millennials made donations, contacted public officials, volunteered, or protested, surpassing Generation X and Baby Boomers. footnote3_pisbs1c3 Young people are commonly assumed to be disengaged, disillusioned, and uninterested in civic life. These trends challenge that proposition.
Researchers have consistently found that early civic engagement is mutually beneficial to young people and to the communities in which they participate. For example, developmental psychologist Parissa Ballard and colleagues found that early civic engagement is associated with positive health outcomes later in life. Voting, volunteering, and activism in young adulthood were related to improved mental health, greater educational attainment, and higher personal and household incomes. footnote4_n49aljr4 Beyond these individual benefits, young adults are important contributors to their local communities. Tufts University’s Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (CIRCLE) projected that in the 2020 election cycle, young adults would play a particularly important role in the presidential battleground states Wisconsin, North Carolina, and Florida, as well as in Senate races in Colorado, Maine, and Montana and congressional races in Iowa’s 1st District, Maine’s 2nd, and Georgia’s 7th. footnote5_9alq4i75 The youth vote proved decisive in several states where the margin of victory was less than 50,000 votes, including Arizona, Georgia, and Pennsylvania. footnote6_um60jqh6
National legislation and educational policy reflect the importance of preparing young people to become engaged and participatory members of society. Recognizing the mutual benefits of community service for the advancement of communities and the well-being of young people, Congress passed the National and Community Service Act of 1990 and the National and Community Service Trust Act of 1993. The first law created the Commission on National and Community Service to support school-based service-learning programs, volunteer and service programs in higher education, youth corps, and national service models; the second merged the commission with the National Civilian Community Corps to establish the Corporation for National and Community Service, to support volunteer and service opportunities for all Americans. In 2009 Congress passed the Edward M. Kennedy Serve America Act, reauthorizing and expanding national and community service legislation to support lifelong volunteerism and community service. Through these acts, Congress has emphasized the need for civic engagement, which helps youth become informed citizens as well as active members of their communities throughout their lifetime.
School curricula reinforce the expectation that young people will become engaged citizens. According to the Center for American Progress, 40 states and the District of Columbia require a civics course for high school graduation, and 16 states require a civics exam to graduate. However, only Maryland and the District of Columbia require community service for all high school graduates. footnote7_eslmnjr7
1 Armed Conflict Location & Event Data Project (hereinafter ACLED), Demonstrations and Political Violence in America: New Data for Summer 2020, September 2020, https://acleddata.com/2020/09/03/demonstrations-political-violence-in-america-new-data-for-summer-2020/.
footnote2_3ycctnz
2 Center for Information and Research on Civic Learning and Engagement (hereinafter CIRCLE), “Half of Youth Voted in 2020, an 11-Point Increase from 2016,” April 29, 2021, https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/half-youth-voted-2020–11-point-increase-2016.
footnote3_pisbs1c
3 Alec Tyson, Brian Kennedy, and Cary Funk, “Gen Z, Millennials Stand Out for Climate Change Activism, Social Media Engagement with Issue, ” Pew Research Center, May 26, 2021, https://www.pewresearch.org/science/2021/05/26/gen-z-millennials-stand-out-for-climate-change-activism-social-media-engagement-with-issue/.
footnote4_n49aljr
4 Parissa J. Ballard, Lindsay T. Hoyt, and Mark C. Pachucki, “Impacts of Adolescent and Young Adult Civic Engagement on Health and Socioeconomic Status in Adulthood, ” Child Development 90, no. 4 (2019): 1138–54, https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12998.
footnote5_9alq4i7
5 CIRCLE, “Youth Electoral Significance Index (YESI), ” last updated August 18, 2020, https://circle.tufts.edu/yesi2020.
footnote6_um60jqh
6 CIRCLE, “Election Week 2020: Young People Increase Turnout, Lead Biden to Victory, ” November 25, 2020, https://circle.tufts.edu/latest-research/election-week-2020#young-voters-and-youth-of-color-powered-biden-victory.
footnote7_eslmnjr
7 Sarah Shapiro and Catherine Brown, “The State of Civics Education,
Former RNC chair Mark Racicot at The Billings Gazette:
The Oath of Office taken by every member of the United States Senate and House of Representatives, as well as the president, requires those office holders to “solemnly swear that I will support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies foreign and domestic [and] that I will bear true faith and allegiance to the same.” The Oath concludes with a solemn promise that “I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter. So help me God.”
Bearing true faith means maintaining fidelity to the preservation of the union, fidelity to our fellow citizens, fidelity to a shared set of values and fidelity to the law and the Constitution. That transcendent fidelity or faithfulness to the Constitution is demonstrated by our continuing and unequivocal loyalty, first and above all else, to the United States of America, without interruption, without condition, without exception, without avoidance, without arrogance, without deceit, without connivance and without obfuscation.
The faithfulness referred to in the Oath of Office presumes not just faithfulness to the actual words of the Constitution, but faithfulness to its spirit as well. A spirit recognized and requited by humility, respect for others and the rights of others, honor, decency, integrity and self-discipline. Fidelity is the exact opposite of seeking power for its own sake or craving victory at any cost, each of which history has revealed time and time again to be a fool’s errand.
All of the above is to say that I have discovered no facts nor evidence, anywhere, of the “sabotage” or “persecution” or efforts to “destroy” the former president that serve as the basis for the accusations cited in the RNC Resolution and lodged against Representatives Cheney and Kinzinger. Quite the opposite, the evidence reveals two Republican members of the House of Representatives honorably performing their investigative duties and searching for the truth as members of a duly constituted investigative committee. In other words, they’re doing their job with fidelity and loyalty to the Constitution.
Albert Cheng and Jay Greene at National Affairs:
Civic education does not occur merely within the life of the school; it also occurs in homes, neighborhoods, the marketplace, religious institutions, and any other voluntary association in which individuals gather with others to unite around a common purpose. It is within the context of these communities that people learn to seek the interest of others instead of their own and to work together for their mutual flourishing. It is where they practice virtues like showing kindness, hospitality, and charity to others. It is also where they practice having the courage to defend their convictions or compromising to build coalitions with those whose views may not fully align with their own. These and other "habits of the heart," as the late sociologist Robert Bellah and his colleagues articulated nearly 40 years ago, are cultivated in all spheres of civil society. Schools are but one of the many institutions where this kind of formation happens.
Civic education, then, requires a kind of knowledge. But not merely civic knowledge, narrowly understood as knowledge of history and government institutions; it also requires knowledge of ultimate things — of truth, goodness, and beauty — so that a flourishing polis can be discerned.
Civic education likewise requires training in a kind of skill. But not merely civic skill, narrowly understood as possessing competencies in democratic procedures like voting, petitioning, assembling, or staying informed; it also requires cultivation of habits that give rise to the practices of good citizens. In sum, civic education requires the cultivation of civic virtue for making sense of civic knowledge and guiding the application of civic skills.
Many posts have discussed COVID, vaccines, and masks.
We have been here before.
J. Alexander Navarro at The Conversation:
In mid-October of 1918, amidst a raging epidemic in the Northeast and rapidly growing outbreaks nationwide, the United States Public Health Service circulated leaflets recommending that all citizens wear a mask. The Red Cross took out newspaper ads encouraging their use and offered instructions on how to construct masks at home using gauze and cotton string. Some state health departments launched their own initiatives, most notably California, Utah and Washington.
Nationwide, posters presented mask-wearing as a civic duty – social responsibility had been embedded into the social fabric by a massive wartime federal propaganda campaign launched in early 1917 when the U.S. entered the Great War. San Francisco Mayor James Rolph announced that “conscience, patriotism and self-protection demand immediate and rigid compliance” with mask wearing. In nearby Oakland, Mayor John Davie stated that “it is sensible and patriotic, no matter what our personal beliefs may be, to safeguard our fellow citizens by joining in this practice” of wearing a mask.
Health officials understood that radically changing public behavior was a difficult undertaking, especially since many found masks uncomfortable to wear. Appeals to patriotism could go only so far. As one Sacramento official noted, people “must be forced to do the things that are for their best interests.” The Red Cross bluntly stated that “the man or woman or child who will not wear a mask now is a dangerous slacker.” Numerous communities, particularly across the West, imposed mandatory ordinances. Some sentenced scofflaws to short jail terms, and fines ranged from US$5 to $200.
Driving the news: Jury consultant Jason Bloom tells Axios that, historically, as many as one in four U.S. adults who are called for jury duty seek to be excused, citing hardships. But now, that number has shrunk to around only 5%-10%, he says.
Why it matters: There's a clear upside to enhanced civic engagement, but former prosecutors warn that it's as essential as ever to make sure that potential jurors are fair and don't come into cases with agendas.
The big picture: The projected jump in participation follows the killing of George Floyd; the trial, conviction and 22.5-year sentence of former police officer Derek Chauvin; and record voter turnout in 2020.Courts are also facing case backlogs as they reopen following pandemic shutdowns.
- During Chauvin jury selections earlier this year, a surprising number of Hennepin County residents in Minnesota were OK with serving, and a few were been flat out excited, as Nick Halter, the author of Axios Twin Cities, reports.
- One prospective juror said she voted in the November election because she wanted to become eligible for jury duty and called the process "fascinating." Another potential juror even said he was willing to delay his wedding to serve on the jury.
What they're saying: “There are many ways to impact our communities," District of Columbia Attorney General and National Association of Attorneys General president Karl Racine tells Axios. "A critical piece of civic engagement is serving on a jury and I hope this means more people will answer that call to service."
We know the obligation of the government, but what about the obligation of the citizen? Here’s where we turn to Thomas Jefferson’s rival, John Adams. And Adams gives us the second quote that frames our constitutional republic. Writing to the Massachusetts militia, he says, “Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious People. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other.”
But that’s not all he said. In a less-famous section, he wrote, “We have no Government armed with Power capable of contending with human Passions unbridled by morality and Religion. Avarice, Ambition, Revenge or Galantry, would break the strongest Cords of our Constitution as a Whale goes through a Net.” Our government wasn’t built to force men to be moral. Instead, it depends on man’s morality for the system to work.
Thus, the American social compact—the government recognizes and defends fundamental individual liberty, and the individual then exercises that liberty virtuously, for virtuous purposes. Or, to kinda-sorta paraphrase Spiderman’s Uncle Ben, with great liberty comes great responsibility.
That brings me to American gun rights and to Kyle Rittenhouse, the young man who killed two people and wounded one during a series of encounters with protesters in Kenosha, Wisconsin. Let me be clear: I’m not going to use this newsletter to adjudicate his case. The investigation is ongoing, and there is both evidence that he acted in self-defense during the fatal encounters, and evidence he threatened at least one innocent individual prior to the encounters by pointing his weapon at him without justification. There is still much we don’t know.
But here are some things we do know. By arming himself and wading into a riot, Rittenhouse behaved irresponsibly and recklessly. I agree completely with Tim Carney’s assessment here:The 17-year-old charged with two homicides in Kenosha, Wisconsin, was not a hero vigilante, nor was he a predatory white supremacist. He was, the evidence suggests, a foolish boy whose foolish decisions have taken two lives and ruined his own.
If you go armed with a rifle to police a violent protest, you are behaving recklessly. The bad consequences stemming from that decision are at least partly your fault
.
Virtually all male U.S. citizens, regardless of where they live, and male immigrants, whether documented or undocumented, residing in the United States, who are 18 through 25, are required to register with Selective Service.
The law says men must register with Selective Service within 30 days of their 18th birthday. That means men are required to register with Selective Service sometime during the 30 days before their 18th birthday, their 18th birthday, and the following 29 days after their 18th birthday – that is a 60-day registration period.
Men who do not register with Selective Service within the 60-day window are technically in violation of the law and should register as soon as possible. Late registrations are accepted up to the 26th birthday. However, once a man reaches his 26th birthday and still has not registered with Selective Service, it is too late!
It’s important to know that even though a man is registered, he will not automatically be inducted into the military. Registering with Selective Service does not mean you are joining the military.
In a crisis requiring a draft, men would be called in a sequence determined by random lottery number and year of birth. Then, they would be examined for mental, physical, and moral fitness by the military before being deferred or exempted from military service or inducted into the Armed Forces.
Reasons to Register
Registration is the Law — A man’s only duty right now under the Military Selective Service Act is to register at age 18 and then to let Selective Service know within 10 days of any changes in the information he provided on his registration form until he turns 26 years old.
Fairness and Equity — By registering all eligible men, Selective Service ensures a fair and equitable draft, if ever required. However, there has not been a draft since 1973.
Insurance for the Nation — By registering, a man’s voluntary participation helps provide a hedge against unforeseen threats. It is a relatively low-cost insurance policy for our nation.
Civic Duty — It’s your responsibility to ensure that young men 18 through 25 understand the law so they can make an informed decision about registration compliance. Currently, more than 90 percent of eligible young men are registered. It’s a civic duty of every young man to comply with the law.
Protect Eligibility for Future Benefits — It’s what a man’s got to do. By registering, a young man stays eligible for jobs, college loans and grants, job training, driver’s license in most states, and U.S. citizenship for immigrant men.
The 2018 GSS was just released and there's some big news. Those of "no religion" (23.1%) are statistically the same size as evangelicals (22.8%). There was also a small resurgence of mainline Protestants, while Catholics are down 3% in the last four years. pic.twitter.com/uiyDSe7M6f— Ryan Burge 📊 (@ryanburge) March 20, 2019
The 2016 Cooperative Congressional Election Study asked respondents if they had engaged in one of five activities: attended a local political meeting, put up a political yard sign, donated money to a candidate/campaign, volunteered for a political campaign or given blood.
Guess which group was the least likely to check any of those boxes?
The “nothing in particulars.”
According to the CCES 2018, nearly two-thirds of the “nothing in particulars” had participated in none of the five activities in the past 12 months. That was the highest of any of the groups in the survey.
Education, rather than religion, might play a role. It is possible that lower levels of education may account for lower levels of social capital and civic involvement.
However, at each level of education, the “nothing in particular” group is less likely to engage in activities than the American public at large.
In sum, we have a group that currently comprises 20% of all Americans, and is growing at an unbelievably rapid pace. This group has the lowest level of education of any religious group, and “nothing in particulars” are less likely to engage in political or social activity than the average American.
As a social scientist, I find this represents a troubling confluence of factors.
By all measures, “nothing in particulars” appear to be a growing segment of society that is “checked out.” They don’t obtain high levels of education, they don’t get involved in the political process and they don’t affiliate with a religious group. In addition, they are three times more likely to say their political partisanship is “other” as well. They are adrift in modern society, refusing to be labeled by a religious group or a political party.
In a world full of politically divisive and polarizing issues, the level of public discourse can quickly become hostile and antagonistic. That is why Se-Hyoung Yi, assistant professor of political science at University of Houston-Clear Lake, teaches students the difference between debating and deliberative dialogue—so that they can facilitate politically themed forums in which people from opposing sides learn to accept each other’s differences and concentrate on finding common ground and shared direction among themselves. For his efforts, Yi has been awarded the Taylor L. Willingham Legacy Fund Award, administered by the National Issues Forums Institute in Dayton, Ohio.
The award, explained Yi, is established to help those who are working to develop an understanding of deliberative democracy and to promote deliberative dialogue forums in their communities as a way to help people talk productively about polarizing public issues.
“In order to win the award, I showed my desire to become involved in the democratic deliberation movement, demonstrated my commitment to implement and conduct democratic deliberation in a forum environment, and presented a detailed plan to moderate and host deliberative forums in my community,” Yi said. “This university is my community.”
Since 2017, Yi has partnered with Lone Star College-Kingwood Political Science Professor John Theis to train student moderators in deliberative dialogue. “The goal is to teach student moderators a different kind of political dialogue,” Yi said. “Unlike in a debate, where one side tries to ‘win’ an argument against the other, we teach students to help opposing sides find a shared ground. We do not try to change each other’s perspectives. When discussing daunting political issues that divide all of us, even compromise might not be possible. In the deliberative setting, participants explore the unbiased facts, weigh different options, and balance tradeoffs to find where their various interests overlap.”
Then, Yi said, they are shown how to move on for the sake of the community and to find the places where agreement can be achieved.
Yi said the award is accompanied by a $500 grant. “I plan to use this money to host at least five new deliberative dialogue forums on campus,” he said. “It’s important to be able to switch moderators with other campuses. In the past, we have invited student moderators from Lone Star College and from Sam Houston State University, and with these funds, I can invite more student facilitators from other universities here, and send our student moderators to other universities.”
He said that by April 2018, he and Theis had trained over 20 student moderators. With support from the College of Human Sciences and Humanities, Yi had hosted a campus-wide deliberative dialogue forum on immigration during the UHCL Student Conference in 2018.
“We are showing students how to become more engaged in the process of democracy,” Yi said. “Student moderators are learning that they must learn to frame the issue in a non-partisan way and to encourage participants to listen to each other, not just insisting upon their own perspectives.”