"America in One Room" study has vital clues to healing our democracy

This study highlights vital information about politics in our country today:

https://www.nytimes.com/…/…/america-one-room-experiment.html - study shows that polarized Americans moderate their views after a weekend of information and discussion with people of other views.

https://www.nytimes.com/…/these-526-voters-represent-americ… - the same study, highlighting how discussions built trust in democracy and empathy.

Having studied civics education in U.S. high schools and its various effects on how people interact with democracy as adults, I can see how these studies point towards useful, healing ideas. Starting at a young age, we can empower classrooms to hold thoughtful discussion with complex issues and compromise-heavy decision-making as a model for a healthy democratic society. As we grow into adults, we can strengthen our skepticism-muscle for sound-bite media, quick-fixes, and vilification of the "other side". As creators, customers, and citizens, we can work towards healthier and more ethical products in media, entertainment, and technology - leveraging our dollars, our labor, our vote, activism, lobbying, nonprofit missions, word-of-mouth, and many kinds of financial, political, and social pressure.

Are you worried about the damage of divided, antagonistic politics? Then wading out of the deep end of our sound-bite-driven media is likely part of the solution. The shore may seem far away, but the only way to get there is to turn in the right direction, keep our heads above water, and keep going.

'Caesar' in the parks - how should people protest?

 For the 2017 New York City Shakespeare-in-the-Park summer production of Julius Caesar, Caesar was portrayed as a figure like our current administration's Republican leader. Because Caesar is assassinated, there are a variety of conservative objections, protests, and corporate sponsors dropping their support of the Public Theater. Commentators have asked, wouldn't there also be objections if artists staged such mock violence against liberal leaders?

As many sharp-eyed Shakespeareans have pointed out, there was in fact a production of Caesar with the title character styled as Democratic president, Barack Obama. I happened to catch this production on tour in 2012. It was a striking production that didn't rouse any picket lines. But whether liberals actually protested that play or not (and the fact Shakespeare's classics are nuanced, often re-purposed, and hardly ever one-dimensional) sidesteps a chance at an honest and fair discussion of the heart of the matter.

It doesn't take much to find actual, frequent, lively liberal protests of conservative speech, artists, or shows, which makes the defense of "free speech, allow art to be art!" - which I myself feel inclined to! - sound hypocritical.

Do we only disagree on substance? I have to ask myself. Is something else going on?

The real question is, (1) How do we want people to protest, knowing that we won't always agree with why they're protesting? and (2) How do we want people to make art, knowing we won't always agree with the art?

I've touched on principles for ideal vs. non-ideal agents before and it is apt right now. This is the idea that when we make rules for society, it's not enough to rely only on the 'right' people interpreting those rules. You have to account for fallible people who will be both citizens and officials, and a society where not everyone agrees. If you say...

"Only ban highly objectionable art/speech."

• What if we disagree about what's objectionable? We can't just cross our fingers that everyone will have 'right ideas' and agree with us.
• What's the worst case if that art/speech is present anyway? In a public park? In a private venue? Directed at the subject online or shouted in person? Maybe we can ask "who is harmed", what recourse the subject has for defense, and compare not just this instance, but the strongest cases, especially how the same principle applies to substance with which we agree and disagree... 
• Is the speaker/artist in a position of power/authority? What are the greatest consequences that could be envisioned?
• What about respecting a private individual who attempts to limit exposure to certain content in their personal life? In their child's life? Should they and can they? How does that balance against expression?
• And of course- there's many a provocative subject. I love stage combat but consider myself a pacifist; I'm concerned about what lessons and metaphors are found in a violent story and whether they ring true with me. I love freedom of expression but I'm concerned about things like promoting a culture of aggression. Who decides what's allowed, and at what level? At what point - and here's an age-old debate - does provocative cross the line into dangerous? At what point do speakers/artists view themselves as bearing some responsibility? What if those who offend, provoke, enrage, just don't care?

If you say...

"Only protest objectionable art/speech."

• What rules would we want protesters to abide by, whether we agreed with them on the substance or not?
• What rules would we want corporate sponsors to abide by in allocating or withdrawing their dollars, whether we agreed with them on the merits of the art/speech or not? 
• Is it reasonable to allow market forces to determine what artists/speech has a platform?
• Is it reasonable to allow majority votes to determine what artists/speech has a platform?
• Is it reasonable to allow protests to determine what artists/speech has a platform?
• Are there limits? Exceptions? Principles we want the "other side" to abide by?

I am much, much more interested in each person tackling these questions than in hammering my own opinions on this. I believe to my core we're going to get to better answers and results as a society by everyone really asking this of themselves and others, trying to work it out, listening, taking into account great points, continuing to refine. If there are important differences between one protest, objection, speech, art, political correctness/incorrectness, we have to be able to articulate those differences in terms of more than just "when I do it, it's OK". Let's have these discussions. Let's be mindful that a reliable way to lose someone's good faith fast is to appear to want rules that only apply when they benefit me.

5 smart ways for professionals to join National Volunteer Week

Volunteering isn't just good for a warm fuzzy feeling - companies reap the benefits of community involvement with increased employee satisfaction and better customer relations. It's also a golden opportunity for local outreach, which goes hand-in-hand with your online marketing and building a genuine brand. Here are 5 smart ways to participate in National Volunteer Week as a professional.