Join Us Donate Search

Messaging And Report Category: Messaging Memo

Five Questions to ask when Crafting Messages about Refugees in the Current Climate

In the run up to the 2018 midterm elections, a Media Matters study found that discussions of the “migrant caravan” took over the news cycle directly after Fox News covered it and the president tweeted about it.

What started out as one of Fox News’ pet issues has become a major media narrative thanks to the feedback loop between the network and President Donald Trump. CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC spent a combined 15 hours covering the migrant caravan between Monday, October 15, and Sunday, October 21. Fox News led the charge, covering the story both first and the most — for nearly eight hours. In the same week-long period, CNN covered the issue for four and a half hours, while MSNBC devoted two and a half hours to the migrant caravan.

— Media Matters

It’s moments like this when we can find ourselves caught up in playing defense – there are so many lies to contend with, and so much under attack, including vulnerable people. It can be overwhelming to think of where to start when crafting a communications response, and advocates often fall back on the obvious: refute the lies, throw out more facts, hope that the truth will prevail. But experience shows that this strategy isn’t sufficient for stories like these. We have to think more broadly about the long-term story we want to see, examine news coverage to see where we can fit pieces of that story in, and give audiences alternatives: new thinking and better solutions in how they are viewing the story.

Below are five questions to consider as we strategize how to respond to stories about the refugees while still moving forward the positive, long-term narrative that will build longer lasting support for common sense policies.

1. What kind of values would we rather see in headlines about people coming together to move toward safety and opportunity? 

Compassion, hope, and opportunity are all important values that our audiences tend to share. We should consider how we shape messages to encourage audiences to embrace these values over the themes promoted by the opposition, namely fear and nativism.

As a nation, we should respond to humanitarian situations with compassion and common sense.”

— Ali Noorani, executive director of the National Immigration Forum

Consistently, as Presbyterians gather at General Assemblies, they decide that we, as a church, must respond with compassion, taking great care to meet the humanitarian needs of groups on the move. In these moments, we are guided by scripture which says, ‘Do not neglect to show hospitality to strangers, for by doing that, some have entertained angels without knowing it.’ (Hebrews 13:2, NRSV). These are our sisters and brothers with whom we share a loving God. May we be courageous enough to reach out with open arms and support others in doing the same.

— Amanda Craft, manager of advocacy with the Presbyterian Office of Immigration Issues.

We recommend a Value, Problem, Solution, Action structure when crafting messages to ensure that values are front and center in any communication:

Value: We are a compassionate country that has a commitment to honoring our humanitarian responsibilities. We have long had an orderly system for considering asylum claims that has served us well.

Problem: Divisive fear mongering, unjustified threats, and using asylum seekers to further political arguments rooted in xenophobia do not serve our country or our values well.

Solution: We should process asylum claims according to current laws and rethink our immigration policies that make it impossible for those seeking opportunity to join our workforce and society.

Action: Tell your representatives that you care about how we treat migrant and refugee families and want to see humane solutions instead of threats and bullying.

2. How can we best inject the truth into coverage of this story?

This story, as designed by Fox News, has become a vehicle for the president and others to spread lies and fear and point toward inhumane, cruel “solutions.” There has been a lot of coverage from CNN, MSNBC, and others refuting the misinformation the administration is providing.

We should use any limited space we have to promote our own story and vision instead of repeating false information, even if to counter it, as doing so often just spreads the lies further. In fact, some of the well-intentioned coverage arguing with the administration’s characterization of the migrants has likely already dug the story, and mischaracterizations, further into audience’s minds than we would want. It’s important to not feed these aspects of the story, to not repeat them, and rather to focus on the ways forward that we want audiences to see.

3. What solutions should we pivot toward?

Giving audiences an alternate vision of the world, including alternate solutions, is just as – if not more – important than only taking a stance against what the administration proposes. Without solutions, we risk exhausting audiences with what appears to be politically-motivated rhetoric among pundits who are only interested in disagreeing with each other. Assuring audiences that we know a way forward, and have concrete examples of what that looks like, can also help to reduce the appearance of chaos that our opponents are trying frighten persuadable audiences with.

WOLA, the Washington Office on Latin America, notes:

[T]his is a manageable humanitarian and logistical problem… It can and should be managed in an orderly way that treats migrants humanely, respects their rights, and follows our legal procedures, as well as the United States’ international commitments on migration.

They then provide a six-point, bulleted list of actions that the U.S. should take.

Welcoming America provides a more general call-to-action, with specific examples included on their website (see question #5):

Building a nation of neighbors starts right where you are: in your community, and there are ways you can make a difference, too. Together, let’s build bridges and demonstrate that our differing identities are assets in making our communities and nation stronger.

4. How are key audiences hearing this story? What’s the right language to use to persuade them to support our solutions? 

While we know that some audiences are hearing this story with a mixture of fear and anger, it’s important to think of how more persuadable audiences might be taking it. One consideration in how they will understand the story is how we talk about migrants and refugees themselves. It’s strategic to show the similarities these audiences have with the folks in the migrant group: a desire to work and care for their family, a pursuit of opportunity, a need for safety. Because we want to emphasize the asylum aspects of this story, it’s tempting to focus on what people are fleeing: violence and poverty. But there are a lot of other outlets doing that work, so it likely serves advocates better to remind audiences, particularly persuadable audiences, of what they might see of themselves in people looking for a better life for themselves and their families.

It’s also important to move away from repeating language designed by the other side to instill fear and anger. There is no need to repeat words like “invasion,” or even “migrant caravan,” even if to argue for better terms. Instead, we should describe the folks coming here as families, parents, workers, students, etc. who are seeking opportunity and safety.

These individuals are largely asylum seekers, families of people who are seeking safety. How we react to them says a lot about how we value them as human beings.”

— Teresa Waggener, immigration attorney for the Presbyterian Office of Immigration Issues

“They truly hope that by making this show of collectiveness, by joining this caravan, somebody’s heart will be touched and a miracle will happen.”

— Oscar Chacón, executive director of Alianza Americas

“They are pilgrims, coming to a place that once welcomed the immigrant with the lines: ‘Give us your tired, your poor, your huddled masses, yearning to breathe free.”

— Rev. Katherine Rhodes Henderson, Auburn Seminary President

5. What story would we rather see in the headlines?

While it’s true that we don’t control the news cycle, keeping in mind what ideal, or at least better, coverage would look like can help to inform our responses when we find ourselves playing defense in moments like this. Welcoming America provides some good examples of positive narratives around refugees on their welcomingrefugees.org site.

A Visual Flow Chart: How to Stop Kavanaugh and #SaveSCOTUS

Messaging Strategies:

  • Amplify the call for stopping Kavanaugh and for preventing any Trump nominee from moving forward while the president is under criminal investigation. Trump’s actions and the open investigations into his administration should disqualify him from naming any Supreme Court justice.
  • Call out the dangerous threat to democracy and to our system of checks and balances that the president presents to our nation. Make clear the solutions needed to right the ship.
  • Significantly step up criticism of the colossally inappropriate role—and extremist values—of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation in selecting the judges who should rule fairly for the whole nation.
  • Remind relevant audiences (at every turn) of this president’s support for white supremacy and bigotry, from his criticism of Judge Curiel based on his heritage, to his slander of Mexican-Americans, to his praise of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, to his ties with the racist “Alt-Right” movement.

Say NO to Brett Kavanaugh and to Donald Trump. Join our SaveSCOTUS.org allies and oppose Kavanaugh, and push for what is truly democratic: no nominee

Disrupting the Disrupter:

Why This Is a Supreme Court Nomination Like No Other, and What We Should Do About It.

When President Trump nominated Judge Brett Kavanaugh to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy, it was clear to us that while Kennedy’s legacy is complicated, the man Trump named to replace him is not.

Based on his positions on the constitutional and legislative protections that serve all Americans, from women’s freedom to make decisions regarding when—and whether—to start a family; to the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act; to marriage equality; to equal justice under the law irrespective of race, gender, and other aspects of who we are, Kavanaugh’s nomination would move the Court sharply and immediately away from the values we hold dear and give him the opportunity to shape court decisions that will affect generations.

Equally—if not even more—disturbing is that President Trump is seeking to name a pivotal justice to the very court that will likely rule on any criminal charges brought against him and his administration, and on the Russia investigation, which he has maligned and tried to delegitimize since the start of his presidency.

This is particularly alarming because Kavanaugh is the only one on the list of candidates who has made clear that the president of the United States is above the law. He does not believe that a president should be held accountable through an independent investigation while in office. Thus, Mr. Trump seems to have intentionally selected Brett Kavanaugh for a seat on the Supreme Court not only because of his hard-right, pro-corporate record, but also because he will not provide the very checks and balances that the framers of our Constitution intended in creating a Supreme Court.

Brett Kavanaugh’s ultra-conservative bona fides are certainly not unique, nor is it surprising that he is Trump’s pick. After all, President Trump proclaimed that he would choose a Supreme Court candidate(s) from The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation–prepared list, mentioned above.

But the point isn’t just that we must do all that we can to prevent the likes of the hard-right ideologue Brett Kavanaugh—and, frankly, anyone on a list recommended by The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation—from ascending to a seat on the high court.  It’s that The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation created the list the president is considering in the first place, over a bipartisan set of thought partners more representative of America. And it’s especially troubling that these institutions appear to know much more about Brett Kavanaugh and the others they selected than perhaps even the senators who will eventually vote on the nominee.

At this point, we don’t know whether, or how, aspects of Kavanaugh’s record will come forward. We also don’t know, given the events of recent days, whether there are aspects of that record that are being deliberately hidden from the American people.

While it is essential to gain information about the record of any candidate to the Supreme Court, we must also do all that we can to spotlight the fact that any Trump nominee, under these circumstances, would be in the constitutionally unacceptable position of ruling on critical legal questions relating to his investigation or prosecution.

Kavanaugh’s nomination, moreover, comes at a time when Trump has repeatedly demonstrated his fidelity to the president of Russia, while at the same time denigrating the U.S. intelligence community, his own Department of Justice, and America’s closest allies. We cannot be certain that, as Supreme Court justice, Brett Kavanaugh’s loyalties would lie with the American people and the Constitution over the interests of a president who appointed him and an administration that has kowtowed to the likes of Vladimir Putin.

Our constitutional values—the separation of powers and checks and balances—could not be more important to our freedom than they are right now. The stakes for our democracy, in other words, could not be higher.

Therefore, President Trump’s ability to choose a nominee to our nation’s highest court—especially a hard-right nominee who may not hold the president accountable—is a call to action that must be answered with an even greater, more focused level of strategy, creativity, and collaboration than ever before.

We know it’s an uphill battle, but it’s one that we can win.

History reminds us that defeating Supreme Court nominations is difficult. It also reminds us of the importance of endurance. The last successful challenge to a Supreme Court nomination was the defeat of Judges Robert Bork and Douglas Ginsburg in 1987. Before that, it was Clement Haynsworth and G. Harrold Carswell in 1969 and 1970, respectively, both of whom were defeated based in part on their ties to white supremacy. In those fights, social justice leaders came together to make clear to the Senate and the American people that the nominees—and the president’s intent in nominating them—were out of sync with our national and constitutional values. The justices ultimately seated in those instances were Justice Harry A. Blackmun in 1970 and Justice Kennedy in 1987.

While today’s landscape is even more challenging with a polarized Senate, an emboldened and extremely vocal opposition, a chaotic political and media environment, and the absence of the filibuster as a tool for moderation and consensus building, we must be in it to win, and not just for the short-term, but for the long game. Let’s not forget how Kavanaugh’s supporters unjustifiably and unapologetically blocked President Obama’s nomination of moderate Judge Merrick Garland and seated Justice Neil Gorsuch. Our actions must emulate the same stick-to-itiveness that those supporters continue demonstrating today. They are running the marathon, not the sprint, and they are now even more aligned to move the Court sharply away from constitutional rights, values, and accountability.

Thus, these extraordinary times call for each of us to dig deep and offer new and innovative approaches in our work to define Brett Kavanaugh as unfit for the Supreme Court. They call for strategies that will disrupt the usual process through any lawful means necessary, using all resources and allies at our disposal. So, while Kavanaugh’s record on the issues that are at the heart of our American ideals is—and should be—dissected, we must also keep the end goal in mind and operate accordingly. This means making this fight about the foundation of our democracy—not only about one seat on the high court.

To win, we must implement the following strategies at the same time:

  • Join our SaveSCOTUS.org allies and others in continuing to prioritize a strategic mix of (a) persuading undecided audiences in pivotal states including WV, AK, ME, ND, and IN; (b) activating base audiences in the pivotal states and other parts of the country; and (c) delegitimizing and disrupting the opposition wherever possible. The current swing-state focus on protecting the Affordable Care Act and Roe v. Wade, although necessary, should be only one tool to move persuadables and motivate segments of the base.
  • Establish as a primary goal that we must convince a critical mass of political, cultural, and opinion leaders that President Trump’s actions and the open investigations into his administration should disqualify him from naming a Supreme Court justice. We must do all that we can to normalize the understanding that President Trump is a suspect in multiple cases of historic and constitutional magnitude and, therefore, cannot constitutionally or ethically be permitted to choose the justice who will likely decide his case.
  • Make popular culture a major force in the effort on par with other, more traditional tactics. This requires letting creatives create in their own ways, while tying their work to a common goal and overarching narrative. The 2008 Obama campaign’s flexible partnerships with artists, musicians, and cultural influencers is a recent model worth emulating and upscaling.
  • Step up the use of traditional and digital media to broaden the scope of bipartisan opposition to Kavanaugh. This is where traditional approaches such as op-eds, editorial board meetings, white papers, and the like will be most helpful, creating a drumbeat of voices calling for a halt to the process on constitutional grounds while making the substantive case against the nominee and his extremist supporters.
  • Call out the dangerous constitutional crisis into which the president has plunged our nation and make clear the solutions needed to right the ship. That, in turn, necessitates choosing messaging and content of visceral dramatic value, one example being recent audio of immigrant children in detention pleading for their parents. That intensely emotional content was the tipping point that coalesced with litigation, advocacy, and other strategies to change the narrative and some aspects of policy. It is a dynamic that we must learn from and consider utilizing.
  • Significantly step up criticism of the colossally inappropriate role—and extremist and un-American values—of The Federalist Society and The Heritage Foundation in selecting the judges who should rule fairly for the whole nation. As already noted by some advocates, the failed federal circuit court nomination of The Federalist Society member Ryan Bounds based on his racist writings should be revealed as the tip of the iceberg when it comes to those organizations’ ties to extremists.
  • In the context of constitutional values, remind relevant audiences at every turn of this president’s support for white supremacy and bigotry, from his criticism of Judge Curiel based on his heritage, to his slander of Mexican-Americans, to his praise of neo-Nazis in Charlottesville, to his ties with the racist “Alt-Right” movement. Also, kowtowing to Russia and embracing bigotry are vulnerabilities that arise again and again, and ones about which President Trump cannot disguise his predilections.

In the face of atrocious policies that pose serious threat to our Constitution and our country’s ideals of opportunity and inclusion, we must treat this fight differently. Alongside many others, The Opportunity Agenda sees the dire need to dig deep and stop Kavanaugh’s nomination. We must protect the hard-fought, historic gains our country has made in promoting and preserving opportunity.

Therefore, we are calling for preventing not only Brett Kavanaugh from taking a seat on the Supreme Court, but also President Trump from circumventing the constitutional accountability that its founders fully intended. Preserving our democracy depends on nothing short of that.

Messaging on the Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court

​Recommended Messaging on the Nomination of Brett Kavanaugh to the U.S. Supreme Court

On Monday, July 11, President Trump announced D.C. Circuit Judge Brett Kavanaugh as his nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy. Though very conservative, Justice Kennedy has been the crucial swing vote on a range of important social justice questions, from reproductive rights, to LGBTQ equality, to affirmative action. By contrast, President Trump’s selection of Judge Kavanaugh to replace Justice Kennedy undermines those and many other legal protections. Replacing Justice Kennedy with such an extreme nominee — especially during a time in which our system of checks and balances is needed more than ever — would have a lasting and devastating impact on the balance of the Court, and on our country’s most long-held and fought-for values.

What follows is advice for talking about the nomination, demanding rigorous and careful scrutiny of any nominee by the Senate, and ensuring that confirmation is given only to a nominee with a demonstrated commitment to our nation’s highest constitutional values and liberties. While this memorandum does not touch in great detail on Judge Kavanaugh’s extensive record, it does provide guidance and recommendations on core themes around how to effectively communicate not only about what’s at stake with his nomination but also – and in some ways most importantly – what’s at the heart of this critically important nomination process.

We recommend emphasizing four themes:

1. Our Nation’s Constitutional Values

Insofar as the nation’s focus is – and should be – on Brett Kavanaugh’s record on a range of issues, it is essential to remember that Supreme Court nomination debates are about the values that our nation and Constitution stand for and the extent to which Kavanaugh, or any nominee, will demonstrably uphold them. Values including Freedom, Dignity, Fairness, Equal Opportunity, Equal Voice (Democracy), and Accountability (our System of Checks and Balances) are particularly important and at risk with this nomination. In addition, these values are inextricably connected to human dignity and the essential elements in peoples’ lives that relate to their ability to prosper with and for their families. Important issues such as access to quality healthcare and a woman’s right to privacy are among those at stake in the debate. These issues should be discussed explicitly in terms of values, what they mean, and why they’re so important to people.

The discussion about these values and issues should not strictly focus on Kavanaugh. Now is the moment to remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. In plain terms, talk about the critical role of the Supreme Court, Brett Kavanaugh’s potential role in it, and how it is essential that the Court uphold those core values. For some audiences, for example, describing examples and times in our history when we have lived up to the Constitution’s stated value of Equal Justice Under Law is inspiring. And discuss the questions that arise regarding the obligation that Kavanaugh would have to uphold these core values.

2. Kavanaugh’s Impact on People’s Lives and on the Nation

Remind audiences that if confirmed, Brett Kavanaugh would be deciding immediately and for decades what our Constitution means and how it will affect our lives. In addressing your specific audience, talk about the basic rights and expectations that they and others in our country rely upon that are now at serious risk — including access to health care, the ability to marry the person you love, to plan a family, and to draw on diversity as our nation’s greatest strength. Don’t take the bait by repeating or debating the metaphor of Supreme Court Justices as umpires or referees — that’s not what justices do, and it frames the debate inaccurately and not on your terms.

3. Thorough and Rigorous Scrutiny

Demand that the Senate (starting with the Judiciary Committee) fulfill its constitutional responsibility to thoroughly and closely examine Kavanaugh, including his extensive past record, as well as his candid answers to revealing and insightful questions. At the same time, the news media must have access to and report facts and perspectives that enable the public to reach its own informed conclusions.

There will inevitably be efforts to rush Kavanaugh through to confirmation. Not only must these efforts be rejected, but serious consideration must be given to whether the confirmation process should be suspended until the Special Counsel Investigation of the President has concluded.

4. Hope and Action

Especially during these very challenging times, it’s important to remind our base that we have the power to demand and achieve a fair process that results in an acceptable nominee. Remember to highlight what we want moving forward — and how we can get there — in addition to pointing out what we’re up against. Remind people that the process must take the time to ensure that our Constitution and country’s values are upheld, and it could take years to accomplish that. Point to recent activism like the protests against President Trump’s cruel border policy as clear evidence that our voices and activism can, and do, make a difference.

The United States Supreme Court represents the last line of defense for our country’s most cherished rights, and for our democracy’s very stability. The legacy of its rulings endures for generations, and its role in our government as the final arbiter of what the Constitution means must be bolstered, especially for audiences who will be most adversely affected by a nominee who is hostile to civil rights and liberties.

While the challenge is great, and the stakes are high, the ideals of freedom and equality are far too important to be ignored in a hasty or perfunctory confirmation process. Senate consideration of Brett Kavanaugh is only one piece of that challenge, which presents an opportunity for us to tell the story of the America we can and should be.

Messaging Advice on The Supreme Court’s Muslim Ban Decision

​

 On June 26, 2018, the U.S. Supreme Court issued its decision in Trump v. Hawaii, allowing the Muslim Ban to stand.

In a 5-4 ruling in Trump v. Hawaii today, the U.S. Supreme Court stunningly ignored the foundational American principles of religious freedom and human rights. Applying the lowest level of Constitutional scrutiny while also ignoring pre-inauguration tweets and other declarations of racial and religious animus, the Court held that the Muslim Ban was within presidential authority and, instead, focused on the justification provided by the Executive Branch in the language of the Muslim Ban itself.

Recommended Messaging:

What follows are The Opportunity Agenda’s messaging recommendations for discussing the case, pending a more thorough review of the multiple opinions in the case.

With this ruling, the court’s majority has closed their eyes to religious discrimination, which is profoundly harmful to the people in our families and communities, and to our nation’s values of religious freedom and basic rights. Today’s decision allows the president’s self-avowed discrimination based on religion to become a part of our nation’s migration policy. Although the Supreme Court has now spoken, it is the people who must decide the character, values, and direction of this great nation.

We must now call upon policy makers at all levels, including Congress, to return the principles of religious freedom and human rights to that policy.

As noted in Justice Sotomayor’s dissent: “The United States of America is a Nation built upon the promise of religious liberty. Our Founders honored that core promise by embedding the principle of religious neutrality in the First Amendment. The Court’s decision today fails to safeguard that fundamental principle.”

Narrative Themes

The values at issue in this case are religious freedom and human rights. Today’s decision undercuts the core beliefs on which this nation was founded.

When possible, communications on the case should emphasize the following themes:

     1. Our Core National Values

Remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. For some audiences, describing times in our history when we have done the right thing is inspiring.

We believe in religious freedom. We believe in equality of opportunity. We welcome our Muslim, immigrant, and refugee neighbors.

Values: Freedom, Justice, Dignity, Fairness, Opportunity, our Founding Principles.

    2. Our Moral Responsibility

Remind audiences of our responsibilities to our fellow human beings and how we must rise above fear and xenophobia to find our “better angels” as Abraham Lincoln once said. We share responsibility for one another and for protecting and uplifting human rights.

Values: Empathy, Compassion, Community.

   3. Pivot to Solutions: Activism and Lawmaking

Audiences of all backgrounds, particularly those serving the communities directly impacted by cases such as this one, are hungry for solutions and hope in times like these. Remember to highlight what we want moving forward – and how we can get there – in addition to pointing out what we’re up against. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel as though their efforts matter, and that they can be both despairing of this moment in history, while at the same time remembering that our country’s core principle and history is to accommodate all kinds of people. Those in our base need to hear forward-leaning messages about working together to counter and replace bad policies. And undecided audiences need to hear the positive alternatives that are possible.

Values: Pragmatism, Common Sense, Innovation, Determination to Do The Right Thing, Our Shared Responsibility to Fix Flawed Policies, Solidarity.

We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action.  Consider these examples in crafting your messages:

1)

Value:

Our nation was founded on the idea that your religious faith and how you worship cannot be used by our government to punish or exclude you. Religious freedom is a bedrock principle of our country and a fundamental constitutional right.

Problem:

In this case, President Trump blatantly violated that principle, announcing that he would ban Muslims from our country and doing so with respect to countless family members, scholars, and others seeking to visit loved ones or contribute to our society.

And the Supreme Court today allowed that discrimination, willfully ignoring President Trump’s own bigoted statements, thereby giving legitimacy to the Administration’s flawed and harmful policy.

Solution:

Congress – and policy makers at all levels – must now act to stand against this bigoted ruling, and repair this stain on our national values and constitutional legacy.

Action:

Call on policy makers at the local, state and national levels to rebuke this ruling and to do everything in their power to reassert religious freedom in our policies and discourse:

2)

Value: 

Our nation prides itself on its welcoming spirit. As embodied by the Statue of Liberty, these American values must be the bedrock principle by which the government operates and implements policies today.

Problem: 

However, the administration has shown over and over again that it does not believe in upholding this bedrock principle. In President Trump’s policies, executive orders, cases, and argument in Trump v. Hawaii, the administration has used every tool available to ensure that only certain people and religious faiths are welcome in the United States. And today, the United States Supreme Court affirmed the Administration’s blatantly discriminatory policy and chose to side with the Administration’s ban on Muslims from traveling to our nation.

Solution: 

America is better than this – and our country must not condone discrimination of any sort, including on the basis of religion. We must remember that even with our nation’s history of discriminatory policies, the experiment that is the American democracy can and has proven before that its purpose must be to serve its people and truly be as good as its ideals, for all who live, and aspire to live, here. Congress – and policy makers at all levels – must now act to repair this stain on our national values and constitutional legacy.

Action: 

Call on policy makers, including your member of Congress, to rebuke this decision. Urge them to bring resolutions and legislation that will correct the Court’s decision in Trump v. Hawaii and ensure that the American rule of law reflects the values inscribed on the Statue of Liberty. We are better than this.

 

Additional material you may find helpful:

Talking About the Muslim Ban, Trump v. Hawaii (Pre-decision)

Six Tips for Responding to Supreme Court Decisions

Partner Statements on Trump v. Hawaii:

​

Talking About The U.S. Border: Imprisoned Children, Lost Parents, and Separated Families

Updated October 2020

The administration’s willful separation of children from their parents at the Southern U.S. border is an atrocious violation of human rights and dignity, and part of a broader pattern of cruel, biased, and destructive border and immigration policies. The horror of watching our government press criminal charges against adult asylum seekers while at the same time pulling their children from them for imprisonment in cages captured  national attention two years ago. Now the damage and trauma has been solidified for more than 500 immigrant children whose parents our government can’t locate. In this moment of national reckoning, we must acknowledge the distress and disgust we are feeling and channel this anger into action through voting, organizing, and working with immigration rights allies to make sure this never happens again.

Making sure that the narrative on immigrants is centered on the values of dignity, safety, mobility, and human rights is also crucial. Based on consultation with our partners in the border region, our assessment of the evolving media discourse, and available public opinion research, we recommend framing and discussing the administration’s actions and the alternatives in ways that lead to activation as well as persuasion. We recommend lifting up our shared values as a nation, making clear how the separation and incarceration of children is part of a broad approach and ideology that violates those values, and providing specific alternatives and actions that our audiences can take and policymakers must pursue.

The Opportunity Agenda reminds communicators to consider your audience(s) and build messages using a Value, Problem, Solution, Action (VPSA) framework. We know that doing so helps persuade people of disparate views to see past rhetoric and embrace our shared humanity.  It centers the conversation on positive change that moves us forward together. That’s especially important in this case, allowing the conversation to focus not on disagreements over policy detail or past administrations, but on action and the values we share.

State these values clearly, then move to defining the problem as a violation of those principles and pivot quickly to solutions, both short- and longer-term. Finally, give your audiences a concrete action so that they can move on their concern right away.

Below are some examples of VPSA messaging around the border and what to do about it.

Value:

This is about who we are as a country – our national heart and soul. It is also about the children themselves and ensuring their safety and security. The United States must be a compassionate nation that protects children, respects the value of family, and upholds the dignity of all people, wherever they come from.

What I saw today is simply not who, we, as a country should be. This is cruel and inhumane treatment and we cannot allow it to continue on our watch.

– Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D) Washington

Americans pride ourselves on being a moral nation, on being the nation that sends humanitarian relief to places devastated by natural disasters or famine or war. We pride ourselves on believing that people should be seen for the content of their character, not the color of their skin. We pride ourselves on acceptance. If we are truly that country, then it is our obligation to reunite these detained children with their parents – and to stop separating parents and children in the first place.

– Former First Lady Laura Bush

Problem:

Holding children hostage for political gain is morally reprehensible and a dark atrocity that we cannot tolerate. What has been less focused on is that while this is happening, the administration is criminally prosecuting the parents of these children, who face up to 20 years in prison for seeking refuge and a better life for their families in the United States.

Separating immigrant parents and children as a supposed deterrent to immigration is a cruel and reprehensible policy. Children are not instruments of deterrence, they are children. A government that thinks any means is suitable to achieve an end cannot secure justice for anyone.

– Bishop Daniel E. Flores, Diocese of Brownsville, TX

If you think about what the Republican Party has stood for, it’s family values and protecting children, so it seems contradictory that they’re engaging in this enforcement activity of ripping kids from their families. It’s really troubling to see that an administration can be so callous. It’s beyond the pale.

– Vicki Gaubeca, Director of the ACLU of New Mexico’s Regional Center for Border Rights

The staggering inhumanity of this president’s treatment of these children belongs in the darkest chapters of our nation’s history—the ones we can never forget and must never repeat.

-Senator Patty Murray (D-Wa)

Problem:

Tearing children from families fleeing harm is part of a larger pattern by this administration of bigotry and cruelty toward people based on their skin color, religion, and national origin. It is also part and parcel of the administration’s return to flawed over-reliance on incarceration and criminalization. This assault on our values harms not just the families and children at the border, but all of us watching. It is also a stark reminder of the history of discrimination and internment based on race and ethnicity that we must rise above rather than repeat.

Zero tolerance, especially toward immigrants, isn’t just a policy proposal to this president and his allies—it is the ideology that animates the entire Trump phenomenon, and a defining characteristic of the world as they want it to be.

– Chas Danner, New York Magazine

Solution:

The government must work with lawyers and advocates to find the parents of these children immediately and reunite them.  Families belong in communities, not cages, and not separated across borders. And in addition to the range of crucial short-term fixes to the outrageous separation of children, we need long-term, transformative solutions to the bigotry, flawed immigration rules, disrespect for asylum, and misuse of incarceration that allowed this situation to happen in the first place. We must stand against the administration’s retrogressive vision for a structure of immigration enforcement and criminalization in our country. This moment has the potential to be a turning point toward a positive vision.

The government should be held accountable, absolutely. These families deserve compensation. They’re dealing with children and the parents themselves are deeply traumatized. This has a really broad-reaching impact on societies.

– Cathleen Caron,  Executive Director at Justice in Motion

We are proud to join nearly 300 organizations on this letter to Congress, calling on Members to cut funding for the agencies of ICE and CBP that endanger immigrant communities. It’s time to #DefundHate.

– National Immigration Law Center

There’s big business in borders and lock-ups. Companies like the GEO Group make money when families are torn apart. We don’t belong in cages, #WeBelongTogether in FREEDOM. We demand our government choose people over profits.  

 -@DreamDefenders

I call on the Trump administration to release all of these individuals immediately, to give them access to attorneys to quickly process their asylum claims, and for them to be immediately reunited with their children […] I will also continue to push to defund ICE, to completely reform the immigration detention system and end mass prosecutions by the Department of Justice, and defund any Department of Homeland Security programs that break up families.

– Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D) Washington

Action:

This administration’s unchecked power must be challenged now. We must mobilize, call our representatives, and vote. Now is the time to bring in the persuadable skeptics who have resisted the idea that this administration is dangerously bigoted toward immigrants and people of color.

So ultimately, we have to turn the tide on Trump’s politics of fear and division — by voting […] The majority Americans, the “coalition of the decent” are disgusted by what they’re seeing on TV and in social media, but we have to put our beliefs into action.

– America’s Voice

We can stop this. Members of Congress have the power to decide which programs and agencies are funded, and how they are funded. ICE and CBP will not be able to continue these atrocities without funds. It’s time for these agencies to be held accountable. It’s time to abolish ICE and CBP. Add your name to demand Congress abolish ICE and CBP.

– United We Dream

Call your local, state and/or national representatives to let them know that you think this is a humanitarian issue. You can find your federal senators and representatives here.

– Women’s Refugee Commission

Six Tips for Responding to Supreme Court Decisions

 

  1. Be cautious.

    Don’t comment until you’ve seen the facts and the lead party’s statement. Remember, the first statement you make will be the most powerful. Comment to shape the conversation, not argue with the opposition about what the decision means. Consider your audience and the big picture of what those who read your statement will take away from it, and remember that if you jump in and don’t have a well-thought out point of view, that’s likely to be what your audience will remember.

  2. Focus on what the case means to our shared values.

    Consider the decision through your audience’s eyes. Most audiences are not at all familiar with – or even focused on – the outcomes of Supreme Court cases and their impressions will be shaped by headlines and topline rhetoric. It’s important to find ways to engage at that level, while providing detailed legal arguments only for audiences who want that. A great way to do this is to focus on values. Consider what the case suggests for the celebration or undermining of those values.

  3. Avoid jargon…

    In favor of plainspoken and accessible language that tells a story your audiences can digest, and that will spark action. Include stories, imagery, and metaphors that are memorable and stay with audiences longer than legal points.

  4. Try to comment on the case, not the court.

    If you don’t agree with a decision, it’s tempting to admonish the court for being out of touch. But remember that the Supreme Court is considering multiple cases impacting a range of issues across the social justice spectrum. Attacking the ideological profile of particular justices without discussing their alignment (or misalignment) of values in relationship to a decision can undercut a more favorable decision they may make on another issue. The way around this is to speak about what the case means to our shared values and national identity, and how decisions do or do not reflect those values. It may make sense to criticize the ruling, and specific justices’ opinions, but do leave room for the possibility that the court could rule more favorably on other cases. Try to refrain from comments that write off the court in its entirety.

  5. Don’t focus on what the decision isn’t.

    Discuss what it is. Explaining the legal details of what the case doesn’t mean is not as powerful as affirmatively stating what it does mean. Spending too much time telling audiences that the ruling does not outlaw abortion, for instance, only repeats the phrase and strengthens it in audiences’ minds.

  6. Pivot to solutions and action.

    While reporters covering the case may want “just the facts,” there are many opportunities to remind audiences of the solutions that the case highlights, and what they can do to make those solutions happen. Base audiences, in particular, will be fired up to do something whether in a celebratory or angry mood, so make sure to give them something concrete that they can do.

Ten Tips for Talking About Janus v. AFSCME Council 31

​On Feb 26, 2018, the United States Supreme Court heard oral arguments in Janus v. AFSCME Council 31, a case that will determine whether public sector unions that negotiate with employers over fair pay and work conditions may continue to receive fees from all employees who benefit from those advances. The inherent risk of this case is that if the Court sides with the plaintiff, then the freedom of working people to form unions will be greatly challenged. The outcome is critically important at a time when families face steep obstacles to economic security and mobility. The Janus case also has important implications for equity and civil rights, as unionized workplaces represent important pathways toward equal opportunity across racial, gender, and other identities. A decision in the Janus case could come at any time, but is expected near the end of the Supreme Court term in late June.

This memo offers advice on talking about the Janus case, with the goal of increasing awareness and support for the strong role of unions in securing greater and more equal opportunity for all. Whatever the outcome in Janus, we must push lawmakers to pursue all available avenues to strengthen the right of working people to organize through a union and demand fair treatment for everyone in our country’s workplaces.

Themes to Highlight:

1. Frame unions as being about our right to stick together. Research from Topos recommends framing the forming of unions as a right, thereby shifting the conversation to emphasize the people in them. They suggest the following message:

“Collective bargaining” means employees sticking together as a group so they speak with a more powerful voice. In order for employees to be heard, it’s often necessary to band together so companies take them seriously. And many employers try to prevent this so they can limit workers’ power.

2. Remind audiences how unions benefit all of us. It’s important to talk about how workers’ ability to organize and sustain unions benefits everyone ­– individuals, families, and whole communities. When union membership is high, entire workplaces and even regions enjoy wages that represent a fair return on work and greater social and economic mobility. The Economic Policy Institute documents this point here.

As researchers from Topos suggest, the story of who makes up unions is also important. In fact, today’s unions represent Americans from all backgrounds and walks of life: 46 percent of union members are women, 36 percent are people of color, 42 percent have a bachelor’s degree or higher, 40 percent work in education or health care, and 21 percent work in transportation, utilities and manufacturing.

3. Focus on shared values. Lead with the values you share with your audience, instead of with dry facts or rhetoric. Values to uplift include:

  • Community: The strength of our nation springs from the unity of our diverse people. We are all in it together as Americans and as human beings. When we care about the progress of all members of our society, opportunity is no longer just about personal success but also about our success as a people.
  • Economic security: We should all have the tools to meet our, and our families’, basic needs.
  • Equal opportunity: Everyone deserves a fair shot at American ideals of prosperity and economic security. Unions increase fairness in the workplace, giving women and people of color a more equal chance to advance and contribute to their full potential.
  • Our constitutional right to organize unions: We have the right to stick together and powerful interests want to strip us of that right.

4. Explain what unions do. Topos’ research found that one problem with increasing support for unions was that they seemed to be outside of the system, a provider of services. Remind people that unions are people who come together to amplify their voices for the good of all. Include a sentence or two to remind audiences why this is so important.

5. Talk about the need to balance our economic systems. Remember that most Americans agree that the economic system is unjust and imbalanced. Remind them that our economy should benefit everyone, not only the wealthiest corporations who are trying to dodge fair wages by stripping workers of their right to stick together. Unions provide a vehicle for individual workers to come together to correct that imbalance and push corporations toward greater economic opportunity for everyone. Note that the Janus case is part of a strategy by big corporations to further tilt the scales in their favor, and against everyday working people. Call on the Supreme Court, policymakers, and the public to reject political gain for some at the expense of economic opportunity for all.

6. Focus on real-world economic challenges. Almost everyone has experienced being unheard or feeling powerless in the work place – so use messages that uplift the point that unions help to address unjust working conditions and achieve better wages and benefits for everyone. When discussing the role of unions in creating more equal opportunity, document and explain the unequal obstacles facing women, people of color, low-wage workers and others.

7. Highlight systemic solutions to systemic problems. Use messages that discuss systemic problems and solutions, not individual responsibilities. For example, people in unions have come together time and time again to create solutions to the problems of corporate abuse and unfair working conditions. They serve as a space for all workers to address injustices in their work environment. These systems and the unions that create them are critical to the gains that have been made for all working people in our society. This means that unions have a positive impact on not only their members, but also on entire workplaces, industries and sectors that include union members and non-union members alike.

8. Build on policies with high levels of support. Everyone wants better wages, benefits, and work environments that support social and economic mobility. Unions have proven to be essential to that progress.

9. Use Value, Problem, Solution, Action (VPSA) to craft effective messages.

One way to create persuasive messages is with a structure of Value, Problem, Solution, Action (VPSA). Using this structure, we lead with the shared values that are at stake, outline why the problem we’re spotlighting is a threat to those values, point toward a solution, and ask people to take concrete action. Here are two sample VPSA messages to consider when talking about Janus v. AFSCME Council 31:

VALUE: Our country is strongest when all of us have the opportunity to work for decent wages under fair and safe conditions. Protecting that opportunity benefits working people, families, communities, and our national economy.

PROBLEM: But we’re seeing that opportunity move farther and farther away and, along with it, the dream of economic opportunity for all. Our economy is unbalanced, with too much power and control by the wealthiest corporations. Unions are the best way for working people to come together and balance the power of corporations, bargaining collectively for fair pay and safe conditions for everyone. A case before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Janus case, could make it much harder for people working in the public sector to sustain unions that protect workers’ interests.

SOLUTION: The Supreme Court, and all of us, should recognize that unions benefit all workers and are key to a collective voice for a fair workplace. They foster economic security and mobility, and strengthen our economy.

ACTION: Join us in calling for a just outcome in this case, and for strengthening the right of working people to organize and sustain unions to re-balance our economy.

______________________

VALUE: “Collective bargaining” means employees sticking together as a group so they speak with a more powerful voice. This banding together leads to greater and more equal opportunity for everyone in the workplace. Again and again, unions have advocated for all workers while demanding that people of color and women have an equal shot and freedom from harassment at work. As a result, for example, African-American and Latinx union members earn over 14% more than their non-union counterparts on average.

PROBLEM: Employers try to prevent workers from coming together so that they can limit their voice and power. A case that’s now before the U.S. Supreme Court, the Janus case, could make it much harder for people working in the public sector to sustain the unions that protect equal opportunity.

SOLUTION: The Supreme Court should recognize that unions are crucial to greater and more equal opportunity that benefits all workers. And, whatever the outcome of the Janus case, policymakers should strengthen the right to organize as an important civil rights protection.

ACTION: Speak out on social media with the hashtags #StandWithWorkers and #JanusvAFSCME. Ask your organization, your school, your city or town to issue a public statement of support for the right to organize strong unions.

______________________

10. Highlight the above themes in all of your messaging.

Consider these social media examples:

 

​

Census Data: A Fair and Accurate Count

We all deserve to live in a society that promotes dignity, supports families, and uses our can-do spirit to expand opportunity. Collecting Census data in a fair and accurate way makes it possible for us to tell a story about the kind of progress that we can and should make. At some time in our lives, we all rely on building block programs that are the foundation of our nation. Social insurance programs like Medicaid and Medicare, and infrastructure programs like Community Development Block Grants, all receive federal dollars that are disbursed based on a fair and accurate Census count.

The impact of the Trump administration’s decision to add a question regarding citizenship status to the 2020 Census could result in whole communities not being counted, and therefore an unfair and inaccurate understanding of the communities we live in. We know that the economic security – and basic societal and cultural inclusion – of these communities could be even more at risk due to this decision. And we also know that investments in equal opportunity will be short-lived or underserved, if the question about citizenship is included, and if there are drastic cuts in a range of initiatives that rely on Census data to determine investments in safety net and other programs.

Following are a few tips for talking about the importance of Census data, achieving a fair and accurate count, and the story it tells us.

Lead with Values: Fair and accurate Census data is important, but we have to spend a little bit of time telling audiences why that is: what it really stands for and the story it really tells us. Use a values lens to do this, focusing on Opportunity, Family, Dignity, Inclusion, Pragmatism/Common Sense, and American Ingenuity. Each of these represents why the programs that rely on Census data really matter, what they protect and promote, and what they represent in terms of our American identity. And each of these value lenses speak to the inclusion of everyone in achieving a fair and accurate count — which means being intentional about how Census questions are asked and whether people are encouraged to participate in the first place.

Ask audiences what kind of society, or country, we want to be – the kind that promotes inclusion, opportunity and raises the quality of life for everyone here? Or the kind that stops progress in its tracks, cutting off those in need in favor of tax cuts to corporations and the very wealthy? Or so that political gains instead of human need gets prioritized?

Connect the Dots: Show how decision makers, investments, policy choices, and outcomes are all related.

  • Audiences’ default thinking about “the economy” tend to view it as an uncontrollable phenomenon like the weather, or a wild animal that does as it pleases. We need to frame it as the result of policy choices – which rely on Census data – by specific decision makers that can (and should) be crafted to meet the goals of opportunity for all.
  • Show how the current Administration’s proposals endanger our country’s value in inclusion and prosperity for all, and the well-being of millions of ordinary people, so that corporations and the wealthiest can move away from paying their fair share, or political gains can be made. For instance, nutrition, health care, and energy assistance programs alone keep millions from continuing to live in poverty. But absent fair and accurate Census data, these programs will not achieve what they should for the people who rely on them the most. And the recently-proposed budget takes us backward on all of these fronts. Health insurance gains –largely driven by Medicaid expansion—are particularly at risk. While the repeal of the Affordable Care Act failed for now, waivers and attempts to sabotage insurance markets are threatening to reverse the progress we’ve made.
  • Be clear that the numbers tell only part of the story. Most Americans continue to face steep obstacles to economic security and basic opportunity like a job that pays decent wages or the chance to send their kids to college. We need solutions that preserve the gains while expanding opportunity for an economy that works for all of us. And these solutions rely on a fair and accurate Census count.

Be Strategic with Language: Instead of talking about “the poor, “the undocumented” or “people in poverty,” speak at a more personal level – ‘families like mine’ or ‘you and your family’ – to move audiences’ understanding from charity for others to personal advocacy. Talking about people/families “struggling to make ends meet” also connects with strategic audiences. It also enables people to broaden the scope of who they think about when considering who is left out – or could be – if Census data is used as a tool to exclude, not include. Finally, focusing on families/people “facing” “hurdles” or “obstacles,” can highlight that the fault lies with the system, and not with the family.

Equal Opportunity Matters: In addition to overall progress and peril on poverty, highlight findings about racial, ethnic, and gender equity, which may tell a different story—or multiple stories. At the values level, this means establishing greater and more equal opportunity as among the nation’s goals. It also means that we must connect what the Census can and should do in service of equal opportunity and share economic prosperity. As with the overall numbers, identify specific policy principles that contributed to any progress (or kept things from being even worse than they are); choices that held us back; and solutions going forward. This is especially important regarding racial inequality, as people tend to misattribute differing outcomes to differing work ethic and “culture,” or purely socioeconomic class differences.

Underscore the Importance of Census Data: Highlight the importance of the Census in providing accurate, fair, unbiased information about who lives in our country. And that means everyone who lives in our country. Because this is used to determine policy outcomes that serve the health and prosperity of our nation, as well as our progress toward the goals of greater and more equal opportunity for all.

Highlight a Positive Role for Government: Remind audiences of government’s crucial role, as well as the unpredictable economic and other challenges that we all face over the course of our lifetimes. Underscore the importance of government in providing support systems for Americans facing misfortune, while expanding opportunity for all. Government-run social insurance and building block programs improve the lives for many people in the United States. Medicaid, for example, supports special education in K-12 schools and over 60% of nursing home beds nationwide. We all benefit from the roads and public transportation that enable us to get to work. All of these are dependent on an accurate and reliable census count.

Building a Message

We recommend structuring messages in terms of Value, Problem, Solution, and Action. You can use the themes and recommendations above to build a message around the specific policy solutions you need to highlight. For example:

Value: We need to build an economy that offers opportunity and economic security to everyone who lives here. Every family should have access to a quality education, a job that enables them to provide for their family, affordable healthcare, and a dignified retirement. That starts with a fair and accurate Census count.

Problem: Wrongheaded proposals by the current Administration and congressional leadership not only endanger the progress we’ve made but take us sharply in the wrong direction. Harmful proposals such as a citizenship question on the Census go against our values as a nation, and would pull resources away from real solutions. This proposal, and others like it, also lead to division in our culture, communities and the prospect of commonality in how equality for all is understood as a value.

Solution: Experience tells us what works to expand opportunity and build economic security for all Americans. Solutions include [Illustrative policy solutions].

Action: Join the #SavetheCensus or #HandsOff campaign and tell the President and Congress that #WeAllCount and they must help build an economy that works for all of us.

Talking About the Muslim Ban, Trump v. Hawaii

​

On April 25, the Supreme Court heard Trump v. Hawaii, one of the legal challenges to the Trump administration’s Muslim Ban, which had been blocked by the courts time and time again. Before the end of June, the Court will issue its decision in the case. It’s time to remind key audiences that this ban is an obvious violation of our values. We suggest a Value, Problem, Solution, Action structure when building messages about the ban; see examples below.

Values

Communications research shows that audiences are more receptive to new arguments when they are framed by shared values. For recent Executive Orders, there are three sets of recurring values that we want to keep at the center of the conversation:

1. Our Core National Values

Values: Opportunity, freedom, justice, dignity, fairness, our founding legal documents.

Remind people of the kind of country we want to be, drawing on our best ideals. For some audiences, describing times in our history when we have done the right thing is inspiring.

Values: Opportunity, freedom, justice, dignity, fairness, our founding legal documents.

We believe in religious freedom. We believe in equality of opportunity. We welcome our Muslim, immigrant, and refugee neighbors. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

Americans now face a choice: Do we stand up for our highest values, treating others with dignity, fairness, and respect? Or do we succumb to bigotry and fear, allowing ourselves to be divided on the basis of faith or nation of origin?

– Azadeh Shahshahani, Project South

A nation founded with the promise of religious freedom. This nation wants to ban Muslim immigrants? ‪#NoBanNoWall

– Franchesca Ramsey, YouTuber

2. Our Moral Responsibility

Remind audiences of our responsibilities to our fellow humans and how we must rise above fear and xenophobia to find our “better angels” as Abraham Lincoln once said. We share responsibility for one another and for protecting and uplifting human rights.

Values: Empathy, compassion, community.

Having once borne the brunt of severe discriminatory treatment, particularly in the immigration context, the Catholic Church will not sit silent while others suffer on account of their religion.

– U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops, Catholic Charities USA and Catholic Legal Immigration Network, Inc., Amicus brief

Today and every day, I stand proudly with my Muslim neighbors for religious freedom. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

All of us deserve to feel safe from hatred and to live and pray in peace. The Muslim Ban has no place in our society—not now, not ever.

– American Friends Service Committee

3. Our “Can Do” Spirit

Audiences are hungry for solutions in times like these. We have to remember to highlight what we want moving forward – and how we can get there – in addition to pointing out what we’re against. Sympathetic audiences need to be primed to feel proud of our country’s capacity to accommodate all kinds of people, and our history of providing opportunity for those seeking it. Those in our base need to hear forward-leaning messages about working together to counter, demolish, and replace bad policies.

Values: Pragmatism, common sense, innovation, determination to do the right thing, our shared responsibility to fix flawed policies, solidarity.

The technological and scientific breakthroughs that fuel the economic engine of the country — search, cloud computing, social media, artificial intelligence, faster and faster microprocessors, the Internet of Everything, reusable spacecraft — were all made possible by the ingenuity, imagination and invention of newcomers to America, including Muslims from across the world.

– Amicus brief filed by 58 tech companies in opposition to the ban.

Amici (the schools submitting the brief) have long recognized the importance of attracting international students, faculty, staff, and scholars. International scholars and faculty share important insights about the conditions, traditions, and cultural values and practices of their home nations. Their work leads to critical advancements across all disciplines, from science and technology to arts and letters, often through cross-border collaborations that enhance teaching and research. … The benefits of international diversity in American higher education thus inure not only to colleges and universities themselves, but to the country and indeed the world.

– Amicus brief from 30 universities in opposition to ban.

Problem

Frame problems as threats to our shared values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience. But choose facts carefully. We all have a lot of evidence to support our claims. However, facts do not tend to change minds if the facts are not couched in values.

The Muslim ban, in all of its iterations, is nothing more than religious intolerance masquerading as an attempt to address (unfounded) security concerns.

– Amicus brief filed by the Muslim Justice League and other Muslim rights groups.

The Trump Administration is threatening to close our doors on Muslims, immigrants, and refugees. But as citizens of this nation, we’re laying out our welcome mats. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

Solution

Pivot quickly to solutions. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. They are the hero of the story and rescue the values at stake. In the case of these Executive Orders, our existing laws and their enforcement, our resiliency, and our values will all point us in the right direction when it comes to solutions.

I think this is a problem that will need diplomatic solutions, political solutions, military solutions, educational, social, and other solutions. So, this is a problem that is multi-faceted and therefore requires a multi-faceted solution. Muslims are an integral part of that solution.

– Dr. Khalid Qazi, Muslim Public Affairs Council of Western New York.

Action

Assign an action. What can this specific target audience do? Try to give them something concrete that they can picture themselves doing: making a phone call, sending an email. Steer clear of vague “learn more” messages, when possible. For people who have only recently become active due to the events of the past few months, it is particularly important to be explicit about action. Include specific steps and assurances that they can help make a difference by following through.

Join us in standing outside #SCOTUS with so many other orgs on April 25th & laying out our welcome mats for those abroad. #NoMuslimBanEver

On April 25th, we’re laying out our welcome mats for our Muslim neighbors in front of #SCOTUS. Bring your own and tell the world: we stand for religious freedom. #NoMuslimBanEver

– ReThink Media

VPSA Examples:

Value

America is a nation of values, founded on an idea – that all men and women are created equal. We hold these truths to be self-evident that all people have rights, no matter what they look like or where they came from. So how we treat new and potential immigrants reflects our commitment to the values that define us as Americans.

Problem

The ban on immigrants from these seven countries violates our most basic values. With this ban, the president is denying due process to people who have already gone through the work to obtain visas. He is denying people the opportunity to contribute to our country, and our opportunity to learn from these newcomers, a time-honored American tradition that has led to the innovative, rich cultural diversity and welcoming spirit that we’re known for on our best days. Instead, this ban shows us at our worst: closed off and closed minded, fearful and backward-looking.

Solution

Instead of focusing on divisive, unnecessary, and illegal bans, this administration needs to focus on the real needs of our immigration system and the people involved in it: migrants, families, employers, and communities.

Action

Make your voice heard. Tell your representatives and the White House that you oppose this harmful and unnecessary ban.

VPSA

Value

Our country is changing, getting more and more diverse. It might make some of us uncomfortable, but it is our reality, and a constant throughout our history.

Problem

Politicians play on this fear, trying to divide us. They push unwise and divisive ideas like sending federal troops to police our cities, building a border wall, or singling out Muslim Americans because of their religion. If we take the bait, it makes our country weaker, not stronger. Our nation is stronger when every one of us can contribute and share ideas, and when everyone’s basic rights and dignity are respected.

Solution/Action

We need to embrace ideas that unify us as a diverse people and make our country stronger, and we need to speak out against discrimination and prejudice when we see it.

​

close search

Hot Topics: