Join Us Donate Search

Messaging And Report Tag: human rights

Raising American Son: A Discussion Guide

​Based on the acclaimed Broadway play, the Netflix Television Event American Son tells the story of Kendra Ellis-Connor (Emmy-nominee Kerry Washington), the mother of a missing teenage boy, as she struggles to put the pieces together in a South Florida police station. Steven Pasquale, Jeremy Jordan, and Eugene Lee also reprise their roles in the adaptation which presents four distinct viewpoints, while also navigating the unique dynamic of an interracial couple trying to raise a mixed-race son. AMERICAN SON delves into the tensions around implicit bias, police-community relations, and families at a time when this nation is deeply divided on these issues.

In an effort to facilitate a broader conversation about race, racism, and the criminal legal system in this country, we hope that Raising American Son: A Discussion Guide proves useful in framing the discussion and guiding you towards useful resources to learn more and to take action.

The discussion guide can be used after viewing the Television Event and in other settings to foster productive conversations about race, policing, and identity. It should also be viewed as only the beginning to what is a conversation that must be thoughtfully continued. American Son and The Opportunity Agenda are working together to provide pathways for civic engagement, action, and online conversations for audience members who are so moved. Follow the conversation using the hashtag #AmericanSon and #FutureOverFear.

Discussion Guide

American Son premiered on Netflix on November 1st.

American Son by Christopher Demos-Brown is directed by Tony Award-winner Kenny Leon. Washington and Pilar Savone executive produce under Washington’s banner Simpson Street. Jeffrey Richards and Rebecca Gold also serve as executive producers. 

“Raising American Son: A Discussion Guide” originated in a collaboration between The Opportunity Agenda and American Son, which premiered on Broadway at the Booth Theater on November 4, 2018.

Talking About Due Process and Racial Profiling

Due Process

Core Message: Due process is a human right central to the American justice system. American values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we uphold the right to due process.

Most audiences believe that due process in the legal system is a basic human right, central to preserving and upholding American values of security, fair treatment, and freedom from government persecution. However, while audiences hold the concept dear, they don’t always accept that violations occur, or understand how due process applies to immigrants or asylum seekers. Nonetheless, their embrace of due process as integral to our nation’s identity is an opportunity to tell a story of American values in peril, and to make the case for how to protect and restore them through a commonsense approach to our immigration policies.

  • Lead with Values. Fairness, equality, America’s founding principles. Assert that the United States should protect due process in order to stand up for American values.
  • It’s About All of Us. Research shows that arguments focusing on the goal of protecting our core values resonate better than a focus on protecting the specific rights of specific groups. Emphasize that due process is central to the credibility of our justice system, and that once we start denying rights for one individual or type of people, it puts all individuals’ rights at risk.
  • Define the Term. While audiences are committed to the concept of due process, not all immediately understand the term itself. Describing due process as giving someone a fair trial, or access to courts and lawyers, or a set of standardized rules and procedures to protect individuals from being unfairly treated or imprisoned helps to make the term more accessible.
  • Include positive solutions. This is an opportunity to talk about what does work, not just attack policies that don’t. We should always describe what needs to happen in order to restore and protect due process, and what audiences can do to support positive and effective changes to our immigration policies.
  • Include key information about how the current system denies due process rights to immigrants. Participants are not aware of how laws can violate due process and have a hard time believing that this could be happening. Therefore, it is important to keep the language simple and straightforward. If the rhetoric strays from a simple description, the message may be lost.
  • Include the Right Pieces of the Story. Past research showed that the elements of due process that audiences value the most include timeliness in granting due process, being allowed to call a loved one and a lawyer, and fair treatment.

Sample Language

Due process – access to courts and lawyers and a basic set of rules for how we’re all treated in the justice system – is a human right and central to our country’s values. We should reject any policies that deny due process, for undocumented immigrants or anyone else. Our values of justice and fairness only stand strong when we have one system of justice for everyone. If one group can be denied due process, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that this country says it stands for.

When it comes to our outdated immigration laws, we need real solutions that embrace fairness, equal treatment, and due process. Current laws are badly broken, but disregarding our values is not the answer to fixing them.

Racial Profiling

  • Core Message: The administration’s new policy recklessly promotes the practice of racial profiling, which violates human rights, as well as our core values of fairness and justice. It’s a flawed policing strategy that hurts communities, and most importantly, threatens our values.
  • Lead with values: Equal justice, fair treatment, freedom from discrimination, public safety and accountability.
  • Define the term and fully explain that racial profiling is based on stereotypes and not evidence in an individual case. Explain why racial profiling is not an effective policing tool and is a rights violation. Challenge the notion that racial profiling may be acceptable if it somehow keeps communities safe.

Too often, police departments use racial profiling, which is singling people out because of their race or accent, instead of based on evidence of wrongdoing. That’s against our national values, endangers our young people, and reduces public safety.

  • Explain why profiling harms us all, not just people of color or immigrants. This includes harm to our national values of fairness and equal justice, harm to public safety, and harm to anyone who is wrongly detained, arrested, or injured by law enforcement.

To work for all of us, our justice system depends on equal treatment and investigations based on evidence, not stereotypes or bias.

  • Move beyond denouncing racial profiling alone and also highlight positive solutions and alternatives that ensure equal justice and protect public safety like the End Racial Profiling Act and training for law enforcement agencies.

Racial profiling is an ineffective and harmful practice that undermines our basic values. Far too many immigration enforcement policies recklessly promote the practice. Any immigration policy reform needs to zero in on, and eliminate, this outdated and harmful practice.

We need to ensure that law enforcement officials are held to the constitutional standards we value as Americans—protecting public safety and the rights of all.

  • Offer multiple real-life examples. The idea of racial profiling is theoretical for some audiences. It’s important to provide multiple examples that include a variety of people who’ve been wrongly stopped.

Sample Language

Racial profiling harms all Americans. It violates our values of equal justice that we all depend on. It disrespects and discriminates against millions of young people and others around the country. It threatens public safety and can ruin people’s lives. It’s time to end racial profiling and focus law enforcement on evidence and public safety.

We need to be clear: it is unacceptable for those who enforce our laws to stereotype people based on the color of their skin, religion, or nation of origin. Law enforcement should act on facts and evidence, not racial bias. If one group can be singled out based on race or ethnicity or religion, none of us will be safe to enjoy the rights that the United States stands for.

We are stronger when we find ways to encourage participation and contribution, not ways to divide, exclude and discriminate. We have to condemn, in the strongest terms, those who engage in and encourage racist tactics.

Is it right for a military veteran to be asked for his papers just because he’s of Mexican heritage? Is it right for a mother of Asian or Latino background who speaks with an accent to get asked for her papers—right in front of her children—when her white friend next to her does not? Is it right that immigrants who work hard and aspire to be citizens live in daily fear of being stopped, arrested, and deported away from their loved ones? Is it right to create a culture of suspicion in an America that becomes more diverse every day? No. Anyone who engages in or encourages discrimination is flat out wrong. That’s not who we should be as a country.

Talking Border Issues Amidst the Government Shutdown

Headlines about the U.S.-Mexico border continue to fill our news feeds and screens as the government shutdown provides an inexcusable vehicle for the president’s obsession with building a wall. Accompanying – and sometimes undergirding — these headlines are distortions of the truth, misleading information, and outright lies. Worse yet are the heartbreaking and troubling stories about their impacts, including the administration turning its back on refugees, imprisoning and separating families, and tear gassing asylum seekers, along with – most importantly – the tragic deaths of two children while in government custody.

These are among the reminders of why our values must not be compromised when addressing current actions, and why this moment provides us with even more opportunities to uplift our values as effectively as possible.

Below are five tips on how to discuss the border region and the broader immigration, refugee, and border policies amidst the government shutdown and other current events.

1. Balance short-term and long-term thinking. Before engaging specific topics, such as the government shutdown, the rejection of refugees, or the tragedies that have occurred, take a moment to consider the long-term strategy. Sometimes this step is skipped in the heat of the moment. Yet, it’s very important to keep the long game in mind while communicating in the moment.

  • Consider the larger story we want to tell. While themes like national security and chaos dominate the headlines, providing another side of the story can help to balance audiences’ understanding of the region and its needs, and how the administration’s policies affect everyday life. Include references to the people, communities, economy, and traditions of the border region – even if they are short and in passing. It’s not necessary to tell a complete story, but setting a tone for what the border region actually looks and feels like, and what its residents aspire toward, can help strike balance with the theme of chaos that dominates many stories.
  • Determine which solutions you want to highlight. It’s not enough to repudiate false or exaggerated claims about the national crisis, terrorism or smuggling. We have to talk about what really makes communities safe: properly-trained law enforcement that works with communities, zero tolerance for racial profiling, bigger picture thinking about our place in the world and our responsibilities to it. These arguments are audience-specific and we need to consider how we hope to motivate each target audience.

2. Consider your audience. Once you’ve considered the larger story, and the solutions you want to highlight, consider how your target audiences are hearing current conversations.

  • If you are hoping to energize progressive audiences, for instance, a focus on the president’s harmful obsession with the region—particularly a wasteful wall—may be a good place to start. We already know that for the most part, people are not supportive of a wall.
  • For less receptive audiences, a focus on pragmatism helps. What does the region really need? How do we come up with a solution that protects the commerce of the region, the rights of those who live there and those passing through, and work to make sure that all of our communities can enjoy the safety that border communities already have? For these audiences, arguing about national security is less likely to be effective because doing so just evokes ideas about the military, law enforcement, and the expensive tools they use.

3. Link the shutdown to the president, not the border. If you’re addressing the shutdown specifically, try to move discussion away from the border as much as possible.

  • Frame the shutdown as an inexcusable move of a president who doesn’t understand how negotiation works and who is obsessed with over-simplified solutions that few experts agree will address the problems at hand. These tactics are currently focused on an unnecessary and immoral wall, but have been and will again be redeployed toward other pet projects he’s promised his base.
  • It’s better to redirect the frustration, anger, and uncertainty many audiences are feeling about these issues back at the president rather than further associate those feelings with the border region.

4. Always humanize the discussion. When talking about border region policies, stress the impact those policies have on the people living there. Do the same thing when talking about the shutdown.

  • When talking about refugee and immigration policies, show the impact – including the harms and even death caused by detention. Center on the values of compassion, dignity, respect, and that how we treat others reflects on our own identity as a country.
  • When focusing on the human impact, it’s crucial to be clear that these are system-level problems that require policy-level solutions. We need to ensure that audiences understand that their feelings of horror and sadness about one story or circumstance are not enough. They have a responsibility to translate those feelings into policy change.

5. Stress that border region communities need to have a say in decisions that affect them. Border communities’ voices have been drowned out or ignored in political debates around immigration.

  • Underscore that any policy must be responsive to the expressed needs of border residents. Too often, their voices are drowned out by political discourse and their needs sacrificed for impractical and harmful solutions to exaggerated problems.
  • It’s also important that we lift up the voices of our partners and impacted people in the region and listen to the solutions they are calling for. Some attempts to appeal to swing and conservative voters will start by acknowledging the need for border security. However, doing so suggests that the border region needs more security, which it does not. As our friends at the Southern Border Communities Coalition point out:

The longstanding national dialogue about “the border” has centered almost exclusively on notions of “security” and “enforcement” that should be addressed through increased militarization and a wall. Under this narrative, people outside of the region can only imagine a barren, dangerous, and chaotic wasteland — a patently false narrative that some policymakers and pundits exploit for political gain and to advance policies that are detrimental to the civil rights and quality of life for the millions of people who live, work and travel through the borderlands.[1]

Messaging Examples

On the border region:

The U.S. Southern border region is one of the most diverse, economically vibrant, and safest areas of the country, home to about 15 million people who aspire to enjoy life in a safe and prosperous environment. The Southern Border is a key engine of economic growth; an international trade hub that creates jobs and generates.

– Southern Border Communities Coalition

For more than a decade […] the U.S. government has failed to invest in border communities’ prosperity, opting instead to expand military-style, discriminatory policing of communities in the government’s 100-mile zone and deepen private prison corporations’ reach into taxpayer pockets through costly criminalization and incarceration of migrants—many who find themselves left with few options to return home to the U.S. citizen children and family they love.

– ACLU Border Rights Center

On the shutdown:

In 2013 during the government shutdown, we lost $1 million in federal revenue that we never recovered. We also lost medical providers because they didn’t realize their employment was predicated or dependent upon federal dollars.

– Aaron Payment, Sault Ste. Marie Tribe of Chippewa Indians

So far, Democratic leaders Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi have stood strong against Trump’s bullying tactics and we urge them, as well as other members of Congress, to continue to listen to the voices of borderlanders and resist Trump’s destructive wall. The southern border is a place of hope and opportunity, not fear and conflict. It is one of the safest regions in the country, rich with culture, commerce and growth. We stand ready to work with legislators to ensure that border communities are not jeopardized by any further militarization of the region.

– Vicki Guabecca, Southern Border Communities Coalition

This government shutdown is due solely to Trump’s border wall obsession and his refusal to abandon his anti-immigrant agenda, even at the cost of denying hundreds of thousands of federal workers their holiday paychecks and impacting operations at several federal agencies. As negotiations continue, Congress should hold their ground against the border wall, stand up for border and immigrant communities across the country, and continue to reject Trump’s extortionist demands in any future funding negotiations.

– Lorella Praeli, ACLU

[1] https://www.southernborder.org/border-issues

Talking About Race and The First Step Act

The First Step Act, which recently passed the Senate with wide bipartisan support, can and should represent change in how our nation thinks, talks, and acts on criminal justice issues. While The First Step Act contains modest positive reforms that are welcomed, it is important to also address the act’s limitations. In particular, the act does not directly address issues of racial bias within the criminal justice system. Because it does not openly address the racial bias in the system, there is a risk that it will exacerbate existing racial disparities. This document provides advice for talking about the limitations of The First Step Act as they pertain to race.

1. Lead with Values, such as Equal Justice, Dignity, and Fairness.

Research and experience show that it is more effective to lead with shared values in advocating for criminal justice reform than policy details, statistics, or political rhetoric. When talking about The First Step Act and race, begin by uplifting the values of Equal Justice, Dignity, and Fairness. Highlight how positive criminal justice reform will uphold our society’s commitment to Equal Justice for people of all races. The First Step Act should aim to ensure that the criminal justice system treats individuals with the dignity and fairness we all deserve. Discuss how everyone should be able to benefit from the provisions of the act, including the many people who are currently incarcerated because of racially discriminatory policies.

2. Focus on Obstacles rather than Outcomes.

Experience shows that most criminal justice problems cannot be truly fixed without addressing questions of race. However, when talking about race, discussing racially disparate outcomes without a greater discussion of the obstacles or problems that lead to those outcomes may cause the listener to respond from an individualistic frame. This makes the listener more likely to blame the individuals adversely affected by the system instead of motivating them to address a problem with the system
itself.

Rather than leading with evidence of unequal outcomes alone, we recommend focusing on the obstacles people of color frequently face that lead to harsh and unequal treatment by the criminal justice system and provide concrete examples of these barriers. Discuss the structural and systemic barriers that have led to racial profiling, racial discrimination in how prosecutors choose whether to charge an individual with a crime, and racially discriminatory sentencing outcomes. These are systemic and structural issues that stem from implicit bias, a history of harshly policing communities of color, and widespread use of policies that do not adequately address either of these issues. Explain the need for additional legislation that openly aims to address racial discrimination in the criminal justice system, thereby better promoting equal justice.

3. Discuss Solutions, Not Just the Problems.

When discussing the various problems with The First Step Act, provide solutions that demonstrate the concrete ways Congress should build upon and fix the act.

A. Electronic Monitoring

The act relies heavily on relatively new and substantially unregulated electronic monitoring. This newly advanced, but little studied, method of supervised release tracks individuals’ daily movements and often requires that they ask for permission from a judge or probation officer to leave home. This type of intrusive monitoring perpetuates comic disparities in the system by making it difficult for individuals to maintain employment and requiring individuals to bear the costs of maintaining the monitoring system. Currently there is little regulation controlling the use of the electronic monitoring as a form of supervised release. The use of this technology on people of color creates an additional law enforcement intrusion into the very communities that are already over-policed because of racially biased policies, and may result in a new form of incarceration that will expand in time.

Consider highlighting the following solutions when discussing electronic surveillance:

  • Supervised release programs should avoid invasive monitoring techniques that are overly restrictive and replicate the conditions of incarceration.
  • Electronic shackles should only be used—if at all—once significant constitutional safe-guards and procedures for monitoring racial bias in implementation are put in place to protect against the misuse of this technology.
  • People should never have to pay for electronic monitoring. Electronic surveillance needs more flexibility to allow people to maintain employment and costs of maintaining the system should never be placed on the individual.

B. Racially-Biased Risk Assessment Tools

The act supports the use of risk-assessment tools that rely upon “evidence-based” algorithms to predict the likelihood an individual will commit crimes in the future. While the use of these tools originally aimed to eliminate the bias of judges and prosecutors, research has shown that the algorithms themselves may be tainted by the implicit bias of the creator, which in turn may perpetuate those biases. Thus, the algorithms often unintentionally give higher risk scores to people of color than to otherwise similar whites.

Further, risk-assessment tools, as currently designed, fail to consider the unique circumstances and traits pertaining to an individual. The use of risk assessment tools should be used very cautiously, and the algorithms that are the basis of these tools should be transparent and adjusted with community consultation. Risk-assessment tools should facilitate release and reduce racial bias, rather than exacerbate it.

Consider highlighting the following solutions when discussing the use of risk assessment tools:

  • The data and algorithms that underlie risk assessment tools should be transparent and available for community commentary.
  • Risk assessment tools should be subject to community input and eliminated or adjusted where there is evidence of racial bias in their implementation.

C. Sentencing Carve-Outs

While the act provides meaningful incentives for individuals to earn credit to reduce their sentences by participating in programming aimed to prevent recidivism, a large number of individuals, including immigrants, will be excluded from this opportunity. Excluding individuals convicted of more serious crimes and immigrants from eligibility to participate in programming to prevent recidivism ignores the very individuals who can benefit most from such programming. Our communities may be adversely affected by this exclusion.

Consider highlighting the following solution when discussing the excluded offenses:

  • Everyone deserves access to healing and justice. The First Step Act should be improved to expand the opportunity to earn time-off credits to all individuals who are incarcerated.

D. Lack of Fairness: Retroactivity

Criminal justice reform should benefit everyone—including those currently incarcerated as a result of racially biased policies, including racially discriminatory sentences. While the act provides some much-needed sentencing reform, only one of the sentencing provisions applies retroactively. Because many people were initially incarcerated due to racially discriminatory policies, without retroactive application, the act fails to remedy past racial injustices.

Consider highlighting the following solution when discussing the lack of retroactivity:

  • It’s only fair that people who are incarcerated get access to relief and sentencing reductions provided by reform legislation. Accordingly, all of the sentencing reform provisions should be retroactive.

E. Highlight the Demand for Equal Justice.

While it is imperfect in many ways, The First Step Act is the result of the advocacy of many groups and individuals who are committed to equal justice. Moving forward, we need to acknowledge that even though the Act has passed the Senate, there is still a need for continuing systemic change, and more can and should be done. The next step is for legislators and policymakers to continue to improve upon The First Step Act by explicitly addressing the racial discrimination that exists within the system.

Talking About Criminal Justice Reform After The First Step Act

Introduction

This memo offers advice for promoting significant, principled criminal justice reform after Senate passage of The First Step Act. It is intended to aid proponents of major reform while contributing to sustained narrative change.

Our system of criminal justice should uphold the values of fairness, equal justice, and accountability; promote the safety of all communities; and help to prevent harm. Yet we are, unfortunately, far from that vision in our country today. Despite meaningful progress in recent years, we remain saddled with an outdated, unfair, and bloated criminal justice system that drains resources, disrupts communities, and devalues rehabilitation. Racial, economic, and other biases impede fair decision making and outcomes. And the system too often disserves people and communities coping with violence and trauma, as well as those accused and convicted of crime, while failing to recognize that these are often the same communities.

The First Step Act, as passed by the U.S. Senate, includes modest positive reforms while leaving many people behind and incorporating problematic new elements. This memo suggests ways of talking about continued work toward transformative and genuine reform—whatever one’s position on the details of this legislation—as the act moves to the House.

 

-Artwork by Alixa Garcia

1. Lead with Values, such as Equal Justice, Due Process, and Community Safety.

Research and experience show that it is more effective to lead with shared values in advocating for justice reform than policy details, statistics, or political rhetoric. Audiences are more open to hearing messages that are framed in terms of values that they share with the speaker.

Highlight how positive justice reform will uphold our society’s commitment to Equal Justice, Fairness, and Due Process. Explain that reforms to the current system can achieve true Community Safety. Emphasize Preventing Harm and ensuring Accountability (which is different from retribution). Talk about how each of us probably can relate to the sentiment that one minor offense or infraction should not be Life Defining. And for audiences that prioritize cost or recidivism concerns, lift up the Pragmatism of using prevention and treatment over incarceration and obstacles to reentry.

2. Remember your Audience.

A shared narrative must persuade the undecided, mobilize the base, and minimize the influence of opponents. For specific messaging, keep your intended audience in mind, including their level of familiarity with the issues and particular priorities—be they safety, racial equity, equal justice, cost, faith, libertarian, or other. In every situation, use language that is accessible to your audience.

  • Avoid jargon and unnecessarily technical language.
  • Steer clear of abbreviations, shorthand terms, and acronyms. Say the full names of relevant organizations, laws, and legal provisions to keep all members of your audience engaged.
  • Always refrain from using dehumanizing language, such as “felon,” “offender,” or “criminal” – instead use, “(formerly) incarcerated people”.
  • Explain legal terms in plain English.

3. Lift up the Principles underlying the Act’s Positive Provisions while Discussing the Gaps and Need for Further Action.

Whether or not one supports the act as a whole, its passage by a wide bi-partisan margin can and should represent a sea change in how our nation thinks, talks, and acts on criminal justice issues. Lift up and reinforce this new direction while discussing the importance of continued action and the need to pressure legislators to work on more comprehensive reform—such as repealing mandatory minimum sentences across the board and making all sentencing reform apply retroactively to people who are unfairly incarcerated today. Emphasize that we must do more to promote prevention and alternatives to incarceration.

4. Talk about Racial Bias and other Forms of Unequal Justice.

A large body of research demonstrates the many ways in which aspects of the criminal justice system result in discrimination against people of color, people with disabilities, and LGBTQ people, among others. And a majority of Americans agree that the system is often biased in harmful ways. It’s important to talk about those biases—leading with values and explaining how they affect all of us and prevent us from achieving our full potential as a country. Call out the ways that The First Step Act fails to address those problems. And remind your audience of the need for additional legislation that will bring about true Equal Justice and Racial Equity in the system.

5. Emphasize Solutions

While a majority of Americans support moving away from harsh sentences, many are unaware of alternatives to incarceration and other reform solutions. Lifting up concrete approaches that are working around the country—such as mental health and addiction treatment, restorative justice, bail reform, and ending mandatory minimum sentences—gives undecided audiences confidence that a new direction is the smart thing as well as the right thing.

6. Prioritize the Voices and Leadership of those Directly Affected

People directly affected by the justice system—including formerly incarcerated Americans, family members, and survivors of violence and trauma—are lifting their voices to articulate a new vision of fairness, safety, and accountability. It’s important to lift up their voices and leadership as people who speak from personal experience and have fresh, practical solutions to offer.

Messaging Tips:
Value, Problem, Solution & Action (VPSA).

Lead with VALUES. Shared values help audiences hear messages more effectively than do dry facts or emotional rhetoric.

  • We all want to be treated with dignity and respect, and live in safe communities. Our criminal justice policies should reflect that.

Introduce the PROBLEM. Frame problems as a threat to your vision and values. This is the place to pull out stories and statistics that are likely to resonate with the target audience.

  • But we are currently saddled with an outdated, unfair, and bloated criminal justice system that drains resources and disrupts families and communities.

Pivot quickly to SOLUTIONS. Positive solutions leave people with choices, ideas, and motivation. Assign responsibility—who can enact this solution?

  • We need true, comprehensive criminal justice reform aimed at righting the problems and inequities created by our current criminal justice system to provide transformative, lasting change.

Assign an ACTION.

  • Urge your legislators to deliver on the promise of genuine and meaningful reform to make our communities safer and make our criminal justice system more just.

Sample VPSA Message:

Value:

We all want a justice system that upholds the values of equal justice, fairness, and accountability; keeps all communities safe; and helps prevent harm.

Problem:

But our current bloated and outdated system is failing us. Legislative reforms, including those incorporated into The First Step Act, that perpetuate the damage done to our communities are not the answer. Algorithms for early release that are based on biased assumptions will continue and increase current systemic inequities. The human and financial costs to these racist, sexist, transphobic, and ableist systems are staggering. Approaches that we know prevent crime – like drug treatment, job training, and an effective public education system – are ignored in favor of short-term solutions. We can do better.

Solution:

It’s time to implement what experience tells us are effective approaches that ensure meaningful reform and promote genuine community safety. An important first step is broadening access to early release programs.

Action:

Contact your senators to push for meaningful criminal justice reform legislation that includes these commonsense reforms.

Additional Resources:

Turning Our Sorrow and Outrage into Communications for Change

 

The Opportunity Agenda is devastated and angered by the vitriolic and violent events of last week. We unite and share our condolences with those mourning the deceased in Pennsylvania and Kentucky, and we hold ourselves and our family of social justice communicators to the highest level of commitment to shift the narrative from hate to love, pain and anger to action for change.

On Saturday morning, Oct. 27 — the Jewish Sabbath — a gunman in the Pittsburgh, PA neighborhood of Squirrel Hill, entered into the Tree of Life Synagogue and began shooting at congregants, ultimately killing 11 people and wounding several others. It was later revealed that the shooter took the action he did, in part, because of his belief that George Soros was funding a so-called “caravan” of migrants in Honduras to come to the United States, and that he was motivated to stop it from happening by killing the Jews and those involved in a “ploy to destroy America”.

This horrific incident occurred just three days after a white gunman shot and killed two African American shoppers at a supermarket in Jeffersontown, KY, about 15 miles from Louisville. We now know that the shooter’s actions were racially motivated and that prior to the incident at the supermarket, he had tried unsuccessfully to enter the First Baptist Church, a predominantly African American place of worship.

The federal government is investigating both incidents as hate crimes, and it has been revealed that both were committed by white supremacists, spurred by the hate-heightened environment in which we currently find ourselves.

Meanwhile, the president has done nothing to attempt to quell the specter of the hatred and violence that led to these attacks. He has instead made it worse, in his statements on social media and by disregarding the requests of those victimized by these actions, in Pittsburgh, to stay away. In response, more than 70,000 people have signed an open letter to Trump saying that the president is not welcome in Pittsburgh unless he denounces white nationalism and stops targeting minorities. The letter, written by the Pittsburgh affiliate of Bend the Arc, says: “For the past three years your words and your policies have emboldened a growing white nationalist movement. You yourself called the murderer evil, but yesterday’s violence is the direct culmination of your influence.”

Condemnation, vigils and mourning must continue. We must persist in uniting as a diverse and wide range of people, organizations, and religious sects to denounce the vitriol. Yet we must also go further. We must proclaim the values that we all know to be what we want to see, and call upon leaders to take action against the violence, hate, and alarmist communication tactics that we are seeing. And we must continue to push them to demand concrete change that directly addresses last week’s terrible spate of white supremacist violence. As so many did last August when white supremacists marched in Charlottesville, VA, we must both grieve the deceased and vigilantly continue our work to appeal to our better angels. Below is a brief reminder of how to do that.

Lead with Values.

Leading with shared values with shared values helps to reach people and persuade those who may be at a loss for what to do in these very challenging times, particularly people who may be despondent, or be inclined to disengage due to despair. Particularly important values here include Unity, Dignity, Respect for Human Rights, Equal Justice, Safety, Strength, and Diversity as among our nation’s greatest Assets.

Talk about how we need to draw upon our source of strength as a community and our diversity as people — e.g., “no matter what religion or race someone is, or where they come from.”

Ensure that it is clearly underscored that hate, racism, and antisemitism will never be accepted in our communities, or our society, and that everyone must have the right to human dignity and to a life that is free of fear.

Anti-Semitism has absolutely no place in our commonwealth. Any attack on one community of faith in Pennsylvania is an attack against every community of faith in Pennsylvania. And I want the Jewish community across the commonwealth and across the country to know that we stand in support of you as we together mourn this senseless act of violence…

— Pennsylvania Governor Tom Wolf (D)

Freedom to live and worship without fear is an essential right in America, and the horrific shooting in Pittsburgh strikes at the very heart of our country’s greatness. Our hearts break for the victims and families who were gathered on Shabbat and for the officers who fell victim to this savage attack. We must fight anti-Semitism and intolerance and stop the hatred that leads to violence.

— North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper (D)

Pivot to the Problem; Name It and Its History.

It helps to be direct, as well as to remind audiences that we have been here, gotten through, and prevailed during hateful times in our country’s history before. And we can again. And that our imperfect union is still very much a work in progress, which means that at times we will experience challenges.

Call out the history of antisemitism and racism, connected to the white supremacist movement and the lack of its condemnation by this administration. It is important to both help people process the events of the week, along with others such as the spate of pipe bombs sent to the president’s political opponents, and call them out for what they are — acts of hatred and delusion that drive tragically lethal behavior, paranoia and a proliferation of shared misinformation. Remind people that this is a pattern that has been well documented, that right-wing media personalities propagating conspiracy theories, followed by white supremacists — including the president — taking to social media to stir up anxieties and fear, is a strategy that we must clearly and directly name, and condemn.

Then we must quickly Follow up with Proposed Solutions and Actions:

Yesterday’s shooting is a reminder to all that we must be vigilant against not only deliberate displays of hatred but also against hatred in all of its forms, no matter how minor or insignificant-seeming. We must reject the rhetoric and politics of divisiveness in our nation. We must demand that we hold ourselves, our neighbors, our family members, and our elected officials to a higher standard: one that uplifts rather than divides. We cannot sit quietly in the wake of yet another tragedy and not advocate fiercely for change.

— SEIU Local 668, Pennsylvania’s Social Services Union

This senseless tragedy reinforces our commitment to combat hate and make our communities more prepared and secure…

— The Jewish Federation in the Heart of NJ

Focus on feelings and concrete solutions. The solutions that are most satisfying and gratifying are often not instantly felt, nor are they always conveyed with the acknowledgement of the feelings of those directly affected. It is therefore important to acknowledge that some solutions will not feel satisfying in the short-term, but that they are important nonetheless in the long-term work to change hearts and minds. We must balance both the short- and long-term solutions, and they should be sincerely described and felt in their promise toward change.

President Trump, we demand that you and the Republican Party: Fully denounce white nationalism; stop targeting and endangering all minorities; cease your assault on immigrants and refugees; and commit yourself to compassionate, democratic policies that recognize the dignity of all of us.

— Bend the Arc: Pittsburgh

Everyone Needs to Hear an Action that They Can Envision Taking.

Remember that mourning, grieving, and remembering are actions that many of us must take during these times for very personal reasons. While the personal stories that often surface from tragedy are impactful in reaching people, they must be coupled with actions that can be taken toward change. Audiences need to know what they can do, both to support our long-term narrative shift and to feel as though they are connected to a system that will represent the change they are trying to see.

Name the actions you would like people to take with you:

Add your name to the demands from Pittsburgh Jewish Action leaders to Trump

— Bend the Arc: Jewish Action

Our mission is to stay the course and continue our work. We help people who are in need; we help refugees who are fleeing violence and persecution. We know that there is hate and we know that more must be done about it. One thing everyone can do is stand up to hate speech. If you see something, say something. We look forward to better days ahead and to working alongside you for that future.

— HIAS Pennsylvania

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

Value: Everyone in our country should be able to live in dignity and free from fear of persecution because of their religion or who they are.

Problem: The spate of violent acts — mailing pipe bombs to individuals representing particular political believes, gunning down Jews in their place of worship, shooting African Americans going about their business at a supermarket — interfere with this safety and everyone’s right to lead a life of dignity that is free of fear. The president, along with many white supremacists, are animating these acts through social media and conspiracy theories when they should be condemning them.

Solution: We must all condemn these acts of hate for what they are. And while we must remember and mourn the dead and rely on human decency to help one another through these difficult times, we must also expose what these actions represent: behaviors that run completely counter to our country’s must cherished ideals of inclusion, decency, safety, and unity.

Action: Support and take time to articulate that you care, especially to those whose communities have been directly targeted by these actions. Sign the letter (or petition) demanding President Trump and others condemn white supremacy once and for all.

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

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:

​

close search

Hot Topics: