Join Us Donate Search

Messaging And Report Tag: racial justice

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.

Tips for Talking about the President’s Pardon of Ex-Sheriff Joe Arpaio

​

In 2011, the U.S. Justice Department sued then Maricopa County Sheriff Joe Arpaio for a “pattern of unlawful discrimination” against Latino Arizonans that included discriminatory and unjustified stops, searches, and detentions. As a result, a federal judge ordered him to stop these practices. Last month he was convicted of contempt of court for refusing to do so, opting instead to continue his harassment and intimidation of Latino Arizonans.

By pardoning him, the president sends a message that civil liberties are only for some, and that he is fine with law enforcement flouting the very laws they are meant to uphold.  What’s more, on the heels of defending hateful demonstrators in Charlottesville, the president used his first official pardon to give impunity to a notorious violator of equal justice and our Constitution.

We recommend a two-pronged response to this news: 1) immediate condemnation of what Arpaio stands for: racism, racial profiling, and division – via a values lens; and 2) a pivot to the positive vision we have for a country that rejects racial profiling and every other form of racism.

Condemn the Arpaio mindset by describing the values at risk: equal justice, respect, safety, diversity. Frame the problem as a threat to these values.

  1. Racial profiling harms all Americans. It violates the American value 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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 for a military veteran to be asked for his papers just because he’s of Mexican heritage? 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 are as a country.

Remind audiences that President Trump’s pardon of Arpaio reinforces a pattern of bigotry and discrimination in the wake of Charlottesville and long before.

  1. President Trump’s pardon of Arpaio doubles down on his defense of bigotry and discrimination in the wake of the Charlottesville hate march and Heather Heyer’s killing.
  2. The President’s pardon of Arpaio’s unconstitutional discrimination, his defense of hate mongers in Charlottesville, and his ban on transgender Americans serving our country are part of an unacceptable pattern of bigotry in his rhetoric, among his advisors like Stephen Miller and Kris Kobach, and in policies like the Muslim ban and the undermining of voting rights.
  3. People of good will, particularly in our government, must go beyond rejection or condemnation of the president’s words and deeds, and take action within the full limits of the Constitution to prevent him from inflicting greater discrimination, division, and harm.

Counter the Trump/Arpaio mindset with a vivid picture of what our country looks like when we work together and replace that suspicion with respect and cooperation.

  1. We are better, as people and as a country, when we welcome our neighbors, care for each other, and help those in need. We are better when we embrace our differences.
  2. We are stronger when we work together and when we learn from each other’s experiences, united as Americans. When people from different backgrounds join together, we all benefit from the diversity of those perspectives. It helps us find new ways to deal with old challenges. But we are not taking full advantage of this source of strength.
  3. 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. 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 on this, 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. 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 wherever we see it.

​

Rise Above: Countering Fear-Based Messaging

The past few months have seen an increased volume of rhetoric that manufactures fear toward African Americans, Latinos, Muslims, and immigrants. Our goal in this research was to identify narratives that counter fear-based messaging, move persuadable Americans to embrace diversity as a foundational value, and to explore the particular words and phrases that motivate our target audiences to action.

Messaging Recommendations

  1. Talk about how we need to take advantage of our source of strength in diversity. Be aspirational, positive, and talk about embracing our differences.
  2. Define opportunity through the means that enable a tangible payoff: pursuing an education and getting a good paying job or career. Position discrimination as a barrier to opportunity and to those payoffs.
  3. Acknowledge that some people might be uncomfortable with change when asserting the importance of diversity.
  4. Highlight the importance of getting to know and accepting people from different backgrounds as a solution and a strength.
  5. When talking about universal values of being American that should apply to all people, explicitly say “no matter what someone looks like/where they come from/what their race is.”
  6. Talk about our need to hold the wealthiest corporations and individuals accountable for paying their fair share. People are prone to think in zero sum terms. Repositioning the “haves” as the wealthiest corporations (instead of people receiving government assistance) is more effective than trying to argue we all do better when we all do better.
  7. Talk about shared values of respect, dignity, and everyone’s basic rights.

Messaging Do’s and Don’ts

When opponents call it political correctness: Call out manufactured fear as “bait” from “politicians trying to divide us.”

When opponents talk about safety: Talk instead about strength and how fear makes us weaker.

Provide a strong call to action:

  • Remove the barriers of discrimination that hold people back.
  • Lean in to ideas that unify us as a diverse people and make us stronger.
  • Speak out against discrimination and scapegoating when we see it.

Top Messages

Messages were tested for moment-to-moment responses in the online survey. Below are the winning messages that beat the opposition argument and increase people’s willingness to take action. The lines on the graphs are the moment-to-moment reactions to an audio recording of each message by our base, opposition, persuadables, and activists. People dialed positively (above 50) when they had a favorable reaction to the words, and negatively (below 50) when they had an unfavorable reaction. The number in parentheses represents the mean dial rating for that message. Passages in bold were especially effective.

Diversity as Strength

We are stronger when we work together and when we learn from each other’s experiences, united as Americans. When people from different backgrounds join together we all benefit from the diversity of those perspectives. It helps us find new ways to deal with old challenges. But we are not taking full advantage of this source of strength. If we embraced our diversity and valued the views of our fellow Americans, we’d be more likely to find solutions to our problems and better ensure that everyone has the opportunity to pursue their dreams. Whether white, Black, or Latino, whether Christian, Jew, or Muslim, we are all Americans. We need to embrace our different experiences, perspectives, and cultures because united we stand, and divided we fall.

Real America

America is a nation of values, founded on an idea -°©‐ that all men and women are created equal. And while we all have our circles, whether they are our family, co‐workers, or friends on Facebook, how we treat others outside of our circles reflects our commitment to the values that define us as Americans. It’s not about what you look like or where you were born that makes you American ‐ it’s how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in this country. We are better, as people, and as a country, when we welcome our neighbors, care for each other, and help those in need. We are better when we embrace our differences.

Pragmatism

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. 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 on these, 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. 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.

_____________________________________________________________________  __               

Methodology

Focus Groups: Lake Research Partners conducted six focus groups in 2017 in Charlotte, North Carolina on January 23, 2017 with white women and mixed gender African Americans, in Phoenix, Arizona on January 25, 2017 with white men and mixed gender Latinos, and in Baltimore, Maryland on February 15 with white men and white women. Participants were recruited to be moderate to independent lean-­‐partisan, with a mix of marital status and education level. National Online Dial Survey: Lake Research Partners designed and administered a survey conducted online from March 1 through 6, 2017. The survey reached a total of 1,000 registered voters nationwide with oversamples of 100 African Americans, 100 Latinos, and 100 Millennials. The margin of error for the nationwide adults sample is +/-­‐3.1%. It is larger for subgroups. The sample of activists was conducted March 2 through 24.

Rejecting Bigotry, Demanding Action

​

Shouting racist and anti-Semitic slurs, white supremacists brought hatred and violence to Charlottesville, VA, this weekend, culminating in the murder of Heather D. Heyer, an anti-racist activist. The hatred and attacks drew outrage, activism, and condemnation. But President Trump, incredibly, refused to name or condemn white supremacists, and blamed hatred, bigotry, and violence “on many sides”—a phrase he repeated twice. His statement two days later was vague, full of platitudes, and failed to call Ms. Heyer’s killing terrorism.

Protests, condemnations, and mourning must continue. Alongside these actions, it is important to call for leadership and concrete lasting change that includes, but goes far beyond, addressing this recent and terrible resurgence of white supremacist violence. We can’t remain caught in this moment of anger and disbelief. We have to continue our work to tell the story about what “America” really means.

Together with UnidosUS, The Opportunity Agenda completed public opinion and messaging research with this goal in mind: to tell a story of American diversity that reflects our values and our aspirations as a country stronger because of our myriad backgrounds, ethnicities, races, experiences – because of the parts of us that may make us different, but ultimately also make us stronger. This research provides guidance for those using their platforms to reject bigotry while demand action.

Lead with Values

Leading with shared values helps to persuade the disengaged and undecided while mobilizing the base of people who support equity, rights, and inclusion. Particularly important values here include Dignity, Respect for Human Rights, Equal Justice, and Diversity as one of our nation’s greatest Strengths.

Link diversity to problem solving, strength, and healthy communities rather than economic competition. Talk about how we need to take advantage of our source of strength in diversity. Be aspirational, positive, and talk about embracing our differences. And explicitly talk about those differences—e.g., “no matter what race someone is, where they come from, their religion, or whom they love.”

Consider these examples:

Our country’s strength stems from its diversity and the contributions made by men and women of different faiths, races, sexual orientations and political beliefs. America’s leaders must honor our fundamental values by clearly rejecting expressions of hatred, bigotry and group supremacy, which run counter to the American ideal that all people are created equal.

— Kenneth C. Frazier, chairman and CEO, Merck

Mr. President – we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was domestic terrorism.

— U.S. Senator Corey Gardner (CO)

Our nation is defined by the march of progress. Our strength lies in our diversity. We must reject hate.

– U.S. Rep. Nancy Pelosi (CA)

Name White Supremacy, Bigotry, Hate, and Terrorism

It’s important to accurately call out white supremacy and supremacists, racists and racism, Nazis and Nazism, bigotry, and hate where they exist.  Terms like “nationalism” and “alt-right” do not carry the power or accuracy of these more specific terms. Similarly, we should name “terrorism” wherever it occurs, and whoever the alleged perpetrators.  For example:

White supremacist violence is an unconscionable part of our nation’s history, but we cannot allow it to poison our future. Our nation’s leadership, on both sides of the aisle, must not only forcefully condemn it, but work actively and affirmatively to stop it.

—NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund

What happened in Charlottesville is an act of terrorism pure and simple. This is one all too familiar to our country’s history. We’re standing with the peaceful protesters in Charlottesville, with our 1 million members across the country and with everyone tonight heartbroken like us. Let’s work together to ensure that tomorrow we don’t continue to replicate the horrors of the past.

—Color of Change

Call out the history and spectrum of systemic racism in this administration and beyond

While the events in Charlottesville were terrible and dramatic, bigotry, white supremacy and bias are imbedded in our political and other institutions in ways that must be called out and explicitly linked. They include:

  • Documented white supremacists in positions of power in the Trump Administration, including White House advisors Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka; Kris Kobach, vice chair of Trump’s election commission, who has documented connections to hate groups and a history of anti-immigrant and voter suppression activism, and Attorney General Jeff Sessions, who has spent his career undermining civil rights, and according to congressional testimony “used the n-word and joked about the Ku Klux Klan, saying he thought they were ‘okay, until he learned that they smoked marijuana.’”
  • Donald Trump’s long and well-documented history of racism and bigotry, including denying that President Obama was born in the U.S.; contending that Judge Gonzalo Curiel could not rule on a case against him because of the Judge’s Mexican heritage; failing to disavow the support of Klansman David Duke; continually referring to U.S. Senator Elizabeth Warren as “Pocahontas”; disparaging Muslim Americans; labeling Mexican-Americans as “rapists” and other slurs.
  • The Trump Administration’s unconstitutional “Muslim ban,” held by federal courts to be intentionally discriminatory based on religion.
  • Action by the Trump Administration and Justice Department, led by Jeff Sessions, to abandon vigorous civil rights enforcement through consent decrees and other approaches; to challenge higher education diversity policies as discriminatory against whites; slashing civil rights enforcement by the Departments of Labor, Education, EPA, and other entities.
  • The Trump Administration’s bogus “Election Integrity” Commission, led by Kris Kobach, rooted in a falsehood about non-existent voting problems, which has sought invasive voting information from the states and is clearly designed to infringe the voting rights of citizens of color.
  • Attempts in many states to violate the voting rights of people of color, to exclude Muslims, and persecute immigrants, as well as the many hate crimes that have occurred around the country over the past year and have been ignored by this President and his administration.

Consider these examples of effective messaging:

President Trump’s press conference and tweets today are not enough. He must take responsibility for his role in propagating white nationalist ideology and fueling their movement. We call on him to immediately denounce the white supremacy movement by name and remove those who condone white supremacy, like Steve Bannon and Sebastian Gorka, from the White House. Their mere presence, and their prime roles in fanning these flames of bigotry, is a silent endorsement of this violence. There is only one side of hate, vulgarity, and violence.

—Muslim Advocates

I’m sure white supremacists remain reassured that they have a friend in the White House. A president who spews vitriol and heaps scorn on his enemies virtually every day – and who has no trouble calling Mexicans killers and “rapists” – still can’t break off the unholy alliance with bigots that he’s been cultivating since he first claimed President Obama’s birth certificate was bogus.

— Richard Cohen, Southern Poverty Law Center

Reject Attempts to Dodge or Divide

Call out attempts to divide us, without repeating the other side’s message. An effective message from our research includes:

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

Lift up Positive Solutions

After condemning the problem, turn to positive solutions, including systemic change. This can include, for example, removing white supremacy and its proponents, root and branch, from the government; aggressive civil rights and anti-hate crimes enforcement; upholding voting rights and dismantling the discriminatory “election integrity commission”; abandoning wrongheaded attacks on university diversity policies; ending the “Muslim ban” and halting attacks on sanctuary cities.

Beyond the administration, it’s crucial to demand that all policymakers and institutions reject and proactively eradicate supremacist, discriminatory, and exclusionary policies. It is unacceptable for any leader—governmental, business, faith, or otherwise—to remain silent in the fact of this crucial moment for the country. We must demand that leaders and institutions throughout our nation take a stand against white supremacy and bigotry, including inside their institutions.

Building Values-based Messages

We recommend structuring messages with a Values, Problem, Solution, Action formula. For example:

Value
Our country’s greatest strength is the diversity of our people and the principles of equal dignity and inclusion that unite us all.

Problem
The hatred and terrorism that we saw in Charlottesville are terrible reminders that white supremacy is a dangerous threat to our nation and our values. President Trump’s flawed and feeble response only reinforces the unacceptable pattern of bigotry in his rhetoric, among his advisors like Steve Bannon and Kris Kobach, and in policies like the “Muslim ban” and the undermining of voting rights.

Solution
The President must not only condemn white supremacy, bigotry, and violence, but also rid his administration of supremacists and their ideology, and commit to a policy agenda of equal justice and inclusion.

Action
Contact President Trump today to demand clear action for unity and inclusion in his administration and throughout our country.

​

5 Key Facts: Online Discussion of Immigration in The Trump Era

​

 Introduction

As we enter the half way point of Donald Trump’s first year as president, the ripple effects of the new Administration’s policies have been far reaching. From the Muslim travel ban, to attempts to dismantle women’s reproductive rights, healthcare, and social safety nets—few have gone untouched in the past 6 months. In the face of these challenges, people across the country have rallied together to challenge the Administration’s attacks on freedom and democracy. Just this week, 45 states refused to provide Trump’s administration with voter data.

It is clear that transformative change is still possible and a collective future based on the shared values of diversity and inclusion is still very much within reach. However, central to our success will be understanding how to effectively reach persuadable audiences, and help them distinguish between legitimate policy concerns and the fearmongering that has come to characterize the Trump era. This requires a nuanced understanding of how Americans are currently thinking and talking about immigration, diversity, and demographic change.

In an effort to provide immigrant advocates, activists, and policymakers with a fuller understanding of attitudes toward immigration and related issues in the current social and political climate, we conducted a social media analysis of online discussions in the United States between January 1st 2015 and January 1st 2017.

The objectives of this research were:

  • To map trends and shifts in online discussions of immigration, immigrant communities (specifically Latino and Muslim communities), and demographic change over a two-year period;
  • Identify potential narrative openings to counter negative stereotypes and key influencers currently challenging toxic rhetoric online;
  • Identify persuadable audiences and narratives that appeal to this segment of the online population.

Our findings indicate that online discussion of immigration, diversity, and demographic change have become more interconnected with discussion of terrorism and crime. The presidential campaign and election of Donald Trump appear to have played a direct role in this new interrelationship. Despite these troubling findings, social media is also emerging as a space where communities of color, Muslim Americans, women, and other traditionally marginalized groups are turning to express their own fears and challenge divisive rhetoric.

Methodology

The analysis of social media data was conducted using Crimson Hexagon, a leading social media analytics software which provides access to publicly available social media data including, but not limited to Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, blogs, forums/popular message boards such as Reddit, and mainstream news article comments, reviews, and YouTube comments. Crimson Hexagon enables users to create monitors for any topic or set of phrases and establish customized timeframes for data analysis. Once a monitor is established, Crimson Hexagon’s algorithm categorizes relevant social media data – identifying content volume trends, patterns in conversation, demographics, sentiment shift over time, and audience segment interests/affinities. Interests and affinities are generated by analyzing the social media habits of audiences partaking in particular online discussions (i.e. what brands, topics, or media sources this audience segment tends to share, which can then be compared to other audience segments.)

Using Crimson Hexagon, we examined online discussions of immigration, immigrant communities, and race/diversity in relation to issues of terrorism and crime between January 1st 2015 to January 1st 2017. In order to track how discussions concerning immigration and particular immigrant communities have shifted in the last two years, we created a buzz monitor[1] that included the phrases “immigration,” “immigrant,” “undocumented immigration,” “diversity,” and related terms. The goal of examining these broad terms was to examine how general discussions of these issues and communities have shifted in the last two years, identify when and how immigration and particular immigrant communities are discussed in the context of crime or terrorism, and identify potential openings for countering stereotypes and fear-based narratives.

The two-year timeframe enabled us to examine longitudinal data and identify more long-term patterns in the data. In the overall data population (which consisted of 59,246,987 posts), the majority of analyzed data originated from Twitter (76 percent of total sample), forums and blog post comments (18 percent of total sample), news article comments (6 percent of total sample), and other social media sites such as Facebook and Google Plus (3 percent of total sample). Sampled social media posts are accompanied by a Klout score, which is a number from 1 to 100 that represents how influential the person sharing the content is. Based on share of audience and reach, the more influential a person, the higher the Klout Score.

Key findings from our latest analysis include:

1. There has been a steady increase in the volume of online engagement around immigration and related topics within the last two years, with significant spikes in engagement following extremist attacks.

Over the past two years, over 59 million tweets, Facebook posts, and forum/blog/news comments have been written about immigration, immigrants, race and diversity in the U.S. On average, roughly 2 million social media posts involving immigration, immigrants, and broader discussions of diversity and race were posted each month in the United States during the period of time we studied.

Between June 2015 and November 2016, there was a steady increase in the level of engagement in online discussions of immigration, immigrants, and related topics and three significant spikes in the volume of posts: November 2015, June 2016, and November 2016. The first two spikes in online engagement were a direct result of international and domestic attacks carried out by extremists – the first taking place in Paris, France in November 2015 and the second in an Orlando, Florida nightclub on June 12th 2016. The final spike in online engagement took place in November 2016 as a result of Donald Trump’s unexpected victory over Hillary Clinton in the presidential election.

2. The framing of online discussion of immigration has shifted dramatically since the start of Trump’s presidential campaign, with sharp increases in references to “illegal immigrants”, “illegal alien”, and “Muslim” within online content.

Reactions to domestic and international attacks on civilians and inflammatory statements made by Donald Trump have set the tone for the vast majority of online discussions concerning immigration and related topics in the last 12 months. Figures 2 to 4 depict a cluster of the most common phrases associated with immigration and immigrants in the United States from January 2015 to November 2016, with the larger words representing phrases which feature more heavily in online content.

As seen in Figure 2, at the onset of 2015, while discussions of “illegal,” “aliens,” and “Muslim” in relation to “terrorism” were present in online discourse, talk of “reform,” “amnesty,” and “uslatino” also featured heavily in online content. However, by December 2015 following the attacks in Paris, there was a significant shift in online discourse with “trump” and “realdonaldtrump” emerging as central phrases linked to overall discussions of immigration, alongside a more direct link between references to “immigration” with “terrorism,” “illegal,” and “ban”. As of November 2016, references to “trump” feature heavily as well as talk of “illegals” and a closer link between discussions of “Muslims” with “Latino” and “Hispanic” people.

Between January 2015 and January 2017, the percentage of posts making reference to “illegal immigrants” or “illegal alien” increased from 4 percent to 10 percent of total posts within our monitor. As shown in Table 1, as of December 2016, references to “Muslims” and “illegal immigrants” dominate online discussions of immigration and immigrant communities within our monitor.

 

Table 1: Topic List: December 2016 Showing data from 10,000 posts

3. The majority of audiences engaging in online discussions concerning immigration reside in states with the highest concentration of immigrants in the country.

Using Crimson Hexagon’s demographic feature, we examined the location, gender, age, and race of audiences engaging in discussions about immigration and related issues online. From the total sample, 30,786,770 posts had an identifiable location. The majority of audiences engaging in online discussions concerning immigration, immigrants, and related topics are located in California (15.39 percent of sampled content), New York (10.28 percent), Texas (10.14 percent), Florida (7.29 percent), and the District of Columbia (4.23 percent).

4. A significant portion of individuals engaging in online discussion of immigration are people of color.

Roughly 75 percent of those engaging online are 35 and above (based on an analysis of 1 million posts), 8 percent are between 25-34, 10 percent are 18-24, and 7 percent are 17 or younger. In terms of race and ethnicity, online users skew heavily white, however there is a significant portion of Asian and Black people engaging in these online discussions. Currently, roughly 65 percent of online audiences discussing immigration and related issues are white, 16 percent are Black, 11 percent Asian, and 7 percent are Latino[1].

5. While conservative media outlets represent a significant portion of Twitter mentions and retweets, progressive and pro-immigrant voices have gained significant traction in recent months in terms of share of the total online conversation.

This following section provides an overview of the key Twitter influencers driving some of the online discussions around immigration, immigrant communities, race, and diversity more broadly. Top influencers on Twitter are the most active authors in a conversation over a particular time period, regardless of their influence (Klout) score. Influence on Twitter is determined by an author’s volume of tweets related to a given topic.

Recently, top mentions on Twitter related to immigration and immigrant communities, including discussions of Muslim and Latino communities, have been dominated by right-wing media outlets such as Breitbart and FoxNews (as seen in Figure 5).  However, many of these mentions emerge in the context of individuals critiquing these outlets for anti-immigrant coverage. In addition, a significant portion of retweets from the month of December 2016 have come from progressive activists, comedians, or political commentators calling for unity and resistance in the wake Donald Trump’s election. JLUSA founder Glenn Beck, Modern Family actor Jesse Tyler Ferguson, and writer and political activist Shaun King are just some of the progressives speaking out in recent months and actively countering anti-immigrant and racist rhetoric.

Recommendations

These findings present several important implications for messaging and audience engagement around immigration and diversity in America.

  • Educate active online progressives to steer clear of myth-busting: Myth-busting currently occupies a significant portion of online communications made by the progressive community, particularly in reaction to political events. For instance, online discussions of immigration see significant spikes in the wake of domestic or international attacks carried out by extremists, particularly those self-identifying (or are identified by the media) as Muslim. Progressives online often seek to dispel or counter negative stereotypes in the wake of these attacks, but are unknowingly contributing to the negative association of immigration/immigrant communities with terrorism. Online progressives need to be educated about the pitfalls of myth-busting and reinforcing the narratives of the opposition.
  • Focus on implicit bias and structural discrimination: In recent months, discussions of implicit bias and attempts to define racism have become prominent in online discourse related to immigration and diversity in America – representing an important shift in the level of sophistication around these issue areas. As seen in the two sample tweets below, talk of implicit bias and structural racism has gained significant traction among key online audiences (particularly fans of progressive comedians and actors such as Aziz Ansari). This represents an important opening for advocates seeking to promote new campaigns or activate key online audiences.

  • Leverage collective concern: Much of the online discussions since the election of Donald Trump have focused on people expressing their fear and anxiety about the new administration. This form of expression has been highly intersectional and focused on the collective concern faced by women, Latino and Muslim communities, people of color, and LGBTQ people. For example, in November 2016, the following tweet from Mason Smith was shared over 100K times, while a tweet shared on the same day by activist Shaun King was shared over 42,000 times. Leveraging this emerging collective concern is critical to advocates seeking to develop messaging that galvanizes concerned audiences while uplifting positive values of diversity and unity.

  • Activate Christians and faith leaders: References to “Christians” now occupy roughly 4 percent of overall discussion on immigration and immigrant communities (as seen in Table 1). Many online commentators have pointed to the seeming disconnect between the teaching of Christianity and the rising anti-immigrant sentiment that has come to characterize Trump’s rise to prominence. In addition, the pro-immigration messages of Pope Francis have been shared frequently in recent weeks, highlighting the rising importance of faith leaders and communities in countering anti-immigrant rhetoric.

 

[1] However, the lower percentage of Latinos is likely due the limitations of Crimson Hexagon’s racial categorization, specifically the difficulty in accurately assigning racial/ethnic categories to Latino users.

​

Speaking Out on SB4, Texas’ Harmful Racial Profiling Law

​

Last week, the city of Houston joined other Texas cities in a lawsuit challenging the state’s discriminatory new law, SB4. Dubbed an “anti-sanctuary city” measure, the law prohibits cities, towns, and even campus police departments from pursuing inclusion and integration of immigrant students and community members. Specifically, SB4 makes it illegal for municipalities and campus police departments to instruct their staff not to question the nationality and immigration status of the people they serve. The law also forces localities and campus police departments to allow their staff to provide people’s nationality and other personal information to Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), even when those entities have decided that doing so would be harmful to their residents, students, and mission. If it is not stopped, SB4 will go into effect on September 1, 2017.

It’s crucial that social justice leaders, organizations, and everyday people raise their voices to reverse or repeal this unconstitutional and harmful law in Texas, and to ensure that it is not adopted in other states or localities. To help in those communications, The Opportunity Agenda offers the communications tips and resources that follow. For additional communications tools and insights, visit our website.

  • Lead with Shared Values. New research by The Opportunity Agenda, National Council of La Raza (NCLR), and Lake Research Partners shows that leading with the foundational values of dignity, freedom, respect, and opportunity is important to overcoming fear and divisiveness about immigrants and immigration. Also crucial (including among skeptical audiences) is the idea that diversity is one of our nation’s (and state’s) greatest strengths, making us stronger and helping us to solve tough problems together. Read the findings here.
  • Explain how SB4 promotes discrimination that hurts us all. Explain that this law is harmful and divisive, and that it encourages discrimination. Highlight that “no matter who someone is, the accent they have, or their background,” everyone should be treated fairly and equally under the law. Note that we are stronger when everyone’s dignity and rights are respected, and this law drags us backward in the wrong direction.
  • Acknowledge frustration and offer real solutions. Many persuadable audiences who have concerns about SB4’s discriminatory nature are also worried about job competition and strains on our safety net. It’s often important to acknowledge the legitimate aspects of those concerns and point to solutions that move us all forward together, like worker protections and investing in opportunity for all communities.

Building on language tested by NCLR and The Opportunity Agenda, consider this sample messaging which is structured as a “VPSA” (Value, Problem, Solution Action):

“America is a nation of values, founded on an idea – that all men and women are created equal. And while we all have our circles, whether they are our family, co-workers, or friends on Facebook, how we treat others outside of our circles reflects our commitment to the values that define us as Americans. It’s not about what you look like or where you were born that makes you American – it’s how you live your life and what you do that defines you here in this country. We are better, as people, and as a country, when we welcome our neighbors, care for each other, and help those in need. We are better when we embrace our differences.”

“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. Politicians play on this fear, trying to divide us. They push unwise and divisive ideas like forcing towns and schools to enforce federal immigration laws instead of pursuing their residents’ interest. If we take the bait on these, 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. 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.”

​

Ten Tips for Putting Intersectionality into Practice

We all deserve to have our voices heard; our faces and experiences reflected in culture and media; and our unique needs addressed through relevant policies. However, when we fail to incorporate intersectionality into our everyday practices and policies, we leave parts of our communities behind.

Intersectionality, a term coined by Kimberlé Williams Crenshaw, recognizes that certain individuals face multiple and intersecting forms of structural discrimination. In this political climate marked by division and anxiety, it’s important for us to work together to incorporate different communities’ experiences with culture, policies, and media.

We’ve compiled ten tips for putting intersectionality into practice to promote opportunity for individuals and communities who face multiple and intersecting forms of discrimination. This list can serve as a starting point for social justice advocates, policymakers, journalists, and researchers interested in incorporating an intersectional approach in their work.

1. MULTIPLE STRUGGLES

Recognize that there are multiple forms of systemic discrimination that block people from realizing equal opportunity in the United States.

An intersectional approach acknowledges systemic discrimination due to sexual orientation and identity, gender and gender identity, race, economic status, immigration status, national origin, and ability, among other aspects of one’s identity, and that this systemic discrimination impacts access to opportunity. However, recognizing these multiple, systemic barriers to opportunity and multiple forms of prejudice is only the first step in adopting an intersectional approach.

2. INTERSECTING OPPRESSIONS

Appreciate that forms of systemic discrimination intersect with each other and present unique challenges for affected individuals and communities.

In the real world, people are often subject not only to discrimination based on multiple aspects of their identity such as their race, gender, and immigration status, but also to discrimination unique to the “intersection” of their identities. So, for example, the stereotypes and obstacles faced by a Latina immigrant differ from those faced by women of other races, native-born Latinas, or immigrant Latino men. Intersectionality goes beyond acknowledging the multiple forms of discrimination, and recognizes that the different forms of discrimination may intersect with each other and result in overlapping and reinforcing barriers to opportunity. These overlap- ping systems result in unique forms of discrimination that only impact those in that particular community. An intersectional approach might include focusing on the unique challenges that those who sit at the intersections of overlapping systems of discrimination face, such as Black immigrants (who face both racial discrimination and discrimination because of their immigration status) or homeless transgender young people (who face discrimination because of their gender identity, age, and housing status).

IN ACTION: Reproductive care facilities in a rural town in Texas close because of state-wide abortion restrictions. An advocate committed to intersectionality would not only look at how  the restrictions impact women generally, but also how particular communities of women in Texas are impacted. For example, an advocate might write an op-ed about how low-income Mexican American women in a rural community in the South are unable to obtain reproductive care because they cannot afford to drive to the nearest medical provider for reproductive care. This op-ed could also describe how these women are hesitant to drive to the community with a facility because its sheriff is notorious for profiling and arresting individuals whom he suspects are undocumented based on their race. Writing about this community of women highlights how abortion restrictions uniquely affect this particular group due to the intersection of economic barriers and discrimination based on gender, race, and perceived immigration status. It is vital to highlight how they face multiple and intersecting barriers to their reproductive health beyond how women, generally, are impacted by the Texas restrictions. Further, advocates could organize and develop policy solutions to address the issues these women face to ensure that the discussion about reproductive rights includes the experiences of women who face particular forms of harm while connecting economic, racial, and immigrant structural discrimination. The benefit of this op-ed might include encouraging new alliances, promoting solutions that consider the unique perspectives of different stakeholders, and centering their voices and experiences in the discourses about the issue. Taking an intersectional approach allows social justice leaders to focus on solutions informed by the experiences and voices of these women; engages and activates new audiences in ways that resonate with their experiences and values; and supports and uplifts the voices of these women within alliances, at town halls, social media, and letters to the editor.

IN ACTION: In The Opportunity Agenda report, “Public Opinion and Discourse on the Inter- section of LGBT Issues and Race,” we looked at current public opinion and the role of ethnic and new media in both perpetuating and challenging myths and biases about LGBTQ people. The report examined the unique issues that LGBTQ people of color face and demonstrates an approach to research that is sensitive to intersectionality. Likewise, Black Lives Matter co-founder Alicia Garza adopts an intersectional approach to policing issues affecting black people and other people of color across sexual identity, immigration, and gender by advocating for a movement against police violence that includes the voices of black queer people, black people who are undocumented, and black immigrants.

IN ACTION: In The Opportunity Agenda report, “Reproductive Justice: A Communications Overview,” we describe several case studies that illustrate how campaigns have successfully adopted an intersectional approach in obtaining reproductive justice wins. For example:

  • “Over the course of five years, from 2003 to 2008, the prevalence of rapes and sexual assaults on Indian reservations and the federal government’s dismal failure to investigate and prosecute these crimes went from being unknown to all but the victims and their families to being the subject of federal legislation. The issue’s movement from obscurity to the federal policy agenda happened in large part because of the efforts of the Native American Women’s Health Education Resource Center (NAWHERC) and other Native women advocates, and communications played an important role. Their success was based on a communications strategy that combined four components:

     

    1. Raising awareness within the National Congress of American Indians, the principal advocacy organization for American Indian and Alaska Native rights;
    2. Partnering with a human-rights organization with the resources to investigate, issue a report, and generate media coverage;
    3. Positioning themselves as the go-to experts on the issue;
    4. Engaging in media advocacy.”

3. VOICE

Respect the voice of those most affected by issues by centering their voices, respecting their goals for their communities, and stepping aside and allowing them to serve as spokespeople for their own causes.

Intersectionality requires recognition of the voice of those most directly impacted, because they are frequently excluded from mainstream conversations. Valuing voice means lifting up, promoting, and supporting the leadership and storytelling of those most affected by policies and practices and centering their substantive suggestions and values into any given project and media advocacy. Impacted communities have direct experience that makes them thought leaders in the movement for social justice. Valuing voice allows those who are affected by policies to play a substantial role in building their own story.

IN ACTION: Being formerly incarcerated in our society is, in and of itself, a particular identity that affects how an individual navigates life. The barriers to opportunity that system-involved people face are in many respects their own unique form of systemic discrimination. Criminal justice reformers should consider consulting formerly incarcerated individuals and others directly affected by arrests and imprisonment, such as family members, people on sex-related registries, and crime victims and survivors, before making criminal justice policies. For example, there has been growing awareness about the harmful practices that criminalize poverty through the incarceration of low-income individuals because they are unable to pay excessive civil court fines and fees. Projects focused on reforming these practices might consult judges and lawyers about local municipal court practices that criminalize poverty. This project could also include consultations with family members of women of color who have been incarcerated because they were unable to pay civil court fines or individuals who have been incarcerated and solicit their input for policy recommendations that respond to their unique challenges within the legal system.

IN ACTION: Policymakers should consult women before making reproductive health policies. The history of reproductive health movement in the United States is the perfect example of how important voice is. The movement started out as a pro-choice movement that arguably failed to adopt an intersectional approach until the onset of the reproductive justice movement, which made sure to consider the reproductive oppression of women of color, immigrants, LGBTQ communities, and others in vulnerable, marginalized situations when fighting for reproductive rights. The reproductive justice movement went beyond abortion rights and incorporated intersectionality to address issues of access to female reproductive health care, immigrants’ rights, LGBTQ, sex worker rights, amongst many others. As a whole, the reproductive justice movement goes beyond the right to not have a child and includes the right to have children and the right to raise them in safe environments. In this way, the reproductive health movement transitioned from one dominated by the voice of middle-class, white women to include the voices of LGBTQ people, people of color, and low-income women.

4. INCLUSIVITY

Be inclusive and incorporate different perspectives when talking about your issues.

When speaking about issues, it is critical to recognize that there are multiple voices within a movement; that there is no singular way of experiencing an issue; and that various voices and perspectives need to be considered in order to make real, lasting, and equitable change. For example, when speaking about the need to promote accountable policing, advocates should be mindful to uplift the experiences of Native American individuals, transgender communities, and women to ensure that the movement is inclusive, as their experiences within the system are often different, play into different narratives, and require different policing solutions. The “success” of an intersectional approach may be as simple as ensuring different voices are included in the dominant discourse about an issue, or identifying ways that different communities experience policies and laws.

IN ACTION: Community activists who are concerned that an undocumented woman in their community with a prior arrest for shoplifting will be deported, might stage a direct action to develop a public narrative about the perils of increasing criminalization of the immigration system and to highlight how community members like this woman will be impacted. Following this action, they might organize community members to attend town hall meetings with their federal and local legislators, and host a Twitter chat to highlight that this country should be welcoming to immigrants and should give even those with past mistakes a second chance. Community members’ advocacy for this woman might include the voices of undocumented people who are college graduates and professionals who talk about their experiences being undocumented, but it should also be inclusive of individuals with different backgrounds to move beyond narratives of the “good immigrant” and the “deserving few.” Here, being intersectional ensures that we do not inadvertently throw anyone under the bus by promoting short-term objectives that undermine our long-term goal of expanding opportunity for everyone and respecting everyone’s dignity.

5. FAMILY

Acknowledge that individuals with intersectional identities may face unique challenges in how their families are perceived and in building and sustaining their families.

An intersectional approach recognizes the importance of family, and that families are defined by those creating and sustaining them. Assessing whether there are unique impacts on the family allows for policies that ensure that those they care for the most are protected. Furthermore, women often play an integral role as care providers to children and other family members, and it is important to recognize all family structures and kinds of parents regardless of sexual or gender identity, marital status, age or biological connection to children (in the case of adoptive families, grandparents raising kids, step-parents, etc.) in making this assessment.

IN ACTION: A reporter who covers criminal justice issues doing a profile of a black woman who has been wrongfully incarcerated might consider whether this woman was a primary caregiver prior to her incarceration. The reporter might consider whether the woman has lost child custody, and research whether parental termination rates are high in her community because women of color are being racially profiled. By doing so, the reporter is able to tell a systemic story about how families are also being impacted by racially discriminatory criminal justice practices and make the connection to how the incarceration of black women destabilizes families and jeopardizes child custody, particularly within families of color that may be facing challenges due to systemic discrimination. This story might include the perspective of family members, and consider the generational impact of criminal justice policies.

6. DISAGGREGATED DATA

Ensure that data collection does not overlook the experiences of individuals with intersectional identities.

We should encourage our government to be transparent and accountable. One way to do this is to require data from government actors. This data can be disaggregated by age, race, religion, sex, gender, gender identity/expression, housing status, sexual orientation, HIV status, ethnicity, sexuality, immigration status, national origin, and religious affiliation, depending on the actor and the accountability needs of the community. Often data is unable to tell the story of communities that sit at the intersections because the data only focuses on singular aspects of their identity. Highlighting the importance of disaggregated data ensures that the experiences of communities with intersectional identities are not missing and can be uplifted. It protects the voices of those who are directly impacted by ensuring their unique experiences are recorded. It is also important to disaggregate data within groups—e.g., while Asian Americans generally fair relatively well in terms of educational outcomes, there are significant differences among Asian American nationalities, with Hmong, Laotian, and Vietnamese children facing particularly steep challenges. The “model minority” stereotype about Asian Americans tends to obscure this reality.

Researchers should be sensitive to the need for disaggregated data in public opinion research and in gathering research samples. Wherever possible, it is important to “oversample” groups (and the intersection of identities) that might not otherwise be represented in adequate numbers to draw statistically valid conclusions. This “oversample” is simply an appropriate sample of these groups, which allows researchers to make inferences about groups that are often silenced by more traditional sampling approaches.

IN ACTION: If a civilian review compliant board interested in addressing gender discrimination in policing publishes reports about women who have been subject to excessive force, but fails to publish disaggregated data about the instances of excessive force that involve Latina women or Asian women, these women with intersectional identities are not reflected in the data. This type of data collection effectively silences the experiences of individuals who face prejudice because of skin color, ethnicity, and gender.

7. INTERSECTING ISSUES & CROSS-ISSUES

Be open to thinking creatively about social justice issues, assessing how issues connect with seemingly unrelated topics, and considering how they may have unintended consequences for other areas.

Criminal justice issues are related to public health issues, and public health issues to poverty, and poverty to immigration and so on. Incorporating a truly intersectional approach requires routinely considering how various issues may be impacted, how they connect with each other, and whether one approach with one issue area will somehow undermine efforts by those working on a different, but intersecting issue area. Promoting access to opportunity requires deliberate consideration of how seemingly unrelated issues areas connect.

IN ACTION: The Immigrant Defense Project works to promote fairness and justice for immigrants in the United States and examines how issues within the criminal legal system have a unique impact on immigrants. Its work cuts across the issues of immigration and criminal justice.

IN ACTION: The Sex Workers Project is a project of the Urban Justice Center that works across the intersection of sex workers’ rights, human trafficking, policing, and LGBTQ rights. The project provides direct services to immigrant sex workers, who police frequently profile because of their appearance.

IN ACTION: Organizations that do not explicitly work across different issues may nonetheless form partnerships with organizations that work on issues that impact their communities. A group of lawmakers interested in providing bail funds for incarcerated women of color may develop a relationship with community organizations that focus on enhancing child welfare and monitoring group homes to develop a campaign to ensure that primary care providers are not incarcerated for minor offenses. These lawmakers might pass legislation that provides funds for organizations to promote collaborations that are intersectional. Funders can similarly provide funding, host convenings, and encourage groups to work in non-traditional ways.

8. COLLABORATION

Strive to collaborate with people and/or provide resources for people from different communities, issue areas, and sectors to promote transformative change.

Intersectionality should encourage cross-community, cross-sector and cross-issue collaborations, investing equally in each others’ issues, narrative goals and policy agendas. Activists, advocates, lawyers, artists, scholars, cultural workers, and strategists should work with each other collaboratively alongside those directly impacted. These types of collaborations encourage innovative solutions, expand networks, and encourage transformative change.

IN ACTION: The relationship between grassroots activists in Flint, scientists in Virginia, lawyers in Detroit, and a determined pediatrician from Michigan led to the public exposure of the Flint water crisis. Collaborations that allow individuals to work across disciplines and issue areas may lead to innovative findings, policy recommendations, and cultural works as well as a more complete understanding and eventual solution to the issue(s). Funders for social change should move beyond traditional models to promote collaborations that may bring together unlikely allies.

IN ACTION: Organizers from Black Lives Matter and the Movement for Black Lives and organizers for border communities, such as the Southern Border Communities Coalition, have been fighting against the harms of a militarized and weaponized police force. While in different spaces, these organizers’ ability to develop a shared narrative about the harms of militarized police in the face of an unaccountable police force may prove to be an effective way for building support against the increasing militarization of police. Furthermore, organizations that work with sex workers, such as the Sex Workers Project, might also speak out about militarized police and speak about their experiences with federal agents during raids, where militarized equipment is used in order to create a drumbeat about the problems associated with a militarized police.

9. HEALTH

Consider how discrimination and systemic inequality contribute to differing health outcomes and block access to healthy food, clean water, and fresh air.

The health of communities that face intersectional forms of discrimination is often overlooked. One practical way to put intersectionality into practice is to ask whether the particular health needs of individuals and communities that face overlapping and intersecting forms of oppression are being met. Looking at health data in terms of the intersections of race, ethnicity, and gender, for example, might reveal that Afro-Latinas are experiencing unique challenges that are different from Black or Latino communities or from Afro-Latino men. Similarly, Asian American women face unique risks of ovarian cancer and screening methods developed for white women don’t meet Asian American women’s health needs.

IN ACTION: After Hurricane Katrina, it came to light that a Vietnamese community had been living in a part of New Orleans particularly prone to water contamination, and were doubly hit by the floods. This was having adverse health effects, but it was harder for them to get help because, due to language barriers, they weren’t as aware of how to access health care and there weren’t enough translators.

10. COMMUNITY

While working in collaboration, highlight the importance of coming together as a community to achieve equal opportunity.

Intersectionality should highlight the importance of community. Community is a salient value for many Americans. Intersectionality recognizes this connection to community and amplifies the importance of ensuring that all members of the community are respected and enjoy access to opportunity. We should strive to include everyone in our work toward promoting social justice. We are all in the fight together and should develop narratives that ensure that none of us get left behind. Building community and encouraging alliances, coalitions, and looking out for each other will help us solve problems.

Tips for Talking About Law Enforcement Enhanced Penalty Laws

​

 Protect Community Safety by Rejecting Enhanced Penalties1

We all want safe communities and to feel protected and secure. Violence against anyone threatens that, and we all have a responsibility to stop, prevent, and condemn violence in any form.

But the recently proposed laws that require enhanced penalties for offenses involving law enforcement officials don’t do that. There are already adequate laws that ensure that those who compromise police officer safety are penalized, making enhanced penalty laws wasteful and unnecessary. Moreover, these proposed laws have additional consequences that harm communities in the long run. They impair the relationship between police and communities, interfere with people’s ability to come together as a community in peaceful demonstrations and protests, and they do nothing to improve officer wellness.

Legislators should vote no on these proposed laws that would only end up hurting communities. Instead, lawmakers should focus on policies that improve the relationship between police and communities, and that improve officer wellness and health.

Vote no on these bills and uphold true community safety.

Value at Stake: Community Safety2

1. Enhanced penalty laws would compromise community safety and impair the relationship between community members and the police.

  • In a time when the public is interested in more accountable and responsible policing, enhanced penalty laws would only impair community relations and create a legitimacy crisis, wherein community members perceive police officers as attempting to become a “protected class” that is above the law.
  • Enhanced penalty laws are often described as hate crime statutes, which intend to protect those who have experienced a “long legacy of violence, intimidation, and discrimination.” Using these laws, which are intended to protect people against discrimination because of their skin color, faith, LGBTQ status, or the fact that they have a disability, will only drive a wedge between law enforcement officers and the community.
  • Instead, lawmakers should address “rifts in the relationships between local police and the communities they protect and serve.”
  • We need to address excessive force, biased policing and other police practices failing our communities.
  • We need to address the 1,092 people killed by police in 2015 as estimated by The Guardian.

2. Officer wellness and safety can be enhanced by improving officer training and promoting best practices. 

  • The Task Force on 21st Century Policing set forth 17 recommendations to promote officer safety that include training and best practices.
  • We should invest in officer and community wellness and safety instead of spending $80 billion a year on mass incarceration.

Sample Message:

  • It is incredibly important to ensure that law enforcement officers are safe so they can carry out their duties effectively. These types of bills do nothing to invest in officer wellness or to address the everyday challenges faced by officers. They are redundant, especially because there are laws that protect officers from violence in all 50 states.

Sample Message:

  • We need policies that protect everyone, law enforcement and community members alike — and a commitment to working together to build safe communities. These kinds of bills would only erode police-community relationships and thus threaten safety for both the community and police officers.
  • Rather than take seriously the concerns communities have about the police officer’s use of excessive force, discriminatory policing, and lack of accountability for police violence, these bills further criminalize communities and will only worsen policy-community tensions.
  • At a time when our country needs to build unity, these bills sow division between police and the communities that they protect, serve, and rely on. They will only make the job of law enforcement harder than it already is.
  • Instead of providing a bridge for communication, proponents of these bills are only isolating communities and stifling the necessary dialogue that could lead to safer communities and safer law enforcement officers.

Values at Stake: Pragmatism and Commonsense Solutions

3. Enhanced penalty laws are wasteful and unnecessary.

  • All 50 states have laws that make it a serious crime to assault or kill law enforcement officers.
  • Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1114) requires the death penalty or a life sentence for killing a federal officer.
  • Federal law (18 U.S.C. § 1121) imposes a death or life sentence for killing a local officer involved in a federal investigation.

4. Enhanced penalty laws would fuel mass incarceration.

  • These laws could result in hundreds of new offenses and federalize crimes already prosecuted by the states.
  • Some of these bills impose mandatory minimums for assault.
  • Some of these bills impose the death penalty though capital punishment, which has not proven to be a deterrent.

Sample Message

  • Our current criminal justice system is overly punitive, costly, and racially biased. This type of legislation would only exacerbate these aspects of the system and is counterproductive to ongoing efforts to put in place smart, commonsense reforms that will make the system more fair and efficient and keep Americans safe.

Values at Stake: Human Rights and Our Constitution

5. These laws threaten free speech and assembly.

  • Being able to come together as a community in peaceful demonstrations and protests is a foundational value that is enshrined in the first amendment of our Constitution. This value is core to our identity as a nation.
  • However, law enforcement officers have at times created barriers in the exercise of speech by responding to demonstrations with militarized equipment, aggression, and widespread arrests. This type of response often threatens the exercise of free speech and violates the human rights of protestors.
  • Enhanced penalty laws would increase the penalties for people facing trumped up charges during mass arrests at a protest, undermining the community’s ability to exercise free speech.

6. Enhance penalty laws would encourage racial profiling and discrimination by police officers.

  • Officers are more likely to perceive people of color, LGBTQ and HIV affected people, and people with disabilities as aggressive. They are more likely to charge these communities with resisting arrest or assault on an officer, especially if the officer is covering up excessive force, discriminatory treatment, or other wrongdoing.
  • Enhanced penalty laws would allow officers to profile these communities and then subject them to stiffer penalties and sentences because of the alleged “hate crime” that might result from these unnecessary interactions. These incentives to profile, discriminate, and further penalize communities that already have tense relationships with the police, undermine our commitment to human rights and equal justice. Instead of more criminal penalties, let’s invest in bias training that can improve relationships between police and communities.

1. This memorandum was prepared in collaboration with members of the Justice Roundtable.

2. For more information about the role of values-based messaging and for tips on speaking about policing issues generally, visit Talking About Policing Issues.

​

Talking About the Muslim Ban

On Monday, June 26, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed portions of President Trump’s Muslim ban to go into effect, continued to prohibit other portions from going forward, and agreed to fully consider the constitutionality of the ban this fall.

The High Court has not ruled on the constitutionality of the ban, but has let parts of it go forward while it considers the ban’s legality.  It’s important to call out why the ban’s religious discrimination is not only unlawful but bad for our nation. We hope the following quick tips, based on communications research, experience, and input from partners around the country, helps with this task as we all move forward.

Building a Message – Value, Problem, Solution, Action

Values

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

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.

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

We see tonight what I believe is a clear violation of the Constitution, and so clearly tonight we have to commit ourselves to the longer fight. Clearly tonight, we have to commit ourselves to the cause of our country. Clearly tonight, we have to be determined to show this world what America is all about.”

– Senator Cory Booker

Trump’s actions are hurting Netflix employees around the world, and are so un-American it pains us all…It is time to link arms together to protect American values of freedom and opportunity.”

– Netflix CEO Reed Hastings

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.

America is better when we lead with freedom, not fear. We cannot allow fear to dictate our decisions. We must act with requisite caution, but also with compassion and moral clarity.

– National Immigration Forum

We need to protect all our brothers and sisters of all faiths, including Muslims, who have lost family, home and country.

– Bishop Joe S Vásquez, US Conference of Catholic Bishops

Even though Dory gets into America, she ends up separated from her family, but the other animals help Dory. Animals that don’t even need her. Animals that don’t have anything in common with her. They help her, even though they’re completely different colors. Because that’s what you do when you see someone in need – you help them.

– Ellen DeGeneres, using the plot from her film Finding Dory to comment on the border wall.

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

It doesn’t make sense to spend billions of dollars of taxpayer money on something that is really not necessary. This is a 15th century solution to a nonexistent problem. We need a 21st century, common-sense border policy that upholds the dignity of our border residents.

– Vicki Gaubeca, Director, ACLU New Mexico Regional Center for Border Rights, New Mexico.

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.

There is something more important and powerful than all three branches of government. It is you – the people.

– New York City Mayor Bill DeBlasio in support of protesters.

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.

We vehemently oppose any proposal or statements calling for a ban on refugees, as well as discrimination based on religion or nationality. As a nation founded in part by refugees and immigrants, these kind of discriminatory policies dishonor our history, beliefs and values.

– Welcoming America

[The Muslim ban is] a stunning violation of our deepest American values, the values of a nation of immigrants: fairness, equality, openness, generosity, courage… As an immigrant and the child of refugees, I join them, with deep feeling, in believing that the policies announced Friday tear at the very fabric of our society.

– Massachusetts Institute of Technology president L. Rafael Reif.

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 this Muslim ban, our existing laws and their enforcement, our resiliency, and our values will all point us in the right direction when it comes to solutions.

Restricting a religion… is as short-sighted as it is immoral. More intelligent would be to increase resources dedicated to regional refugee process centers so security checks occur in timely fashion.”

– National Immigration Forum

The United States is a nation governed by the rule of law and not the iron will of one man. President Trump now has learned that we are a democratic republic where the powers of government are not dictatorial. They are limited. The courts are the bulwark of our democracy that protects individual rights and guards against the overreaching of an administration that confuses its will for the American public’s.”

– American Civil Liberties Union

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.

Additional Tips

Balance Individual Stories with System-Wide Solutions

Storytelling features, at its core, heroes and heroines who bring issues such as immigration to life, so stories about individual triumph and tragedy are an obvious component. However, without sufficient context, audiences can limit a story’s implication to the individual level, attributing successes and failures to personal responsibilities and actions that have little to do with the system-level change we are seeking in our immigration policies.

Telling Affirmative Stories

We’re all faced with misleading, inaccurate, and untruthful statements about our issues. And we certainly can’t allow misinformation to go unchallenged. But the best way to counter false information is to tell our affirmative story in ways that overcome the other side’s falsehoods. By contrast, we should avoid myth busting, or restating the false argument and then explaining why it’s wrong.

In fact, repeating misinformation, even to refute it, can cause audiences to remember it better, but not necessarily remember that it was wrong. This is particularly true when information is stated in the affirmative, as happens with the “Myth/Fact” format of disputing untruths, for example: “Myth: The flu vaccine can sometimes cause the flu. Fact: The flu vaccine does not cause the flu.” The better approach is to proactively put forward what is true. “The flu vaccine prevents the flu.” Or “This order assumes that refugees don’t already go through a comprehensive vetting system, but they do.” A better approach: “Refugees undergo months of vetting and interviews before they are considered for entry into the U.S. And perhaps as a result, rates of unlawful behavior among these groups is lower than among people who were born here. They are on average one of the most law-abiding groups of people you could hope for in your community.”

close search

Hot Topics: