social justice Archives - Page 4 of 9 - The Opportunity Agenda

The Case of the Cultural Influencers: Colin Kaepernick, Jimmy Kimmel, and #MeToo

Executive Summary

In recent years, the power of popular entertainment to inspire large audiences and shift cultural norms has become a topic of growing interest in the social advocacy space. A large body of research has been dedicated to tracking representation trends in film and television, and a growing cohort of organizations provides practical recommendations for those seeking to leverage popular culture in their advocacy work. While existing research has provided critical insights into the effectiveness of high-profile spokespeople in short-term campaigns and fundraising, significant gaps in the literature exist in terms of in-depth analysis of more symbolic actions on the part of high-profile individuals as well as measurements of the impact of celebrity influencers on long-term narrative shift.

Under which circumstances do cultural influencers have the greatest ability to achieve their goals?

Currently there is a pressing need to better understand the potential of high-profile influencers to not only draw attention to social issues but also spark meaningful dialogue and actions that lead to lasting social and policy change. As part of our Power of Pop series, this current research examines three cases of high-profile entertainers and athletes speaking out or advocating for a social and/or policy change. The cases include: Case 1: Colin Kaepernick and the Take A Knee protest Case 2: Jimmy Kimmel and the healthcare debate Case 3: Me Too and Time’s Up movement This research aims to better understand the unique influence of high-profile athletes and entertainers and provide practical recommendations for those seeking to work directly or indirectly with cultural influencers to shift narratives and effect policy change. Key questions explored in the research include:

Under which circumstances do cultural influencers have the greatest ability to achieve their goals?
Are cultural influencers’ interventions best suited for long-term cultural change, short term policy shifts, or other types of impact?
What types of celebrity intervention have the most impact?
How can social justice advocates best support/leverage the influence of cultural influencers both through direct and indirect contact?

To evaluate the effectiveness of the range of strategies and issues covered in our selected case studies, we established the following criteria for success:

If the action or sets of actions had a clearly stated goal, to what extent was this goal achieved?
Was there a marked impact on the national discourse, in both media coverage and public discussions of the issue the cultural influencer was addressing?
Did the actions of one influencer encourage others to speak out or also act?
Were there unanticipated shifts in the public discourse (and, where applicable, policy change) as a direct or indirect result of a cultural influencer’s actions?
Based on these criteria, we conducted a media content analysis and social media analysis for each individual case. Our findings point to a series of lessons learned and best practices for future cultural campaigns.

The Impact

Taken together, our findings demonstrate that strategic engagement from high-profile influencers can have the following impact on social advocacy campaigns:

Significant increases in news media and social media engagement with social justice issues: All three case studies revealed a marked increase in both the volume and focus on news media and social media engagement. For instance, since Colin Kaepernick and other athletes began taking a knee, news media coverage of police misconduct has nearly doubled (from an average of 4000 articles to 7000 articles published every 12 months), and social media engagement with the issue has seen a nearly three-fold increase.
Direct or indirect policy and cultural changes in organizations and institutions: The case studies in this report have resulted in a myriad of organizational policy and cultural shifts as a direct and indirect result of the efforts of high-profile influencers. In the case of Jimmy Kimmel, the Graham-Cassidy bill was ultimately defeated. Since Kaepernick and other athletes began taking a knee in protest to police killings of unarmed people of color, the National Football League (NFL) and several teams have spoken out in support of criminal justice reform. For instance, in September 2016, shortly after Kaepernick’s first field-side protest, the San Francisco 49ers announced that it would be donating $1 million to two charities in the Bay area focused on racial and economic justice. In January2018, the NFL in conjunction with players formed the “Let’s Listen Together” coalition, which aims to improve police and community relations. As of July 2018, 10 NFL teams have announced the launch of new committees, coalitions, or other activities aimed at raising awareness and tackling social justice issues. The Me Too movement has had a similar impact. Since the Me Too movement first began to proliferate in October 2017, more than 800 high-profile figures have been publicly accused of harassment, sexual assault, rape, workplace misconduct, and other related behavior. A recent article details the range of policy changes that have been introduced across industries because of the Me Too movement. This includes the introduction of mandatory annual anti-harassment trainings for lawmakers and staff in Congress and the inclusion of so-called “Weinstein Clauses” in several large mergers and acquisitions.
Encouraging other high-profile individuals and members of the public to speak out: Each case study was characterized by high-profile influencers successfully encouraging others to speak out in support of or opposition to an issue. Following a series of monologues from Jimmy Kimmel, several Republican senators spoke out openly against the Graham-Cassidy bill, eventually leading to its defeat. Since Kaepernick first begin his protest in August 2016, more than 200 athletes have sat or kneeled during the national anthem. Our analysis revealed that a significant portion of news media and online discourse focused on actions and commentary of other high-profile athletes and spokespeople. In the case of the Me Too movement, not only did the personal stories of high-profile entertainers propel the issue of gendered violence into the national discourse, but also subsequent coordinated efforts of the Time’s Up campaign maintained engagement with the issue after media coverage began to wane.

Learn More

Read the entire Executive Summary, including Recommendations, or download the Full Report to learn how you can take action.

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.

Disrupting the Disrupter:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

We recommend emphasizing four themes:

1. Our Nation’s Constitutional Values

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

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

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

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

3. Thorough and Rigorous Scrutiny

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

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

4. Hope and Action

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

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

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

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

Updated October 2020

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

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

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

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

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

Value:

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

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

– Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D) Washington

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

– Former First Lady Laura Bush

Problem:

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Senator Patty Murray (D-Wa)

Problem:

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

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

– Chas Danner, New York Magazine

Solution:

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

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

– Cathleen Caron, Executive Director at Justice in Motion

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

– National Immigration Law Center

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

-@DreamDefenders

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

– Rep. Pramila Jayapal, (D) Washington

Action:

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

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

– America’s Voice

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

– United We Dream

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

– Women’s Refugee Commission

Six Tips for Responding to Supreme Court Decisions

Be cautious.

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

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

In favor of plainspoken and accessible language that tells a story your audiences can digest, and that will spark action. Include stories, imagery, and metaphors that are memorable and stay with audiences longer than legal points.
Try to comment on the case, not the court.

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

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

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

Redefining Sanctuary

Introduction

This past February, as media reports began to circulate detailing a surge in Immigration and Custom Enforcement (ICE) raids in communities across the country, Americans took to social media to offer support and warnings to their neighbors. In the days that followed, as the true scope of the raids became evident, city leaders issued defiant messages critiquing the raids and reaffirming their support of immigrant communities. These efforts on the part of members of the public and elected officials crystallize the providing of refuge and safety at the core of the principle of ‘sanctuary’— a principle that defines the communities across the country, currently providing much needed legal protection to undocumented immigrants and their families.

A sanctuary jurisdiction can be defined as a locality that limits its participation in federal immigration enforcement efforts as a matter of policy. There are an estimated 47 sanctuary jurisdictions in the United States as of December 2016,[1] which, alongside policies like Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA) and Deferred Action for Parents of Americans and Lawful Permanent Residents (DAPA), have enabled tens of thousands of undocumented immigrants to secure better paying jobs, and to pursue otherwise-unavailable education opportunities.[2]

Despite the integral role such immigration policies continue to play, the new administration has taken persistent steps to undo them. In recent months, there has been an increase in aggressive immigration enforcement policies, the latest of which includes the ending of DAPA and DACA programs initiated by President Obama.

In the face of these challenges, local governments, immigrant rights’ advocates, and policymakers have reaffirmed their commitment to the protection of immigrant communities. However, central to their continued success will be understanding how key audiences are currently thinking and talking about pro-immigration policies and immigration more broadly, and developing effective strategies to challenge anti-immigrant discourse. What issues and policies currently define the sanctuary jurisdictions debate? How does the current discussion of sanctuary jurisdictions intersect with DACA, and overall discussions of immigration in media coverage, social media discourse, and public opinion? How can pro-immigrant advocates ensure the continued support of immigrants and their families in an increasingly anti-immigrant climate? Finally, how can pro-immigrant advocates continue to uplift the voices and leadership of immigrants in a climate where many may feel reluctant to speak out?

In an effort to answer these critical questions, we embarked on a three-part analysis, which consisted of an examination of existing public opinion research, a content analysis of media coverage, and an analysis of social media discourse since January 2016.

Our analysis of existing public opinion research revealed that when asked specifically about deportation policies and levels of support for programs such as DACA, the majority of Americans support the protection of due process that sanctuary jurisdictions provide and, critically, oppose the types of aggressive deportation efforts promoted by the current administration. Our examination of social media data shows there is currently fertile ground for social justice advocates seeking to protect sanctuary jurisdictions and challenge misinformation that attempts to conflate the protection of undocumented immigrants with the promotion of crime. At the same time, our analysis of media coverage over a 20-month period suggests there is currently a pressing need for more coordinated messaging among pro-immigrant advocates.

This report begins with an overview of our findings from our analysis of social media trends over an 18-month period, followed by findings from our analysis of existing public opinion research, and mainstream media coverage. We conclude with a series of recommendations for messaging and audience engagement through social media outreach.

DOWNLOAD THE FULL REPORT HERE