With politics as polarized and divisive as ever and the holiday season approaching, many of us will have difficult interactions with problematic family members. Does calling out your problematic family members benefit you or our political climate? Or does it do the opposite -- worsening familial relationships and political climate?
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
If We Want Strong Readers, We Should Also Want Strong Citizens
Oct 01, 2026
In September, I was genuinely excited to attend my son’s elementary school Back-to-School Night.
As a former high school social studies teacher and now a nonprofit executive working to strengthen K–12 education nationally, I love being in schools. I love seeing classrooms come to life, talking with teachers, and getting a glimpse of what students are learning. As a former history and civics teacher, I was especially curious to see how my son’s teacher would weave social studies into the elementary school day.
Unfortunately, what I learned was both familiar and frustrating.
Social studies was scheduled for roughly two days a week. Three, if the schedule allowed.
I shouldn’t have been surprised. For most of my career, I have watched social studies get marginalized out of the elementary school day in favor of subjects that are tested, measured, and more readily understood as “essential.” But experiencing that reality as a parent hit differently, because we have created a false choice.
We talk about literacy as though it belongs primarily to English language arts, while subjects such as history and civics are relegated to lower tiers of importance, as though students must learn to read first and then apply those skills to the world around them.
But literacy and civic learning are not competing priorities. They are deeply interdependent.
You cannot fully participate in civic life without the ability to read and understand the world around you. Citizens must be able to read laws and policies, interpret information, evaluate evidence, understand historical context, consider competing perspectives, identify credible sources, recognize an argument, and distinguish a claim from evidence. These are literacy skills. They are also civic skills.
And yet, when we marginalize social studies in the name of literacy, we risk teaching students how to read without giving them enough opportunities to practice reading for a purpose: to understand their government, their history, their communities, and the issues that shape their lives.
The irony is that social studies can be one of the places where students develop stronger literacy, not an obstacle to it.
Reading a primary source requires students to grapple with unfamiliar vocabulary and context. Examining two accounts of the same historical event asks them to compare perspectives and evaluate evidence. Reading a proposed law requires them to interpret language and consider its implications. Investigating a community problem requires them to gather information, assess sources, construct an argument, and communicate their conclusions.
These aren't skills we teach after literacy.
They are what literacy looks like when students use it to make sense of the world.
So the problem isn't simply that schools aren't giving social studies enough time. The problem is that we have separated literacy from the very subjects that give literacy meaning and purpose.
If we want strong readers, we should also want strong citizens, and we should recognize that developing one helps develop the other.
Aruna Patel is the VP and Chief Program Officer at the Center for Civic Education.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
President Donald Trump speaks before signing the Secure America Act in the Oval Office of the White House on June 10, 2026 in Washington, DC.
(Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)
Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications
Oct 01, 2026
A court’s decision to block the Trump administration from including a “loyalty question” on federal job applications was a win not only for the nonpartisan civil service, but also for the communities public employees serve, said one labor leader whose union was among the plaintiffs in the case against the Office of Personnel Management.
Patrick Moran, president of the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees (AFSCME) union, said Friday that the loyalty questions the OPM placed on job applications for public servants were a “blatantly illegal attempt to hire partisan cronies who would endanger our communities by putting politics before people, rather than dedicated, qualified public service workers.”
The question was added to applications in response to one of President Donald Trump’s first executive orders of his second term, titled “Reforming the Federal Hiring Process and Restoring Merit to Government Service.” The OPM was directed to develop a “Federal Hiring Plan that brings to the Federal workforce only highly skilled Americans dedicated to the furtherance of American ideals, values, and interests.”
Several essay questions were added to job applications for the civil service as a result, including one that asked: “How would you help advance the president’s executive orders and policy priorities in this role? Identify one or two relevant executive orders or policy initiatives that are significant to you, and explain how you would help implement them if hired.”
Over 70,000 job postings have included the question, and the plaintiffs in the case—including AFSCME, the American Federation of Government Employees (AFGE), and the National Association of Government Employees (NAGE), argued that its inclusion compelled applicants to make political statements and chilled the speech of those who may not agree with Trump’s executive orders.
The US District Court for the District of Massachusetts found that continuing to include the question would cause “irreparable harm” to workers applying for government jobs.
Judge George A. O’Toole Jr. said the plaintiffs’ arguments that the OPM had violated applicants’ First Amendment rights and the Administrative Procedure Act were likely to succeed in court.
A sworn declaration from an AFGE member figured prominently in the case. The employee said she “was afraid” that answering the loyalty question with an honest response about her personal views on Trump’s executive orders would “hurt her application.”
O’Toole wrote that the question’s plain language “calls for the applicant’s personal views on a political topic, and directly links that personal view to the duties of the desired civil service job.”
Everett Kelley, AFGE national president, said that “requiring federal job applicants to answer politically motivated questions goes against the very nature of the nonpartisan civil service, and we are pleased the judge has put an immediate stop to the administration’s loyalty questions. Federal employees should be hired based solely on their ability to perform the job—not their allegiance to any particular administration.”
O’Toole denied the unions’ request for a preliminary injunction blocking the government from incorporating answers that applicants have already provided into hiring decisions.
Still, Skye Perryman, president and CEO of Democracy Forward, which represented the plaintiffs, said the ruling “protects the Constitution, the civil service, and the people who depend on a professional, nonpartisan federal workforce.”
“For more than a century, civil servants have been hired based on their merits, not based on allegiance to a partisan political agenda,” said Perryman. “Today’s decision—stopping the Trump-Vance administration’s required loyalty question for public servants—reaffirms the importance of a nonpartisan civilian workforce that serves the American people.”
Federal Court Blocks Trump’s ‘Loyalty Question’ on Civil Service Job Applications was first published by Common Dreams and is republished with permission.
Julia Conley is a senior editor and staff writer for Common Dreams.
Keep ReadingShow less
The 50: Ohio
In Ohio, Federal Healthcare Policies Collide With State Constitutional Abortion Protections
Sep 30, 2026
OHIO — The second Trump administration’s new federal healthcare directives and regulatory freezes have collided directly with Ohio’s voter‑approved reproductive protections, according to local healthcare providers and legal experts. Although Ohioans enshrined the right to reproductive freedom in the state constitution through Issue 1 in November 2023, federal policy shifts are bypassing those safeguards and straining the state’s healthcare infrastructure.
"I think Ohio is a perfect example of where in-state politics really come up at the crossroads of federal politics," said Jordyn Close, Deputy Director at Ohio Women's Alliance (OWA), a Black-women-led nonprofit organization that focuses on building community power and advancing Reproductive Justice across Ohio.
I spoke with Close and others for an episode of The Fulcrum's award-winning series The 50: Voices of a Nation, on the fight over reproductive rights.
- YouTube youtu.be
Following the fall of Roe v. Wade, Ohio's six-week abortion ban briefly took effect, prompting advocates to successfully pass a constitutional amendment protecting reproductive freedom. Close says legal battles continue to delay full implementation of those protections.
"Three years later, we do not even have the fullness of the Reproductive Freedom Amendment implemented. While that was a major victory, there are still over 30 abortion bans and targeted regulations against providers that we will have to go through one by one in the courts to overturn. And so Ohio still has not realized reproductive freedom," said Close. "I think that kind of dissonance between what our communities are saying, wanting, and making their voices very clearly heard at the ballot box and what our legislators and our courts continue to do is not in the best interest and is not in the will of our voters."
Opponents, including Ohio Right to Life, argue the amendment does not eliminate Ohio's ability to regulate abortion and say the state has a legitimate interest in protecting unborn life.
"I think we have a legitimate right as a society to say you shouldn't be allowed to do that. Just like we say to lots of people in many situations, you're not allowed to do that," said Carrie Snyder, Executive Director at Ohio Right to Life, the state's largest anti-abortion advocacy organization.
Snyder says the debate centers on whether unborn children should be recognized as having legal rights independent of their mothers. "We all agree that human beings should be autonomous—we should be able to make our own decisions, control our own bodies. But I think we all recognize that those rights all come with limits. ... You always have rights to yourself, but your right stops when it is going to harm another person," she said.
While opponents focus on the rights of the unborn and the state's role in protecting them, abortion-rights advocates say the conversation doesn't end with legal access. They argue that social stigma remains a powerful barrier, even in states like Ohio where abortion is protected by law.
Kellie Copeland, executive director of Abortion Forward, argues that stigma, fear of judgment, and anti-abortion rhetoric continue to keep many people silent about their pregnancy decisions, leaving deeply personal experiences hidden from public view. "I think a lot of times people are afraid of people judging them. They're afraid to talk to people, friends, and family, because they don't know what someone might say, what someone might think," Copeland said. "And of course, that silence makes a person feel isolated. A lot of people don't realize that there are people that they love, people very close to them, who've had abortions."
Advocates say reducing that social taboo starts with changing the conversation. They argue that avoiding the word abortion and relying on broader terms like "choice" or "reproductive health" can unintentionally reinforce the perception that abortion is something to be hidden.
"We are telling people we don't want to say the word abortion. And if we don't want to say the word abortion, why?" asks Kristin Hady, who runs the clinic escort program at Toledo Women’s Center. "You are giving it stigma. We are doing that, but we want to be intentional about saying that word because we really do have to destigmatize it. Because people do often say, 'Nobody is pro-abortion; we're pro-choice.' No, I am pro-abortion. I believe in abortion."
As Ohio continues to navigate the tension between voter-approved protections, federal policy shifts, and deeply held moral convictions, the debate over reproductive rights remains as much about democracy and personal autonomy as it is about abortion itself.
The 50: Voices of a Nation is a four‑year multimedia initiative from The Fulcrum traveling to communities in every state to document the challenges and opportunities shaping civic life across the country. Through deeply reported, on‑the‑ground storytelling, the project examines how the Donald Trump administration is responding to those hopes and concerns — and elevates civic‑focused organizations working to inform, educate, and empower the public to take part in strengthening American democracy.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Taken from Buffalo Bayou Park Houston Texas after Hurricane Beryl 2024
Mathew Risley/Getty Images
From Information to Muscle Memory: Disaster Preparedness in Texas
Sep 30, 2026
A flood warning can arrive on a phone in seconds. What happens next is much harder to predict.
Texas saw that difference again this July, when severe flooding across South and Central Texas triggered emergency warnings, evacuations, and hundreds of rescues. The state had warnings, emergency responders, and evacuation orders. But for an individual family, preparedness ultimately came down to a much smaller question: Do we know what to do now?
I see this distinction regularly in the preparedness workshops I conduct in Houston. The information is rarely new. People generally know they should have an emergency plan, understand evacuation routes, and check on vulnerable neighbors. The harder part is turning that knowledge into action before a disaster forces the decision.
That gap between information and action, between what people know and what they actually do, especially during disasters, exists nationwide, not just in the trainings we facilitate. Less than four in ten Americans have made a preparedness plan. Three in ten Americans have figured out evacuation routes. Only one in ten Americans has ever practiced a drill or worked with their neighbors to be ready to face a disaster.
These numbers have real-world consequences when a disaster strikes, and decisions must be made in seconds rather than hours. During Winter Storm Uri, nineteen Texans died because they were breathing in air from generators in enclosed spaces.
And Winter Storm Uri was hardly unique.
Disasters keep happening, and each time they happen, the same pattern emerges: people have information on what should be done, but the challenge is translating that knowledge into action when stress, uncertainty, and urgency take over.
The problem is that our preparedness efforts are designed to inform people rather than to prepare them for action.
We invest in public awareness campaigns, emergency alerts, infrastructure improvements, and coordination among agencies, be it through the Electric Reliability Council of Texas (ERCOT), Wireless Emergency Alerts (WEA), Ready.gov, or Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD). These investments matter because communities need reliable systems and accurate information. But information alone does not prepare someone to act the moment a flood warning arrives, or an evacuation order is issued.
What really helps people get ready for a disaster is deeply human and behavior-oriented, which comes from repetition, from practicing evacuation routes, from knowing which neighbor may need help and who to call when communication systems fail. It is built through relationships, trust, and shared practice. That means preparedness cannot simply be something people are expected to find online or seek out when a disaster is approaching. We have to take preparedness into the communities where people live, work, and learn and give them opportunities to practice it before they need it.
If the challenge is deeply human and behavior-oriented, then the solution has to be opportunities for communities to practice preparedness before wildfire warnings or flood alerts arrive.
Regular "blue sky" training, conducted before a disaster is on the horizon, should become a standard part of community life. Just as schools conduct fire drills and workplaces practice safety procedures, communities should routinely rehearse evacuation plans, emergency communications, and disaster response actions before they are actually needed.
Existing networks and institutions, such as the Voluntary Organizations Active in Disaster (VOAD) are uniquely positioned to make this happen. They already are connected with nonprofit organizations and local officials and can create a standard system for ‘community-first responders’ shared preparedness exercises, strengthening the trust, coordination, and ‘muscle memory’ that emergencies depend on.
We are already seeing what this can look like in Greater Houston. Sewa Houston developed its community preparedness program to take information directly to residents and give them opportunities to put that knowledge into practice. With capacity-building support from AmeriCorps, More than 12,000 people have been trained so far in and around the Greater Houston area.
Building the muscle memory of preparedness also requires a culture that treats it as a shared community responsibility. The result shows up when programs like ShakeOut become a huge success. They show that when preparedness exercises become public, participatory, and widely shared, millions of people are willing to practice together. Similar community-wide preparedness days could help normalize preparedness for the hazards most common to each region.
These efforts point toward a different way of thinking about preparedness. One that treats preparedness as an ongoing practice, as behaviors communities repeatedly rehearse, and as something built long before disaster is on the horizon.
Because in the end, disasters do not ask whether information was available. They reveal whether people have practiced what to do when it matters most.
Tarvinder Taneja is a former postdoctoral researcher with experience across India, the UK, and the US. At Sewa International, she leads community resilience initiatives spanning basic needs, mental health, and community health, combining scientific rigor with a deep commitment to public service.
Carole Juarez is Program Director for Sewa Houston’s ASPIRE AmeriCorps Program, leading community resilience, disaster preparedness, and volunteer operations. She has supported major Texas crises, including Hurricane Harvey and COVID-19, and brings extensive global experience across five continents, community relations, journalism, and cultural anthropology work.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More