Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Helping bridge the gaps among young adults

Laura Chen is a Co-Founder of Civic Synergy, a political depolarization organization for young adults. She is a recent graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) and a current Coro Fellow in Public Affairs.

Lake Dodson studies Political Science, East Asian Studies, and Global Security at the University of Mississippi. Lake’s previous writings on nuclear weapons deterrence have been published by Harvard. His main areas of research are East Asian Relations and nuclear energy.


Starting an organization aimed at bringing politically opposed young adults into a room to create policy solutions was terrifying - but a mix of mind-opening conversation and facilitated collaboration has helped each of our groups build captivating proposals so far.

By the time I graduated high school and entered my first year of college, I had seen two of the four longest U.S. government shutdowns in history. Growing up in this era of increasing partisan gridlock, distrust, and even hatred was disheartening. I wondered how our democracy could function when we couldn’t talk to each other and share ideas. After the events at the Capitol on January 6, 2021, a couple of other MIT students and I had a question: can we bring young people together, across political divisions, to tackle our most pressing challenges?

The answer was daunting - it was tied to the very roots of our democracy. Two years after starting Civic Synergy, an organization focused on political depolarization among young adults, our work has answered a resounding yes to that question. We are proud to say our journey has become one of hope, discovery, connection, and learning.

Civic Synergy empowers young adults with the skills and opportunity to bridge political divides in service of solving the pressing challenges of our time. Politically diverse teams of 5-7 participants, from around the country, formulate and present policy proposals to members of Congress at the end of a 6 week program. During the first session, each team participates in a Living Room Conversation around the topic at hand. These are open-source, guided conversations proven to build understanding to bridge divides. The Living Room Conversations organization seemed to start with the same question I wondered about - how can we get people to talk to each other in the first place? For the past two programs we’ve run, our cohorts have gotten to hear from John Gable from AllSides and Joan Blades from Living Room Conversations and then have broken out into teams for their very own conversations.

The program starts with these conversations to help participants connect as humans and to begin to build trust, which is a key building block for teams’ collaboration. One participant, Lake Dodson, reflects on his experience:

When starting my first-ever meeting with Civic Synergy, I had initially thought that the “Living Room Conversation” was simply a form of breaking the ice, but it was clear that the Living Room Conversation was more thought out and developed, asking more in-depth questions about everyone’s core beliefs. I especially enjoyed the questions posed to us in our Environmental Cohort. Hearing everyone’s opinions on hot-button issues like self-driving cars or responsible energy production was very helpful in assessing where one person’s interests end and where another begins. I was immediately interested and drawn into this open style, seeing it as a way to work smarter, faster, and with a greater amount of autonomy.

I remember when we were talking about energy production, I spoke at length about the benefits of nuclear energy, specifically using Thorium instead of Uranium or Plutonium. While the other members of my group heard out my views, others would add to my points by asking about how my ideas would affect low-income communities or governmental policy. It was very promising to see that my more scientific/economic perspectives were being built-up or challenged by volunteers who were more concerned about sustainability, society, or any other points of view that filled in the gaps. Since those first few meetings, my interest in energy, specifically nuclear, grew. In fact, I have recently been invited to Vienna, Austria to speak on behalf of Thorium at an international nuclear energy conference.

Thanks to Civic Synergy, I was able to discuss the issues which were most important to me with an equally enthused group of people who gave me constructive criticisms that added to my approach. I remember a specific instance of this happening when I discussed green energy with a fellow participant. She was very adamant about using forms of renewable energy like hydroelectric, thermal, and wind, while I was skeptical of those forms, saying that they all either produce more pollution than expected, are unreliable for consistent energy, or do not produce enough energy to be worth the costs. By the end of our discussion, we agreed to propose support for residential solar panels for small-scale energy production, while nuclear power plants could provide large-scale energy production. These conversations and debates allowed us to be direct with each other and have all voices heard while creating our proposal for the member of Congress we presented to.

The Living Room Conversation helps our participants learn about each others’ background and experiences that shape their views, and notice similarities or differences from their own. From there, with a facilitator’s help, participants have a strong base to collaborate and innovatively design new solutions that meet each of their interests, across the political spectrum.

Over the last two years, 85 participants have gone through Civic Synergy’s collaborative leadership program, like Lake. Written reflections from participants, full of hope and discovery, have empowered the leadership team, now made up of 90% program alumni, to continue and improve the program. For both those running the program and those going through it, the importance of stewarding democratic leaders with conflict resolution skills to reach across the aisle has never been clearer.

Read More

​DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly.

DCF Commissioner Jodi Hill-Lilly speaks to the gathering at an adoption ceremony in Torrington.

Laura Tillman / CT Mirror

What’s Behind the Smiles on National Adoption Day

In the past 21 years, I’ve fostered and adopted children with complex medical and developmental needs. Last year, after a grueling 2,205 days navigating the DCF system, we adopted our 7yo daughter. This year, we were the last family on the docket for National Adoption Day after 589 days of suspense. While my 2 yo daughter’s adoption was a moment of triumph, the cold, empty courtroom symbolized the system’s detachment from the lived experiences of marginalized families.

National Adoption Day often serves as a time to highlight stories of joy and family unification. Yet, behind the scenes, the obstacles faced by children in foster care and the families that support them tell a more complex story—one that demands attention and action. For those of us who have navigated the foster care system as caregivers, the systemic indifference and disparities experienced by marginalized children and families, particularly within BIPOC and disability communities, remain glaringly unresolved.

Keep ReadingShow less
Framing "Freedom"

hands holding a sign that reads "FREEDOM"

Photo Credit: gpointstudio

Framing "Freedom"

The idea of “freedom” is important to Americans. It’s a value that resonates with a lot of people, and consistently ranks among the most important. It’s a uniquely powerful motivator, with broad appeal across the political spectrum. No wonder, then, that we as communicators often appeal to the value of freedom when making a case for change.

But too often, I see people understand values as magic words that can be dropped into our communications and work exactly the way we want them to. Don’t get me wrong: “freedom” is a powerful word. But simply mentioning freedom doesn’t automatically lead everyone to support the policies we want or behave the way we’d like.

Keep ReadingShow less
Hands resting on another.

Amid headlines about Epstein, survivors’ voices remain overlooked. This piece explores how restorative justice offers CSA survivors healing and choice.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

What Do Epstein’s Victims Need?

Jeffrey Epstein is all over the news, along with anyone who may have known about, enabled, or participated in his systematic child sexual abuse. Yet there is significantly less information and coverage on the perspectives, stories and named needs of these survivors themselves. This is almost always the case for any type of coverage on incidences of sexual violence – we first ask “how should we punish the offender?”, before ever asking “what does the survivor want?” For way too long, survivors of sexual violence, particularly of childhood sexual abuse (CSA), have been cast to the wayside, treated like witnesses to crimes committed against the state, rather than the victims of individuals that have caused them enormous harm. This de-emphasis on direct survivors of CSA is often presented as a form of “protection” or “respect for their privacy” and while keeping survivors safe is of the utmost importance, so is the centering and meeting of their needs, even when doing so means going against the grain of what the general public or criminal legal system think are conventional or acceptable responses to violence. Restorative justice (RJ) is one of those “unconventional” responses to CSA and yet there is a growing number of survivors who are naming it as a form of meeting their needs for justice and accountability. But what is restorative justice and why would a CSA survivor ever want it?

“You’re the most powerful person I’ve ever known and you did not deserve what I did to you.” These words were spoken toward the end of a “victim offender dialogue”, a restorative justice process in which an adult survivor of childhood sexual abuse had elected to meet face-to-face for a facilitated conversation with the person that had harmed her. This phrase was said by the man who had violently sexually abused her in her youth, as he sat directly across from her, now an adult woman. As these two people looked at each other at that moment, the shift in power became tangible, as did a dissolvement of shame in both parties. Despite having gone through a formal court process, this survivor needed more…more space to ask questions, to name the impacts this violence had and continues to have in her life, to speak her truth directly to the person that had harmed her more than anyone else, and to reclaim her power. We often talk about the effects of restorative justice in the abstract, generally ineffable and far too personal to be classifiable; but in that instant, it was a felt sense, it was a moment of undeniable healing for all those involved and a form of justice and accountability that this survivor had sought for a long time, yet had not received until that instance.

Keep ReadingShow less