Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Why are we afraid of conversation?

Why are we afraid of conversation?
Getty Images

Chang serves as Co-founder and CEO of GenUnity.

90% of people feel “emotionally or physically unsafe” to share their thoughts. This shocking statistic underscores an increasingly hostile culture characterized by polarization, judgment, and close-mindedness.


This pervasive fear of conversation is undermining every institution - from our democratic governments to our businesses. Conversation is the foundation of how we understand problems, exchange information, and build the trust required for collaboration. In fact, the etymology of “conversation” is the “ manner of conducting oneself in the world. ” Instead, fear substitutes integrity with obscurity, humility with insecurity, and curiosity with arrogance. And while fear in today’s environment may be well-founded, it is not a feeling we have to resign ourselves to. Conversation is a muscle and, with the right exercises, we can foster productive dialogue where we are honest about our own thinking, learn from others, and spark new ideas that strengthen our workplaces and communities.

I know this is possible because I see it everyday. Just this month, my organization, GenUnity, launched our second Health Equity program in Boston which brought 44 residents together across differences - from those experiencing health issues to employees working in cross-sector institutions like Alnylam, Blue Cross, Boston Medical Center, or Boston Healthcare for the Homeless Program. In less than an hour, with thoughtful norm setting and facilitated conversation, the energy in the room was palpable. Members described it as “relaxed”, “open”, “educational”, “moving”, “inclusive”, “vulnerable” and “intimate”. These individuals (and the organizations who invested in them to be there) recognize that opportunities to be in conversation with those closest to the problems is an invaluable source of personal and professional growth that inevitably leads to innovation. In fact, one of our members from Blue Cross is already translating their learnings into workplace impact - introducing changes to reimbursement structures to expand access to culturally competent behavioral healthcare.

Admittedly, creating these types of brave, safe spaces is hard work, and in today’s environment, the cost of failure can feel overwhelming. But, this example should also spark curiosity and courage.

At this moment, we have a choice: between inaction that will only deepen our fears and erode our future, or courage to have authentic, challenging, joyful conversations that strengthen our civic culture, businesses, and communities.

If you’re feeling called to turn conversation from a source of fear into a source of inspiration today, start by asking yourself 3 questions:

  1. Do I believe I have something to learn from someone who has a different perspective from me, especially someone who is often unheard?
  2. Am I open to engaging honestly with them in search of deeper mutual understanding?
  3. Do I want to learn how to build the skills and create the conditions to have an honest, human-to-human conversation with this person(s)?
If your answers are yes, go to GenUnity.org or join the National Week of Conversation and start learning how to realize the vision you have for yourself, workplace, or community!

Read More

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Person holding "Vote" sign.

Photo provided

Latino Voters Shift Ahead of Midterm Elections

Two years after providing historic levels of support that helped propel Donald Trump back to the White House, Latino voters are shifting rapidly away from the Republican Party. The realignment is driven by a potent combination of persistent economic anxieties and a sharp backlash against the administration’s aggressive domestic immigration crackdowns. A landmark national poll conducted by NBC News and Telemundo reveals that the President’s approval rating among registered Latino voters has plummeted to just 27%, signaling deep political turbulence for the GOP on the eve of critical midterm elections.

When asked by reporters outside the White House about the plunging numbers, President Trump angrily dismissed the data, labeling the findings as “fake news.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Person placing ballot in voting box

Person placing ballot in voting box

Getty Images

Who Gave the Federal Government the Right to Decide Who Can Vote?

The Trump administration is pressing to remove noncitizens from voter rolls across the country. Yet an important question seems to be missing from the debate: Where, exactly, does the federal government get the authority to impose a citizenship requirement on federal elections? The Constitution does not make citizenship a universal qualification for voting. Instead, Article I, Section 2, Clause 1 states: “The Electors in each State shall have the Qualifications requisite for Electors of the most numerous Branch of the State Legislature.” At the same time, Article I, Section 4, Clause 1 explicitly grants Congress authority over the conduct of federal elections: “The Times, Places and Manner of holding Elections for Senators and Representatives, shall be prescribed in each State by the Legislature thereof; but the Congress may at any time by Law make or alter such Regulations, except as to the Places of chusing Senators.” In Arizona v. Inter Tribal Council of Arizona, Inc. (2013), the U.S. Supreme Court distinguished Congress’s power to regulate how federal elections are conducted from the states’ authority to determine voter qualifications, explaining that Congress may regulate the “Times, Places and Manner” of elections, “but not who may vote in them.” For much of American history, noncitizens voted in elections in at least 22 states and territories, and some historical research suggests the number may have been as high as 40. Today, certain noncitizens are still permitted to vote in local elections in California, Maryland, Vermont and the District of Columbia. If the Constitution leaves voter qualifications to the states, what gives the federal government the authority to demand otherwise?

A Long History of State Decisions

Keep ReadingShow less
USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

USA Presidential voters on electoral college map

Getty Images

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact Federalism at Its Best

Federalism operates at its peak when states collaborate as a unified network rather than acting as isolated silos. While the American system traditionally views states as competitive "laboratories of democracy," pure isolationism limits policy success. When states pool resources, align regulations, and share data, they solve national problems faster without expanding federal bureaucracy.

The National Popular Vote Interstate Compact (NPVIC) represents federalism at its best by using explicit constitutional state powers to modernize the presidential election system without a constitutional amendment.

Keep ReadingShow less