Sensible gun laws, a safer environment, campaign finance reform, affordable access to health care, and many other progressive priorities are supported by an overwhelming majority of the American people. But they aren't the law of the land. That isn't an accident. Republicans know they don't enjoy popular support. So, keeping certain people from voting is at the heart of their election strategy. We have to fight voter suppression, but we can't just play defense anymore. iVote is going on offense to fight to expand access to voting to ensure more people vote... because if everyone voted our democracy would finally reflect the will of all its people.
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
This Year Colleges Raced to Embrace Viewpoint Diversity. That’s a Mistake
Jun 05, 2026
We have just completed another tough year for America’s most prestigious colleges and universities. Problems are legion; solutions are hard to find.
By their own telling, the richest places are confronting a gloomy economic future. They are cutting staff, freezing hiring, and limiting faculty salary increases. They are also beginning to face the ugly reality of runaway grade inflation and student disengagement from the academic work that is supposedly the lifeblood of their institutions.
However, in perhaps the most important development of the just completed 2025-26 academic year, a few of America’s universities are waving the white flag in a long-running war mounted by conservative critics of higher education. Five years ago, JD Vance argued that conservatives should declare that college professors are “the enemy” and treat the most prestigious schools as “totalitarian” institutions.
His proposed solution: Conservatives need “to seize the institutions of the left and turn them against the left. We need a… de-wokeification program.” They need “to deinstitutionalize the left, reinstitutionalize the right.”
As the 2025-2026 academic year comes to a close, Yale, Harvard, and others like them are on board with the “de-wokeification program.” Vance wants these colleges and universities and their students, faculty, and staff to be more deferential. Alas, that will not help prepare their students for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
Viewpoint diversity does not guarantee that students will be willing to practice empathy before judgment, to read deeply, and to listen attentively to any argument, left, right, or center. Only if they do can they live well in a democracy.
And as hard as it is for universities to hire faculty with conservative views, it is much harder to rediscover the habits of mind, like those I just enumerated, that are necessary if free speech and democratic political life are to flourish. Trying to appease the JD Vance‘s of the world or powerful alumni who complain that we need to hire fewer faculty to teach about the evils of colonialism or the injustices of America’s past and more who will teach about the virtues of capitalism and our country’s founding ideals, is a mistake that elite colleges and universities seem eager to commit.
The problem is cultural, not representational. Conservatives think that addressing the latter will cure the former and bring a vibrant marketplace of ideas back to our campuses.
Sadly, this year, some of the most prestigious colleges and universities seem to have bought that line.
In November 2025, the New York Times published an interview with the leaders of Dartmouth College, the University of Wisconsin, Madison, and Wesleyan University. They did not agree on everything, but here is one example of how they are drinking the Kool-Aid on viewpoint diversity.
Jennifer Mnookin, then Chancellor at Wisconsin and now incoming president of Columbia University, put it this way: “I think that many universities, not all, but many, were for a period of time deeply focused on identity diversity, and really not so focused on viewpoint diversity or belief diversity. I think there’s a danger of a pendulum swinging too far in the other direction, and we need to worry about that.”
“But,” she continued, “I think universities should be spaces where ideas, and different ideas, embodied by people from different backgrounds, come together, and where it won’t always be comfortable, but where we will learn and do better from that engagement.”
Note how Mnookin elevates viewpoint diversity and offers a vision of higher education as bringing together “different ideas, embodied by people from different backgrounds….” She assumes, I guess, that a good college will be a place where the whole is greater than the sum of its parts.
But she said nothing about how that alchemy is supposed to take place once her Noah’s Ark has been assembled, nor how it would help to be equipped for the responsibilities of democratic citizenship.
Moreover, Mnookin pushed back when Wesleyan’s president, Michael Roth, warned about the danger of parroting the White House’s talking points about higher education and the Trump Administration’s plan “to capture higher education for ideological purposes.”
“Michael,” she responded, doubling down on her “commitment to viewpoint diversity and to pluralism,” it “should prevent external capture and internal capture. And it should be a way of thinking about a piece of our mission and looking for excellence that can actually bring people together, even across their differences.”
Then in April, Yale University issued the report of a committee charged with the task of addressing the crisis of trust in higher education. It highlighted the conservative talking point that “the nation’s leading universities, including Yale, tend to exclude conservative intellectual traditions.”
“Some,” it said, “point to the partisan composition of the faculty, noting that professors overwhelmingly identify with the Democratic party. Others focus on the curriculum, or on the suggestion that liberal professors indoctrinate their students. Taken together, these critiques frame universities as intellectual and ideological echo chambers, out of touch with the American nation and out of step with its political currents.”
While the committee did not agree on whether that was the right diagnosis of the problem of free speech and academic freedom at Yale, it did conclude that in ways that would please conservatives that “Echo chambers do not produce the best teaching, research, or scholarship.”
Of note, two years ago, a prominent conservative intellectual, Prof. Keith Whittington, was hired to join Yale’s law school faculty. At that time, Whittington seemed clear about one of the reasons he was hired and about his mission.
As he explained, “I'm not unmindful of the significance of this move at the present moment….Yale has notoriously lacked right-of-center public law faculty for decades…The lack of political diversity on elite law school faculties,” he added, “is unhealthy, and I'm glad to be able to do my small part to mix things up.”
“With the very meaning of the conservatism in the United States up for grabs,” Whittingham said, “I look forward to lending what perspective and expertise I can to public debates.”
Yale seemed to be conceding that conservatives have been right about elite colleges and universities all along.
Not to be outdone, we also learned last month that “Harvard is quietly asking donors for $10 million gifts to establish new endowed professorships in a sweeping bid to reshape its faculty under the banner of ‘viewpoint diversity.’ The campaign, driven by Harvard’s top brass, aims to raise several hundred million dollars to support a new cohort of professors. If successful, the funding could bring dozens of faculty members to campus and drastically shift Harvard’s academic makeup.”
Wow.
As an article in the Chronicle of Higher Education published in the wake of that revelation points out, Professor Harvey Mansfield, “the sharpest conservative thorn in the side of Harvard’s body politic,” is “entitled to a kind of victory lap…” He has long said, “I think it has to be explicit that you’re hiring conservatives,” and now it seems that Harvard is doing just that.
There is nothing wrong with viewpoint diversity, but it will neither fix the problems that elite schools are experiencing nor equip their students to preserve and improve democratic life. In fact, this year’s let’s hire conservatives crusade may make matters worse.
As my colleague Leah Schmalzbauer and I have argued, that crusade “misses the point and distracts us from the work that needs to be done to further improve the quality of the education students receive in American colleges and universities. Put simply, instead of fixating on who is in the classroom, and whether they are liberal or conservative, we should be focused on how we are in the room.”
“Higher education’s greatest challenge to achieving open inquiry,” we argue, “is not one of ideology or viewpoint diversity, but of disposition….You can decorate campuses with all the colors of the political rainbow, but not make them better places to learn.”
Unfortunately, 2025-26 may go down as the year when elite colleges and universities started doing that kind of decorating. Conservatives may take a victory lap, and the Trump Administration may think its pressure campaign is working.
But for those of us who are privileged to teach in privileged places and want to get students ready for democratic citizenship, our most important work will remain the same whether or not we bring more conservatives to campus: Teaching students to think democratically.
Austin Sarat is the William Nelson Cromwell professor of jurisprudence and political science at Amherst College.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
U.S. Rep. Carlos Curbelo (R-FL), flanked by U.S. Rep. Glenn Thompson (R-PA) and U.S. Speaker of the House Rep. Paul Ryan (R-WI), speaks during a press conference on Capitol Hill after their weekly party conference meeting on June 21, 2017 in Washington, DC
U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo / Getty Images
Curbelo Warns Gerrymandering Is Eroding Democracy From Within
Jun 05, 2026
Last week’s Unity Forum conversation featured former U.S. Representative Carlos Curbelo giving a cross-partisan assessment of two issues at the heart of America’s polarized politics: gerrymandering and immigration. His message was a refreshing change from common partisan banter. It was grounded in constitutional principle and the pragmatic belief that democracies survive only when citizens feel represented and when political incentives reward problem‑solving rather than extremism.
Curbelo, a Republican who represented a swing district in South Florida from 2015 to 2019, has long been known as a bipartisan voice on issues ranging from energy to immigration. He co‑founded the House Climate Solutions Caucus, a bipartisan group working to develop practical, economically viable solutions to climate-related issues.
And in his view, the most corrosive of those distortions is gerrymandering.
The Disappearing Middle
Curbelo did not mince words. “I’m opposed to all gerrymandering efforts in any state, whether they benefit Republicans or Democrats,” he said. “All of it is bad for our country.”
He pointed out that when districts are rigged, they eliminate competition, and the political system stops rewarding consensus‑builders. It rewards the loudest voices in the safest seats. The result is a Congress increasingly formed by the extremes of both parties, while the vast middle of the electorate lacks meaningful representation.
Curbelo illustrated the consequences by comparing California and Florida. California, he noted, “is gonna have a negligible number of Republicans,” while Florida’s new map leaves Democrats with only a sliver of representation. In both cases, the minority party becomes too small to represent statewide interests efficiently when the other party controls Congress.
That imbalance, he argued, is not simply a political problem; it’s a governance problem. States need bipartisan delegations to navigate federal priorities, secure disaster relief, and advance local needs regardless of which party holds power.
But the more serious damage is the destruction of voters' belief in the system. Gerrymandering, he said, “further disenfranchises people… they feel like they don’t count, like they don’t matter.” When citizens believe the system is rigged, trust collapses. Once trust collapses, polarization hardens, turnout drops, and the angriest voices dominate the elections.
In Curbelo’s view, the long‑term consequence is unavoidable: “Eventually… this is going to open up a lane for a third way in our country.” Not because Americans are clamoring for a new ideology but because the two major parties have structurally insulated themselves from accountability.
Structural Reform, Not Wishful Thinking
Curbelo offered solutions to the present dysfunction. He argues in favor of reforms that increase competition and broaden participation—open primaries, independent redistricting commissions, and systems like those in Maine, Alaska, and Washington that reward candidates who appeal beyond their base.
Florida came close to adopting open primaries in 2020. The measure received 57–58 percent support—just shy of the 60 percent required for a constitutional amendment. “Both parties united to fight the ballot measure,” Curbelo noted, revealing that the duopoly’s strongest point of agreement is often self‑preservation.
Still, he believes the public is ahead of politicians. “Sixty‑five, seventy, seventy‑five percent of the public is being shut out,” he said. “That’s not okay.” He sees citizen‑driven ballot initiatives as the most hopeful route forward.
Whether state courts can or will intervene is less clear. Florida’s Constitution explicitly prohibits drawing districts for partisan advantage, but Curbelo was candid about the political reality: “If I had to bet… I think they’re gonna uphold the new map.” He stressed that the courts’ decision—whatever it is—does not absolve citizens of responsibility. “It’s not gonna fix itself,” he said. “People have to take action.”
A Parallel Crisis at the Border
The conversation then moved to immigration, where Curbelo again urged realism and humanity. As the son of Cuban immigrants, he embraces America’s identity as a nation of newcomers. But he insists that immigration must be “orderly… legal… predictable… and managed so that it helps advance our economic interests.”
He credited the current administration for stabilizing the southwest border—“It is no longer a disorderly situation,” he said—while criticizing its failure to address the millions of undocumented immigrants already living, working, and contributing in the United States.
These individuals, he argued, are essential to the economy: caring for children and older people, working in restaurants, cleaning buildings, and filling labor shortages across sectors. “Why are we going to throw them out of the country?” he asked. “Why not afford them the opportunity to earn legal status?”
He emphasized that this does not require a path to citizenship—though he supports one. It requires political courage and the readiness to acknowledge economic reality.
He also addressed the elephant in the room: due process. While defending constitutional protections, he warned that asylum laws have been exploited by smugglers who coach migrants to make claims that do not reflect their true circumstances. “Most of the people… have shown up at the southwest border for economic reasons,” he said. That reality requires both compassion and reform.
A Call for Citizens to Reclaim Their Democracy
Across both topics, Curbelo returned to a single theme: the health of American democracy depends on structural incentives that reward problem‑solving rather than polarization. Gerrymandering, closed primaries, and broken immigration laws push the system in the wrong direction.
But he stays guardedly optimistic. “Average citizens,” he said, “will sign petitions and organize and say, enough of this.”
If they do, the country may yet reclaim a politics that reflects the broad, pragmatic middle rather than the narrow extremes. If they don’t, the system will continue to drift toward an outcome in which politicians choose their voters—and not the other way around.
Now is the time to get involved. Whether by keeping informed, talking with neighbors, signing petitions, or supporting reforms, every action helps strengthen our democracy. The future depends on citizens like you—your voice and your participation matter.
Watch the full interview to learn more:
https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVzt6TOg-jbdoML_b...
David Nevins is the publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
AI is unpopular yet widely used. Explore how citizen-led “crackpot schemes” could shape AI policy, protect jobs, strengthen democracy, and maximize AI’s benefits while reducing its risks.
Andriy Onufriyenko / Getty Images
In Defense of “Crackpot Schemes” for AI Governance
Jun 05, 2026
AI is unpopular. And nearly a billion people use ChatGPT.
AI is destroying jobs. And fields predicted to have been eliminated by AI, like radiology, continue to grow and leverage the technology to improve their work.
AI is wrecking the environment. And state officials are learning from hyperscalers how to run the grid more efficiently.
A black or white conception of AI promises to either deny its benefits or exacerbate its shortcomings. Yet, there’s no easy way to ensure a proper balancing of AI’s promises and perils. While every major AI CEO has pledged to "maximize the benefits and mitigate the risks,” they have left out the details of how to do so.
It’s unlikely they or anyone will ever have such a definite plan. But, if we want to avoid repeating what we did with nuclear power — locking a technology away and letting its best uses go unrealized — we need bold ideas from outside the rooms where AI policy currently gets written. We need “crackpot schemes.”
Consider Social Security. Most Americans, asked who we should thank for it, would name FDR. The better answer is a doctor in Long Beach. In 1933, he wrote a letter to the editor proposing a $200 monthly pension for every citizen over 60, funded by a sales tax, with one catch: recipients had to spend the money within thirty days. Two goals, one scheme. Support the elderly. Sustain a Depression-era economy.
The idea caught fire. Clubs formed across the country, 2.2 million members strong. Ten million Americans signed petitions. By 1935, a majority of the country backed it. The plan itself never became law. Critics called it a “crackpot scheme.” But the Social Security system we have today is unimaginable without that op-ed from a doctor with minimal policy chops or political clout but plenty of experience seeing people struggle to achieve financial security in their golden years.
The best policies often come from unexpected places.
Now consider the policy challenges posed by AI. The Bureau of Labor Statistics projects 3.1 percent job growth by 2035. Forecasters at Metaculus project a 1.4 percent loss. Expert forecasters also expect unemployment for recent college graduates to hit 13.5 percent in the near future, with underemployment climbing to nearly 60 percent. Nobody knows for certain how this economic transition will play out. We are entering a volatile decade, and the people most exposed to it are the people with the least say in how it gets governed.
AI must be developed for us and by us if it is going to earn our trust. People support what they help build. As of now, there are few clear mechanisms for people to share their perspective on what they need to feel like AI is a net positive for their wellbeing and the wellbeing of their community. That needs to change.
Here are a few of the “crackpot schemes” I’ve heard about when talking to everyday Americans eager to know that AI progress does not have to come at the expense of Average Joes and Janes.
First, a mandatory national service program with civil and military tracks for Americans between 17 and 19. It would signal that the country values young people's judgment at exactly the moment AI is making judgment more valuable than ever. It would build the interpersonal experience no model can replicate. It would help revive the civic glue that holds this country together.
Second, recurring citizen assemblies at the local, state, and federal levels that provide a representative set of Americans with the chance to share their viewpoints in a calm, deliberative fashion. Polls focused on likely voters may hold sway with political campaigns but do little to help guide actual policymaking. Gathering people in a room to discuss tangible, specific policies and related trade-offs may bolster the ability of politicians to plan for and respond to many different possible futures.
You may regard these as "crackpot schemes" with no odds of passing. Good. The doctor's pension plan was wrong on the numbers, wrong on the mechanism, and wrong on the funding. It was also the most important policy proposal of the decade, because it forced a country that had decided old age was a private problem to admit it was a public one. Your AI proposal does not have to be right. It has to be loud enough to make the wrong answer indefensible. Now share yours.
Kevin Frazier is the Director of the AI Innovation and Law Program at the University of Texas School of Law.
Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump speaks to the press in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., on June 3, 2026.
(Mandel NGAN/AFP via Getty Images/TCA)
Welcome to Trump’s lame duck presidency
Jun 05, 2026
It's been a while since we saw a lame duck presidency — long enough in politics to maybe forget what one looks like.
In October 2014, President Barack Obama hit his lowest approval rating yet at 40%. The midterm elections were an absolute bloodbath for Democrats — Republicans expanded their majority in the House by 13 seats and took control of the Senate with a gain of nine seats.
The predictions for the second half of Obama’s second term were fatalistic. As early as 2013, analysts were calling his presidency DOA, having seemingly spent all of his political capital on getting the Affordable Care Act passed and implemented, which didn’t go smoothly. He suffered early second-term losses on the Bush-era tax cuts, gun control efforts, and immigration reform.
There was just nothing left in the tank. Or so it seemed.
But Obama defied those predictions. In 2015, he got a huge win when the Supreme Court — in a surprise from conservative Chief Justice John Roberts — ruled in favor of keeping Obamacare intact, preserving his signature legislation.
Then, the ambitious Trans Pacific Partnership deal, the world’s biggest ever trade agreement accounting for two-fifths of trade, got fast-tracked by a highly divided Congress.
He got another win in Cuba, where he secured an agreement to resume diplomatic relations after 54 years of hostilities. And he signed an Iran nuclear deal designed to prevent Iran from developing nukes in exchange for sanction relief.
Whatever you think of Obamacare, the TPP, and the Cuba and Iran deals, it’s hard to argue Obama’s final months in office were very “lame.” In as little as a year, he’d redefined the meaning of the term.
We know how much Obama tends to get in Donald Trump’s head. As the legend goes, after all, it was Obama’s mockery of Trump at the 2011 White House Correspondents’ Dinner that provoked him to run for president. Ever since, he’s been fixated on the ex chief, even blasting his Chicago presidential library with petty jabs in recent months.
Well, Trump only wishes he were having the final few years that Obama did. Instead, it seems, Trump’s lame-duck presidency has arrived early.
Trump’s approval has plummeted since his inauguration, dropping from 52% to 38%, while his disapproval has shot up 15 points.
Thanks in large part to his dumb tariffs and dumb war in Iran, the midterms are looking so bad for Republicans, the party’s resorted to mid-census redistricting schemes that may or may not pay off. Democrats could not only take back the House but win the Senate, with candidates in red states like Texas, Iowa and Ohio in real contention.
Then there are his recent losses. A lot of them.
The $1.8 billion slush fund to pay out MAGA loyalists, including Jan. 6 insurrectionists, was met with such disdain from his own party, he had to dump it.
Four Republicans in the House just voted with Democrats to pass a war powers resolution directing Trump to withdraw military forces from Iran.
Republicans in both chambers have come out to condemn Trump’s utterly absurd pick for director of national intelligence, Bill Pulte.
The fate of his billion-dollar ballroom remains up in the air, as do the “Trump battleships” he’s proposed. A judge ruled he cannot put his name on the Kennedy Center, and his Freedom 250 concert series collapsed as musical acts dropped out one by one, leaving Vanilla Ice to headline, if it happens at all.
These are some humiliating losses. And the crazy part is, had Trump pursued “normal” policy wins for Americans instead of the insane, vulgar, and self-interested nonsense he has, he’d surely be in a different position.
But he didn’t. Welcome to your lame duck, era, Mr. President.
S.E. Cupp is the host of "S.E. Cupp Unfiltered" on CNN.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
Trump is stuck between two realities. Neither serves the American people