Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Putting the action in urban rural action

Putting the action in urban rural action
Getty Images

Tom Cassara is a recent graduate of Gettysburg College working to build peace and prevent targeted violence. In his free time, Tom enjoys reading, writing, singing, cooking, and playing Dungeons & Dragons.

Action. That is the one noun I’ve felt has been missing from my life for quite some time. As a recent student at a liberal arts college, I had high hopes of being able to change the world someday, but those hopes were always relegated to the “someday.” Sure, I helped people out here and there when I could. I tried to be a good person, but while I was a student I did not have much time to get involved on a regular basis to help create change. Joining Urban Rural Action changed that.


I first heard about the organization from one of my mentors, Tracie Potts, who connected me to Joe Bubman, the executive director of Urban Rural Action. I’ve learned much from Joe in the span of a few months and I look forward to learning more from him as I continue working with the organization. Joe is dedicated to the work and his kindness invites others to participate in the group setting, which is especially important when considering the sometimes awkward nature of political conversation.

The program I participate in is called Uniting to Prevent Targeted Violence (UPTV), which is centered around preventing targeted violence in four Pennsylvania counties: Adams, Dauphin, Franklin, and York. Targeted violence is defined as “[i]ntentional physical violence against a pre-identified target based on their perceived identity or affiliation, whereby the act is intended to intimidate or coerce or generate publicity about the perpetrator’s grievance” (URAction). To achieve this goal, Urban Rural Action has pulled together 28 community members from all four counties, ensuring that a diverse population of local voices is heard. It is clear to me that Urban Rural Action as an organization believes in a bottom up approach, where listening and helping is valued more than telling and directing.

As a participant in the UPTV program, I have been able to engage in community oriented work, bridging those awkward gaps, the moments of silence when people aren’t quite sure what to say. Over the course of each session, I have grown as a communicator, community member, and friend.

During session one we tackled introductions and met with our community partners for the first time. Each county has a community partner, a local organization dedicated to the specific issue being addressed. Though we are all focused on the broader goal of targeted violence prevention, each community has specific needs, and our responses must be tailored to those

needs. For example, Adams County, my group, is focused on de-escalation and mediation, while the York County group is focused on suicide prevention. Each community partner helps us narrow the focus inwards, helping the community with its specific needs, acting as an additional bridge point between the participants and Urban Rural Action.

I walked away from the first session with a great big smile on my face. It was a warm day, especially for February, and I remember thinking to myself, “I’m just so glad that I can be part of this.” I was able to meet Co-Director Kira Hamman for the first time that day, who much like Joe and the rest of the team, was incredibly warm and welcoming. Leaving session one I was so very ready for session two.

During session two we met with the Mayor of York and discussed the needs of his community. It was clear he cared deeply for the people of York. We also met with Jordan Garza, a DHS official who instructed us in understanding the Pathways to Targeted Violence through useful policy models. As a Public Policy major, the usefulness was immediately clear as I could go back to the classroom and use this in my research. This intersection between my studies and the action I’d been seeking was heartening, and gave me hope for my ability to create change in the future.

Session three was focused on media literacy and problem tree analysis. Though there was some tension in the room surrounding truth and media narratives, we were able to navigate the tension well as a group, thanks largely in part to Joe and Kira. The group as a whole is working in good faith, and it seems everyone recognizes that dynamic. Session three helped me remember that not everyone I work with will agree with me, and that's ok. What is important to me is that we are all working together toward a common goal, and that we are all working in good faith.

We also met in our county groups to work out each respective county’s core problem. This was the first time we really sat down to think about what direction we wanted to take our project in. Being in that space for the first time in our program, where we had to make a decision, tripped us up a bit. I grew frustrated as my momentum faltered, and my locomotive-like drive came screeching to a halt. I just wanted to fly and I felt we were getting stuck. Here I learned a lesson; we couldn't just press onward forever, at some point we had to stop and consider. We had to plan. Then from that plan, we could get to the action. This lesson is key to the work. The action I’ve so desperately wanted cannot be all there is. Action without thought is recklessness, and thought without action, what I had already been doing, is just playing. I was attempting to jump between poles, when in reality I needed to merge the two.

After session three, we had two more full cohort sessions, where we continued to grow and learn as a community of problem solvers. I was unable to attend session five, as my college graduation was the same day, but the team was so eager to help that I was able to catch up quickly.

We’ve since transitioned to having meetings within our county groups, and with that transition comes a great deal of freedom. At first, URAction was the focus. As we got to know each other and built our connections, we needed a central body to glue us together. Now that the glue has dried, the bonds strengthened, we have been given a great deal of freedom to explore our projects. Though we have all this freedom, Joe, Kira, and the rest of the URAction team still provide guidance and assistance when we need it. We are truly experiencing the best of both worlds. The grassroots part of the initiative has really taken off and I am so happy to see where it leads.

The program has given me more hope for the future, both for the country and my own. If so many people are willing to come to the table, maybe we can continue to build tables across the nation. More tables mean more conversations, and more conversations mean greater understanding. If we can understand each other, we can grow together. Unity is our goal, kindness and care are the bricks and mortar, and the projects are the process of turning those materials into that bridge to the other side.

Read More

news app
New platforms help overcome biased news reporting
Tero Vesalainen/Getty Images

The Selective Sanctity of Death: When Empathy Depends on Skin Color

Rampant calls to avoid sharing the video of Charlie Kirk’s death have been swift and emphatic across social media. “We need to keep our souls clean,” journalists plead. “Where are social media’s content moderators?” “How did we get so desensitized?” The moral outrage is palpable; the demands for human dignity urgent and clear.

But as a Black woman who has been forced to witness the constant virality of Black death, I must ask: where was this widespread anger for George Floyd? For Philando Castile? For Daunte Wright? For Tyre Nichols?

Keep ReadingShow less
Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making
Mount Rushmore
Photo by John Bakator on Unsplash

Following Jefferson: Promoting Inter-Generational Understanding Through Constitution-Making

No one can denounce the New York Yankee fan for boasting that her favorite ballclub has won more World Series championships than any other. At 27 titles, the Bronx Bombers claim more than twice their closest competitor.

No one can question admirers of the late, great Chick Corea, or the equally astonishing Alison Krauss, for their virtually unrivaled Grammy victories. At 27 gold statues, only Beyoncé and Quincy Jones have more in the popular categories.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement badge.

Trump’s mass deportations promise security but deliver economic pain, family separation, and chaos. Here’s why this policy is failing America.

Getty Images, Tennessee Witney

The Cruel Arithmetic of Trump’s Immigration Crackdown

As summer 2025 winds down, the Trump administration’s deportation machine is operating at full throttle—removing over one million people in six months and fulfilling a campaign promise to launch the “largest deportation operation in American history.” For supporters, this is a victory lap for law and order. For the rest of the lot, it’s a costly illusion—one that trades complexity for spectacle and security for chaos.

Let’s dispense with the fantasy first. The administration insists that mass deportations will save billions, reduce crime, and protect American jobs. But like most political magic tricks, the numbers vanish under scrutiny. The Economic Policy Institute warns that this policy could destroy millions of jobs—not just for immigrants but for U.S.-born workers in sectors like construction, elder care, and child care. That’s not just a fiscal cliff—it is fewer teachers, fewer caregivers, and fewer homes built. It is inflation with a human face. In fact, child care alone could shrink by over 15%, leaving working parents stranded and employers scrambling.

Meanwhile, the Peterson Institute projects a drop in GDP and employment, while the Penn Wharton School’s Budget Model estimates that deporting unauthorized workers over a decade would slash Social Security revenue and inflate deficits by nearly $900 billion. That’s not a typo. It’s a fiscal cliff dressed up as border security.

And then there’s food. Deporting farmworkers doesn’t just leave fields fallow—it drives up prices. Analysts predict a 10% spike in food costs, compounding inflation and squeezing families already living paycheck to paycheck. In California, where immigrant renters are disproportionately affected, eviction rates are climbing. The Urban Institute warns that deportations are deepening the housing crisis by gutting the construction workforce. So much for protecting American livelihoods.

But the real cost isn’t measured in dollars. It’s measured in broken families, empty classrooms, and quiet despair. The administration has deployed 10,000 armed service members to the border and ramped up “self-deportation” tactics—policies so harsh they force people to leave voluntarily. The result: Children skipping meals because their parents fear applying for food assistance; Cancer patients deported mid-treatment; and LGBTQ+ youth losing access to mental health care. The Human Rights Watch calls it a “crueler world for immigrants.” That’s putting it mildly.

This isn’t targeted enforcement. It’s a dragnet. Green card holders, long-term residents, and asylum seekers are swept up alongside undocumented workers. Viral videos show ICE raids at schools, hospitals, and churches. Lawsuits are piling up. And the chilling effect is real: immigrant communities are retreating from public life, afraid to report crimes or seek help. That’s not safety. That’s silence. Legal scholars warn that the administration’s tactics—raids at schools, churches, and hospitals—may violate Fourth Amendment protections and due process norms.

Even the administration’s security claims are shaky. Yes, border crossings are down—by about 60%, thanks to policies like “Remain in Mexico.” But deportation numbers haven’t met the promised scale. The Migration Policy Institute notes that monthly averages hover around 14,500, far below the millions touted. And the root causes of undocumented immigration—like visa overstays, which account for 60% of cases—remain untouched.

Crime reduction? Also murky. FBI data shows declines in some areas, but experts attribute this more to economic trends than immigration enforcement. In fact, fear in immigrant communities may be making things worse. When people won’t talk to the police, crimes go unreported. That’s not justice. That’s dysfunction.

Public opinion is catching up. In February, 59% of Americans supported mass deportations. By July, that number had cratered. Gallup reports a 25-point drop in favor of immigration cuts. The Pew Research Center finds that 75% of Democrats—and a growing number of independents—think the policy goes too far. Even Trump-friendly voices like Joe Rogan are balking, calling raids on “construction workers and gardeners” a betrayal of common sense.

On social media, the backlash is swift. Users on X (formerly Twitter) call the policy “ineffective,” “manipulative,” and “theater.” And they’re not wrong. This isn’t about solving immigration. It’s about staging a show—one where fear plays the villain and facts are the understudy.

The White House insists this is what voters wanted. But a narrow electoral win isn’t a blank check for policies that harm the economy and fray the social fabric. Alternatives exist: Targeted enforcement focused on violent offenders; visa reform to address overstays; and legal pathways to fill labor gaps. These aren’t radical ideas—they’re pragmatic ones. And they don’t require tearing families apart to work.

Trump’s deportation blitz is a mirage. It promises safety but delivers instability. It claims to protect jobs but undermines the very sectors that keep the country running. It speaks the language of law and order but acts with the recklessness of a demolition crew. Alternatives exist—and they work. Cities that focus on community policing and legal pathways report higher public safety and stronger economies. Reform doesn’t require cruelty. It requires courage.

Keep ReadingShow less
Multi-colored speech bubbles overlapping.

Stanford’s Strengthening Democracy Challenge shows a key way to reduce political violence: reveal that most Americans reject it.

Getty Images, MirageC

In the Aftermath of Assassinations, Let’s Show That Americans Overwhelmingly Disapprove of Political Violence

In the aftermath of Charlie Kirk’s assassination—and the assassination of Minnesota state legislator Melissa Hortman only three months ago—questions inevitably arise about how to reduce the likelihood of similar heinous actions.

Results from arguably the most important study focused on the U.S. context, the Strengthening Democracy Challenge run by Stanford University, point to one straightforward answer: show people that very few in the other party support political violence. This approach has been shown to reduce support for political violence.

Keep ReadingShow less