Resetting the Table collaborates with strategic partners to build important communication across political silos in American life. Our work ranges from one-off forums to intensive year-long programs for institutional and community transformation that replace long-standing distrust or avoidance with a culture of healthy dialogue and deliberation.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More
Pennsylvania Vote Map
Getty Images
Latino Voters in Reading Reassess Trump’s First Year
Dec 20, 2025
Reading, Pennsylvania — the majority‑Latino city that helped shape the outcome of the 2024 presidential election — is once again a bellwether for how Latino voters are responding to President Donald Trump’s first year back in office. Earlier this year, as part of The 50: Voices of a Nation series, The Fulcrum reported that Reading’s residents were motivated by economic anxiety, immigration concerns, and frustration with political rhetoric. Nine months later, those same issues remain at the forefront — but the mood has shifted.
- YouTube youtu.be
New reporting from national outlets shows that Reading continues to draw attention as a microcosm of Latino political realignment. The New Republic noted that Reading “holds the secret to Democrats’ Latino woes,” highlighting how many Latino voters moved toward Trump in 2024 due to economic disillusionment and conservative social values. Another report reinforced that trend, finding that “a growing number of Latinos are turning to Donald Trump” in Reading, driven by concerns about inflation, family priorities, and dissatisfaction with Democratic messaging.
Residents who spoke with The Fulcrum cited the high cost of living as a major factor in their vote. "I know the economy was very difficult under Joe Biden," said Ramon Martinez, co-owner of Mofongo Restaurant. That concern has only intensified. Local business owners say inflation remains a daily challenge, and many families feel squeezed despite national indicators showing modest economic stabilization.
Latino voters in Reading told NBC News that economic uncertainty continues to shape their political engagement, with many describing the current moment as “unexpected” and “unsettling” as they watch national policy shifts unfold.
Trump’s mass‑deportation agenda — a major theme in the 2024 campaign — has become a lived reality for many Reading families. In March, democratic state representative and restaurant owner Johanny Cepeda‑Freyitz told The Fulcrum that fear of deportation was driving customers away and destabilizing the community. That fear has not subsided.
Trump’s immigration crackdown has become a defining issue for Reading’s Latino residents, many of whom support stronger borders but oppose policies that separate families or create a climate of fear.
Reading sits at the heart of what analysts now call Pennsylvania’s “Latino Belt,” a growing corridor of Latino voters whose political preferences are increasingly unpredictable. RealClearPolling reported that this demographic shift is reshaping statewide politics, with more than 600,000 eligible Latino voters now influencing Pennsylvania’s electoral landscape.
While Harris won Reading decisively in 2024, Trump’s gains in Berks County and across the Latino Belt helped him secure the state — a trend that may continue into 2026 unless Democrats re‑engage these communities.
Reading’s political story is far from settled. The city remains a place where economic strain, immigration policy, and shifting cultural identities intersect — and where Latino voters are redefining what political power looks like in Pennsylvania.
As the Trump administration enters its second year and the 2026 midterms approach, Reading will once again be a critical indicator of how Latino voters nationwide are responding to the country’s political direction.
Watch The 50: Voices of a Nation television special:
- YouTube youtu.be
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of the Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended
Panic-driven legislation—from airline safety to AI bans—often backfires, and evidence must guide policy.
Getty Images, J Studios
Beware of Panic Policies
Dec 19, 2025
"As far as human nature is concerned, with panic comes irrationality." This simple statement by Professor Steve Calandrillo and Nolan Anderson has profound implications for public policy. When panic is highest, and demand for reactive policy is greatest, that's exactly when we need our lawmakers to resist the temptation to move fast and ban things. Yet, many state legislators are ignoring this advice amid public outcries about the allegedly widespread and destructive uses of AI. Thankfully, Calandrillo and Anderson have identified a few examples of what I'll call "panic policies" that make clear that proposals forged by frenzy tend not to reflect good public policy.
Let's turn first to a proposal in November of 2001 from the American Academy of Pediatrics (AAP). For obvious reasons, airline safety was subject to immense public scrutiny at this time. AAP responded with what may sound like a good idea: require all infants to have their own seat and, by extension, their own seat belt on planes. The existing policy permitted parents to simply put their kid--so long as they were under two--on their lap. Essentially, babies flew for free.
The Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) permitted this based on a pretty simple analysis: the risks to young kids without seatbelts on planes were far less than the risks they would face if they were instead traveling by car. Put differently, if parents faced higher prices to travel by air, then they'd turn to the road as the best way to get from A to B. As we all know (perhaps with the exception of the AAP at the time), airline travel is tremendously safer than travel by car. Nevertheless, the AAP forged ahead with its proposal. In fact, it did so despite admitting that they were unsure of whether the higher risks of mortality of children under two in plane crashes were due to the lack of a seat belt or the fact that they're simply fragile.
A group of pediatricians stepped in to quash the AAP’s unfounded proposal. They reported that “even if the policy led to no increase in car travel and cost only $20 per round trip per young child, the cost per life saved would be about $4.3 million per discounted life-year.” As difficult as it may be to put a price tag on saving the life of an infant, in a world of scarce legislative attention and sparse resources, policymakers cannot avoid such analysis. Thankfully, the FAA sided with reason, resisted popular pressure, and rejected the AAP’s proposal.
Unfortunately, there’s no guarantee that reason will win out over panic policies. Following a number of tragic school bus incidents in the 1960s and 1970s, Congress faced mounting calls to insist on heightened safety regulations for school buses. The resulting proposal would have increased the cost of school buses by twenty-five percent by virtue of shoring up their safety measures. How do you think school districts would have responded?
Stick with the older buses for longer, right? Few school districts have spare funds lying around. Yet, this somewhat obvious response by districts appears to have been lost on the chief proponents of the policy.
The upshot is that policymaking that occurs in the heat of public panic is precisely when we ought to slow down, rely on evidence, and avoid enacting laws that will actually do more harm than good. It is undeniable that extensive use of AI tools has resulted in tragic outcomes for several young Americans.
How best to respond, though, is not as clear-cut as many may have you believe. It’s highly questionable that existing reports about the pros and cons of AI tools are representative of users. It’s also highly probable that proponents of bans are not adequately weighing the fact that there’s a massive shortage of psychiatrists to address the growing need among children and teens for specialized support. This is especially for children in rural and economically-insecure communities. Finally, and most importantly, it’s nearly certain that by stigmatizing the use of AI, proponents of panic policies may undermine uses of tools that have already shown their effectiveness. Not all AI is created equal. While there may be a case for limiting and even banning certain uses of certain AI tools, such policies should be grounded in evidence, not vibes.
To be clear--as someone who suffered from mental health issues as a child, I am not at all opposed to the motivations of those paying close attention to the misuse of AI. I applaud their devotion and attention to this issue. However, I’m vehemently opposed to allowing panic to distract us from adhering to good public policy. This is an emotional topic, which often makes it difficult for nuanced conversations, but the well-being of our youth demands that we rise to the occasion--leaning on research, investigation, and deliberation rather than acting on headlines and speculation.
Kevin Frazier is an AI Innovation and Law Fellow at Texas Law and author of the Appleseed AI substack.
Keep ReadingShow less
campbells chicken noodle soup can
Photo by Girl with red hat on Unsplash
Beyond Apologies: Corporate Contempt and the Call for Real Accountability
Dec 19, 2025
Most customers carry a particular image of Campbell's Soup: the red-and-white label stacked on a pantry shelf, a touch of nostalgia, and the promise of a dependable bargain. It's food for snow days, tight budgets, and the middle of the week. For generations, the brand has positioned itself as a companion to working families, offering "good food" for everyday people. The company cultivated that trust so thoroughly that it became almost cliché.
Campbell's episode, now the subject of national headlines and an ongoing high-profile legal complaint, is troubling not only for its blunt language but for what it reveals about the hidden injuries that erode the social contract linking institutions to citizens, workers to workplaces, and brands to buyers. If the response ends with the usual PR maneuvers—rapid firings and the well-rehearsed "this does not reflect our values" statement. Then both the lesson and the opportunity for genuine reform by a company or individual are lost. To grasp what this controversy means for the broader corporate landscape, we first have to examine how leadership reveals its actual beliefs.
The facts are straightforward. Robert Garza, a former cybersecurity analyst, has sued Campbell's, alleging that Martin Bally, then a vice president and Chief Information Security Officer, insulted Indian workers, disparaged Campbell's foods as "s--- for f---ing poor people," and mocked consumers—all during a meeting intended to address Garza's compensation. The lawsuit claims Bally also bragged about coming to work under the influence of marijuana and repeatedly used explicit racial slurs. According to Garza, the recording supports his claims. After Garza reported the incident to his supervisor, Bally was dismissed.
Campbell acknowledged the recording's authenticity, condemned Bally's remarks as "vulgar, offensive, and false," and severed ties with him. The company now faces a state-level investigation concerning product quality and questions about possible retaliation.
What's most striking about Bally's alleged remarks isn't just the crude language or the ignorance. It’s the confidence with which he shared them. To belittle food that millions depend upon as "slop for the poor" reveals not only personal arrogance but internalized elitism and a profound disconnect from both consumers and the company's declared values. If this is how executives view their products and those who rely on them, no marketing campaign can bridge that gap.
For employees, especially those targeted by bigotry or scapegoating, the harm runs even deeper. Corporate culture doesn't merely flow downward; it seeps into everyday behavior, from missed advancement to subtle exclusion. When employees see that reporting misconduct can lead to retaliation, as Garza alleges, trust erodes quickly, and the damage lingers.
Consumers sense this contempt too. In an era of economic strain, the realization that leaders quietly mock customers' realities is more than a PR challenge; it's a breach of the social contract. It signals that the promise of a fair exchange is negotiable and all too fragile. If contempt destroys trust, the usual cycle of corporate contrition does little to repair it.
Crisis management has become rote: issue a statement, insist the offensive behavior doesn't represent the company, fire the offender, and announce an internal review. Campbell's followed this script and reaffirmed its commitment to quality. These actions matter, but they fall short of addressing deeper failures.
No executive rises to senior leadership in a vacuum. Bally's conduct was possible because a culture allowed him to advance while his attitudes went unchallenged or unnoticed. Such reality should prompt a more honest question: if a workplace can absorb and overlook contempt of this magnitude, what else has it normalized? What day-to-day habits have become so ingrained that the system itself sustains arrogance and exclusion?
If these questions expose the limits of routine corporate apologies, the next step is to consider what real accountability would require. Authentic accountability demands transparency that goes beyond formulaic statements and crisis scripts. Campbell’s, or any company, must move from symbolic gestures to real, structural change: independent audits of workplace culture, genuine opportunities for employees to reach senior leaders without fear of retaliation, and real consequences when retaliation occurs.
Diversity and anti-bias training may help, but they mean little without independent reporting channels, third-party oversight, and steadfast whistleblower protections. Recruitment and advancement should prioritize those who understand the realities of workers and consumers, not just candidates who fit the old leadership mold. Most challenging of all, product and marketing decisions should involve the consumers who actually use the brand. Respect is genuine only when it is participatory.
If Campbell's is sincere in its supposed gratitude for its customers, the first step toward repair is a willingness to share influence with those very people. Consumers hold more power than they realize. They can demand more than apologies and short-term fixes. Public trust isn't a performance; it's a responsibility. When leaders betray that trust, the only credible response involves actual culture change and consequences that reach into the structure of leadership.
Boycotts and social media outrage apply pressure. But real consumer advocacy expects independent review, measurable equity commitments, and transparency in hiring, retention, and advancement. It supports companies that protect whistleblowers and uphold these standards long after the headlines vanish. With all this in mind, the final question is whether redemption is possible—and if so, what it must look like.
The Campbell's scandal isn't just a corporate misstep; it points to a broader breach between the powerful and those who trust, labor for, and support them. If companies seek redemption, it won't come through slogans or glossy advertisements. It will have to emerge through actions that honor dignity in tangible, lasting ways.
If leaders can't replace contempt with genuine respect, self-reflection, and a humility fitting their responsibilities, the divide between the influential and everyday people will only widen. The consequences will outlast brand reputation or quarterly profits. They ripple through the moral integrity of public life. That growing divide is a test of who we are and what we're willing to accept from those who shape the literal and symbolic bread of our daily lives.
Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson is a spiritual entrepreneur, author, scholar-practioner whose leadership and strategies around social and racial justice issues are nationally recognized and applied.
Keep ReadingShow less
A reflection on freedom, democracy, and moral courage in America, urging citizens to stand up before our values fly away.
Getty Images, James Gilbert
As the Earth Rumbles, the Sky Calls, LaLu, the Eagle, Wants To Speak!
Dec 19, 2025
As a professional dancer, I’ve always been grounded, but the earth is rumbling, and I am uncharacteristically unsteady. I’m not alone in this feeling. Shifting cultural values are rattling our sense of moral integrity. Unfathomable words (calling a congresswoman and the people “garbage”), acts of cruelty (killing survivors stranded in the ocean), or calling a journalist “piggy,” are playfully spun as somehow normal. Our inner GPS systems are not able to locate the center.
I’m climbing trees these days in order to get up off the earth. At the age of 74, it is frankly exhilarating – I am more cognizant of the danger, so I must be attentive. All my senses are buzzing as I negotiate the craggy shape of a giant, catalpa tree. I settle into a large, gently curving limb, which hugs my body like a nest. My cries enter the vastness of the universe, and the birds sing me to sleep. I’m trying to locate myself again. Dreams are vivid up in the air.
A bald eagle, LaLu, comes to me in a vivid, technicolor daydream. Her crystal tears fall on my body like ice drops. Her caws pierce my heart. She calls out:
“I don’t want to be the symbol of freedom in America anymore! I don’t want to be on coins, bedspreads, stamps, helmets, flags, public buildings, and beach towels. I especially don’t want to be on an official presidential podium with my wings weighted down in gilded, gaudy gold in a gilded, gaudy, golden room with a gilded, gaudy, goldish/orange feathered character.”
She turns her proud, white head toward me.
“Please tell Americans I can’t be their symbol of freedom anymore.”
LaLu is in a rant. I listen carefully.
“Since 1792, when the U.S. Congress approved my appearance on the Great Seal of the United States, I have tried, to the best of my ability, to represent the values placed on me – independence, strength, and freedom. Unfortunately, eagles, like humans, can slip into their darker nature. Benjamin Franklin had it right when he said, ‘Bald Eagle...is a Bird of bad moral Character. He does not get his Living honestly…[he] is too lazy to fish for himself.’
I try my best not to steal from other birds. I work at it daily. I was honored when President Biden finally made me the national bird in December 2024 (most humans don’t know I was unofficial up until then.) He, too, fell into some bad habits, but he was a good man who struggled like I do to keep on the right path.”
LaLu flies down and begins scratching the earth like a chicken.
“The founding fathers chose me because I was indigenous to North America. I am ashamed to say, I hovered high over the Trail of Tears, as native peoples were forcefully removed from their land in the early 1800s. Now, I watch human beings being dragged away by other humans with no due process of law.”
My cousin, the black eagle, was taken over by the Nazis. She held a swastika (Sanskrit for good fortune) and an oak leaf (believed to have strong healing powers by the Druids). The Nazis twisted these symbols into hatred, and my cousin lost her soul.
LaLu begins to shake, ruffling all her feathers. I hold the limb tightly as it sways.
“My talons carry an olive branch on one side and arrows on the other. The founding fathers wanted me to keep Americans safe by always using the olive branch first, and only, when necessary, using my arrows. It’s topsy-turvy now. I wish I knew how to keep humans safe. I only know I can’t do what my cousin did.
For more than two centuries, Americans tried to exterminate me, accusing me of “…stealing livestock and even kidnapping babies.” Which is somewhat true, at least the livestock part, because I was trying not to steal from other birds. In the 1800s, there were 100,000 of us, and then the DDT almost did us in. Luckily, the federal government established protections, so in 2007, we were removed from the endangered species list, and by 2020, we were 316,700 strong. This was a rare victory, made possible by the government of and by the people who used the olive branch to save the lives of my children’s, children’s children.”
LaLu opens her seven-foot wingspan and flies up to the very top branch. Her intense yellow eyes gaze down at me, and oily teardrops splash my face.
“Please,” I plead, “Don’t leave us now, we need you!” She replies:
“I am sad to leave you. I have tried to stand by you, but America is suffering a moral decay so hideous, so all encompassing, that the only power I have left is to fly away so far, the sun will not shine on me anymore. I’m headed for the dark side of the moon. If I don’t, I will lose the one drop left of my own moral integrity.”
She draws her beak toward her heart and says:
"Way back in 1881, as the Civil War was raging, Abraham Lincoln pleaded with humans to return to '…the better angels of your nature,' and stand up for freedom, as the 'last best hope of man on earth.' I want that for you too."
I climb down from my perch and see LaLu unapologetically soaring upward toward the moon. I place my feet firmly on the ground, relieved that gravity’s pull feels familiar and comforting. Each of us will be facing a line we can’t cross to stand up for our own moral integrity and that of our country.
It is heartening to see people from every profession take a stand. If you are in the law, stand up as two-thirds of the DOJ lawyers did when they were asked to defend Trump’s policies. If you are an academic in the areas of sciences, humanities, or the arts, write Op-Eds and inform the public about your research that supports fact-based decisions, as did Alan I. Leshner, CEO of the American Association for the Advancement of Science. If you know an immigrant in need, know their rights, walk with them, and have your camera ready. If you are a mom, dad, daughter, son, sister/brother, grandma/pa join protest movements such as No Kings, or just stand on a street corner at any time with a sign of your own making. My sign says, “Freedom is not just for birds! Fight for America’s freedom…and LaLu’s!Jan Erkert is professor emerita and former Head of the Department of Dance at the University of Illinois. She is a Fulbright Scholar, a Public Voices Fellow with the National Op-Ed Project and Director of the University of Illinois’ Alumni OpEd Project. She is currently seeking publication of her manuscript, “Stories from my Dancing Body.”
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More