In the first episode of Rev. Dr. F. Willis Johnson’s podcast, Collage, Johnson discusses the promise of Black History Month.
Podcast: Collage: The promise of Black History Month
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Start your day right!
Get latest updates and insights delivered to your inbox.
Latest news
Read More
Carolyn Lukensmeyer.
The National Institute for Civil Discourse and New Voice Strategies
Carolyn Lukensmeyer Turns 80: A Life of Commitment to “Of, By, and for the People”
Jun 03, 2025
I’ve known Dr. Carolyn Lukensmeyer for over a decade, first meeting her about a decade ago. Dr. Lukensmeyer is a nationally renowned expert in deliberative democracy, a former executive director emerita of the National Institute for Civil Discourse, and a member of the American Academy of Arts & Sciences’ Commission on the Practice of Democratic Citizenship.
On the weekend of her 80th birthday, former colleagues, clients, and friends offered a look at Dr. Lukensmeyer’s extraordinary commitment to “of, by, and for the peoples,” from her earlier days in Iowa and Ohio to the present day.
Her credentials are impressive indeed, but what I admire most about Dr. Lukensmeyer as a friend and a colleague is her life's commitment to our nation and to healing the seemingly intractable divides that separate us people.
Dr. Lukensmeyer spoke several years ago at the Democracy Awards, a project of the Congressional Management Foundation that annually honors the best in congressional non-legislative achievement. These nonpartisan awards celebrate Members of Congress and their staff who exemplify outstanding public service, operational excellence, and innovative practices that strengthen our democracy.
I remember that speech well. The Democracy Awards honored Congressional giants who passed away that year: Senator John McCain and Representative John Dingell. In honoring these great men, she spoke of spirit and reminded us all of the “responsibility of putting country above party.”
Dr. Lukensmeyer quoted John Dingel as he was talking about all the hurdles he had experienced as a sponsor of major legislation:
“All of these challenges were addressed by Congress. Maybe not as fast as we wanted or as perfectly as we’d hoped, the work is certainly not finished, but we’ve made progress. In every case, from the passage of Medicare to the passage of civil rights, we did it with the support of Democrats and Republicans who considered themselves, first and foremost, Americans.” Dr. Lukensmeyer went on to say, “That is a message that needs to be taken to heart in the halls of Congress today,” and “Our responsibilities are important, vitally important to the success of our republic. Our arcane rules and customs are deliberately intended to require broad cooperation in order to function well. The most revered members of this institution accepted the necessity of compromise in order to make incremental progress in solving America’s problems and to defend her from her adversaries.”
Dr. Lukensmeyer has spoken at many important events over the years, always with a consistent message of finding common ground. In 2019, she was the first keynote speaker for a thought-provoking lecture entitled, “The Power of In/Civility: Engaging in Challenging Conversations Across the University, Community, Nation.” Dr. Lukensmeyer encouraged the audience to, no matter how hard, find common ground with someone they disagree with.
If democracy is going to work, she explained, it has to be a conversation — but the quality of that conversation really matters. “How is it that our public and political discourse has become so degraded? People who are researching this and talk about it a lot say this is something that has been building for decades,” Dr. Lukensmeyer said. “It is also true that the presidential election cycle in 2016, both primary and general, really took it to a different level.”
During her keynote, Dr. Lukensmeyer showed a video clip of two people on the opposite ends of the political spectrum who became unlikely friends — How did this happen? One simply invited the other out for coffee, and they discovered that they had a lot more in common than either of them had first thought. “The message is, we don’t have to be enemies when we’re on the opposite side of something,” said Dr. Lukensmeyer. “We just have to learn to see each other as human beings.”
Dr. Lukensmeyer stressed that the issue of civility and incivility greatly matters. “We are absolutely bombarded on a daily basis with profound examples on incivility, disrespect, dehumanizing — and people understand that there’s something about civility that really matters,” she told the diverse group. She went on to say that Americans are living at a distance from one another and making moral judgements about one another because of their differing political views.
For as long as I have known Dr. Lukensmeyer, one of her key beliefs is that democracy thrives when people are actively involved in decision-making. Through her work with AmericaSpeaks that she founded, she emphasized that "citizen voice must be linked with governance" to ensure that leaders are truly representing the people.
She has always highlighted the dangers of political dysfunction, stating that "we must restore our democracy to reflect the intended vision of our Founding Fathers". In many discussions over the years, Dr. Lukensmeyer has been unwavering in her belief in the need for innovative political engagement to heal divides and "chart a collective path forward.”
Ultimately, Dr. Lukensmeyer’s faith in democracy rests with her faith in “We the People.” Many years ago, she said something to me that still resonates with me to this day.
“If, in fact, we are going to do something about this,” she said, “it’s going to come from ‘we the people.’”
David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.
Keep ReadingShow less
Someone getting tap water.
Getty Images, urbazon
Public Health: Ban First, Study Later? The Growing Assault on Fluoridated Water
Jun 03, 2025
On May 15, Florida became the second state in the nation to ban fluoride from public drinking water. The bill, signed by Governor Ron DeSantis, is set to go into effect on July 1. Utah’s Governor Spencer Cox enacted a similar ban that went into effect this May. Five other states—Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Nebraska, and South Carolina—have introduced bills that aim to ban fluoride in public drinking water.
Fluoride is a mineral that, in small quantities, has proven to be effective against tooth decay, caused by bacteria that form in the mouth when we eat or drink. The American Academy of Pediatrics states on its website that studies have shown water fluoridation, an intentional treatment process of public drinking water, reduces tooth decay by about 25% in children and adults alike.
As someone who has spent a good chunk of their childhood years in a dentist’s chair, mouth wide open and nerves on edge while waiting for the screeching sound of the drill to pound my head, I can assure you that no child enjoys putting themselves through that kind of torture. So, before rushing to ban a measure that the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) has cited as one of the 10 great public health interventions of the 20 th century, why not review the evidence and commission new and impartial studies?
The latest legislative initiatives have been prompted by overt skepticism about fluoride in public drinking water expressed by Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. On January 20, the day prior to President Trump’s inauguration, in a post on X, Kennedy called fluoride an “industrial waste” and linked it to arthritis, bone cancer, IQ loss, neurodevelopmental disorders, and thyroid disease. He vowed to remove it from public water once Trump got into office, something he is actively pursuing right now.
A review study by the National Institutes of Health, published in early January 2025, linked fluoride exposure to lower IQ in children. The study fueled existing skepticism and gave further ammunition to those who seek to roll back a public health measure that has promoted the oral health of three-quarters of Americans for decades.
Here is the caveat: the data in that specific review study was drawn from countries outside of the United States—Canada, China, Denmark, Mexico, Pakistan, and Taiwan—that have, in some areas, naturally occurring high concentrations of fluoride in their groundwater. This means higher than 1.5 mg of fluoride per liter of drinking water.
Furthermore, many of the research studies reviewed were classified as “having a high-risk bias,” which in plain language means they cannot be fully trusted because several factors may have influenced the findings in a way that makes them less reliable. This does not disqualify the review study, per se, but it warrants caution against taking conclusive policy actions.
For the record, the U.S. Public Health Service currently recommends 0.7 mg of fluoride per liter of drinking water. An evaluation of the study by the National Toxicology Program says that it did not contain enough data to determine if the low fluoride level recommended by the federal government in community water supplies has a negative effect on children’s IQ.
- YouTubewww.youtube.com
It is worth noting that not all public drinking water across the U.S. contains the same amount of fluoride. The mineral content of your tap water depends on several factors, including its source, the type of soil or rocks it passes through, environmental factors such as pollution from farming or industrial activity, and any treatment process it has undergone. In Flint, Michigan, for instance, the quality of the tap water was — and remains — compromised due to industrial contamination of the Flint River. Adding fluoride to tap water is one way to ingest this mineral. Dentists sometimes recommend fluoride toothpastes, mouthwashes, or fluoride tablets.
You can check the amount of fluoride in your tap water through this Centers for Disease Control and Prevention map, while it is available. Other sources of public information on fluoride in drinking water have been taken down from federal agency websites over the last few months.
This is unsurprising, perhaps, since the CDC’s Division of Oral Health was also eliminated in the scramble to restructure the federal government and, in Secretary Kennedy’s own words, Make America Healthy Again. But controlling what information people have at their disposal is about controlling the narrative.
Brett Kessler, the President of the American Dental Association, condemned this move and, without mincing his words, said, “Blunt actions like this do not make Americans healthy. They make us sick. The mouth is the gateway to the body. When the mouth is healthier, the body is too.”
The point of this: tooth decay and cavities cause pain and loss of productivity, whether it is school days or workdays. Nobody enjoys enduring a toothache or paying for expensive dentist bills. Many people cannot afford to go to the dentist, let alone get preventive oral care. In some parts of the country, especially rural areas, there is a shortage of dentists. Water fluoridation may be the first and only line of defense against cavities. It can reduce dental disparities, especially at a time when Medicaid is being slashed.
Instead of banning fluoride in tap water, it would be best to discourage the consumption of sugary foods and drinks, which are the primary cause of tooth decay, and invest in more high-quality and unbiased research on the efficacy of tap water fluoridation in preventing cavities and assessing its cost-effectiveness.
Beatrice Spadacini is a freelance journalist for the Fulcrum. Spadacini writes about social justice and public health.
Keep ReadingShow less
APM Research Lab
POLL: Americans Wary About The President Taking Unconventional Actions
Jun 03, 2025
Americans show a strong preference for their elected executives — governors as well as the president — to achieve their political goals through conventional, sometimes slow, procedures, according to the McCourtney Institute for Democracy’s latest Mood of the Nation Poll.
Results showed marked partisan differences. For example, 26% of all survey respondents rated a presidential action of firing all recently hired federal employees as “very appropriate,” including only four percent of Democrats and just over half of Republicans.
Still, the poll finds that large numbers of Republican prefer the president use conventional actions to achieve policy goals. Seventy-seven percent of Republicans indicated that it would be “very appropriate” for the president to initiate “a year-long analysis to identify the government positions that waste the most money.”
In reaction to the poll’s findings, Michael Berkman, director of Penn State’s McCourtney Institute for Democracy, commented, "It is heartening to see that most Americans support changing policies by going through traditional channels. These may be slow, but this approach is predictable, honors existing agreements with state governments, contractors, and public employees, and provides checks on the executive branch."
The poll of 3,251 adults took place during the first 100 days of the second Trump administration. A time of rapid change, during which President Donald Trump pushed the boundaries of longstanding norms concerning presidential power.
For example, Trump has pursued a dramatic reduction in the federal workforce, used his emergency powers to impose tariffs on foreign good s without the involvement of Congress, and has used executive orders to halt multiyear contracts and grants deemed inconsistent with the president’s political agenda.
The poll sought to understand how Americans view actions like these, to gain insight into citizens view the limits of appropriate executive power.
Respondents were asked to rate each of nine hypothetical executive actions. Since Trump is a polarizing figure, half the poll’s respondents were asked questions about “the president” rather than specifically about “President Trump.” The other half were asked to rate the same actions, if taken by a hypothetical newly elected governor in their state.
Americans show a strong preference for the president to achieve political goals through conventional procedures
A clear majority, 60%, felt that honoring existing contracts was very appropriate. Also receiving high marks, 55% felt that it was very appropriate for the president to initiate a year-long analysis to identify government positions that waste the most money, and 44% thought it would be appropriate to try to renegotiate existing government contracts.
In contrast, the public shows little support for actions that push the boundaries of presidential power. Forty-nine percent felt that firing recent hires is not appropriate at all and 54% say it is inappropriate to cancel contracts simply because the president campaigned to end the policy.
Using emergency powers to furlough workers (something that the current administration has not done) or to cut off funds to agencies enforcing laws the president opposes, were viewed as “not appropriate at all” by 61% and 69% of those polled, respectively.
Finally, the least favored action was when the president simply chooses to not enforce existing laws they happen to disagree with. Only 7% felt this was very appropriate and nearly seven in ten Americans told us this was not appropriate at all.
Evidence of both partisan polarization and a consistent preference for conventional presidential action
Many Americans appear to be evaluating the exercise of presidential power through a partisan lens. But large segments of both parties indicate a preference for more precedented, conventional actions over those with less precedent.
The only presidential action supported as “very appropriate” by a majority of Democrats was that of honoring existing contracts. This was the case regardless of whether the contracts concerned recycling companies, charter schools or road construction (one-third of the sample was asked about each area).
A minority of Democrats viewed the other conventional presidential actions as “very appropriate,” and only a handful indicated that the unconventional actions would be appropriate.
Republicans are much more supportive of the president pursuing the change agenda outlined in the poll’s hypotheticals. Notably, however, Republican support is much higher for conventional presidential actions than the unconventional actions. For example:
- While half of Republicans rate the unconventional presidential action of firing all recently hired federal employees (which mirrors a current Trump administration policy) as “very appropriate,” a significantly higher proportion, three-quarters, support the conventional action of initiating an analysis to identify wasteful positions.
- Fewer than one-third of Republicans rate an unconventional presidential action of suspending contracts as “very appropriate,” while nearly half indicate support for honoring contracts and 71% support another conventional action, renegotiating contracts to save money.
Berkman noted, “This poll shows that a majority of Republicans and Democrats agree that following the rule of law is the most appropriate way to govern, though it is worrying to see partisan polarization again divide Americans over yet more issues."
Americans even less supportive of governors taking unconventional actions
Overall, when comparing the responses of those who were asked to rate hypothetical gubernatorial actions to those who rated presidential actions, the survey finds very similar support for conventional actions, but even less support for unconventional actions that would be taken by governors.
And, once again, there are partisan differences, with Republicans favoring the unconventional actions — many of which are geared toward cost savings — at higher rates than Democrats. An interesting nuance, however, is that Democrats are more supportive of governors than the president taking conventional actions, while Republicans are less supportive of governors than the president taking any action, conventional or unconventional, except for honoring existing contracts.
Conventional actions
Overall, 66% rated governors honoring existing contracts as appropriate, higher than the 60% among those who were asked about the president. Fifty four percent and 44% respectively, indicated support for initiating a year-long cost-saving analysis and renegotiating contracts — virtually identical to the responses when asked about the president.
Somewhat fewer were supportive of governor’s calling a special session of the state legislature than were supportive of the president calling a special session of Congress, even though in practice special sessions are more common at the state level.
While Republicans indicate more support than Democrats for the three change-oriented conventional actions, the gap between the two groups is narrower than when the question is posed about the president. That is, Democrats are more supportive of governors than the president pursing these measures, while Republicans are less supportive of governors pursing these actions.
For example, there is a twenty-one percentage-point gap (57% minus 36%) between the proportion of Republicans and Democrats who indicate that governors renegotiating contracts is “very appropriate,” whereas that gap increases to 49 percentage points (71% minus 22%) when the subject is the president.
Unconventional actions
Overall, fewer respondents rate the unconventional items “very appropriate” when asked about governors than when asked about the president.
Since so few Democrats were supportive of the unconventional actions regardless of whether they were to be taken by governors or the president, the difference largely comes from the responses of Republicans.
For example, approval of mass firings of probationary employees drops from 51% when Republicans are asked about the president to 37% when asked about governors. Suspending contracts drops from 31% to 21%, and furloughing employees from 32% to 23%.
Notably, these patterns do not change appreciably based on the party of the governor currently in control. Few Democrats indicate support for the unconventional actions, even if their current governor is a Democrat. This may be in part because some of the questions asked respondents to imagine “a new governor.” More likely it has to do with the fiscally conservative nature of several of the items.
In summary
Taken altogether these results suggest that all Americans, including both Democrats and Republicans, are more supportive of conventional actions by their elected executives than they are of unconventional actions. It also shows, not surprisingly, that Republicans are more supportive than Democrats of fiscally conservative policy change.
Finally, the findings also suggest that Americans are somewhat more accepting of the president seeking change through unconventional means than they are of state executives taking the same actions. This may be related to how they view the powers associated with the presidency versus those of governors.
However, it may also have to do with the current occupant of the presidency, Donald Trump. While not specifically named in the poll, it would be natural for respondents to be thinking particularly of President Trump when responding to these questions — especially since many of the hypothetical actions they were asked to rate are similar to actions already taken by Trump.
Even with the bump in support for unconventional action for “the president” as opposed to governors, these poll findings suggest that the public, including those in the party of the current president, are more likely to support change pursued through conventional than unconventional channels of governing.
POLL: Americans Wary About The President Taking Unconventional Actions was originally published by the APM Research Lab and is republished with permission.
Craig Helmstetter is the APM Research Lab’s founding Managing Partner.
Eric Plutzer is Professor of Political Science and Sociology and currently serves as co-editor of the Public Opinion Quarterly, the flagship journal of the American Association for Public Opinion Research.
Keep ReadingShow less
A child's hand holding an adult's hand.
Getty Images, LaylaBird
The U.S. Is Rushing To Make AI Deals With Gulf Countries, But Who Will Help Keep Children Safe?
Jun 02, 2025
As the United States deepens its investments in artificial intelligence (AI) partnerships abroad, it is moving fast — signing deals, building labs, and exporting tools. Recently, President Donald Trump announced sweeping AI collaborations with Gulf countries like Saudi Arabia and the United Arab Emirates. These agreements, worth billions, are being hailed as historic moments for digital diplomacy and technological leadership.
But amid the headlines and handshakes, I keep asking the same question: where is child protection in all of this?
As someone who has worked across the Middle East and North Africa on children’s rights and protection, I have seen how fast-moving technologies can amplify harm when ethical safeguards are missing. In countries where digital regulation is still evolving and where vulnerable communities already fall through the cracks, introducing powerful AI tools without clear protections is not innovation, it's a risk.
And yet, these deals are being signed without a single line publicly dedicated to the safety of children, the protection of personal data, or the prevention of exploitation.
The MENA region is home to more than 100 million children, many of whom live in contexts shaped by displacement, economic hardship, or legal invisibility. The digital world, once imagined as a safe space for learning and connection, has also become a space where grooming, abuse, and trafficking happen at alarming speed.
The INTERPOL report from 2020 warned that during COVID-19, online child sexual exploitation surged. Isolation, lack of oversight, and increased internet use created the perfect conditions for harm, and we still have not caught up.
Now, imagine adding AI to this landscape of facial recognition, predictive policing, and machine learning systems in countries that are still building their legal frameworks. Who decides how these systems are used? Who is responsible if they misidentify, exclude, or endanger a child?
This isn’t a critique of progress. The Gulf region is making major investments in tech, education, and infrastructure and that can bring real opportunities. But when the U.S. exports technology without including rights-based standards, it is exporting risk.
In all the official announcements, I’ve yet to see mention of child rights impact assessments, ethical use policies, safeguarding conditions, or civil society consultations. These are not extras. These are not nice-to-haves. They are essentials.
The U.S. cannot claim global leadership in AI while staying silent on the ethical standards that must accompany it. If it can include economic terms in these deals, it can also include human rights terms. If it can prioritize national security, it can also prioritize child safety.
Before the next deal is signed, child protection needs to be on the table, not as an afterthought, but as a requirement. We need binding commitments to data privacy and safety, independent oversight mechanisms, and a voice for child rights organizations in the negotiation process — because children will live with the consequences of these technologies even though they were never consulted.
We cannot allow powerful tools to be exchanged between governments without also exchanging responsibility. AI may be the future but if it doesn’t protect children, it’s a future built on omission.
And we’ve already seen what that costs.
Hassan Tabikh is a human rights practitioner from Baalbek, Lebanon, with over a decade of experience in human rights, social justice, and child protection across the MENA region. He is the MENA Regional Coordinator at ECPAT International and a Public Voices Fellow on Prevention of Child Sexual Abuse with The OpEd Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More