From July 19 to 22, I attended America in One Room: The Youth Vote, a Washington, D.C., gathering of 500 first-time voters discussing policy issues. The voters constituted a representative sample of young Americans from diverse backgrounds, all ages 17 and 18. Throughout the weekend, participants read through relevant policy proposals, deliberated in small groups, heard from expert panels and completed surveys on their views as part of a deliberative polling experiment.
This year, roughly 41 million members of Generation Z—Americans ages 18 to 27—will be eligible to vote, according to Tufts University. Of those, about 16 million will be eligible to vote for the first time in November’s presidential election.
WASHINGTON—The Close Up Foundation, through its National Network of Schools in Partnership (NNSP) division, brought students and educators to the nation’s capital in January for parallel three-day civic engagement conferences aimed at forging actionable plans for transforming their schools into civic hubs for community engagement.
Student Symposium: Forging Future Leaders
The Community Impact & Civic Leadership Symposium for students kicked off with an NNSP Impact-a-Thon, where students were given two hours to plan and film a 30-second video centered on the prompt: “How do we persuade politicians to pay attention to youth voices like the media pays attention to Taylor Swift and Travis Kelce?” The students rose to the occasion, with video vignettes covering a wide range of issues from podcasts sparking student awareness to the power of local protests.
In between study visits to memorials, student workshops featured young adult leaders detailing their paths into civic service. These included an origami-based strategy to influence policy issues by Close Up Manager of Student Programs Reese Arthur and a Zoom presentation by 2ndF Director of Impact Derek Rhodes on how he was inspired to tackle food insecurity in his community.
The impact of the Symposium culminated in the final day’s student presentations, action plans meticulously crafted by students to address community issues such as teen participation in school board elections and the protection of voting rights. Students later presented their action plans to educators at the corresponding NNSP Annual Conference.
Kimberly, a student attendee from McLean, Virginia, reflected on the experience, “We collaborated on identifying problems in our community and planning community engagement.” When asked how the Symposium fits her broader studies, she responded, “The biggest takeaway was collaboration on identifying problems and solving them. Everyone’s thoughts matter.”
NNSP Annual Conference: Equipping Educators for Impactful Learning
While entrusting their students to the instruction of Close Up staff and speakers, the NNSP Annual Conference offered educators a myriad of subject matter experts from the world of policy and education. Alice Siu, associate director of Stanford’s Deliberative Democracy Lab and a Close Up board member, shared studies on deliberative democracy and explored how artificial intelligence impacts the classroom. Close Up Manager of Professional Development Sante Mastriana took teachers through an exercise for facilitating nonpartisan classroom discussion on current events.
The civic engagement conference featured tangible examples of creating classes and programs that are not only engaging but also thought-provoking and stimulating for all students. Attendees immersed themselves in small workshops, larger keynotes, and panel presentations, further amplifying the impact of the shared knowledge and strategies.
“It’s so energizing to be surrounded by educators who truly believe that civic and community engagement experiences are essential in a student’s education and overall academic experience,” said Blake Kohn, a senior advisor at Close Up and executive director of the NNSP division.
Close Up and NNSP Impact: Fostering Civic Engagement
The dual impact of the student and teacher conferences underscored Close Up’s commitment to fostering civic engagement and empowering both students and educators. By crafting a collective civic vision and providing educators with tools for impactful teaching, this week in Washington, D.C., marked a turning point for many of these school communities who can now champion a more vibrant, interactive, and meaningful approach to civic education.
NNSP is a division of Close Up, with 200+ member organizations that include schools, educational access and enrichment programs, and policy and education reform groups. Longtime partners before merging in 2023, Close Up and NNSP offer curriculum consulting, professional development for educators, and Impact programming for schools and organizations seeking to enhance their community and civic engagement programs.
For more information, email us at nnsp@closeup.org.
GLENDALE, Ariz.—Leaders of the Arizona Cardinals, the Close Up Foundation, and Greater Phoenix Leadership (GPL) gathered at State Farm Stadium on January 17 to kick off this year’s Civics Matters Arizona program alongside community partners and elected officials from across the state.
Now in its third year, Civics Matters Arizona is an annual civic engagement initiative that connects Arizona high school students with their peers and with their government. The program, conducted in partnership by the Cardinals, Close Up, GPL, and the office of the Arizona governor, targets a geographically diverse group of high schools and organizations serving Title I communities.
Students in participating schools and organizations take part in an essay contest about the importance of civic engagement, with the winners flying to Washington on the Cardinals’ team plane for an all-expenses-paid summer trip with Close Up. In D.C., students meet with elected officials, participate in issue deliberations, and visit memorials, museums, and government institutions.
New for 2024, the program gives participants an opportunity to stay engaged as Arizona Civic Ambassadors after the trip. Using the MobileServe app, Close Up will provide students with monthly toolkits and guidance to organize their own civic engagement activities in their home communities, as well as earn the Arizona Seal of Civics Literacy for their diploma if they choose.
“Our goal is to continue to think about how we extend the impact of what we’re doing,” said Close Up Chief Innovation and Programs Officer Lindsay Greenberg. “What can students do when they get home? How do we create Civic Ambassadors who can bring what they learned and the enthusiasm and excitement from D.C. back into their schools, back into their local communities?”
Conceived by Cardinals team owner Michael Bidwill, Civics Matters Arizona began in 2022 as an effort to give students a once-in-a-lifetime glimpse of their government in action while boosting schools’ focus on civics. In its first two years, the program has impacted more than 2,500 students in over 50 schools through the essay contest, the D.C. trip, and civic engagement classroom curriculum.
“Going on this trip and meeting Sen. [Kyrsten] Sinema, for example, or shaking hands with Gov. [Doug] Ducey or hearing Gov. [Katie] Hobbs, it gives kids this experience that the government is a real thing full of real people,” said Jake Richardson, a two-time participant and social studies department chairman at Empower College Prep in Phoenix. “That sort of word spreads through a small school like mine. You can contact an elected official. They will listen to you and be interested in your ideas to change your community. That definitely makes kids sit up a little straighter in government.”
The Civics Matters Arizona 2024 trip to Washington will take place June 11-14. Rep. Juan Ciscomani (R-Ariz.) is among the Arizona leaders and elected officials who will join students for the experience.
For more information, contact us at support@closeup.org.
The Senate passed the Respect for Marriage Act on November 29, and the House of Representatives is expected to pass it this week. President Joe Biden has already said he will sign it. The bill is the result of months of work by congressional leaders to create legislative protections for same-sex married couples.
The History of Same-Sex Marriage in the United States
Gay marriage was legalized across the country with the Supreme Court’s decision in Obergefell v. Hodges (2015). The case decided two things: (1) states must give marriage licenses to same-sex couples, and (2) states must recognize same-sex marriage licenses issued in other states.1
Before Obergefell, the federal government passed the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in 1996, which limited the definition of marriage (in the eyes of the federal government) to unions between a man and a woman. DOMA allowed states not to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states. Couples who were married in states that licensed gay marriage could not access the federal protections and privileges of legal marriage, such as access to a spouse’s employment benefits, the rights of inheritance, and tax benefits.2
Because the right of gay couples to marry is currently protected by a Supreme Court decision, advocates for the Respect for Marriage Act argue that more permanent protections, in the form of a national law, are necessary. The Court rarely overturns its past decisions, but it did so with Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization (2022), which overturned the constitutional right to abortion established by Roe v. Wade (1973). In Dobbs, Justice Clarence Thomas included in his concurring opinion that the Court should reconsider its previous decisions about the right to access contraception, same-sex marriage, and same-sex romantic relationships.3
What Does the Respect for Marriage Act Include?
The Respect for Marriage Act would repeal DOMA and prohibit states from denying out-of-state marriage based on sex, race, or ethnicity. It would not require all states to continue providing marriage licenses to same-sex couples, but states would have to recognize those marriages performed legally in other parts of the country. The bill is intended to act as a protection for the more than 710,000 same-sex married couples in the country in case the Supreme Court reverses its Obergefell decision.4
The bill includes an amendment guaranteeing that faith-based groups would not lose their tax-exempt status or risk losing federal grant money for their objection to same-sex marriage, and that such groups would not need to recognize same-sex unions. This amendment was a bipartisan compromise for the 12 Republicans who joined Democrats in voting 61-35 to beat a filibuster in the Senate. Several churches and religious freedom organizations that do not support same-sex marriage endorsed the bill, including the Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-Day Saints, the Seventh-Day Adventist Church, the National Association of Evangelicals, and the Union of Orthodox Jewish Congregations.
Opponents of the Respect for Marriage Act say it is an attack on religious liberty, and that it does not include sufficient protections for people and organizations who hold religious beliefs that marriage should be defined as between one man and one woman. The Catholic Church and several conservatives publicly criticized the legislation, including Senators Mike Lee (R-Utah) and James Lankford (R-Okla.). The senators stated that the bill would make churches, religious organizations, and businesses vulnerable to lawsuits if they do not recognize gay marriage.5
Discussion Questions
Additional Resources
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below.
Sources
[1] Oyez. Obergefell v. Hodges. Web. 5 Dec. 2022.
[2] Cornell Law School Legal Information Institute. “Defense of Marriage Act.” Web. 5 Dec. 2022.
[3] Alfonseca, Kiara. “Supreme Court Opens Door to Overturning Rights to Contraceptives, Same-Sex Relationships and Marriage.” ABC News. 24 Jun. 2022. Web. 5 Dec. 2022.
[4] Karni, Annie. “Same-Sex Marriage Bill Passes Senate After Bipartisan Breakthrough.” New York Times. 29 Nov. 2022. Web. 5 Dec. 2022.
[5] Waters, Emma. ”Radical ‘Respect for Marriage Act’ Could Spell End of Religious Tax Exemptions.” Heritage Foundation. 30 Nov. 2022. Web. 5 Dec. 2022.
Classroom discussion of current issues is one of the most powerful tools available to help young people develop the skills and knowledge required for democratic citizenship.1 There are many forms that such discussion can take, including short reactions to news articles, debates, and semester-long legislative simulations. While all of these forms have their place, one of the best things that schools can do, for multiple reasons, is to incorporate more deliberation.
What is Deliberation?
Deliberation is a specific form of discourse. In deliberation, participants explore a range of options, approaches, and priorities to determine the best resolution to a challenging political or social problem. In effect, deliberation is about answering the question, “What should we do?”2 In a deliberation, students approach an issue with a broad range of options and attempt to reach consensus.
| Discourse Type | Rationale | Sample Questions |
| Discussion: Open-ended conversation about a topic |
A discussion is a good way to introduce new ideas, brainstorm about an issue, and assess what information students already know before engaging in a debate or deliberation. Students will be open to new ideas and make connections to other knowledge, to current events, and to their personal lives.
|
Where do you get your ideas and information about immigration?
What are the benefits and drawbacks of immigration? What can we learn from history to help make decisions about immigration policy today? |
| Debate: Revolves around a central question with two or more predetermined options | A debate helps students better understand an issue, prioritize and evaluate various arguments, and practice public persuasive speaking.
Students will defend their positions with thoughtful and persuasive arguments. |
Should the United States provide a pathway to citizenship for young undocumented immigrants? Should the United States prioritize highly skilled immigrants? Should the United States expand access to legal immigration, restrict access, or keep the current levels?
|
| Deliberation: Participants exchange perspectives and ideas to reach consensus on an issue and identify solutions | Once students have a thorough understanding of an issue, a deliberation asks them to listen to each other, build consensus, and compromise to create a nuanced, complex proposal (or solution).
Students will consider many different positions, seek compromise with their peers, and ultimately attempt to reach consensus. |
What should be the highest priority of immigration reform efforts? What should the United States do about the estimated 11 million undocumented immigrants currently in the country? What actions, if any, should governments take to reform immigration?
|
Why Deliberation?
Deliberation about current issues presses students to seriously weigh the values and ideas of other participants. Deliberation has the potential to build empathy for other experiences and perspectives and to develop patience and openness with those with whom you might otherwise disagree.3 Because of the threat to our democracy posed by hyperpartisanship and polarization, building this empathy and openness is an important task for civic education.4
READ: “Anger, Fear, and Polarization” on the Current Issues Blog
Incorporating Deliberation
There are many ways to incorporate deliberation in the classroom.5 One approach, the structured academic controversy, calls on students to understand and defend multiple perspectives on the same issue. See an example from PBS NewsHour Extra here.
Another common example, the Socratic seminar, involves students taking ownership of the discussion and engaging with multiple sources to build expertise. While a structured academic controversy can be done fairly quickly, a Socratic seminar requires significant time to implement. See resources from Edutopia and Facing History & Ourselves for more guidance and examples of the Socratic seminar.
There are many other approaches to deliberation that range in time commitment between the structured academic controversy and the Socratic seminar. Fishbowl discussions and co-pilot discussions are also great approaches to help students explore multiple perspectives.
For a deeper dive into classroom deliberation, please join us for Close Up Conversations with Dr. Paula McAvoy, associate professor of social studies education at North Carolina State University. Dr. McAvoy will share insights from her recent research on how deliberation and consensus-building can help students feel respected when learning about controversial issues and engaging in structured political discussion. Click here to register for the webinar, which will take place on September 29 at 6:00 PM ET.
As always, we encourage you to join the discussion with your comments or questions below!
Sources
[1] Diana Hess and Paula McAvoy: The Political Classroom: Evidence and Ethics in Democratic Education
[2] Peter Levine: https://peterlevine.ws/?p=13846
[3] Michael Morrell: Empathy and Democracy: Feeling, Thinking and Deliberation; Diana Mutz: Hearing the Other Side: Deliberative versus Participatory Democracy
[4] Teaching Channel: https://www.teachingchannel.com/blog/debate-deliberate; Newsweek: https://www.newsweek.com/hyperpartisanship-ruining-america-opinion-1629005
[5] Teaching Channel: https://learn.teachingchannel.com/video/student-centered-civic-discussion-deliberation
On November 12, 2019, the Supreme Court will hear arguments about the Trump administration’s efforts to end the immigration policy known as Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals (DACA). The status of DACA recipients has been in limbo for over two years amidst administration actions and court injunctions.
What Is DACA?
After Congress failed in its attempts to pass a bill dealing with undocumented immigrant minors,1 then-President Obama created DACA in the run-up to his reelection campaign in 2012.2 The program deferred deportation for undocumented individuals who arrived in “the U.S. before their 16th birthday, were under age 31, had continuously resided in the United States since June 15, 2007,”3 had not committed serious crimes, and met educational or military service requirements.4 Considered a temporary fix awaiting congressional immigration reform, DACA allowed for infinite renewals of two-year deferrals.5
How Did DACA Reach the Supreme Court?
The Trump administration decided not to defend DACA in a possible court case,6 arguing that the Obama administration lacked the authority to establish the policy—a claim that opponents characterized as a misread of the law, open to judicial review.7 These opponents assert that the policy change did not meet federal standards and that the Trump administration violated due process and “the Equal Protection Clause because it was motivated by discriminatory animus.”8 Lower courts agreed and left the law temporarily in place.9 After repeated requests, the Supreme Court agreed to weigh in.10
The Supreme Court must decide if courts can review the policy change and if the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) made the change lawfully.11 The administration argues that their agencies have the necessary discretion (so courts cannot intervene) and that their legitimate rationale included doubts about DACA’s legality12 absent congressional authorization.13 DHS also claims that DACA encourages further illegal immigration, because it undercuts the “ability to send ‘a message that leaves no doubt regarding the clear, consistent and transparent enforcement of the immigration laws.’”14
Where Does DACA Stand Now?
Currently, DHS is not accepting new DACA applications, but it is continuing to process renewals.15 As of June 2019, there were approximately 660,880 active DACA recipients.16
What’s Next for DACA?
DACA activists have begun a 230-mile march from New York City to the Supreme Court,17 highlighting the significant personal stakes they want the Court to consider.18 Their allies cite DACA’s high polling approval,19 economic benefits,20 and support from an array of large businesses.21 Their opponents argue that the executive order is an executive overreach,22 and they want a legislative compromise that includes increased border security and limits to further immigration.23 President Trump has hinted at a possible deal,24 depending on the Court hearing. The justices’ decision will likely come in June 2020.
VIEW: What’s on the Supreme Court calendar?
READ: Legal analysis of the DACA case on SCOTUSblog
For further reading on DACA, please see Close Up in Class’ Controversial Issue in the News on the subject.
Discussion Questions:
On October 6, 2019, President Trump made the surprising announcement that he would pull out most of the 1,000 U.S. troops in Syria, where the United States has been working with the Kurdish-led Syrian Democratic Force (SDF) to fight the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS), al-Qaeda, and Syrian President Bashar al-Assad, and to repel Russian and Iranian influence in the region. Apparently, this announcement was made without the knowledge of most of President Trump’s cabinet, including the State Department.1
The Syrian civil war erupted in 2011, when government forces violently suppressed protesters who were calling for Assad to step down. The conflict has been deadly and devastating, resulting in six million Syrian refugees and another six million citizens internally displaced (out of a population of around 18 million people).2 The war has allowed for extremist groups, including ISIS, to gain power in the region; since 2014, the United States has partnered with the SDF to fight extremists and Assad’s forces.
However, Turkey—a NATO ally that is also fighting against Assad—has long considered the Kurds on their border to be a threat and have promised strikes against them in the last few months.3 The Kurds have benefited greatly from the partnership with the United States, which has allowed the formerly oppressed minority group to establish Kurdish schools and set policies that represent their interests.
Removing U.S. troops would allow Turkish forces to control the area in northeastern Syria along the Turkish and Iranian border, which is currently held by U.S. and SDF forces. Turkey presently claims that its goals include removing Kurdish forces from the area and resettling Syrian refugees along the border.
Throughout the week of October 6, U.S. troops have pulled back from the Turkish border. Increased violence in the region began almost immediately after President Trump’s announcement, and on October 9, the Turkish military fired shots in Syria. In response, the Kurdish authorities stated, “We call upon our people, of all ethnic groups, to move toward areas close to the border with Turkey to carry out acts of resistance.”4 ISIS suicide bombers have also attacked Kurdish positions in the Syrian city of Raqqa.5
President Trump’s withdrawal announcement met backlash from both Democrats and Republicans in Congress, with Senator Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., a strong Trump ally, calling the move “short-sighted and irresponsible.”6 Critics argue that Turkey is planning on diluting the power of the Kurds in their historic homeland by resettling millions of ethnic Syrians in the area.7
In order to keep Turkish forces from attacking Kurdish allied forces and the Kurdish population in the area, President Trump tweeted that he would, “totally destroy and obliterate” Turkey’s economy if they did anything “off-limits” after the United States pulls out. The Trump administration has said that the Kurdish alliance is complete and that the Kurds are strong fighters, “but were paid massive amounts of money and equipment to [fight against ISIS].” President Trump indicated that it is time for the United States to remove itself from the conflict and bring troops home.8
Discussion Questions
In late September 2019, it was revealed that an officer at the Central Intelligence Agency filed an official complaint with the intelligence community’s inspector general, alleging that President Trump had engaged in an inappropriate phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky on July 25. The whistleblower alleged that President Trump threatened to withhold approximately $400 million in military aid to Ukraine unless President Zelensky agreed to launch an investigation into the business activities of Hunter Biden. (Hunter Biden—the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, a potential rival for President Trump in the 2020 election—used to work for a Ukrainian gas company.)1
Shortly after this information became public and the White House released an edited summary of the phone call, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi announced that the House of Representatives would begin a formal impeachment inquiry, led by House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff.2
What is Impeachment?
READ: The Close Up in Class Primer on Impeachment
Impeachment is the adoption of formal charges against the president or another civil officer in the federal government. The impeachment process begins in the House. The House is responsible for carrying out an investigation, or impeachment inquiry, into potential wrongdoing by an official. After the investigation, if a simple majority of the House votes in favor of formal articles of impeachment, the official is impeached. Impeachment does not mean an official will be removed from office.
Next, the process moves to the Senate. The Senate conducts a trial for the impeached official, and the chief justice of the Supreme Court presides. The Constitution requires a two-thirds vote of the senators present in order to convict the impeached official. The penalty for conviction is removal from office. In some cases, the Senate has also disqualified an official from holding public office again in the future.
Only two presidents—Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton—have been impeached, but both were acquitted by the Senate. To date, no president has been removed from office by the Senate. (The House launched an impeachment inquiry into the actions of President Richard Nixon, but he resigned before the full chamber voted on articles of impeachment.)
Impeachment is a Real Possibility; Removal is Much Less Likely
With at least 226 members of the House supporting the impeachment inquiry, it is a very real possibility that the House could impeach President Trump.3 And as more information has come to light, including a second whistleblower,4 allegations that President Trump asked other countries for investigations,5 and the arrest of two associates of Trump attorney Rudy Giuliani,6 public support for impeachment has grown.7 On October 8, Fox News released a poll indicating that 51 percent of respondents not only want President Trump to be impeached but removed from office as well.8
However, the path to removing President Trump from office contains several significant hurdles. Not only would a vote to convict President Trump, if he is impeached, set a striking precedent (as the first removal of a president in U.S. history), the fact is that the votes simply may not be there.
Currently, the Senate is made up of 53 Republicans, 45 Democrats, and two independents who caucus with Democrats. Even if all 47 Democrats and independents voted to convict in an impeachment trial, they would need the votes of 20 Republicans as well in order to remove the president from office. This would be difficult in normal circumstances; it is particularly unlikely with a national election approaching in 2020.
President Trump remains popular among Republican voters, with 87 percent voicing their approval to Gallup in mid-September. Among independents, the president’s job approval rating is 36 percent.9 For the 23 Senate Republicans up for reelection in 2020, as well as some Democrats in heavily Republican states, voting to remove the president from office could inspire their constituents to vote them out. For many senators, it may not be worth the risk, especially since voters will have the chance in November 2020 to vote on President Trump’s reelection themselves.
Discussion Questions
671 N. Glebe Road, Suite 900
Arlington, VA 22203
703-706-3300 or 800-CLOSE UP
CST-1002082-40:
Registration as a seller of travel does not constitute approval by the State of California.
