Foundations
Here's a look at documents from U.S. foundations
Featured Stories
Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 6 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections
With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate "blocking charge" policy used to stop union removal elections
*
Washington, DC - Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its "blocking charge" policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from their
... Show Full Article
SPRINGFIELD, Virginia, Jan. 6 -- The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation posted the following news release:
* * *
Workers in North Carolina and California Ask Federal Labor Board to Nix Policy Letting Union Bosses Block Elections
With new quorum, National Labor Relations Board can eliminate "blocking charge" policy used to stop union removal elections
*
Washington, DC - Workers in North Carolina and California are pushing the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) to strike down its "blocking charge" policy, which is preventing them from removing unwanted union officials from theirworkplaces.
The workers, which include miners employed by The Quartz Corp. in Spruce Pine, NC, and Fresno, CA-based construction materials workers for CalPortland, both backed petitions in late 2025 asking the NLRB to administer votes to remove (or "decertify") unions from their workplaces. Despite both petitions containing enough signatures to trigger union decertification elections, regional NLRB officials blocked both votes pursuant to the NLRB's current blocking charge policy. This Biden-era policy permits union officials to stymie the union decertification process simply by filing unproven or unrelated "unfair labor practice" charges at the NLRB alleging employer misconduct.
Quartz Corp. employee Blake Davis and CalPortland worker Darrell Dunlap have both submitted Requests for Review to the NLRB in Washington, DC. These filings ask the Board to overturn the blocking charge policy and let their coworkers' requested votes to remove the United Mine Workers and Teamsters unions (respectively) go forward. Davis and Dunlap are both receiving free legal aid from National Right to Work Foundation staff attorneys. While vacancies on the NLRB have caused a backlog of cases, the U.S. Senate recently approved two new presidential appointees to the NLRB, meaning the Board now has a "quorum" and can hear these and other cases.
"Blocking Charge" Policy Inconsistent With Federal Labor Law
Dunlap's Request for Review argues that the NLRB's blocking charge policy directly conflicts with the text of the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), the federal law that the NLRB is responsible for enforcing. "Allowing a self-interested party to unilaterally block elections conflicts with [the NLRA], which requires the Board to hold an election" if employees submit a valid decertification petition, Dunlap's brief says. "The blocking charge policy does not just contravene a clear Congressional command, but also offends the entire structure and purpose of the Act: employee free choice."
Dunlap's brief also maintains that the blocking charge rule violates the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) because it is arbitrary and fails to accomplish even its own stated goals. For example, the Request for Review says, NLRB bureaucrats impose the policy without considering key data showing the blocking charge policy has caused substantial delays in the union election process. Furthermore, the Board has argued that the rule is required to stop "coercive elections" from happening - even though its only mechanism for doing this is giving self-interested union bosses massive power to block elections or let them proceed.
Davis' Request for Review makes many similar arguments, but adds that even if the Board were to uphold the blocking charge policy, regional NLRB officials egregiously misapplied it in his case. As his brief points out, even before he and his colleagues had submitted the union decertification petition, "the union filed a barrage of [unfair labor practice charges]," some of which were just speculation about employer activity aiding the union removal process. Even so, the regional NLRB appears to have blocked Davis and his coworkers' requested election based on the mere quantity of the union's charges, without explaining which allegation justified blocking. "By failing to distinguish between allegations that might warrant blocking and those that plainly would not, the Region reduced the rule to a numbers game," the Request for Review says.
Trump NLRB Can Undo 'Blocking Charge' Policy and Empower Independent-Minded Workers
The National Right to Work Foundation has long advocated for the NLRB to return to the Election Protection Rule, which prevented many aspects of blocking charge-related gamesmanship before the Biden NLRB overturned it in 2022. Under the Election Protection Rule, allegations of misconduct related to a union decertification election could not block employees from exercising their right to vote, and in most cases permitted the immediate release of the vote tally as opposed to ordering ballots to be impounded during litigation over blocking charges.
"The NLRB's 'blocking charge' policy serves only to let union officials stop the workers they claim to 'represent' from making a free choice about whether a union in their workplace is right for them," commented National Right to Work Foundation President Mark Mix. "Mr. Dunlap and Mr. Davis speak for countless workers across the country who are trapped under union boss dictates and forced-dues payments because of this rule.
"If President Trump's new NLRB appointees are serious about putting American workers back in control of their own livelihoods, reversing this union boss power giveaway is an excellent place to start," Mix added.
* * *
The National Right to Work Legal Defense Foundation is a nonprofit, charitable organization providing free legal aid to employees whose human or civil rights have been violated by compulsory unionism abuses. The Foundation, which can be contacted toll-free at 1-800-336-3600, assists thousands of employees in about 200 cases nationwide per year.
***
Original text here: https://www.nrtw.org/news/blocking-charge-rfrs-01062026/
The Declaration of Independence Is Still Our Guidepost
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:
* * *
The Declaration of Independence Is Still Our Guidepost
*
Chief Justice John Roberts reflects on 250 years of American history.
Chief Justice John Roberts is right: The Declaration of Independence, while not law itself, must be the benchmark that guides all three branches of government.
On New Year's Eve, the Chief Justice released his annual year-end report on the state of the judiciary. Of particular note is the brief prefatory letter that Roberts has often used to opine on controversial
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education posted the following news:
* * *
The Declaration of Independence Is Still Our Guidepost
*
Chief Justice John Roberts reflects on 250 years of American history.
Chief Justice John Roberts is right: The Declaration of Independence, while not law itself, must be the benchmark that guides all three branches of government.
On New Year's Eve, the Chief Justice released his annual year-end report on the state of the judiciary. Of particular note is the brief prefatory letter that Roberts has often used to opine on controversialissues such as judicial independence, artificial intelligence in the legal profession, and security threats against judges. This year's letter focuses on the Declaration of Independence, which celebrates its 250th anniversary in 2026. While many commentators have criticized Roberts for "dodging" the biggest questions of the dayespecially perceived favoritism for the Trump administrationhis words are apt for the times, focusing on the foundational ideals that define the American experiment.
In 1776, the Declaration was a radical idea. It argued that the government, established by the consent of the governed, exists to secure the People's unalienable rights, including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Today, these words have become seemingly trite phrases, so often used that they have lost the boldness and fortitude they possessed at the time. Yet it is crucial, as the Chief Justice recognizes, that our government return to these words and measure their efforts against them.
In the report, Roberts presents a reasoned and nuanced view of how the Declaration should inform the law. He first explains that the Declaration, unlike the Constitution or US Code, is not law itself. Moreover, while the Declaration's aspirations shaped our government, it has repeatedly fallen short. Take, for instance, the phrase "all men are created equal." The signers believed this to be a self-evident truth, yet most participated in slavery.
Despite its shortcomings, Roberts argues that the Declaration, even in its aspirational form, has served as a vital guidepost when the government has failed to protect rights. For example, Justice John Marshall Harlan invoked the Declaration in his Plessy v. Ferguson dissent, and civil rights leaders and suffragists turned to the document as the moral authority for their causes.
The Chief Justice's letter serves as a reminder that the Declaration continues to hold practical importance. However, many commentators have mischaracterized the report as anomalous and evasive, claiming that it broke from tradition and sidestepped the public's larger concerns about the judiciary.
These criticisms fail to recognize that Roberts frequently uses the year-end report to honor special events and anniversaries. For instance, in the 2021 edition, the Chief Justice wrote about the history and importance of the Judicial Conference. It would have been unusual for the High Court to ignore our country's major milestone, especially in light of efforts by the other branches. To celebrate the Semiquincentennial, Congress established the America250 Commission to commemorate the signing of the Declaration. Similarly, President Trump created the "Salute to America 250 Task Force" and, on New Year's Eve, lit up the Washington Monument with the "Illumination of America" display. Roberts's latest letter lacks the pomp and circumstance of these other projects, yet it embodies the same spirit of reflection. Moreover, contrary to the critiques, his letter still endeavors to address, albeit subtly, the latest controversies through the lens of America's Founding.
In the letter, Roberts marches through 250 years of history, focusing on principles with modern salience. His starting point is Thomas Paine's "Common Sense" and the key formulation that the government's purpose is not to serve the whims of the few, but of the People. This remains true today.
In a purposeful detour, he turns to the life of Samuel Chase, one of the Declaration's signers, who was impeached by the House but acquitted in the Senate. At the time, many senators believed that it was improper to remove a judge from office based on disapproval of his decisions. A timely historical nod, given the Chief Justice's rare public statement last year. Back in March, President Trump publicly called for Judge James Boasberg to be removed from the bench because he blocked the President's deportation plans. As Roberts wrote, "impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision. The normal appellate review process exists for that purpose."
The Declaration belongs at the center of the year-end report. As Roberts rightfully concluded, it is the responsibility of all three branches of government to live up to the promises of the Declaration. These principles guide our legislators, executive officials, and especially our courts, and they are worthy of repetition.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/the-declaration-of-independence-is-still-our-guidepost/
TPPF Submits Comment on Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States"
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Submits Comment on Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States"
*
AUSTIN - The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) submitted a comment on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed Rule titled Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States," which includes measures that right-size federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. The Proposed Rule correctly recognizes that federal jurisdiction over waters arises under the Commerce Clause.
However,
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Submits Comment on Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States"
*
AUSTIN - The Texas Public Policy Foundation (TPPF) submitted a comment on the Environmental Protection Agency and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' Proposed Rule titled Updated Definition of "Waters of the United States," which includes measures that right-size federal jurisdiction over the nation's waters. The Proposed Rule correctly recognizes that federal jurisdiction over waters arises under the Commerce Clause.
However,TPPF also notes that the Proposed Rule's treatment of seasonal rivers and waters that are not presently navigable - and thus cannot be used as a highway for interstate or foreign commerce - extends jurisdiction beyond the Commerce Clause's limits and invites future administrations to improperly expand federal jurisdiction.
"TPPF applauds EPA's efforts to redefine the term 'waters of the United States' under the Clean Water Act to comply with the jurisdictional limits of the Constitution," said TPPF Senior Attorney Ted Hadzi-Antich, "In so doing, EPA must adjust the proposed definition to cover only those waters that are currently navigable. Claiming jurisdiction over any other waters goes beyond constitutional boundaries established by the Founding Fathers."
TPPF Attorney Eric Heigis added, "This proposal provided a fitting opportunity to remind EPA and the Army Corps that the federal government has limited, enumerated powers. The comment provides a roadmap for the agencies to improve the Proposed Rule in a way that will respect the constitution's limits on federal jurisdiction."
To read the comment, click here.
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-submits-comment-on-updated-definition-of-waters-of-the-united-states
TPPF Files Amicus Brief in Parental Rights Case Before the Supreme Court of Texas
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Files Amicus Brief in Parental Rights Case Before the Supreme Court of Texas
*
On January 5, 2026, the Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Texas in response to the Court's request for briefing on the application of the Texas Constitution's newly ratified parental rights amendment (Section 37, Article I) to existing statutes governing termination of parental rights decisions. This is the first opportunity the Supreme Court of Texas will have to
... Show Full Article
AUSTIN, Texas, Jan. 6 -- The Texas Public Policy Foundation issued the following news release:
* * *
TPPF Files Amicus Brief in Parental Rights Case Before the Supreme Court of Texas
*
On January 5, 2026, the Texas Public Policy Foundation filed an amicus brief with the Supreme Court of Texas in response to the Court's request for briefing on the application of the Texas Constitution's newly ratified parental rights amendment (Section 37, Article I) to existing statutes governing termination of parental rights decisions. This is the first opportunity the Supreme Court of Texas will have tointerpret and apply the new constitutional amendment.
The Foundation has long advocated for the fundamental right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children free from government interference and assisted lawmakers with drafting the language of the amendment.
Section 37, Article I enshrines in the Texas Constitution protections for parental rights articulated in over a century of remarkably consistent caselaw from the United States Supreme Court and the Supreme Court of Texas. The amendment recognizes that the parent-child relationship is a fundamental right deserving of expansive protection against government interference.
"In November, an overwhelming majority of Texans took the historic step of voting to make Texas the first state in the nation to enshrine affirmative protections for fundamental parental rights in its constitution," said TPPF's Andrew Brown. " The Foundation's brief encourages the Supreme Court of Texas to interpret and apply the parental rights amendment in a manner consistent with desires of Texans, who expect their government to treat the parent-child relationship as sacred and safeguard it accordingly."
"For generations, our Constitution has implicitly recognized the natural right of parents to direct the care and upbringing of their children. The new language adopted last year makes that fundamental right explicit. The Court should take that guidance from the voters seriously," said TPPF's Chance Weldon.
The brief also seeks to answer a specific question asked by the Court on how the parental rights amendment impacts existing statutes governing termination of parental rights.
Termination of parental rights is a legal remedy whereby the state can forever sever the relationship between a parent and child. As one of the most severe actions the state is empowered to take against its citizens, TPR is known as the "death penalty of civil cases."
Due to severity of termination of parental rights, the Foundation argues that, consistent with existing caselaw and the text of the parental rights amendment, the remedy may only be used in very limited circumstances and should be subject to the highest level of scrutiny by courts.
Read the full brief here.
***
Original text here: https://www.texaspolicy.com/press/tppf-files-amicus-brief-in-parental-rights-case-before-the-supreme-court-of-texas
Reason Foundation Issues Commentary: Examining California's Digital Age Assurance Act
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Jan. 5, 2026:
* * *
Examining California's Digital Age Assurance Act
By Richard Sill, Technology Policy Fellow
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Digital Age Assurance Act ( Assembly Bill 1043 ) into law on Oct. 13, marking a significant evolution in state approaches to online youth safety. There is room for improvement, but the act introduces a meaningful first step toward a more privacy-preserving, age-signaling model intended to minimize data exposure while improving compliance certainty for
... Show Full Article
LOS ANGELES, California, Jan. 6 -- The Reason Foundation issued the following commentary on Jan. 5, 2026:
* * *
Examining California's Digital Age Assurance Act
By Richard Sill, Technology Policy Fellow
California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed the Digital Age Assurance Act ( Assembly Bill 1043 ) into law on Oct. 13, marking a significant evolution in state approaches to online youth safety. There is room for improvement, but the act introduces a meaningful first step toward a more privacy-preserving, age-signaling model intended to minimize data exposure while improving compliance certainty forbusinesses. This step is a welcome advancement over earlier approaches, but it also creates potential complications if later paired with more restrictive bills, a tradeoff that policymakers should weigh carefully.
California's AB 1043 mandates that parents or users declare age during initial setup, and the device encodes that information into an encrypted signal that communicates an age bracket to apps and online services. This signal then informs developers of whether the user falls within compliance categories such as "under 13," "13-15," "16-17," or "18+." Unlike previous app store age-verification bills, AB 1043 assigns enforcement authority solely to the California attorney general. It prohibits private lawsuits over violations, thereby reducing compliance anxiety of frivolous private litigation. For families, this model minimizes exposure to ID theft and limits the need to share sensitive information with online platforms.
This approach contrasts with that of Utah, Texas, and Louisiana, which enacted the first statewide app-store age verification laws in 2025. The bills require app stores and developers to verify users' ages through "commercially reasonable" methods. Utah and Louisiana's laws are set to go into effect in 2026, while Texas' has been temporarily blocked by a federal judge on constitutional grounds. Two federal bills, the App Store Accountability Act, introduced by Sen. Mike Lee (R-Utah), and the Parents Over Platforms Act, introduced by Rep. Jake Auchincloss (D-Mass.), include the same "commercially reasonable" language as the state bills. Although this phrasing does not explicitly mandate government ID or biometric checks, it creates strong incentives for app stores to collect the most precise forms of evidence available: driver's licenses, passports, or credit cards. Fearing the risk of lawsuits and non-compliance penalties, companies would default to the most definitive identification techniques.
In 2025 alone, several popular apps that already required government ID checks for age verification suffered significant data breaches, highlighting the privacy risks associated with such mandates. The Tea app, a women-only dating advice platform that required users to upload selfies and copies of government-issued IDs as part of its account verification, experienced a major breach in July that exposed over 70,000 identification images and sensitive personal data. In October, global messaging platform Discord suffered a breach directly tied to its compliance with the United Kingdom's Online Safety Act, which mandates robust age verification for platforms likely to be accessed by minors. To meet these legal requirements, Discord began requiring UK-based users to submit either facial scans, government IDs, or the last 4 digits of credit cards for age checks, vastly expanding the pool of highly sensitive data at risk. When hackers later compromised a third-party vendor managing this information, thousands of ID photos and partial credit card details were exposed. These incidents underscore how rigid age-verification systems can turn well-intentioned privacy protections into security liabilities and inadvertently create new vectors for harm.
In contrast, AB 1043 correctly prioritizes privacy and security by using a self-declared age signal rather than a verification process. The law integrates core privacy-by-design principles by separating identity from compliance status and ensuring that user data never leaves local systems in identifiable form. It also provides developers with clearer compliance certainty than Utah-style frameworks, which remain mired in vague terms like "commercially reasonable."
However, there are still issues with AB 1043 that should be addressed. First, the law's mandate that device makers integrate age signals into all devices risks sidelining parents from key digital literacy decisions. For AB 1043 to achieve its stated balance between safety, privacy, and parental empowerment, California could modify its framework to make age signaling optional for parents rather than required.
Second, debates over youth online safety laws raise a subtler issue: their impact on family relationships and parental oversight. Age-verification and age-signal frameworks are often presented as empowering parents, but automation can easily displace meaningful dialogue between parents and their children. True digital literacy depends on ongoing dialogue, trust, and continuous education about online risks, not on technical filters alone. When technology assumes the entire role of risk management, it can foster complacency and a false sense of security, as if software settings could replace parental judgment. Policymakers should therefore ensure that digital safety tools operate as supports for families, not substitutes for them.
California's initial framework, in this respect, could be refined through a simple but meaningful adjustment: Make the device-level age signal optional for parents rather than compulsory. An opt-in structure would preserve AB 1043 's privacy benefits while strengthening family agency. Parents could choose to enable the system during device setup if they desire automated filtering or app age controls, or skip it entirely for now if they prefer to guide their children's use through household rules and open communication. Optional enrollment would further align the policy with California's broader digital rights precedents, reinforcing choice, consent, and proportionality.
On the whole, California's AB 1043 represents a meaningful advancement in the national debate on age verification. It replaces high-risk identity checks with privacy-preserving signals, curtails constitutional litigation risks, and clarifies enforcement responsibility. But if the state were to shift to an opt-in model, it could preserve the law's privacy protections, align with its digital rights values, and restore parents to the central role in guiding children's online wellbeing. Age assurance need not come at the expense of privacy or parental autonomy.
***
Original text here: https://reason.org/commentary/examining-californias-digital-age-assurance-act/
Foundation for Economic Education Issues Commentary: Anniversary of Isaac Newton's Birth
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Jan. 4, 2026:
* * *
Anniversary of Isaac Newton's Birth
He knew the real value of money.
By Katrina Gulliver
On this day in 1643, in the village of Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, Isaac Newton entered the world. Although to the people then, it wasn't January 4it was Christmas Day, 1642.
The great adjustment of dates that took place in 1752 changed calendars retrospectivelythe shift from the Gregorian to the Julian calendar in Britain (and to January 1 being the start of the year, instead of
... Show Full Article
DETROIT, Michigan, Jan. 6 -- The Foundation for Economic Education issued the following commentary on Jan. 4, 2026:
* * *
Anniversary of Isaac Newton's Birth
He knew the real value of money.
By Katrina Gulliver
On this day in 1643, in the village of Woolsthorpe-by-Colsterworth, Isaac Newton entered the world. Although to the people then, it wasn't January 4it was Christmas Day, 1642.
The great adjustment of dates that took place in 1752 changed calendars retrospectivelythe shift from the Gregorian to the Julian calendar in Britain (and to January 1 being the start of the year, instead ofMarch 25), required the skipping of 11 days that September, so people went to bed on September 2nd, and woke up on September 14th. So Isaac Newton's birthday slid into January, and from 1642 to 1643. (Washington's birthday also got moved, from Feb 11, 1731, O.S., to Feb 22, 1732, N.S.)
These kinds of accounting adjustments in the world around us make history slippery; what was real then, is not now. Isaac Newton, father of modern physics, famed victim of rogue fallen apple, lived in a world of unreality, too. He believed in alchemy, and magicas did many of his time. Witchfinders stalked the land, with political power behind superstition.
But he changed our understanding of the real. In between his work as a scholar, he was appointed to be Warden of the Royal Mint, and there took on a major rolestabilizing the currency. In the Spring of 1696 he joined the Mintin what had been to that point a medieval patronage gig. Little was expected in such a role. No Warden had previously taken much of an interest in the activities of the Mint's clerks, who were tasked with tracking counterfeiters.
Newton, however, took it seriously.
England's currency at the time was based on a silver standard. Coins were made of silver and weighed fixed amounts, dictating their value. This was a challenge when the value of silver, relative to other goods, fluctuated. England was in debt thanks to ongoing wars; its coins were often worth more (as bullion) than their face value in pounds. Silver coin was taken from the country to be sold in markets abroad.
A popular currency crime was "coin clipping" (cutting or shaving a small amount of silver from the edge of coins, and filing the coin down or even melting and recasting with a lower percentage of silver). Counterfeiting and clipping were capital crimes, but apparently widespread. Newton started cracking down.
He interviewed alleged coin clippers and counterfeiters, traced criminals to their homes, and visited the prisons to find accomplices. He helped draft the Coin Act of 1796, which penalized coin manufacture of any kind. But he went bigger: launching the Great Recoinage.
Coins in circulation were collected by the Mint, melted down, and reminted at fixed weights. This involved a production line of 500 men, and branch mints at different cities around the country. It took four years to smelt most of England's money supply.
In 1699, Newton was promoted to Master of the Mint, a role he held until his death in 1727. He applied scientific precision to creating regular coins, and hired an engraver to create more beautiful designs.
Later he would play a role in fixing the value of the gold guinea at 21s, inadvertently helping to move England from the silver to the gold standard.
His own fascination with metallurgy and magic made him a focused administrator. It didn't make him much of an investorhe lost a fortune in the South Sea Bubble, reportedly saying, "I can calculate the motion of heavenly bodies, but not the madness of men."
But his steady hand helped England's currency stay strong, through a turbulent period. He knew that people had to trust the system for the system to work. He was knighted by Queen Anne in 1705.
After his death, Newton would appear on coins himselfthe first time though not on official currency. Newton was used on unofficial halfpenny "tokens" issued by private businesses in the 1790s, to deal with the fact that there were not enough coins in circulation in the growing economy.
Perhaps as a nod to his work as a scientist, a Caduceus is on the other side.
But he would be featured on British currency, including the PS1 banknote issued in 1978.
His impact on the economy would last, along with his impact on the world of science, even as he downplayed his own genius: "If I have seen further than others, it is by standing upon the shoulders of giants."
* * *
Katrina Gulliver is Editorial Director at FEE. She holds a PhD from Cambridge University, and has held faculty positions at universities in Germany, Britain and Australia. She has written for Wall St Journal, Reason, The American Conservative, National Review and the New Criterion, among others.
***
Original text here: https://fee.org/articles/anniversary-of-isaac-newtons-birth/
Arthur Vining Davis Foundations: Strengthening Civil Discourse on Campus at Marquette University
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Florida, Jan. 6 -- The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations issued the following news:
* * *
Strengthening Civil Discourse on Campus at Marquette University
Recent research and national surveys indicate that many college students hesitate to engage in difficult conversations with peers, particularly when disagreement is likely. This trend raises serious concerns for higher education which plays a central role in preparing future citizens and leaders capable of addressing shared challenges in an increasingly polarized society. When students avoid dialogue across difference, they
... Show Full Article
PONTE VEDRA BEACH, Florida, Jan. 6 -- The Arthur Vining Davis Foundations issued the following news:
* * *
Strengthening Civil Discourse on Campus at Marquette University
Recent research and national surveys indicate that many college students hesitate to engage in difficult conversations with peers, particularly when disagreement is likely. This trend raises serious concerns for higher education which plays a central role in preparing future citizens and leaders capable of addressing shared challenges in an increasingly polarized society. When students avoid dialogue across difference, theyalso lose opportunities to develop the critical reasoning, empathy, and civic skills that democratic life requires.
Scholars and educators point to a core driver of this reluctance: students seldom receive structured opportunities to learn and practice civil discourse. Without intentional instruction, disagreement can feel threatening rather than productive. To help fill this gap, Marquette University has launched an innovative effort to embed civic reasoning and discourse skills into the undergraduate experience--beginning in the first year.
Building on a successful pilot, AVDF awarded Marquette University a $146,557 grant in 2024 to refine, assess, and expand a cross-disciplinary curriculum focused on dialogue, deliberation, and debate. The initiative aims to equip all first-year students with tools to evaluate evidence, weigh competing perspectives, and engage respectfully with those who hold different views. The grant supports the multi-year development of a course that faculty plan to integrate into Marquette's Core Curriculum.
Marquette University, a Catholic institution located in Milwaukee, serves more than 11,000 undergraduate and graduate students across 11 colleges and schools. Its mission emphasizes the formation of both intellect and character, making civic engagement and ethical leadership central to its educational model.
The project was developed by Dr. Amelia Zurcher, professor of English and director of the University Honors Program, and Dr. Amber Wichowsky, now at UW-Madison, but was the former director of Marquette Civic Dialogues.
"Research shows that civic reasoning and dialogic skills support critical thinking and learning integration," said Zurcher. "At a polarizing time for our students, this class will help address an urgent need. These skills form the foundation of academic communities in which students connect across difference and take risks, and they are also essential for productive workplaces and healthier democracies."
The course structure combines large lectures on contested topics--such as artificial intelligence ethics, environmental responsibility, and protest movements--with small-group discussions facilitated by trained peer leaders. This design allows students to practice respectful disagreement in supportive settings while developing confidence to participate in public dialogue.
A recent report by WUWM 89.7 FM provides further insight into the program's impact. Faculty and students interviewed described a generation shaped by pandemic-era schooling and social media environments that often reward certainty over curiosity.
"Social media will have us think people can't disagree respectfully," said Sam Woodward, a junior. "It's either you're on one side or the other, there's no in-between. We've become more polarized. Seemingly it's only getting worse."
Many students express strong commitments to empathy and respect, yet they also avoid conflict for fear of causing harm or being misunderstood. The Marquette initiative directly addresses this tension by framing disagreement not as a breakdown in civility, but as a skill that can, and must, be learned.
* * *
Original text here: https://www.avdf.org/news/strengthening-civil-discourse-on-campus-at-marquette-university/
