Friday, February 25, 2011

National Institute for Civil Discourse to open at University of Arizona

The National Institute for Civil Discourse

I am seriously skeptical that this new National Institute for Civil Discourse will be anything more than a vanity project for those involved (especially the U of A). They are all too prominent to do anything meaningful - although if they were actually qualified, the selections would be too low profile to get any attention.

The Institute was created in response to the Gabrielle Giffords shooting in January - and one might even credit Sheriff Dupnik (who has been virtually crucified in the media, and faces a recall here in Tucson) for his comments about the violent rhetoric in the media in making the quality of discourse in this country a hot topic.

Here is the mission statement:

The National Institute for Civil Discourse

Mission: The National Institute for Civil Discourse (NICD) is a national, nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy generation regarding civic engagement and civility in public discourse consistent with First Amendment principles. It offers an institutional structure to support research and policy generation and a set of innovative programs advocating for civility in public discourse, while encouraging vigorous public debate, civic engagement, and civic leadership.

Putting aside my sense that this is going nowhere, it's a great idea. As a nation and a people, we need to be able to talk about serious and important issues without resulting to yelling over the top of each other, using half truths, or simply refusing to actually listen to other points of view. Maybe we need an institute for open minds.

And another thing . . . Greta Van Susteren . . . seriously? She is married to John P. Coale, who has been an occasional adviser for Sarah Palin (and Van Susteren has done three powder-puff interviews with Palin). She and her husband are both Scientologists, which is not illegal or anything, but cult membership should always be a red flag.

Anyway, here is the story from the U of A site for the Institute.

Bush, Clinton to Chair New National Institute for Civil Discourse at University of Arizona

February 21st, 2011

A new center – to be chaired by two U.S. Presidents – has been created at the University of Arizona to advance the national conversation currently taking place about civility in political debate.

The National Institute for Civil Discourse is a nonpartisan center for debate, research, education and policy generation regarding civility in public discourse.

Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton have agreed to serve as honorary chairs for the institute.

"I am honored to join President Clinton in supporting this important effort at such a critical time in our nation’s history," said President Bush. "Our country needs a setting for political debate that is both frank and civil, and the National Institute for Civil Discourse can make a significant contribution toward reaching this goal."

Bush and Clinton Making a Join Announcement for the Tsunami Relief in 2005

"America faces big challenges in revitalizing the American Dream at home and preserving our leadership for security, peace, freedom and prosperity in the world. Meeting them requires an honest dialogue celebrating both a clarification of our differences and a genuine stand for principled comparisons. I believe that the National Institute for Civil Discourse can elevate the tone of dialogue in our country, and in so doing, help us to keep moving toward 'a more perfect union.' I'm pleased to join President George H.W. Bush to help advance this important effort," said President Clinton.

"It is right and fitting that two of America's most successful practitioners of American democracy – Presidents Bush and Clinton – have now joined to help save it," said Fred DuVal, vice chair of the Arizona Board of Regents and originator of the idea for the institute. "And equally that the Tucson-based University of Arizona would host this bipartisan effort. This institute is the right people in the right place at the right time."

U.S. Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O’Connor (retired) and former U.S. Senate Majority Leader Tom Daschle will be the institute’s honorary co-chairs.

A diverse array of political backgrounds are represented among the institute’s other board members, who include:

  • Madeleine Albright, former U.S. Secretary of State
  • Ken Duberstein, former chief of staff for President Ronald Reagan
  • Greta Van Susteren, host of "On the Record", FOX News Channel
  • Trey Grayson, director of the Harvard University's Institute of Politics
  • Jim Kolbe, former U.S. Congressman

Several new board members will be announced over the next few months.

National Institute for Civil Discourse initiatives will include:

  • Convening major policy discussions with elected officials, policymakers and advocates on topics that tend to generate polarized positions.
  • Promoting civil discourse, civic engagement and civic leadership.
  • Organizing workshops and conferences in Washington, D.C., Tucson and across the country.
  • Promoting a national conversation among prominent public figures from government, business and media regarding challenging political issues in a non-partisan setting.
  • Developing programs and research centered around the exercise of First Amendment freedoms conducted in a way that respects both the ideas of others, and those who hold them.

The commitment by the honorary co-chairs and board members reflect a commitment by highly influential leaders to cross political boundaries to address issues that divide many Americans.

"The mission of the National Institute for Civil Discourse is essential for our nation's future success," said O'Connor. "I am pleased to be part of the effort to unite Americans across the political spectrum in constructive debate about critical issues."

"Civil discourse does not require people to change their values, but should provide an environment that all points of view are heard and acknowledged," said Daschle. "If our nation is to successfully address its problems, we must unite behind shared values and principles and bring people together to develop solutions."

The institute is in the process of naming a working board that will be chaired by DuVal.

The National Institute for Civil Discourse will be housed in the UA's School of Government and Public Policy, in collaboration with the UA Rehnquist Center on the Constitutional Structures of Government in the James E. Rogers College of Law and other departments throughout the University.

Fletcher McCusker, chairman of the board and chief executive officer of Providence Service Corporation, headquartered in Tucson, is the first to step forward to provide community support for the project.

Joseph Anderson, former chairman and chief executive officer of Schaller Anderson, also has pledged a major gift to enable the establishment of the institute.

"The University of Arizona is a place where all political views are welcome and where discussion and vigorous debate can take place in a respectful manner," said UA President Robert N. Shelton. "I am pleased that the National Institute for Civil Discourse will advance the cause of elevating the tone of our nation’s political rhetoric."

"The University of Arizona is committed toward helping provide solutions to the challenges facing our country," said UA Provost Meredith Hay. "It is an ideal home for the National Institute for Civil Discourse, which will focus on bringing Americans of all political backgrounds together to solve problems collaboratively."

One of the key goals for the institute is to connect people with diverse viewpoints and to offer a venue for vigorous and respectful debate.

Among the institute’s first events will be an executive forum with media, foundation, academic, government and corporate leaders regarding moving forward the national conversation about civil discourse and proceeding with constructive solutions.

1 comment:

Kabir (kabzj) said...

Dear friend,

I'm concerned your skepticism for this initiative may come from some idea that it is not suitably “integral”. I know I have heard this view from others, and may have fallen prey to it myself.

I want to be sure to give voice to the view that an integral embrace needs these evolutionary systems at the very level of development that they exist. As such they become steppingstones, or bridges that allow the possibility of meaningful connection between the evolving value spheres.

I'm certainly no fan of Fox news, but if they're willing to come to the table–I say let's serve what they might eat…