Civic Engagement

Even though our net neutrality policies are now legally viable and wildly popular, the leadership at the Commission wants to revisit Internet openness. It has started a proceeding that tears at the foundation of net neutrality. It has proposed cutting the rules we have and instead offering our broadband providers the power to favor sites, content, and ideas; the power to discriminate with our traffic; and the power to become censors and gatekeepers for all that is online. If you want an example, look no further than what happened during the last 14 days with the #MeToo movement.

In so many ways, the underlying conditions of US democracy need repair. Among American citizens, ideological and philosophical divisions seem insurmountably sharp; among their representatives in Washington, compromise appears impossible. Whatever side you were on in last year’s election, it’s clear that the campaign brought these problems dramatically to the surface of our national life; it’s also clear that these challenges would have been with us, in equal measure, no matter who won. And so, as we approach the one-year anniversary of the election, we asked dozens of writers and artists to look beyond the day-to-day upheavals of the news cycle and propose one idea that could help fix the long-term problems bedeviling American democracy. The result: 38 conservative, liberal, practical, creative, broad, specific, technocratic, provocative solutions for an unsettled country.

The day after President Donald Trump ordered a ban on travelers from seven majority Muslim countries, Mamoon Hamid was rallying a response from Silicon Valley. The Pakistan-born venture capitalist held a private dinner that night in San Francisco (CA), where he pitched other investors, entrepreneurs and technology executives on a coalition that could challenge the Trump administration’s most controversial policies in court.

The goal was to solicit funding for the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection. The group offers a legal swat team of sorts “to protect people at a moment of great instability and peril,” said Hamid, the chairman. He had been planning the white-linen event with attendees from Facebook Inc., Google and other tech companies for months, but the immigration ban offered newfound urgency.

[Commentary] First Amendment rights were developed and defined in order to protect the political life of the nation. But life within universities is not a mirror of that life. The cardinal First Amendment rule of viewpoint neutrality has absolutely no relevance to the selection of university speakers. Any court that denies this is living in fantasy, blinded by a mechanical doctrine that has no relevance to the phenomena it is supposed to control.

The root and fiber of the university is not equivalent to the public sphere. If a university believes that its educational mission requires it to prohibit all outside speakers, or to impose stringent tests of professional competence on all speakers allowed to address the campus, it would and should be free to do so.

[Robert C. Post is the Sterling professor of law at Yale Law School. He served as dean of the school from 2009 through spring 2017.]

[Commentary] I have been teaching First Amendment law to law students and undergraduates for more than 37 years. I have also litigated free speech cases, including at the Supreme Court. I believe that Chancellor Christ and the campus have done a superb job of adhering to the First Amendment, protecting free speech while ensuring the safety of students, staff, and faculty. But it’s also become clear to me that current college students are often ambivalent, or even hostile, to the idea of free speech on campus.

Robert Post’s premise is undoubtedly correct: Universities must evaluate the content of faculty and student work. But it does not follow that outside of this realm, free speech principles do not apply on campus. It is a logical fallacy to say that because basic free speech principles sometimes do not apply on campus, they must never apply.

[Erwin Chemerinsky is dean and Jesse H. Choper distinguished professor of law at the University of California Berkeley School of Law.]

Pew Research Center’s new political typology, which sorts Americans into cohesive groups based on their values, attitudes and party affiliation, and provides a unique perspective on the nation’s changing political landscape. The political typology reveals that even in a political landscape increasingly fractured by partisanship, the divisions within the Republican and Democratic coalitions may be as important a factor in American politics as the divisions between them.

The power of partisanship is reflected in attitudes about President Donald Trump. In the survey, conducted in June, President Trump’s job ratings are more deeply polarized along partisan lines than those of any president in more than 60 years. There is no typology group in which a clear majority expresses positive views of President Trump’s conduct. The 2018 midterm elections are still more than a year away, but the two groups at either end of the political typology are already highly motivated by the battle for congressional control. More than eight-in-ten Solid Liberals (84%) say it matters a great deal to them which party wins control of Congress in 2018, the highest share of any typology group. Core Conservatives are next highest, at 77%.

If, like an ever-growing majority of people in the U.S., you own a smartphone, you might have the sense that apps in the age of the pocket-sized computer are designed to keep your attention as long as possible. You might not have the sense that they’re manipulating you one tap, swipe, or notification at a time. But Tristan Harris thinks that’s just what’s happening to the billions of us who use social networks like Facebook, Instagram, Snapchat, and Twitter, and he’s on a mission to steer us toward potential solutions—or at least to get us to acknowledge that this manipulation is, in fact, going on.

Harris, formerly a product manager turned design ethicist at Google, runs a nonprofit called Time Well Spent, which focuses on the addictive nature of technology and how apps could be better designed; it pursues public advocacy and supports design standards that take into account what’s good for people’s lives, rather than just seeking to maximize screen time. He says he’s moving away from Time Well Spent these days (his new effort is as yet unnamed), trying to hold the tech industry accountable for the way it persuades us to spend as much time as possible online, with tactics ranging from Snapchat’s snapstreaks to auto-playing videos on sites like YouTube and Facebook.

Team Internet is a network of volunteers combining people power with technology to mobilize people across the country to pressure their lawmakers to stand up for Net Neutrality. Free Press Action Fund, Demand Progress and Fight for the Future launched the project in July. Since then, Team Internet volunteers have spoken in person about Net Neutrality to 200 members of Congress or their staff at both town halls and in-district meetings.

Activists Iliana Gomez and Lesley Perg provide a critical backbone of support for Team Internet’s organizing infrastructure to make that happen. Since the end of August, they’ve done nearly all the work of the host-support team. This team has provided assistance to the scores of individuals — or hosts — who have organized meetings about Net Neutrality with their local congressional offices through Team Internet. Gomez and Perg call hosts and talk them through the details of their events, ensuring they have all the materials they need and are prepared to meet fellow activists and their lawmakers.

When Americans are asked what has brought the biggest improvement to their lives in the past five decades, they name technology more than any other advancement. And as Americans think about the next 50 years, they expect that technology, along with medical advances, will continue to have a major impact, according to a Pew Research Center survey conducted May to June of 2017. Technology was cited most (42%), while far fewer respondents mentioned medicine and health (14%), civil and equal rights (10%) or other advancements. Technology was identified as the biggest improvement by whites (47%) and Hispanics (35%), while blacks were about as likely to name technology (26%) as they were civil and equal rights (21%).

Three weeks ago, President Donald Trump was widely criticized for fanning racial divisions and inflaming the culture wars after he denounced a black NFL player for kneeling during the national anthem, casting the move as unpatriotic and an affront to the country. The player had intended the demonstration to call attention to police brutality against African Americans. What began as an impromptu, crowd-pleasing line at a Trump rally in Huntsville (AL) to “get that son of a bitch off the field right now!” sparked a national debate over free speech, patriotism, racial identity and cultural values.

Rather than back off and try to unify the nation, President Trump upped the ante relentlessly — and on Oct 10, NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell capitulated. Concerned about backlash from fans, Goodell sent a letter to all 32 team owners asking them to support a plan to “move past this controversy” and ensure that players stand during the anthem “to honor our flag and our country.”