FAQ

First Amendment Center (5)

View category →

The Freedom Forum Institute’s First Amendment Center does not provide legal representation and does not fund litigation. We’re a nonprofit organization focused on education and information about First Amendment issues.

No, you need a qualified attorney for that. Laws differ from state to state. Martindale, Findlaw and other online legal services offer ways to find lawyers by specialty where you live. However, the information posted on our site may help you and your attorney. Use the search engine for topics or terms that interest you.

No. We are an educational organization. We provide information and sometimes expert testimony that members of Congress or others may find useful, but we do not lobby.

Our website has a wealth of information that may be useful in your project. Search the site for your topic and other terms that interest you. If you quote or paraphrase our information, be sure to cite where you obtained it.

Yes, as schedules and duties permit, Freedom Forum Institute’s First Amendment Center experts speak to groups and conferences or participates in programs. Generally, the inviting group must fund travel-related expenses for the First Amendment Center participant. The Center welcomes invitations to participate in nonpartisan, educational events about First Amendment issues.

Free Spirit (11)

View category →

The deadline is Feb. 1, 2020. Applications must include the completed application, journalistic work, two essays, letters of reference, a high school transcript, and a color headshot photo. Incomplete applications will not be accepted.

Applications may be accepted beyond the deadline from select states that have an insufficient number of qualified applicants.

No. Applicants are not required to list SAT or ACT scores, because juniors typically don’t take the exams until spring. However, scores should be supplied if they are available.

Two essays with a maximum of 500 words each must be submitted with the application. First, applicants must explain why they want to pursue a career in journalism; and second, what characteristics make them a “free spirit.”

No. We require samples of writing, photography, audio, video or other media that were produced for publication or for classroom assignments.

All candidates will be notified by mail no later than mid-May 2020. Recipients will be required to sign an acknowledgment form to confirm their acceptance. Scholars’ names will be posted online in early June 2020.

Freedom of Speech (73)

View category →

The U.S. Supreme Court has decided several cases involving the First Amendment rights of public school students, but the most often cited are Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969), Bethel School District No. 403 v. Fraser (1986) and Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier (1988).

In Tinker, the Supreme Court said that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.” The court ruled that Iowa public school officials violated the First Amendment rights of several students by suspending them for wearing black armbands to school.

The court noted that the students’ wearing of armbands to protest U.S. involvement in Vietnam was a form of symbolic speech “akin to pure speech.” The school officials tried to justify their actions, saying that the armbands would disrupt the school environment.

But, the Supreme Court said that “in our system, undifferentiated fear or apprehension of disturbance is not enough to overcome the right to freedom of expression.” School officials cannot silence student speech simply because they dislike it or it is controversial or unpopular. Rather, according to the court, school officials must reasonably forecast that student speech will cause a “substantial disruption” or “material interference” with school activities or “invade the rights of others” before they can censor student expression. The Tinker case is considered the high-water mark for student First Amendment rights.

In the 1980s, a more conservative Supreme Court cut back on students’ free-expression rights in Fraser and Hazelwood. In Fraser, school officials suspended a high school student for giving a lewd speech before the student assembly. Even though Matthew Fraser’s speech was part of a student-government campaign, the high court distinguished the sexual nature of the address from the political speech in Tinker.

“Surely, it is a highly appropriate function of public school education to prohibit the use of vulgar and offensive terms in public discourse,” the court wrote in its 1986 decision. “The undoubted freedom to advocate unpopular and controversial views in schools and classrooms must be balanced against the society’s countervailing interest in teaching students the boundaries of socially appropriate behavior.”

Two years later, the Supreme Court further restricted student free-expression rights in Hazelwood. In that 1988 decision, several students sued after a Missouri high school principal censored two articles in the school newspaper. The articles, written by students, dealt with divorce and teen pregnancy. The principal said he thought the subject matter was inappropriate for some of the younger students.

The students argued that the principal violated their First Amendment rights because he did not meet the Tinker standard — he did not show the articles would lead to a substantial disruption. Instead of examining the case under Tinker, however, the Supreme Court developed a new standard for what it termed school-sponsored speech.

Under this standard, school officials can regulate school-sponsored student expression, as long as the officials’ actions “are reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical interest.” In plain English, this means school officials must show that they have a reasonable educational reason for their actions. The court broadly defined the school’s authority to regulate school-sponsored expression, writing that school officials could censor material which would “associate the school with anything other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.”

The Supreme Court spoke to this issue in Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969), in which it held that even those statements (or student groups, in this case) that advocate violation of the law are protected speech under the First Amendment unless they threaten “imminent lawless action.” This principle was tested recently by the 11th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Gay Lesbian Bisexual Alliance v. Pryor, where the state of Alabama passed a statute that prevented state universities from recognizing or distributing funds to student groups that promoted lifestyles prohibited under the state’s sodomy laws. The court found that the GLBA did not promote “imminent lawless action,” and that any statute intended to restrict the group’s otherwise-protected advocacy of a nontraditional lifestyle was inherently unconstitutional.

Free-speech advocates warn that “voluntary” programs may seem to come from willing industry participants, but compliance is usually due to significant pressure from lawmakers.

Those who like the new law say it merely restores the political landscape to the way it was a decade ago, before the use of soft money and electioneering ads became so widespread. In a recent position paper, Brookings Institution scholars Thomas Mann and Norman Ornstein also insist that “no speech is banned by the new law — not a single ad nor any word or combination of words would be muzzled.” Only the source of the funds and the disclosure of the source are affected by the law, they say. In addition, supporters argue that the importance of curbing corruption in the political system outweighs any infringement on expression the law might impose.

It depends. If the school has by policy or practice turned the school-sponsored publication into a public forum, or a place traditionally open to the free exchange of ideas, then the school has less authority to censor content. However, most school newspapers are not public forums, and because of a 1988 Supreme Court decision, school officials generally have broad leeway to censor school-sponsored publications.

In Hazelwood School District v. Kuhlmeier, the high court ruled that school officials can censor school-sponsored publications if their decision is “reasonably related to a legitimate pedagogical purpose.” This means school officials must show that they have a reasonable educational reason for censoring the material.

The high court gave several examples of material that could be censored based on a reasonable educational purpose, including material that is “ungrammatical, poorly written, inadequately researched, biased or prejudiced, vulgar or profane, or unsuitable for immature audiences.”

The court went so far as to say that under the Hazelwood standard, school officials could censor school-sponsored materials that would “associate the school with anything other than neutrality on matters of political controversy.”

Student advocates decried the Hazelwood decision as blatant censorship that would lead to a drastic reduction in students’ First Amendment rights. For this reason, several states passed so-called “anti-Hazelwood laws” that grant student journalists more protection. Arkansas, Colorado, Iowa, Kansas, Massachusetts, and Oregon passed such laws after the decision. (California already had a law protecting student journalists.)

Suppose a student is taking a drawing class. Part of it involves sketching a nude human body. If a student has a religious objection to observing or drawing unclothed models, he or she might ask to be exempted from that section of the class without damage to the course grade. Such an exemption may or may not be granted.

It stands to reason, under a doctrine established by the U.S. Supreme Court in its 1943 decision West Virginia v. Barnette, that no one may be compelled by a government actor to do something that will violate their conscience. Accordingly, it would seem that the same could be said for students who find religious or moral objections to certain practices normally required in a course of study — that they should be allowed to take on comparable tasks, modified to meet the requirements of their worldview.

A Mormon drama student at the University of Utah recently objected to “taking the Lord’s name in vain” and using “the f-word.” When she asked that she be allowed to change the words in class exercises and plays to which she was assigned, she was informed that her grade would suffer if she did so. In the resulting court case, the federal district court found that she could not exempt herself from the requirements of her studies and that if she desired to avoid those requirements, she had the option of choosing another major. The case has been appealed.

Freedom of the Press (39)

View category →

Some states passed “right of reply” statutes to require newspapers that criticized candidates to give those candidates space to respond. In Miami Herald Publishing Co. v. Tornillo (1974), the U.S. Supreme Court said such statutes violated the First Amendment, because the government cannot compel a newspaper to publish information. “A responsible press is an undoubtedly desirable goal,” the Court said, “but press responsibility is not mandated by the Constitution, and like many other virtues, it cannot be legislated.”

No. HIPAA does not regulate what the press can report. But it does limit the kinds of information that hospitals and various government agencies can disclose.

Television coverage is not allowed in federal courts. The state courts have been more receptive to allowing television coverage of trials, but none has recognized a right to broadcast a trial. The courts most receptive to cameras in the courtroom allow judges broad discretion in deciding whether to permit televised coverage.

The Radio-Television News Directors Association and its foundation closely monitor the federal and state rules governing cameras in the courtroom. The foundation posts a state-by-state guide of current law regarding cameras and microphones in courtrooms on its website.

Health care information the news media obtains independently is not subject to HIPAA. It may be published or broadcast freely, subject to any newsroom policies limiting the publication of information about minors or the deceased.

Courts have long struggled with this seemingly easy question. While no doubt exists that “mainstream” media, such as broadcast stations, newspapers and magazines enjoy the freedom of “the press,” the line gets blurrier in cases involving underground newspapers, freelance writers and pamphleteers. In general, however, courts have defined “the press” so as to include all publishers. The 2nd U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, for example, has said that First Amendment protections extend to “‘every sort of publication which affords a vehicle of information and opinion.’” von Bulow v. von Bulow, 811 F.2d 136, 144 (2d Cir.) (quoting Lovell v. Griffin, 303 U.S. 444, 452 (1938)), cert. denied, 481 U.S. 1015 (1987).

The rules that apply to broadcasters are mainly bookkeeping rules. Broadcasters are required to keep publicly available records of politically related broadcasting requests.

So, as stated in the 2003 Supreme Court decision McConnell v. Federal Election Commission, any request to purchase air time “made by or on behalf of” any “legally qualified candidate for public office” that refers to a “legally qualified candidate” or “any election to Federal office” or a “national legislative issue of public importance” has to be recorded and made available to the public.

Freedom of Religion (89)

View category →

Academic study of the Bible in a public secondary school may appropriately take place in literature courses. Students might study the Bible as literature. They would examine the Bible as they would other literature in terms of aesthetic categories, as an anthology of narratives and poetry, exploring its language, symbolism and motifs. Students might also study the Bible in literature, the ways in which later writers have used Bible literature, language and symbols. Much drama, poetry and fiction contains material from the Bible.

Most experts agree that teachers are permitted to wear unobtrusive jewelry, such as a cross or a Star of David. But they should not wear clothing with a proselytizing message (e.g., a “Jesus Saves” T-shirt).

Schools have great latitude to control the speech that occurs in a classroom and, in that setting, can probably prohibit the distribution of student publications altogether. Similarly, schools may impose any reasonable constraint on student speech in a school-sponsored publication such as the school newspaper.

No. Title 45, Part 87, Section 2, Subsection E of the Code of Federal Regulations says that “an organization that participates in programs funded by direct financial assistance from the [government] shall not, in providing services, discriminate against a program beneficiary or prospective program beneficiary on the basis of religion or religious belief.”

In order to provide for the safety of students traveling to and from schools, the school district may ask local institutions (e.g., businesses, firehouses, religious institutions) to serve as temporary shelters for students who seek to avoid danger or threatening situations. The school shall provide signs indicating that the place is a shelter available for students.

All states currently require children to follow at least some form of standardized immunization schedule in order to be enrolled in public school. Vaccinations often required by this schedule include those against diphtheria, whooping cough, and the measles. Of the 50 states, all offer some exemptions for religious opposition to vaccination except Mississippi and West Virginia.

Freedom of Assembly (13)

View category →

The movement drew upon several First Amendment freedoms — primarily speech, assembly and petition — to protest racial injustice and promote racial equality. In addition, the U.S. Supreme Court strengthened these First Amendment freedoms through its rulings in court cases arising out of the civil rights movement.

In some cases, anti-abortion demonstrators physically obstruct and/or intimidate those entering and exiting abortion clinics. Legislatures and judges create and permit buffer zones to ensure that people can work safely at the clinics and that women have access to them.

Generally, no. The Bill of Rights provides protection for individual liberty from actions by government officials. This is called the state-action doctrine. Private property is not government-owned. Restrictions on individuals’ free-speech rights on private property do not involve state action.

However, a few states have interpreted their own state constitutions to provide even greater free-speech protection than the federal Constitution offers. For example, the New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that individuals have free-speech rights at privately owned shopping malls. Most state supreme courts that have examined the issue have disagreed. In April 2002, the Iowa Supreme Court refused to extend its definition of public property to include large, privately owned shopping malls.

A 2010 case, Snyder v. Phelps, involved whether a verdict assessing damages against the Westboro Baptist Church for a protest causing emotional distress to a soldier’s family violates the First Amendment.

In a somewhat related case, the Court in Frisby v. Schultz (1988) upheld a Wisconsin city ordinance banning picketing in front of private residences. “The type of picketers banned by the Brookfield ordinance generally do not seek to disseminate a message to the general public, but to intrude upon the targeted resident, and to do so in an especially offensive way,” Justice Sandra Day O’Connor wrote for the Court. The Court has also decided a series of cases involving limitations on abortion protesters outside clinics. For example, in Hill v. Colorado (2001), a divided Court (6-3) upheld a Colorado law that imposed an 8-foot floating buffer zone between protesters and those entering and leaving abortion facilities.

 

A law discriminates on the basis of viewpoint if it singles out a specific point of view for regulation. Consider a protest at a military funeral in which demonstrators denigrated the soldier and offended family members. If government officials punished that protest but allowed a demonstration praising the deceased, a serious charge of viewpoint discrimination could be leveled, because only protesters advocating a specific type of message were targeted.

The U.S. Supreme Court held on Feb. 28, 2006, in a case involving anti-abortion protests, that federal extortion and racketeering laws cannot be used to ban demonstrations. Use of those laws against protesters also was opposed by unions and a variety of social activists. Many states currently are considering laws that would ban protests at funerals, but those bans would be based on different kinds of laws. The proposed state bans often set out time limits starting before and ending after funeral services, or map out physical distances to separate families from demonstrators.

As a general rule, the government cannot ban speech — including public protests — because of the protest’s “content,” or subject matter. Government can restrict the time, place and manner of the speech in order to meet a higher need, such as public safety. What a demonstrator might say without challenge at noon in the public square likely would have First Amendment protection, while that same speech at midnight under an apartment building window likely would not.

Freedom to Petition (9)

View category →

Historically, a petition was a written request stating a grievance and requesting relief from a ruling authority such as a king. In modern America, petitioning embraces a range of expressive activities designed to influence public officials through legal, nonviolent means.

The right to petition reaches back at least to the Magna Carta in 1215. The English Declaration of Rights in 1689 confirmed that subjects were entitled to petition the king without fear of prosecution.

Courts seldom address the petition clause in isolation, instead grouping it with other rights to free association and collective speech. The U.S. Supreme Court has noted that the right to petition at least provides the opportunity to institute nonfrivolous lawsuits and mobilize popular support to change existing laws in a peaceful manner.

No. The U.S. Supreme Court has incorporated the petition clause of the First Amendment as part of the 14th Amendment’s guarantees against the states. The petition clause applies equally to state and local governments and protects petitions directed to the judicial, executive and legislative branches.

The First Amendment does not mandate that the government consider the public’s petitions or actually provide any “redress.” At a minimum, the government must have a mechanism for receiving complaints and grievances from the public, even if only to file them without consideration. Of course, due process — the guarantee that justice will be administered fairly — would apply if a citizen’s “petition” took the form of a court case.

No, parties can attempt to file such suits, but the First Amendment’s petition clause guarantees the right of all interested parties to attempt to enlist the government on their side of an issue or dispute. The vast majority of the case law and commentary — both popular and scholarly — supports that right, and suggests that the remedy for dissatisfaction with the statements of another party is more speech directed toward government, not more litigation.

Students (4)

View category →

It depends. If you attend a private school, the First Amendment will not protect you from any restrictions your school places on your right to protest. (The First Amendment prevents the government from punishing you for your speech. It doesn’t prevent a private organization for punishing you for your speech.)

If you attend a public school, you do have First Amendment rights, even at school. However, your rights are more limited than the rights of adults. Your school can punish you for taking part in a protest if it causes substantial disruption of school activities, or if it invades the rights of others.

This standard was established by the Supreme Court in a case called Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District. The students in that case wore black armbands to school to protest the Vietnam War, and were suspended for refusing to take them off. The Supreme Court found that their First Amendment rights had been violated, because the armbands were considered a non-disruptive expression of their political point of view.

You may decide that you are willing to incur those penalties, but remember to consider alternative methods of advocacy and protest as well.  Sometimes civil disobedience–challenging the rules on matters of conscience and policy–is justifiable.  But sometimes there are several different ways to achieve the same goal.

This is may be a fire code violation–contact the proper authorities if you are concerned.

You may not be able to vote–but you have the First Amendment rights to speak, assemble, and petition.

Organizing marches and rallies can raise public awareness for your cause. Doing so off-campus and outside of school hours will be protected by the First Amendment.  Reach out and collaborate with as many people as possible–parents, teachers, school administrators, and members of your community–in order to have the greatest possible impact.

The right to petition means the right to ask for the laws that you want and speak out against the ones that you don’t want.  Contact your elected officials and tell them what you think.   Letters, phone calls, and personal interactions at town hall meetings have more of an impact than emails and tweets.  Contact your Senators and members of Congress, since they’re elected to serve you.  Don’t forget that state and local officials also make laws that impact you.  The My Reps website allows you to find and contact your federal, state, county, and local elected officials.  This guide by  former Congressional staffer Emily Ellsworth contains some very helpful tips on what you should say and do.

Parents (1)

View category →

First, you may want to reach out to the school administrators and/or the school board and make your own voice heard on how you feel about this policy.

In giving advice or instructions to your children, you should consider the potential penalties but also discuss the underlying issues behind the walk-out.  You may wish to help your child with alternative forms of activism–for instance, by contacting your legislators on their behalf.  (After all, you have a vote.)

This could also be an opportunity to work collectively with other parents and your school leaders to organize a community discussion about the political issues, and also the on the the larger civic lessons surrounding free speech, protest, and representative democracy.

Teachers (1)

View category →

If you’re caught between students motivated to join in protests, marches or other kinds of activities that are under the general heading of “free expression” [that is actual speech or expressive conduct] and your administration’s view of such actions as disruptive and therefore prohibited, perhaps you can strike a compromise between these groups  – a task that teachers’ lounge chatter daily confirms. How about leading your students in discussion about the history of protest in America, or the explore the various sides of what Supreme Court justices wrote in the “Tinker” court case.

While the 7-2 majority on the court supported student free speech rights – with some caveats – one justice wrote that the decision would usher in an entirely new era of “permissiveness” that it seems would wreck American public schools. To engage your students in a discussion, you can find review the basic information about the case and use this discussion guide from Newseum Education.

School Administrators (1)

View category →

You first face the decision of whether to forbid the walk-out at all or to simply deal with the disruption caused by a walk-out.  (This decision might depend on whether you are considering the disruption caused by a 17-minute walkout versus that of an all-day walkout).  You then face the decision of whether or not to punish the participants.  Note that a punishment must be proportional to the misconduct committed.  Furthermore, if you decide to mark truant the students who participate in a walk-out, keep in mind that the punishment for them cannot be any more severe than the punishment for students who are truant for another reason.

Simply locking students into their classrooms in order to keep them from leaving may well be a fire code violation. Such a “lockdown” lacks the urgent “true threat” justification that a court might accept with regard to an active, dangerous incident in your building or near your location.

You should also consider that there may be another approach altogether. Given that we live in an age where there is much concern that young people don’t understand the Constitution or support free speech, punishing them for exercising it, even if the even if the Tinker decision gives school administrators that discretion, seems counterproductive. In the words of law professor Erwin Chemerinsky, “Schools cannot teach the importance of the First Amendment and simultaneously not follow it.”

This could be a teaching moment for your students and your community.  In cooperation with students, parents, and teachers, you may wish to organize a town hall meeting in which all sides surrounding the political issue or debate are head.  Newseum Ed’s Teaching Controversial Topics instruction guide provides tools and tips for educators on leading classroom conversations about sensitive topics.  

You can also use this as an opportunity to educate your students about how the First Amendment works and how far their rights extend.  You can start by introducing students to what the limits of free speech are, both inside of school and out of it, with discussion materials from Newseum Ed about what counts as a violation of the First Amendment and what you can and can’t say in school.

 

 

 

 

Lawyers (8)

View category →

Yes, students do possess First Amendment rights at school.   The U.S. Supreme Court famously wrote in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District (1969) that students “do not shed their constitutional rights to freedom of speech or expression at the schoolhouse gate.”  However, the Court cautioned that students’ rights must be considered “in light of the special characteristics of the school environment.”

That is an excellent question.  The determination of what constitutes a “substantial disruption” is decided on a case-by-case basis.  The interruption of classes, threats to teachers, racially harassing conduct and significant race-based tension, fights or violent behavior on school grounds, the flooding of angry calls from parents, the canceling of school events, and emotional distress suffered by teachers have all been considered substantial disruptions within the meaning of the Tinker standard.

No, courts have stated that school officials do not have to wait for an actual disruption or riot.  The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals explained in Karp v. Becken (1973): “The First Amendment does not require school officials to wait until disruption actually occurs before they may act.”

This where the “reasonable forecast” part of the standard comes in play.   In Dodd v. Rambis (S.D. 1981), a federal district court judge reasoned that students’ distribution of leaflets urging fellow students to engage in another student walkout was substantially disruptive to school activities.  The judge explained: “The First Amendment does not require school officials to forestall action until disruption of the educational system actually occurs. Indeed, this is the very essence of the forecast rule.”

For example, in many cases involving Confederate flag garb, courts have reasoned that a significant amount of race-based tension at the school is enough to satisfy the “reasonable forecast of substantial” disruption standard.

Usually, courts find that student walkouts are substantially disruptive under the Tinker standard.  They focus on the fact that classes and class schedules are disrupted and the students who remain in school are distracted.

Furthermore, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Corales v. Bennett (2009) reasoned that a high school’s anti-truancy policy was a “content neutral rule that furthers an important interest unrelated to the suppression of expression.”  The appeals court explained that the anti-truancy rule “furthers several substantial government interests, including enforcing compulsory education, keeping minors safe from the influences of the street, maximizing school funding based on attendance  and limiting potential liability for negligent failure to supervise a truant student properly.”

The other part of the Tinker test is sometimes called the “invasion of the rights” prong or “invasion of the rights of others” test.   The Court in Tinker explained that student speech is not protected by the First Amendment if it impinges on the rights of other students.  The Court has not explained the contours of this test.

However, lower courts have applied this test to prohibit student speech that sexually harasses other students or to student speech containing anti-gay themes.  For example, the 9th Circuit ruled in Harper v. Poway Unified School District (2006) that school officials could prohibit a student from wearing t-shirts containing Biblical verses condemning homosexuality. The appeals court explained: “Speech that attacks high school students who are members of minority groups that have historically been oppressed, subjected to verbal and physical abuse, and made to feel inferior, serves to injure and intimidate them, as well as to damage their sense of security and interfere with their opportunity to learn.”

Absolutely not.  U.S. District Court Judge Rodney Sippel expressed this well years ago in Beussink v. Woodland IV School District (E.D. Mo. 1998), writing “Disliking or being upset by the content of a student’s speech is not an acceptable justification for limiting student speech under Tinker.

In a case out of Tennessee, Giles County public school officials contended that a t-shirt with pro-gay and lesbian themes would be disruptive to the school. A review federal district court judge disagreed in Young v. Giles County (M.D. Tenn. 2015), writing that “[m]erely invoking the word ‘disruption’ falls far short of the showing that Tinker requires.”

Workplace Integrity Curriculum (7)

View category →

It’s the product of both research and experience. I drew on the findings from the Power Shift Summit, EEOC data on harassment and discrimination, research on bias in decision making, contemporary writing on gender and diversity issues, and combined it all with my own experiences working with journalists and leaders who want to improve their cultures.

Let me answer that by providing a peek at the Facilitator’s Guide for the curriculum, where the learning objectives are laid out:

Format: The interactive program consists of three modules, designed to be taught in succession, as one complete event. Each session builds on the others.

Learning objectives: Participants who complete the workshop should be able to take away these skills from each of the modules:

  1. Critical Thinking: How to analyze common workplace exchanges related to harassment, discrimination and incivility — checking facts, providing context, identifying bias, surfacing assumptions and challenging logic.
  2. Courageous Conversations: How to better understand conflict and responses to it. How to speak proactively (introducing subjects) and reactively (responding to the words and actions of others) to ensure workplace integrity.
  3. Cultures of Respect and Trust: How to assess and improve your workplace culture.

I’ve spent a great deal of time helping newsrooms who want their cultures to be more investigative, multi-platform, digital-first, audience-centric, enterprising, collaborative or breaking-news focused. To do that, I developed a very practical analytical framework for assessing a culture, and exercises for staff to use to upgrade it. I built on that foundation to apply it to the Workplace Integrity curriculum. Now, newsroom teams will address “Cultures of Respect and Trust” — with both of those terms carefully defined and translated into daily choices and behaviors. We use a format that allows staff to work together in teams, under the guidance of a skilled facilitator who knows and loves journalism and journalists, and speaks the language of the newsroom.

The issues are complex and intertwined. Even if we magically ended sexual misconduct in workplaces tomorrow, we’d still be left with longstanding issues of inequality in pay and power — and even in respect. The curriculum aims to make these connections and discuss the intersections among gender, race and ethnicity, age, and power. It constantly challenges the participants to try to see every item we discuss from multiple perspectives, especially those different from their own. And, while it teaches people how to respond to improper workplace behavior, there’s an even bigger emphasis on how each of us, but especially leaders, has the opportunity to be proactive. “Courageous Conversations” will fail as a session if all it does is help victims push back or report wrongdoing. What it must also do is help us all find the words to propose solutions, take a stand, and embed the values of workplace integrity into our everyday communication.

The 2016 report of an EEOC task force reviewed research on traditional anti-harassment training and found scant evidence that it worked. It often made people defensive. The videos used could be corny or dated, and online versions of training could come off as a “box-checking” exercise. I know from my many years of teaching ethics and diversity that talking across differences, and raising issues of power and privilege, is hard work for humans. Framing it as compliance to company rules doesn’t set the table for candid, earnest and even painful conversations. But it is in those that we find the human insights that inform our minds and hearts. Whenever I’ve had success in helping organizations improve their cultures, it’s been through setting the table for conversations people wouldn’t otherwise have, and helping them see the world through others’ eyes in an open-minded atmosphere of trust. That’s the goal of the Workplace Integrity curriculum.

One of the most popular sessions I teach in leadership workshops is “Difficult Conversations.” I traditionally have the workshop participants share scenarios from their own experiences, and then I coach them on how to handle them. I’ve heard so many great case studies, and coached so many conversations, that I drew from that experience. The cases are nuanced and real. I intentionally crafted them in second-person voice. “You” are facing various proactive and reactive scenarios: proposing a change in intern onboarding, reacting to a powerful, talented and mercurial co-worker, responding to unwelcome physical contact, stepping in when a person is being harassed, and coaching a coworker who brings a concern to you. When “you” consider your options, we also ask “you” to consider how the case might play out differently for a variety of other “you’s” — who differ from you in multiple ways.

Power Shift Project (0)

View category →

It’s the product of both research and experience. I drew on the findings from the Power Shift Summit, EEOC data on harassment and discrimination, research on bias in decision making, contemporary writing on gender and diversity issues, and combined it all with my own experiences working with journalists and leaders who want to improve their cultures.

Let me answer that by providing a peek at the Facilitator’s Guide for the curriculum, where the learning objectives are laid out:

Format: The interactive program consists of three modules, designed to be taught in succession, as one complete event. Each session builds on the others.

Learning objectives: Participants who complete the workshop should be able to take away these skills from each of the modules:

  1. Critical Thinking: How to analyze common workplace exchanges related to harassment, discrimination and incivility — checking facts, providing context, identifying bias, surfacing assumptions and challenging logic.
  2. Courageous Conversations: How to better understand conflict and responses to it. How to speak proactively (introducing subjects) and reactively (responding to the words and actions of others) to ensure workplace integrity.
  3. Cultures of Respect and Trust: How to assess and improve your workplace culture.

I’ve spent a great deal of time helping newsrooms who want their cultures to be more investigative, multi-platform, digital-first, audience-centric, enterprising, collaborative or breaking-news focused. To do that, I developed a very practical analytical framework for assessing a culture, and exercises for staff to use to upgrade it. I built on that foundation to apply it to the Workplace Integrity curriculum. Now, newsroom teams will address “Cultures of Respect and Trust” — with both of those terms carefully defined and translated into daily choices and behaviors. We use a format that allows staff to work together in teams, under the guidance of a skilled facilitator who knows and loves journalism and journalists, and speaks the language of the newsroom.

The issues are complex and intertwined. Even if we magically ended sexual misconduct in workplaces tomorrow, we’d still be left with longstanding issues of inequality in pay and power — and even in respect. The curriculum aims to make these connections and discuss the intersections among gender, race and ethnicity, age, and power. It constantly challenges the participants to try to see every item we discuss from multiple perspectives, especially those different from their own. And, while it teaches people how to respond to improper workplace behavior, there’s an even bigger emphasis on how each of us, but especially leaders, has the opportunity to be proactive. “Courageous Conversations” will fail as a session if all it does is help victims push back or report wrongdoing. What it must also do is help us all find the words to propose solutions, take a stand, and embed the values of workplace integrity into our everyday communication.

The 2016 report of an EEOC task force reviewed research on traditional anti-harassment training and found scant evidence that it worked. It often made people defensive. The videos used could be corny or dated, and online versions of training could come off as a “box-checking” exercise. I know from my many years of teaching ethics and diversity that talking across differences, and raising issues of power and privilege, is hard work for humans. Framing it as compliance to company rules doesn’t set the table for candid, earnest and even painful conversations. But it is in those that we find the human insights that inform our minds and hearts. Whenever I’ve had success in helping organizations improve their cultures, it’s been through setting the table for conversations people wouldn’t otherwise have, and helping them see the world through others’ eyes in an open-minded atmosphere of trust. That’s the goal of the Workplace Integrity curriculum.

One of the most popular sessions I teach in leadership workshops is “Difficult Conversations.” I traditionally have the workshop participants share scenarios from their own experiences, and then I coach them on how to handle them. I’ve heard so many great case studies, and coached so many conversations, that I drew from that experience. The cases are nuanced and real. I intentionally crafted them in second-person voice. “You” are facing various proactive and reactive scenarios: proposing a change in intern onboarding, reacting to a powerful, talented and mercurial co-worker, responding to unwelcome physical contact, stepping in when a person is being harassed, and coaching a coworker who brings a concern to you. When “you” consider your options, we also ask “you” to consider how the case might play out differently for a variety of other “you’s” — who differ from you in multiple ways.