Brilliant. Thank you. I’ve been wanting to figure out how to navigate the current political divide in the US and will be adopting this framework with heightened awareness.
Great article once again, but too bad you painted another broad brush that negatively characterized DEI programs. As I've stated in comments to you before, I really wish you would also highlight well run DEI programs that get it right. Many of which I have experienced where the conversations are open, empathetic and non-confrontational.
The focus of this article—and Manji’s work—was to highlight what works: the power of empathy, listening, and moral courage in fostering understanding and bridging divides. The reference to DEI programs wasn’t a blanket critique but an observation, based on Manji’s research, that some approaches can unintentionally fall short when these principles are overlooked. Friday Forward isn’t about presenting a range of case studies; it’s a storytelling platform to explore ideas and lessons.
I am sure that many DEI initiatives excel at fostering open, empathetic, and constructive dialogue. This story, at its core, was about showcasing approaches that succeed in helping people connect, heal, and grow.
I don't agree. It's equally exhausting to "understand" hate, misogyny, and lies that are spread online and elsewhere. I can't and won't empathize with the white supremacy behind a lot of it. "Get into good trouble" is more of how I view the response.
Thank you for sharing your perspective Marilyn. I understand where you’re coming from, especially when it comes to the exhaustion and frustration of confronting hate, lies, and harmful ideologies. Not everyone will feel they can—or should—engage with certain viewpoints, especially online.
So while it makes sense that we would want to be neutral or opt-out in many cases, if you are going to engage, wouldn't it be better to do so in a way that is proven to lead to better outcomes?
Figures like Daryl Davis and Rabbi Weisser from the post above engaged with white supremacy but didn’t condone or accept it—they challenged it by fostering dialogue and finding ways to disarm hate through connection and by understanding it's source.
“Getting into good trouble” is also a valid and important response—standing up, calling out, and pushing for change when it’s necessary. Both approaches can coexist and contribute to a better outcome, depending on the person and the situation.
Moral Courage Framework appears to have similarity to the (National Center for) Race Amity. Important stuff!
Brilliant. Thank you. I’ve been wanting to figure out how to navigate the current political divide in the US and will be adopting this framework with heightened awareness.
Great article once again, but too bad you painted another broad brush that negatively characterized DEI programs. As I've stated in comments to you before, I really wish you would also highlight well run DEI programs that get it right. Many of which I have experienced where the conversations are open, empathetic and non-confrontational.
Thank you for the feedback Lushan.
The focus of this article—and Manji’s work—was to highlight what works: the power of empathy, listening, and moral courage in fostering understanding and bridging divides. The reference to DEI programs wasn’t a blanket critique but an observation, based on Manji’s research, that some approaches can unintentionally fall short when these principles are overlooked. Friday Forward isn’t about presenting a range of case studies; it’s a storytelling platform to explore ideas and lessons.
I am sure that many DEI initiatives excel at fostering open, empathetic, and constructive dialogue. This story, at its core, was about showcasing approaches that succeed in helping people connect, heal, and grow.
I don't agree. It's equally exhausting to "understand" hate, misogyny, and lies that are spread online and elsewhere. I can't and won't empathize with the white supremacy behind a lot of it. "Get into good trouble" is more of how I view the response.
Thank you for sharing your perspective Marilyn. I understand where you’re coming from, especially when it comes to the exhaustion and frustration of confronting hate, lies, and harmful ideologies. Not everyone will feel they can—or should—engage with certain viewpoints, especially online.
So while it makes sense that we would want to be neutral or opt-out in many cases, if you are going to engage, wouldn't it be better to do so in a way that is proven to lead to better outcomes?
Figures like Daryl Davis and Rabbi Weisser from the post above engaged with white supremacy but didn’t condone or accept it—they challenged it by fostering dialogue and finding ways to disarm hate through connection and by understanding it's source.
https://robertglazer.substack.com/p/end-hate
https://robertglazer.substack.com/p/love-hate
“Getting into good trouble” is also a valid and important response—standing up, calling out, and pushing for change when it’s necessary. Both approaches can coexist and contribute to a better outcome, depending on the person and the situation.
Thoughtful approach .