The National Coalition for Dialogue and Deliberation offers a foundational introduction to the two core practices at the heart of its network's work: dialogue and deliberation. The post explains dialogue as a process for building genuine understanding across differences — not winning arguments, but hearing experiences — and deliberation as the structured examination of options and trade-offs that allows communities to make better decisions together. Drawing on the insight that moving from talk to decision requires trust as a foundation, the piece makes the case that these processes are most powerful in sequence and most necessary now, when polarization and distrust are eroding the civic spaces where communities once worked through hard things together. This explainer serves NCDD's mission by equipping new and returning visitors with a clear, accessible entry point into the dialogue and deliberation field and the network that supports it.

If you've landed on the NCDD website and found yourself wondering what exactly "dialogue and deliberation" means — and why an entire network of practitioners is dedicated to it — you're in the right place. This is a quick introduction to two of the most powerful tools communities have for working through the issues that matter most.

NCDD member Frances Moore Lappé once asked a question that cuts to the heart of why this work exists: "Why are we as societies creating a world that we as individuals abhor?" Most of us, regardless of political affiliation or background, share more common ground than our public conversations would suggest. So why do so many important decisions get made through power and conflict rather than through genuine understanding and collaboration? Dialogue and deliberation exist to answer that question — and to do something about it.

Dialogue is a process that brings people together, usually in small groups, to share their perspectives and lived experiences on issues that are too often debated, avoided, or simply talked past. It is not about winning an argument or reaching a predetermined conclusion. It is about understanding — really understanding — what an issue means in someone else's life, and allowing that understanding to change how you see the problem.
When dialogue works, it dispels stereotypes, builds trust, and opens people to perspectives genuinely different from their own. It creates the conditions in which something new becomes possible: not just a compromise between fixed positions, but a shared sense of what is actually at stake and why it matters.

Deliberation picks up where dialogue leaves off. If dialogue asks "how has this issue affected your life?", deliberation asks "what should we do about it?" It is a structured process of weighing options, examining trade-offs, and making better decisions together — the kind of decisions that stick, because the people affected by them had a genuine hand in shaping them.
As Kettering Foundation President David Mathews has noted, deliberation isn't just discussion for its own sake. It is how communities make the decisions that allow them to act together — facing the real costs and consequences of difficult choices rather than deferring to whoever holds the most power.

Dialogue and deliberation are most powerful when they work in sequence. The trust and mutual understanding built through dialogue create the foundation for more effective deliberation. People who have genuinely heard each other's stories are better equipped to weigh options together and commit to shared action. Moving from talk to decision without that foundation tends to produce outcomes that feel imposed rather than owned.
Both processes share a core commitment: that every voice deserves to be heard, that inclusion strengthens rather than complicates decision-making, and that communities are capable of solving their own problems when given the right conditions and support.

​Dialogue and deliberation are not new ideas. Communities have always needed ways to talk through hard things together. But in a moment defined by polarization, distrust, and the collapse of shared civic spaces, the skills and structures that make genuine public conversation possible have never been more urgently needed.
NCDD exists to support the practitioners, organizations, and communities doing this work — and to grow a field that believes democratic life is worth building, carefully and together.
If you're new here, welcome. And if you're ready to go deeper, our resources section is a good place to start.

Harmony Labs, a media research organization, has released a series of findings from its multi-year partnership with Democracy 2076, examining how entertainment media shapes Americans' beliefs about government and democratic participation. Drawing on behavioral data from more than 300,000 opt-in panelists and content analysis of thousands of streaming programs, the research finds that 58% of scripted streaming content Americans watch daily is government-relevant — and that stories set in schools, workplaces, and community organizations can be as civically formative as those set in government itself. The lab has also released the Democracy Audience Map, a free values-based segmentation tool identifying eight distinct ways Americans relate to democratic institutions, offering civic communicators and practitioners a data-grounded framework for audience strategy. This research enriches NCDD's mission by equipping dialogue and deliberation practitioners with evidence-based insights about the media landscape in which civic engagement — and disengagement — is being shaped.

At a time when nearly 40% of Americans say they're actively avoiding political news and civic knowledge remains low, understanding how democratic values actually reach people has never been more urgent. Harmony Labs, a New York-based media research organization, has spent the past two years investigating exactly that question — and their findings carry significant implications for anyone working to strengthen civic culture. In partnership with Democracy 2076, Harmony Labs has produced a series of research reports examining how entertainment media shapes public beliefs about government, and the results challenge some fundamental assumptions about where civic engagement begins. 

The core finding of the research is striking: on any given day, 58% of the scripted streaming that people watch is government-relevant. To surface this, Harmony Labs analyzed the media behavior of more than 300,000 people across broadcast television, streaming, desktop, mobile, and tablet platforms — tracking not what people say they watch, but what they actually watch, minute by minute. Over the last two years, Democracy 2076 and Harmony Labs have partnered to study how entertainment media shape people's beliefs about government. Their research reveals that stories that shape people's beliefs about democracy don't need to be set in government — they just need a system, with rules, incentives, hierarchies, consequences, and a hero who attempts to change how that system works. Those systems can be schools, newsrooms, community organizations, workplaces, or sports teams — basically anywhere decisions get made and shape outcomes. For civic practitioners, this reframes the entire terrain of democratic culture-building. 

Harmony Labs has also developed the Democracy Audience Map, a free tool built on values-based audience segmentation derived from Shalom Schwartz's cross-cultural theory of human values, integrating the media behavior of 300,000+ people in the U.S. across broadcast television, streaming, desktop, mobile, and tablet. The map identifies eight distinct audience segments — or "wedges" — representing different ways Americans relate to democracy and its institutions, offering practitioners a research-grounded framework for understanding who they are trying to reach and how. For NCDD members working in civic communication, narrative strategy, or public engagement, this body of research opens a productive question: if democratic values are already being shaped by the stories people consume every day, what role can intentional dialogue and deliberation play in that larger ecosystem? Explore the Democracy Audience Map and the full research at https://harmonylabs.org.

UConn's Democracy and Dialogues Initiative, co-directed by History Professor Brendan Kane and Nana Amos of the Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute, hosted a four-hour student retreat in March 2026 that equipped campus leaders with practical tools for facilitating constructive dialogue across difference. Drawing on frameworks developed in partnership with Essential Partners and Everyday Democracy, the program grounds participants in the neuroscience of conflict response and trains them to move from defensive reaction toward reflective, curiosity-driven communication. The retreat's peer facilitation model — combining structured listening exercises, role plays, and real-time practice — offers a replicable approach for higher education institutions seeking to build dialogue capacity among student leaders. This work directly advances NCDD's mission by embedding dialogue and deliberation skills into campus culture at a moment when civic communication competencies are urgently needed.

As political polarization intensifies on college campuses and beyond, one UConn initiative is demonstrating what it looks like to build genuine dialogue capacity among student leaders. On March 27, 2026, students from across the University of Connecticut gathered at Storrs for "Let's Talk: Navigating Hard Conversations on Campus," a four-hour retreat co-sponsored by UConn Hillel, the Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute, and the Blue Square Alliance Against Hate. The event was facilitated by faculty affiliated with UConn's Democracy and Dialogues Initiative — a program that has spent nearly a decade developing replicable models for constructive communication across differences in university and community settings.

​What distinguished the retreat was its commitment to embodied, skills-based learning rather than passive instruction. Participants explored the neurobiological roots of defensive communication — why the brain defaults to fight, flight, freeze, or fawn when a perspective is challenged — and practiced moving toward constructive response through structured listening, reflection, and inquiry exercises. Facilitated by Nana Amos, Director of Community Outreach and Engagement at the Gladstein Family Human Rights Institute and co-director of the Democracy and Dialogues Initiative, the session walked participants through the distinctions between debate, deliberation, and dialogue, then put those distinctions to work through peer-facilitated role plays and full-spectrum listening exercises. Participants left with a certificate of completion and, more importantly, with transferable facilitation skills applicable to classrooms, student organizations, and community settings.

​The Democracy and Dialogues Initiative, co-directed by History Professor Brendan Kane and grounded in the work of Essential Partners and Everyday Democracy, represents a promising model for how public universities can fulfill their civic mission in an era of division. By training student leaders as dialogue facilitators and partnering with human rights, interfaith, and community organizations, UConn is demonstrating that dialogue is not a soft add-on to campus life — it is a core democratic competency. For NCDD members working in higher education, youth engagement, or practitioner development, this retreat offers a replicable framework and a compelling proof of concept. To learn more about the Democracy and Dialogues Initiative and its approach to civil dialogue on campus, visit the full story at https://today.uconn.edu/2026/04/retreat-aims-at-fostering-civil-dialogue-in-an-era-of-polarization.

Essential Partners is hosting an online Dialogue Experience on June 16, 2026, offering a complete three-hour introduction to its Reflective Structured Dialogue methodology through a live, facilitated dialogue on the topic of America@250, led by EP-trained facilitator Meg Griffiths. RSD is Essential Partners' signature framework for building relationships and healthier communication dynamics across big differences in identity, values, and perspective — and this event is designed to be experienced rather than observed, giving participants a direct encounter with the structures and facilitation approach that make it effective. Participants will leave with a grounded understanding of RSD's theory and practice and a clearer sense of how it might apply to their own communities and work. For NCDD members seeking to deepen their facilitation toolkit or explore a proven methodology for dialogue across difference, this event offers an accessible and high-value opportunity to engage firsthand with one of the field's most respected approaches.

​Essential Partners is offering a rare opportunity to experience its Reflective Structured Dialogue (RSD) methodology directly — not through a lecture or a demonstration, but through a live, facilitated dialogue with other participants. The online Dialogue Experience takes place Tuesday, June 16, 2026, beginning at 12 PM PDT, and runs approximately three hours. This month's dialogue topic is America@250, making the timing particularly resonant as the country marks the 250th anniversary of its founding and wrestles publicly with what democratic life means and who it includes. The event is facilitated by EP-trained facilitator Meg Griffiths and is designed to give participants a complete RSD experience from the inside — not just an explanation of how it works, but a firsthand encounter with what it feels like to be held by the structure.

RSD is Essential Partners' signature, highly adaptable framework for helping people build relationships across differences — including in settings marked by deep polarization around identity, values, and perspective. Unlike more general dialogue formats, RSD uses specific structures and facilitation approaches designed to shift communication dynamics, strengthen relationships, and cultivate a sense of belonging even among people who disagree significantly. The June 16 Dialogue Experience is structured around four objectives: experiencing the power of RSD directly; understanding the theory behind the practice; reflecting on the impact of the facilitation structures; and beginning to imagine how RSD might be applied in participants' own work and communities. Participants should come prepared to engage genuinely — this is a live dialogue, not a passive observation. Registration is $28.52, and all registrations are final, reflecting the level of design and planning each session requires.

​For NCDD members who have read about RSD, recommended it to others, or wondered whether it might serve their own community or organizational contexts, this event is the most direct available answer to that question. Essential Partners has spent decades refining a methodology that holds structured space for genuine encounter across difference — and the best way to understand what that means in practice is to experience it. The America@250 dialogue topic also situates the experience within the urgent civic conversation the NCDD network is already engaged in: what kind of democracy do we want, and who gets to help shape it? Seats are limited by the nature of the format. NCDD members are encouraged to register soon at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/dialogue-experience-registration-1985514174344?aff=erellivmlt

​The Minnesota Council on Foundations has launched the Minnesota Civic Resilience Fund, a one-time pooled grantmaking initiative distributing $300,000 in $25,000 grants to approximately twelve Minnesota-based 501(c)(3) nonprofits conducting nonpartisan voter engagement, civic education, and community organizing work ahead of the 2026 election. The fund prioritizes strategies that build civic capacity, expand voter participation, counter disinformation, and actively defend voting rights — with particular emphasis on historically underrepresented communities and broad geographic reach across the state. Applications are open through June 22, 2026, with funding decisions expected in early July. For NCDD members and partners working in Minnesota's civic ecosystem, this fund offers both immediate resources and a model of coordinated philanthropic investment in the relational and structural foundations that make democratic participation possible.

The Minnesota Council on Foundations (MCF) has established the Minnesota Civic Resilience Fund, a one-time pooled grantmaking initiative offering $300,000 in total funding to nonprofit organizations working to strengthen civic participation, voter engagement, and community confidence across the state. Housed at MCF, the fund will award approximately twelve grants of $25,000 each to 501(c)(3) organizations — including fiscally sponsored groups and coalitions — conducting nonpartisan voter and civic education, engagement, and organizing work in Minnesota communities. Applications opened May 20, 2026, and close June 22, with funding decisions expected in early July. The fund reflects a clear-eyed acknowledgment that while Minnesotans continue to demonstrate strong civic commitment, communities across the state are navigating real and mounting challenges to civic participation, accurate election information, and voting rights — challenges that require coordinated philanthropic investment to address.

The Minnesota Civic Resilience Fund is designed to support a broad range of nonpartisan civic work, organized around three strategic priorities: building civic capacity and expanding voter engagement ahead of the 2026 election; promoting high voter turnout through accurate, accessible information; and actively defending the right to vote through election preparedness and protection efforts. Eligible activities include community organizing and leadership development, voter education and protection programs, legal and policy advocacy defending democratic rights, and efforts to counter disinformation and strengthen access to trusted civic information. The fund explicitly prioritizes reach and impact in historically underrepresented communities and across diverse geographic contexts within Minnesota. Grantees will participate in a 2027 learning convening to share experiences and identify opportunities for improvement — a design element that reflects a commitment to field learning, not just grantmaking.
​
​While the Minnesota Civic Resilience Fund is geographically focused on Minnesota-based organizations, it represents a model and a moment worth noting for the NCDD network more broadly. The fund's explicit attention to civic confidence — not just voter turnout, but people's sense that their participation matters and is protected — connects directly to the work of dialogue and deliberation practitioners who understand that civic engagement requires both structural access and relational trust. For Minnesota-based NCDD members and their partners, this is a time-sensitive and well-resourced opportunity. The application deadline is June 22, 2026, and the full application is available through the MCF grant portal. Questions about eligibility can be directed to May Yang, Director of Democracy Programs, at myang@mcf.org. Full details are available at https://mcf.org/minnesota-civic-resilience-fund-grant-application

The Center for Inclusive Democracy (CID), founded and directed by Mindy Romero, Ph.D., will launch as an independent national organization on July 1, 2026, transitioning away from its previous university affiliations to operate with greater focus and decisiveness at a moment when the integrity of nonpartisan democracy research requires institutional independence. With Sierra Health Foundation serving as its new fiscal sponsor, CID will continue producing rigorous, data-driven research on voter participation, electoral access, and civic engagement while expanding into new educational outreach programs, customized community data tools, and deeper direct engagement with community partners across the country. The organization's sixteen-year track record — informing the work of election officials, policymakers, and civic organizations at the state and national level — has earned it broad recognition as a trusted, nonpartisan resource in the democracy field. CID's commitment to closing the gap between democratic ideals and lived civic experience aligns directly with NCDD's mission to strengthen inclusive participation and ensure that dialogue and deliberation are accessible to all communities.

The Center for Inclusive Democracy (CID), one of the country's most respected sources of nonpartisan research on voter participation and civic engagement, will become an independent national organization as of July 1, 2026 — concluding a sixteen-year institutional journey that included affiliations at UC Davis and, most recently, the University of Southern California. Founded and directed by Mindy Romero, Ph.D., CID has built a national reputation for rigorous, data-driven research that examines who participates in American democracy, who does not, and why — producing findings that have shaped the work of election officials, policymakers, community organizers, and scholars across the country. The transition to independence is explicitly framed as a response to the current moment: as academic institutions face mounting external pressures, CID's leadership determined that protecting the integrity, focus, and mission of its nonpartisan work required the ability to act with greater decisiveness and without institutional constraint. Sierra Health Foundation, a California-based private philanthropy focused on health, racial equity, and racial justice, will serve as CID's fiscal sponsor in its new chapter.

​CID's core mission — advancing inclusive democracy through rigorous research, trusted data, and meaningful engagement — remains unchanged. What independence enables is expansion: deeper educational outreach to get research into the hands of communities and practitioners, new tools that empower individuals to participate in civic discourse, customized data support for community partners, and a more proactive role in identifying emerging trends in the democracy field before they become crises. CID has already demonstrated what this kind of work can produce over sixteen years: its research on electoral access, voting behavior, and civic participation has been relied upon by U.S. Senator Alex Padilla, the Harvard Kennedy School's Ash Center for Democratic Governance, the League of Women Voters of California, Colorado's Division of Elections, and a wide network of community-based democracy organizations. The breadth and credibility of those endorsements reflect an organization that has earned trust across sectors and perspectives — a rare achievement in today's civic landscape.

For NCDD members, CID's independence is significant for reasons that go beyond organizational structure. CID's research consistently surfaces the gap between democratic ideals and democratic practice — documenting the participation barriers that make genuine dialogue and deliberation impossible for communities that are structurally excluded from civic life. Closing that gap requires exactly the kind of trusted, community-connected, data-grounded work that CID does. As the organization launches its new era with expanded educational outreach, direct community engagement, and new partnerships to be announced on July 1, NCDD members working in civic engagement, equity, and democracy practice are encouraged to follow CID's work and explore opportunities for collaboration. Full details about the transition and CID's plans for its new chapter are available at https://myemail.constantcontact.com/Exciting-News--CID-Becoming-an-Independent-Organization-.html?soid=1107417106344&aid=4-ux4uBXmG0

​Voting should be easy, and cheating should be hard. The Trustworthy Elections initiative is a community-based effort to strengthen public trust in elections by helping people learn how elections work, engage across differences, and build relationships within and across communities. We are inviting local leaders—including civic leaders, librarians, faith leaders, facilitators, educators, election officials, and engaged community members—to help shape and support this work in ways that fit their communities. Join us for an informational call on Thursday, June 4, at 9:00 am Pacific / 12:00 pm Eastern to learn more about the initiative and opportunities to get involved - register here! The initiative is being convened by Living Room Conversations, Interfaith America, NCDD, AllSides, and Civity, alongside a growing network of civic leaders. Read more in the blog post below.

​Voting should be easy, and cheating should be hard. 

It might sound simple, but at a time when many Americans have questions about elections and the democratic process, this principle is powerful: voting should be easy.

It might sound simple, but in a time where many Americans are questioning the democratic process, the idea that voting should be easy is a powerful one. A growing coalition of civic leaders, facilitators, educators, faith communities, and democracy practitioners has come together to form the Trustworthy Elections initiative in defense of/in promotion of this ideal. 

The Trustworthy Elections initiative is a community-based effort designed to strengthen public trust in elections by creating opportunities for people to learn how elections actually work, engage across differences, and build relationships within and across communities.

This initiative is rooted in the belief that local trust can help rebuild national trust. That trust begins in communities where relationships, civic pride, and understanding are built person-to-person.

Read the two-pager: Linked here

The Trustworthy Elections initiative is designed as a two-phase effort that begins locally and expands nationally. The vision is both practical and ambitious: if diverse communities can model meaningful, trustworthy engagement around elections, their stories can inspire others nationwide.

Phase 1: Build Understanding and Trust in Your Community

Trust starts close to home. Before people can have confidence in our elections nationally, they need opportunities to understand how elections work in their own communities and build relationships with the people around them.

Communities are invited to host local gatherings that bring together residents, election officials, faith leaders, librarians, civic organizations, educators, and other community members to learn, ask questions, and engage in meaningful conversation.

Local activities may include:

• Learning about local election processes, safeguards, and voting procedures
• Meeting with election officials and community leaders
• Hosting community conversations about elections and civic trust
• Participating in trainings that strengthen communication and bridge differences
• Opportunities to engage across political and ideological differences
• Building relationships through shared civic engagement and community service

The goal is simple: create opportunities for people to better understand both the election process and one another.

Phase 2: Connect Communities Across the Country

After building understanding and relationships locally, communities will have opportunities to connect with participants from other regions and states through facilitated national conversations.

These conversations will create space for people to share what they have learned, explore common concerns, and discover areas of agreement across geographic, political, and cultural differences.

Participants may:

• Join small-group conversations with people from other communities
• Share local experiences and lessons learned
• Explore how trust is built in different places
• Identify common themes and areas of agreement
• Contribute insights that help tell a broader story about public trust in elections

By combining local learning with national relationship-building, the initiative seeks to strengthen confidence in elections while creating new connections across communities.

We are currently inviting local leaders, both formal and informal, to help shape and support this work in ways that fit their communities.

You do not need to have all the answers or be an expert in elections to participate.

We are looking for:

• Community organizers
• Civic and nonprofit leaders
• Facilitators and mediators
• Faith leaders
• Librarians and educators
• Local government officials
• People passionate about healthy democracy and civic trust

There are many ways to engage:

• Host a local conversation
• Partner with election officials
• Help organize outreach
• Support facilitation efforts
• Join national cross-community conversations as the initiative expands (Phase 2)
• Simply stay informed as the initiative develops

We will be hosting an upcoming informational call for those interested in learning more about the initiative, hearing from organizers, and exploring ways to get involved.

Informational Call:

• Date: Thursday, June 4th
• Time: 9 am Pacific, 12 pm Eastern
• Register Here: https://us02web.zoom.us/meeting/register/Vt1SAHWORlSFfgXOa0ZNMA  

The call will include:

• An overview of the initiative
• Early examples and pilot efforts
• Available resources and support
• Q&A and discussion with organizers and interested local leaders

If you are interested in serving as a local leader, whether hosting one conversation or helping organize a broader community effort, we invite you to sign up here:

Local Leader Sign-Up Form: https://forms.gle/1R2eDFZoWdo2hT868 

The form includes questions about your community, level of interest, potential support needs, and the kinds of activities you may want to help lead.

​This initiative recognizes that trust is not built through slogans or soundbites. It is built through transparency, relationships, shared learning, and meaningful engagement.

By creating spaces where people can better understand election processes and one another, communities can strengthen democratic participation, build civic trust, and contribute to a healthier democracy.

We hope you’ll join us!

​The Trustworthy Elections initiative is being convened by Living Room Conversations, Interfaith America, Civity, the National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD), AllSides, and a growing network of local and national leaders committed to strengthening trust in elections and one another.

Essential Partners will host a free online Community Summit on June 10, 2026, focused on using Reflective Structured Dialogue to build consensus and support collective decision-making, featuring two case studies that demonstrate the methodology's reach across high-stakes policy and community health contexts. Dr. Michael Siegel of Tufts University will present the Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy project, in which 23 gun owners and non-gun owners used RSD over the course of a year to produce a consensus, legislative-ready gun policy framework — demonstrating that structured facilitation can bridge even the most entrenched civic divides. YMCA community partners will also share how RSD is being deployed to meet the needs of the diverse communities they serve. The Summit offers NCDD members a practical, accessible opportunity to deepen their understanding of RSD and its applications, directly supporting the dialogue and deliberation field's commitment to consensus-building, conflict transformation, and inclusive civic engagement.

Essential Partners, a leading facilitation organization whose Reflective Structured Dialogue (RSD) methodology has shaped dialogue and deliberation practice for decades, will host a free online Community Summit on Wednesday, June 10, 2026, from 10 AM to 1 PM PDT. The Summit is an opportunity for practitioners doing dialogic work to collaborate, learn, and connect with one another around a focused theme: using RSD to build consensus and support collective decision-making. The event features two compelling case studies that demonstrate RSD in action across very different community contexts — offering participants both a theoretical grounding in the method and concrete examples of what it produces when applied to high-stakes, deeply divided issues.

The Summit's first featured partner is Dr. Michael Siegel of the Tufts University School of Medicine, who will share the story of Bridging the Divide on Firearm Policy — a project that brought together 23 gun owners and non-gun owners to develop a novel, state-level gun policy platform through professionally facilitated RSD. After two years of research and one year of structured deliberations, the group produced a consensus policy framework that simultaneously addresses gun violence prevention and protects the constitutional rights of gun owners — rejecting the zero-sum framing that has long paralyzed public debate on the issue. The Summit will also feature YMCA partners who are being equipped with RSD tools to support the diverse communities they serve, demonstrating how the methodology translates from high-profile policy work into everyday community settings. Together, the two presentations illustrate the range and adaptability of RSD as a practical tool for dialogue practitioners working across sectors and scales.

​For NCDD members, this Summit is a timely and directly relevant professional learning opportunity — free, fully online, and focused on one of the field's most rigorous and well-documented methodologies. The Bridging the Divide case study in particular offers a powerful example of what structured, facilitated dialogue can accomplish on one of the most entrenched and polarized policy issues in American civic life: a group of people who came in as adversaries leaving with a shared, legislative-ready framework. That kind of outcome does not happen by accident — it happens through the kind of skilled, values-driven facilitation that Essential Partners has championed for years. Practitioners, facilitators, educators, and community organizers are all encouraged to register and attend. Reserve your spot at https://www.eventbrite.com/e/community-summit-tickets-1986215966423?aff=erellivmlt

Saskia Brechenmacher of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, Laura Livingston of Over Zero, and Miriam Juan-Torres González of UC Berkeley's Othering and Belonging Institute argue in a new Democracy Notes Perspectives piece that attacks on LGBTQ and women's rights are not peripheral culture war flashpoints but core components of a broader authoritarian strategy to push targeted groups out of public life and erode democratic institutions. Drawing on examples including Kansas legislation that may effectively disenfranchise transgender voters, the authors document how gender-based narratives function as socially acceptable entry points for dismantling pluralism and legal equality — and offer concrete recommendations for democracy funders and practitioners, including expanding policy analysis, investing in cultural counter-narratives, and building cross-movement dialogue spaces. Their call for structured dialogue across communities that rarely work together — democracy advocates, LGBTQ rights organizations, masculinities researchers, and others — connects directly to NCDD's mission and the practical capacity of the dialogue and deliberation field. This piece is essential reading for NCDD members working at the intersection of democratic participation, equity, and community bridge-building.

A new piece published in Democracy Notes Perspectives makes a case that the democracy field can no longer afford to treat attacks on LGBTQ and women's rights as separate from — or peripheral to — the work of democratic defense. Written by Saskia Brechenmacher, Senior Fellow at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace; Laura Livingston, Senior Director of Field Support and Strategy at Over Zero; and Miriam Juan-Torres González, Co-Director of Research at the Othering and Belonging Institute at UC Berkeley, the piece argues that what is often framed as "culture war" conflict is better understood as a coordinated strategy to construct social hierarchy, push targeted groups out of public life, and hollow out democratic institutions from within. The authors draw on recent legislative developments — including Kansas's SB 244, which invalidated updated gender markers on state-issued IDs and may effectively disenfranchise transgender voters who lack passports — to illustrate how attacks on gender recognition translate directly into attacks on civic participation.

​The authors document a pattern visible across countries and contexts: narratives generating fear around gender ideology and transgender people in particular are deployed to fuel moral panic, mobilize voters, build new political coalitions, and generate support for measures that restrict targeted groups' participation while expanding state power. These narratives are effective, the authors argue, because they tap into deeply held beliefs about family and social order — and because they provide socially acceptable entry points for questioning the core tenets of liberal democracy, including pluralism, equality, and legal recognition of diverse identities. The piece draws a critical distinction between legitimate policy disagreements and measures that deny legal recognition, enable discrimination, impose censorship, or fuel violence — framing the latter not as one side of a cultural debate but as anti-democratic acts that weaken the broader conditions for democratic life. For democracy advocates worried that engaging on gender issues risks deepening polarization or narrowing coalitions, the authors acknowledge the concern as real — while arguing that stepping back entirely enables harm and cedes important terrain to illiberal actors.

The piece closes with a concrete set of recommendations directly relevant to the NCDD community. Democracy practitioners are urged to expand their analysis to track gender-related legislation and narrative shifts as part of the authoritarian playbook; treat gendered harassment and disinformation as core threats to civic participation; invest in cultural change and counter-narratives alongside legal and political advocacy; and strengthen pro-democracy coalitions to be resilient against deliberate polarization efforts. Crucially, the authors call for more spaces of dialogue across communities that rarely work together — including democracy advocates, masculinities researchers, LGBTQ rights organizations, and those focused on online radicalization — to develop adaptive, context-sensitive strategies. That call for cross-movement dialogue sits squarely within NCDD's mission and speaks directly to the kind of bridge-building the field is positioned to support. The full piece is available at https://democracynotesperspectives.substack.com/p/to-protect-democracy-pay-attention​

Dialogue Vanderbilt hosted The Dialogue CoLab on May 21–22, 2026, bringing together nearly thirty colleges and universities — ranging from Ivy League institutions to community colleges — for a national working summit focused on practical strategies for advancing campus dialogue, deliberation, and civil discourse. Directed by faculty director Sarah Igo and supported by the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, the CoLab is structured as a peer learning exchange rather than a traditional conference, enabling institutions with widely different student populations and campus cultures to honestly compare what they are trying, what students are responding to, and where challenges persist. Participating campuses have implemented a range of approaches — from dialogue-integrated student employment programs to faculty fellowships and structured deliberation models — and the summit creates space for those experiments to inform one another across institutional contexts. For NCDD members in higher education, the Dialogue CoLab offers both a model of field-building peer exchange and evidence of the growing momentum behind campus-based dialogue and deliberation work nationwide.

Dialogue Vanderbilt, Vanderbilt University's campuswide initiative advancing free expression and civil discourse, brought together nearly thirty colleges and universities on May 21–22, 2026, for The Dialogue CoLab — a national working summit focused on practical strategies for helping students navigate disagreement, uncertainty, and politically charged conversations. Supported by a grant from the Arthur Vining Davis Foundations, the CoLab is explicitly a "by campuses, for campuses" effort, designed not as a traditional academic conference but as a structured, ongoing exchange where faculty and staff from diverse institutions compare what they are trying, what is working, and where significant challenges remain. The participating institutions span the full breadth of American higher education — from Yale, Howard, and the University of Pennsylvania to Austin Community College, Fisk University, and Linn-Benton Community College — reflecting a deliberate commitment to learning across very different student populations, campus cultures, and operating realities.

​What distinguishes the Dialogue CoLab from traditional gatherings is its orientation toward implementation rather than theory. Participating campuses have taken notably different approaches to embedding dialogue into institutional life: some have integrated dialogue training into student employment programs, others have developed faculty fellowships or peer-led discussion cohorts, and still others have built structured deliberation models designed to help students engage productively across political, ideological, and personal differences. The summit creates space for those varied experiments to meet one another — to compare implementation challenges, examine impact measurement, and test whether strategies developed at a large research university translate to a community college context, and vice versa. Sarah Igo, faculty director of Dialogue Vanderbilt, and a steering committee of faculty from member campuses direct the CoLab, emphasizing that linking efforts across institutions allows the field to examine not just what works but what does not — an honest and rare commitment in higher education convenings.

For NCDD members working in or alongside higher education, the Dialogue CoLab represents exactly the kind of field-building infrastructure the dialogue and deliberation community needs more of: a peer learning network built around practical implementation, cross-institutional honesty about challenges, and a genuine diversity of institutional contexts. The rapid growth of interest in the CoLab reflects how urgently campuses across the country are searching for tested, actionable approaches to dialogue — and how few spaces exist where they can find them. The NCDD network has long recognized higher education as a critical site for building the next generation of civic practitioners, and the CoLab's model of structured, campus-led exchange is one worth watching and supporting. Members working on campus dialogue initiatives are encouraged to follow Dialogue Vanderbilt's work. Read the full announcement at https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2026/05/20/dialogue-vanderbilt-hosts-national-higher-education-summit-on-campus-dialogue/