The Declaration recognizes the right of the People to alter or abolish their government. In 1776, that meant taking up arms against the King. In the 1960’s that work looked like non-violent direct action. We’ll consider the virtues needed in both approaches.
The United States Constitution reduces the power of government through a system of checks and balances. But what does it have to say about civil society? This presentation considers how the Constitution can help us develop the habits of friendship with our political opponents through the key principles of free speech and due process.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges a most volatile right: the people's right to rebel. But must that right always be so violent? We'll consider how the language of the Declaration guides social movements, across the political spectrum, to institute a government that seems most likely to protect each other's unalienable rights.
The Declaration of Independence acknowledges a most volatile right: the people's right to rebel. But must that right always be so violent? We'll consider how the language of the Declaration guides social movements, across the political spectrum, to institute a government that seems most likely to protect each other's unalienable rights.
The United States Constitution reduces the power of government through a system of checks and balances. But what does it have to say about civil society? This presentation considers how the Constitution can help us develop the habits of friendship with our political opponents through the key principles of free speech and due process.
After Irene, Vermonters proved themselves strong. But what should towns do when the floods keep coming? This presentation considers how disagreement can strengthen a town’s ability to handle the rising waters.
Since its inception, the Constitution has been criticized for not doing enough to protect basic freedoms. Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, slavery persisted. Abolitionists were divided on whether the highest law in the land could ever be redeemed. Neither a divine document nor a tool of elites, the Constitution might also be seen as an invitation to develop the habits of civic friendship.
The right to protest is one of our fundamental freedoms, but what about speech that leads to violence and social disorder? This Town Hall considers the expansions of rights under the First Amendment over the course of the 20th century. The question is, with greater protections for vociferous dissent, what do we need to still feel safe?
Since its inception, the Constitution has been criticized for not doing enough to protect basic freedoms. Even with the addition of the Bill of Rights, slavery persisted. Abolitionists were divided on whether the highest law in the land could ever be redeemed. Neither a divine document nor a tool of elites, the Constitution might also be seen as an invitation to develop the habits of good clash.
This term the Supreme Court will decide whether bans on homeless encampments are a violation of the 8th Amendment. This presentation considers the arguments on both sides of the debate.
Deliberation is the practice that holds our democracy together, but does it always lead to better decisions? We’ll consider how we can reduce polarization by generating new pathways in the brain.
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. But what does that actually mean. This presentation considers the intellectual and spiritual energy required to grasp the need for freedom and social cohesion.
In June of 2022, the Supreme Court handed the abortion controversy back to the states. Are we ready? What do we need to do to live in a pluralist society?
Deliberation is the practice that holds our democracy together, but does it always lead to better decisions? We’ll consider how we can reduce polarization by generating new pathways in the brain.
The First Amendment prevents Congress from passing any laws that abridge the freedom of speech. But what does that actually mean? While some claim that limits on speech are necessary for marginalized persons to feel included, others argue that the criminalization of speech gives too much power to the government. We’ll consider the history of speech laws in the United States and how the Supreme Court has ruled on those efforts. If free speech must endure hate speech, how might this fundamental freedom help us build more vibrant communities?
All arguments are welcome as we make full use of our reasoning powers to bring the First Amendment to life!
This presentation is supported by the Vermont Humanities Council.
Source:: Source:: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1991/90-7675
Earlier Event: September 20
Can We Protect Religious Liberties and Sexual Minorities?
Later Event: October 10
The Supreme Court prohibits governments from prohibiting speech based on content. How might we use this fundamental freedom to enhance our political communities?
The Supreme Court determined that governments may not prohibit speech or expressive actions because it disagrees with the content of the speech. If hate speech cannot be prohibited, what other options do we have?
The Supreme Court determined that governments may not prohibit speech or expressive actions because it disagrees with the content of the speech. If hate speech cannot be prohibited, what other options do we have?
In this final session we’ll consider the pleasures of persuasion and the self-destructive habit of polarization.
Activists love zero-sum arguments, but is that all one can say? We’ll consider more nuanced arguments from across the political spectrum.
The Supreme Court ruled that states with school voucher programs must extend those benefits to religious institutions. What should Vermont do?
The Supreme Court determined that governments may not prohibit speech or expressive actions because it disagrees with the content of the speech. If hate speech cannot be prohibited, what other options do we have?
The First Amendment prohibits Congress from abridging the freedom of speech. But what does that actually mean. This presentation considers the intellectual and spiritual energy required to grasp the need for freedom and social cohesion.
For this final presentation, we’ll consider two case studies. The first from Boston, circa 1990, when women on both sides of the abortion debate met to build trust after the assassinations at two abortion clinics. The second from Ireland where a predominantly Catholic country legalized abortion through citizen assemblies. We will consider what these two cases tell us about the capacities needed to co-exist vigorously.
This series is sponsored by the Osher Lifelong Learning Institute
To register: https://learn.uvm.edu/program/osher-lifelong-learning/olli-statewide/brattleboro/
While the Supreme Court tried to resolve the abortion debate using the constitutional right of privacy, on the streets, the political arguments were couched in terms like “freedom” and “murder.” In between those two realms, a lot of people were thinking hard about abortion policy. We’ll consider the best arguments on both sides from the perspectives of libertarians, progressives, and conservatives. Could there be more common ground than the polarized debate suggests?
This series is sponsored by Osher Lifelong Learning Institute
To Register: https://learn.uvm.edu/program/osher-lifelong-learning/olli-statewide/brattleboro/
This 3-part series examines the history and strategy of securing reproductive rights in the United States. With the Dobbs decision, the Supreme Court passed the baton back to the states. Surely, a democratic society can reach a better decision than one imposed by the Courts. But are we ready? This series considers the judicial history of reproductive rights, the best arguments on both sides, and the work we need to do to govern ourselves in a pluralist society.
The rulings in Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey may have delivered victories to the pro-choice movement but the decisions themselves galvanized the opposition. We’ll consider the pros and cons of using the federal courts to enact progressive legislation and what 50 years of judicial rule did to our democratic muscles.
This series is offered through Osher Lifelong Learning Institute
To Register: https://learn.uvm.edu/program/osher-lifelong-learning/olli-statewide/brattleboro/
Since its inception, the Constitution has either been regaled as a tool for liberty or a cloak for elite interests. This presentation considers both sides of the argument with a twist: What if the People really get to decide?
Since its inception, the Constitution has either been regaled as a tool for liberty or a cloak for elite interests. This presentation considers both sides of the argument with a twist: What if the People really get to decide?
The recent Supreme Court decision in West Virginia v. the Environmental Protection Agency put administrative agencies on notice. In order to take on major issues—such as regulating greenhouse gas emissions in an entire industry—agencies like the EPA need a clear statement from Congress. Constitutional scholar Meg Mott and Aaron Kisicki from the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources consider the arguments on both sides of this decision, and discuss the implications of this Supreme Court ruling on legislation for climate change.
If Roe is overturned, regulations on abortion will go back to the states. How can citizens make the best choice about a very complicated question?
Since its inception the Declaration of Independence has provided the blue print for liberation movements. Today, not so much. This presentation considers how 21st century social movements might benefit from this American playbook.
Do states have the power to regulate social media?
The First Amendment protects our most basic freedoms, none more important than Freedom of Speech. But what do we do about speech that threatens to destroy the social fabric? If hate speech codes are unconstitutional, it falls on citizens to find other ways to counter hateful speech. We’ll explore what capacities citizens need to develop in order to preserve both our individual freedoms and the social fabric.
This event is sponsored by the Pease Public Library, the Plymouth Historical Society, and the New Hampshire Humanities Council.
To register, go to: https://peasepubliclibrary.org/events.asp and scroll down until you find the notice for the June 15th event.
