Fair For All

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 12 Jul 2026 11:30:34 GMT

How Librarians’ New Social Justice Mission Goes After the Privacy of Library Workers

This week, we featured an essay by Kristin Antelman examining how the library profession’s growing emphasis on social justice advocacy may be reshaping its longstanding commitments to institutional neutrality and intellectual freedom. Focusing on DEI training, employee privacy, and workplace culture, Antelman argues that ideological conformity within libraries can erode the trust these institutions have historically earned from the public.

Rather than dismissing libraries’ important role in advancing access to knowledge, the essay contends that their greatest strength lies in serving as neutral spaces where diverse viewpoints can coexist. Antelman suggests that preserving privacy, encouraging viewpoint diversity, and recommitting to the profession’s foundational values are essential if libraries are to remain trusted institutions for future generations.

“When a privacy-defending public service entity such as a library fails to protect the diversity of thought and privacy of its own employees, it has shown itself to have profoundly lost its way.”

Read the Full Article

Report Finds Books Aren’t Vanishing From Schools. But That’s Not the Whole Story

FAIR Board of Advisors member Robert Pondiscio examined new research on the role of whole books in today's classrooms. While recent data suggests that novels have not disappeared from schools, Pondiscio argues that too many students—particularly those in underserved communities—are reading too few complete works and missing the unique cognitive and educational benefits that sustained reading provides. His essay highlights why cultivating deep reading habits remains essential for literacy, critical thinking, and meaningful engagement with literature in an increasingly fragmented digital age.

“The researchers’ most troubling finding is that teachers serving disadvantaged students consistently assign fewer books. Students in high-poverty schools or majority nonwhite schools, multilingual learners and students with disabilities all appear less likely to experience sustained encounters with complete works of literature.
That matters, because reading a book is not just an extended version of reading a passage. It requires different cognitive habits…”

Read the Full Article

The Science of Reading Has Won the Argument. Has It Won the Classroom?

FAIR Board of Advisors member Robert Pondiscio explored the progress—and remaining challenges—of the science of reading movement. While evidence-based literacy instruction has gained widespread support in state policy and school districts, Pondiscio argues that meaningful reform depends on what happens in classrooms. He examines why teacher preparation, curriculum, and sustained implementation remain critical to ensuring all students receive effective reading instruction grounded in the best available evidence.

“The first phase of reading reform was winning the argument against bad ideas. Mission (mostly) accomplished. The next phase is harder: building systems where good ideas can survive contact with reality and resistance. That means better teacher preparation, curriculum selection, and coaching. It means less initiative churn and more consistency, follow-through and patience.”

Read the Full Article

Public libraries have long served as trusted centers for learning, and today that mission extends beyond books. A new report from the Public Library Association examines how libraries are helping communities develop media literacy, strengthen digital skills, and navigate an increasingly complex information landscape while continuing to provide equitable access to reliable information. As misinformation becomes easier to spread and technology continues to evolve, these skills are increasingly important for helping people think critically, evaluate sources, and engage confidently in civic life.

“Among the report’s key findings:
Public libraries are on the front lines of media literacy, helping patrons evaluate sources, navigate digital content, and access trustworthy information every day.
More than 65% of respondents said patrons struggle to use digital resources, while staff training emerged as the top investment needed to help libraries meet growing demand for digital literacy support.”

Learn More Here

Join the FAIR Community

FAIR in Cedar City: Introducing Many Stories, One Nation to Utah Educators

Fair For All — Fri, 10 Jul 2026 11:30:55 GMT

Dear Friends of FAIR,

We’re excited to announce that FAIR will attend the Utah Rural Schools Association (URSA) Summer Conference in Cedar City, Utah on July 15-17. This conference brings together educators and administrators from rural districts across Utah, serving every grade level, who are dedicated to improving student outcomes and strengthening their curricula. URSA provides hands-on and break-out sessions focused on mental and behavioral health supports, literacy best practices, grading practices, and building a culture of investment. For FAIR, the event will be an important opportunity to introduce Many Stories, One Nation to educators and administrators who understand the unique challenges and strengths of rural schools.

FAIR is bringing a dynamic team to Cedar City: Jefferson Shupe, a veteran FAIR Utah Chapter Leader; Aly Shupe, FAIR’s Social Media Coordinator; and Gabe Brown, creator of FAIR’s educational reels and shorts.

Utah holds particular significance as FAIR expands its work in the West. Rural communities have their own complex narratives — stories of settlement, immigration, indigenous presence, and agricultural heritage — that deserve thorough, multi-perspective exploration in classrooms. Yet the needs of rural schools are often overlooked in curriculum development conversations. Many districts lack access to rigorous, comprehensive resources that reflect their history and distinct experiences. That’s where Many Stories, One Nation comes in.

The URSA conference theme, “Teaching and Reaching Every Student,” aligns perfectly with FAIR’s work. Rural educators are deeply committed to understanding their students’ needs and building curricula that serve them well — and Many Stories, One Nation embodies that commitment: it equips students to think critically about competing perspectives and engage with an increasingly complex society.

What makes FAIR’s curriculum ideal for rural districts is a framework that gives students a better understanding of America’s broader story. Students learn how and why different groups experienced the same historical moments in fundamentally different ways, while grounding that understanding in the values and heritage of their own communities. FAIR’s curriculum is academically robust without being ideologically polarizing, meeting students where they are and equipping educators with material that honors both national complexity and local identity.

FAIR’s team will share lesson materials and demonstrate to education leaders what Many Stories, One Nation looks like in action and how it can serve students, teachers, and rural communities navigating Ethnic Studies adoption. We’ll also document the conference on social media to share insights with FAIR’s community.

The conversations we have in Cedar City next week will help us understand how to better support these districts in bringing a fuller American story to their classrooms. We look forward to connecting with Utah educators and administrators and showing them what’s possible when a curriculum grounded in academic integrity meets communities that are committed to every student’s success. Stay tuned–we’ll share what we learn from these conversations in our next update!

Join us.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

This July, FAIR will join educators from across Utah at the Utah Rural Schools Association Conference to explore how Many Stories, One Nation can support rural classrooms and strengthen civic education.

Conference Link

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the nation is still wrestling with some of its oldest questions: Who belongs? What does equality require? How should we understand our differences?

This summer, FAIR’s Film Series will explore these questions through four compelling documentaries produced by Eli Steele and discussions with filmmakers, scholars, and thought leaders.

Join us for this can’t-miss lineup:

🎬 What Killed Michael Brown? — July 15 — 110 min run time + 30 min discussion

🎬 Killing America — July 29 — 38 min run time + discussion featuring Dr. Diana Blum and Eli Steele

🎬 15 Days — August 12

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What does it mean to have “rights”?

The foundational claim upon which our Declaration of Independence and thus our Constitution and The Bill of Rights are based is the radical belief that individuals possess rights that are inalienable and independent of government.

Our goal is to have an intellectually rigorous and inspirational conversation that aligns with FAIR’s emphasis on open inquiry and civil discourse.

FAIR in Conversation has relaunched with a new monthly format built for this moment.

Sessions will be virtual, open to all FAIR members, and designed to be as accessible as they are substantive. You don’t need to have read anything in advance. Just bring your curiosity, your willingness to listen, and your commitment to engage in good faith.

. Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

Note to readers: We have paused the FAIR News podcast. If you prefer listening, rather than reading these newsletters, an audio version is available directly on the Substack app. Thank you for tuning in!

Join the FAIR Community

How Librarians' New Social Justice Mission Goes After the Privacy of Library Workers

Kristin Antelman — Thu, 09 Jul 2026 11:30:39 GMT

Libraries have been advancing democracy and social justice long before they became consumed by critical social justice ideology a decade ago. They served that mission by providing free access to books and inculcating a love of learning in children, teens and adults of all socioeconomic backgrounds. University libraries supported the mission of their parent institutions, which was to build and transmit knowledge across generations. These goals have always been integral to advancing society by creating community spaces, more equitable access to education, and an informed population.

Unfortunately, many of today’s libraries reject the library profession’s foundational value of institutional neutrality: that is, the development of balanced collections, services and programming. The value that has displaced institutional neutrality is “social justice,” meaning that many librarians see it as the library’s job to educate people about what they see as the right way to think about contested social and political issues.

Tailoring library collections and programming to reflect their worldview, or not allowing certain groups to meet in the library, are the main tools librarians use to advance a “social justice” mission. But just as important for these librarians is to work with people who agree with them, and enthusiastically.

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI) staff trainings are one vehicle for communicating the social justice worldview—while at the same time encouraging staff to defer to the activists by raising the cost of disagreement. These trainings tend to be mandatory (whether explicitly or effectively). New training guidelines were developed in 2022 by the American Library Association’s College & Research Libraries division, replacing just ten-year old cultural competency guidelines that were based on longstanding library best practices. Instead of learning practical steps to serve populations who speak languages other than English, for example, the new Cultural Proficiencies for Racial Equity guideines encourage libraries to implement a staff training program that aims to develop only four competencies: awareness of racial identity, manifestations of racism, commitment to countering racism, and analysis of racialized outcomes.

“As LIS workers, our foundational growth is strengthened by an ability to identify and acknowledge ways in which whiteness and white supremacy have impacted the field of librarianship. Beyond this, Libraries and LIS workers must actively engage in practices that address and redress these inequities.” (Cultural Proficiencies for Racial Equity, ALA, 2022)

It is typical in these DEI trainings to elicit, and then to probe and challenge, the personal beliefs of individual library workers. You can see this proselytizing mission clearly by dipping into the content of any of these trainings (a good example is this account of a former longtime University of Virginia Library employee’s DEI training program). If a library worker challenges anything in one of these trainings it will be made clear to them that failure to embrace this content is unwelcome or even taken as a personal insult (e.g., “denying the existence” of the trainer’s identity); it may also result in a complaint to human resources or the library’s governing board, leading to an investigation or worse.

One staff training program in a university library asked workers “What are the last five books you read? What is the racial mix of the authors?” Those are questions that explicitly violate librarianship’s respect for privacy as articulated in the American Library Association’s Library Bill of Rights: “All people, regardless of origin, age, background, or views, possess a right to privacy and confidentiality in their library use.” Do library workers not also have privacy rights? Is not one’s personal reading a private matter? Is it not an individual worker’s right to share—or not—their own beliefs without their employer trying to change those beliefs, or to cast judgment on them? Trainings such as these amount to forcing employer-endorsed political views on staff. They violate both library professional ethics and library workers’ personal privacy.

Just as how an organization treats its workers reflects the values of that organization, so does DEI staff training provide a window for outsiders to see into what a library culture is like. When a privacy-defending public service entity such as a library fails to protect the diversity of thought and privacy of its own employees it has shown itself to have profoundly lost its way.

Those librarians who build collections and workforces that conform to their own politics, and who subject their staff to a politicized workplace, jeopardize the position of trust their library has earned with its community. Trust in a library is built on its being useful and responsive to all segments of its community. Libraries are trusted because they help people think for themselves, without violating personal privacy and without opprobrium. They are big-tent institutions intentionally distanced from the tribal passions of the day. When librarians explicitly disavow institutional neutrality and privacy of thought in favor of becoming partisan institutions, the trust they have earned can be quickly eroded—as we are seeing now. Where we stand today, libraries are at risk of becoming simply another political pugilist in society instead of the glue that binds people together across our differences and between one generation and the next.

If the profession is able to reinvest in its core values, it may be strong enough to weather the damage. As in the broader society, there’s both a hunger and an opening for change right now in the library profession. This change is being pursued through an alternative professional association (the Association of Library Professionals), as well as FAIR for Libraries’ development of resources to support library board members and members of the general public who care about their libraries.

While undeniably weakened by politicization right now, libraries ranging from public libraries of all sizes and in nearly every community to multi-million-volume research libraries, still in meaningful ways embody the twin values of privacy and neutrality. Those values hold within them a profound democratic truth. And in that truth lies resilience.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

In keeping with our mission to promote a common culture of fairness, understanding, and humanity, we are committed to including a diverse range of voices and to encouraging compassionate, good-faith discourse.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 05 Jul 2026 11:30:15 GMT

On this 250th Anniversary of American Independence, Try Gratitude Instead of Grievance.

This week, we reflected on America’s 250th anniversary with an essay by David King that argues for gratitude over grievance. Drawing on his experiences living abroad, the author suggests that a global perspective can help place America’s challenges in context while highlighting the freedoms, stability, and opportunities that are often taken for granted.

Rather than ignoring the nation’s shortcomings, the essay contends that acknowledging them should not come at the expense of appreciating what America has accomplished. King notes that we should all cultivate gratitude as a foundation for constructive civic engagement, arguing that a healthier national conversation begins with recognizing what parts of our nation are still works in progress alongside our many national successes.

“So on this anniversary of independence, if you feel compelled to say that we are inappropriately celebrating 250 years of oppression, imperialism, exploitation, racism, slavery, brutality, and warmongering, spare us the complaints. Take that energy and go make something better instead.
We here in the USA are so damn lucky. Yes, even you. And while things may feel dystopian at this particular juncture in our history, only by choosing to be grateful for what we have can we stave off those threatening to take it away from us.”

Read the Full Article

How do public libraries select the wrong books for kids?

This week, we explored how children’s books make their way onto public library shelves and the often-overlooked process behind library collection development. Rather than focusing solely on individual librarians, the essay examines the broader publishing ecosystem—including publishers, reviewers, wholesalers, and acquisition practices—and argues that these institutions collectively influence the range of viewpoints available to young readers.

The author contends that ideological incentives throughout this pipeline can shape children’s collections in ways that narrow viewpoint diversity, particularly on topics such as gender and sexuality. The essay explores how libraries can better uphold intellectual freedom through more independent collection development, broader representation of perspectives, and greater community engagement in the selection process.

“Even if these elements are not always aligned, the process still results in library collections being stacked with books for kids on gender and sexuality that skew heavily toward a one-sided viewpoint. These views [are], presented as fact to an audience not yet capable of critical analysis…”

Read the Full Article

Commencement 2026: Jonathan Haidt Address

Cradle Americans

Eli Steele’s essay reflects on America’s 250th anniversary by exploring what it means to inherit freedom rather than fight for it. Drawing on his family’s history—from segregation and the Civil Rights Movement to the Holocaust—Steele argues that many Americans have become “cradle Americans,” born into freedoms they have never had to defend and, as a result, may not fully appreciate.

Using personal history alongside philosophical reflection, Steele contends that freedom is not merely a legal or political condition but an individual responsibility that must be actively exercised. Rather than dwelling on America’s failures or idealizing its past, he encourages readers to honor the sacrifices of previous generations by embracing personal courage, accountability, and the freedoms they have inherited.

“I am the first male on my father’s side to be born free of any government-sanctioned racial oppression, and who knows how far back the line of unfree men runs behind me in America. That is the inheritance my converts left me. I did not earn it. I was the cradle American they made possible. I grew up in freedom but do I and the millions of others like me know what I was given? Or do I only practice it out of habit? What is the value of a freedom that has not been suffered for?”

Read the Full Article

How Jack Became Black

This week, we announced the opening of FAIR's Summer Film Series with a screening of Eli Steele's documentary How Jack Became Black. Inspired by his experience enrolling his multiracial son in public school, Steele examines the role racial classification continues to play in American institutions and asks what it means to see people as individuals rather than members of racial groups.

Blending personal experience with broader cultural reflection, Steele questions the purpose and consequences of race-based categorization in education and public life. The film invites viewers to consider how concepts of identity, equality, and individual dignity shape the way we think about race today, followed by a live discussion exploring these questions in greater depth.

“This film is the record of one father trying to keep one boy out of a category, and finding a whole country built on the practice. FAIR has framed the night around the right questions. Will we ever see people as individuals rather than members of groups? Who belongs? How should we think about race?”

Read the Full Article

Watch Trailer Here

Watch the Full Film

Why Democracy Requires Renewal

Michael Dimock, Ph.D., “president of Pew Research Center, a leading source of nonpartisan, non-advocacy data”, reflects on America’s 250th anniversary and the future of the nation’s democratic experience. Drawing on public opinion research, he explores the growing challenges of political polarization, civic disengagement, and declining trust in institutions while arguing that these trends need not define America’s future.

Rather than dwelling solely on the nation’s divisions, the address calls on Americans to reclaim a sense of civic responsibility by engaging with one another, embracing democratic participation, and remaining open to institutional reform. It ultimately argues that the founders left behind not a finished system, but an ongoing project—one that each generation has both the opportunity and the responsibility to strengthen.

“In a way, what binds us is this very idea that this nation can be, hopes to be an inspiration to future generations and a beacon to the world. What we sometimes forget though is that this system was never meant to be static. The founders didn’t hand us a finished product. They handed us an ongoing project that requires engagement and creativity from one generation to the next. Right? So our responsibility is to carry that democratic imagination forward to make sure that this democratic republic doesn’t become static, right, or stuck or rigid or even cynical.”

Watch the Full Talk

The American College of Surgeons Remains Committed to Ideology

Dr. Richard T. Bosshardt examines what he sees as the American College of Surgeons’ continued commitment to DEI initiatives, arguing that recent leadership decisions reflect an ongoing preference for ideological priorities over viewpoint diversity and merit-based principles.

Focusing on the organization’s decision to invite Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson to deliver a keynote lecture at its 2026 Clinical Congress, Bosshardt contends that the invitation signals an enduring institutional alignment with DEI despite growing legal, scientific, and public debate surrounding these issues. His essay raises broader questions about ideological conformity within professional medical organizations, the role of open debate in scientific institutions, and how organizations can foster excellence while remaining open to differing perspectives.

“My suggestion to my fellow surgeons: boycott the Clinical Congress in September and make it the least attended in ACS history. Perhaps then, the leadership will get the message that we are not racists, that surgery is not racist, and that surgeons treat patients with the same care and competence, regardless of race or other immutable characteristics.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

On this 250th Anniversary of American Independence, Try Gratitude Instead of Grievance.

DK — Sat, 04 Jul 2026 11:30:52 GMT

This morning, I did not need to boil my water to drink it. My power has been on uninterrupted for many months. When I go out later, the vast majority of other drivers will be predictable and follow traffic laws. I will inevitably, at some point, criticize people in power in a very direct and public way, and I will not fear retribution from the government or other powerful people for doing so. When I go to the store, prices will be higher than I like, but they will probably be exactly what’s listed on the shelf, and the products I buy I can almost certainly expect to work properly. If I go for a walk in the park, strangers will greet me with a smile and a “hello.” I will drive past a farmstand that consists only of a shelter, products, and a box to put money in, unmonitored, and there will be both cash and products there. I recognize this isn’t universally true. Prices are unaffordable for some families and a walk in some neighborhoods carries real risk. These are real exceptions, and they matter. But my point is that these are exceptions, not the rule.

I type this from a nation about to turn 250 years old, having spent a great deal of my life in places where all of the above have not been true.

No, I have not described a utopia, but I have described a place we have all taken for granted — or even worse, needlessly denigrated, at one point or another.

Although I do not use social media, I know well that if I took a look at any social media platform I would be bombarded by nonstop cynical rhetoric about how America is a great evil in the world, a failed state, a terrible place to live, a place some long to escape from — a pox on the earth that would be best undone and abandoned.

I think we can reasonably expect that rhetoric to escalate quite a bit at the least appropriate time, as we celebrate 250 years of independence. But I believe a bit of thanks for that independence feels more in order.

Gratitude work has become widely regarded as a huge boost to mental health. The concept is simple: spending time intentionally focusing on what we are happy about in our lives can give us (according to an article from Harvard Women’s Health Watch) “… greater emotional and social well-being, better sleep quality, lower depression risks, and favorable markers of cardiovascular health.”

So, gratitude is good for us. Knowing this makes many anti-America remarks and the deep and unrelenting cynicism on social media look as bad as a pack-a-day cigarette habit.

Some will criticize the US as being “no better than a third-world country”, losing sight of the incredible comfort that we (yes, even many poor people) experience here compared to the vast majority of other countries. Others will talk about how the founders guaranteed only the rights of “rich white men”, willfully disregarding the slow but undeniable progression to guaranteeing those rights for everyone and how absolutely novel that is in history. Others will claim that America “has no culture,” an odd statement to make about the greatest cultural exporter in modern history — a culture that would not be nearly as rich without the contributions of those people they see as “systemically oppressed”.

They’ll make these criticisms from their safe, comfortable, air-conditioned homes. They’ll make them with zero fear of retribution or consequence. They’ll make these criticisms to an audience of similarly cynical, resentful, and ungrateful people who will reinforce their vitriol.

To me, this is like the teenager in the McMansion who screams at his parents, storms out, and speeds off in the BMW they bought him. Where are you going, kid? You’ll be back in your nice bedroom with your childhood toys tonight, and your parents probably won’t even ask you to apologize for your behavior.

That said, there is absolutely plenty to be unhappy about. I believe that on almost all fronts, American society is declining and losing much of what makes us special. I fear that my ability to live on my own terms here is under threat more and more as time progresses. But I also believe that a big part of the reason these problems exist is because so many in our “intellectual” classes are demoralized by this relentless strain of perspective-free self-hate.

A part of how we got here is social media: cynicism, self-righteousness, and snarky jabs at those who are perceived as “powerful.” Hot takes generally play better there, as they drive engagement. That seems to reinforce the shibboleth-like nature of American self-hate as a means of accessing the purported “intelligentsia”. As Benedict Beckeld, author of Oikophobia: Why Successful Societies Turn Against Themselves, says:

“Like Diogenes’ sneers and sarcasms about his fellow Greeks, or Voltaire’s snarkiness about French tradition and religion, little virtue-signaling asides about American faults are de rigeur for those Americans wishing to communicate how cosmopolitan and superior they are.”

It should not be news to anyone that spending all of one’s time incessantly criticizing others is not a strong indicator of moral superiority, but rather a substitute for it. Confidence and competence are quiet because security does not require belittlement.

Having spent half my adult life living in the People’s Republic of China and a great deal of time traveling the rest of the world, I can tell you this: having a global perspective puts the contrast between American society and most others in the world in stark light.

My anecdotal experience aside, simply looking at net migration numbers tells you an undeniable story: In 2025, enough people chose the United States over their home country that, standing in a line holding hands, they would stretch from New York City to Miami.

Being grateful does not mean willfully ignoring real problems or being revisionist about history. But willful ignorance and revisionism cut both ways: as much as they can be used to “whitewash” true evils, they can also be used to reinforce needless negativity. You know what’s wrong with America today. You’re probably bombarded with these problems in your social media feeds, so I’m not going to spend time discussing them here. I, too, am feeling the embarrassment of our broken political system and the existential dread brought about by the state of our economy.

Yet despite the challenges we face today and the many ghastly moments of our history, what we choose to focus on is key to the solution. Allow me to anthropomorphize our nation for a moment. Have you ever loved someone whose bad choices brought them to a bad place? If you truly wanted them to get better, would you spend your time constantly berating them for their flaws and proclaiming how bad they are to everyone you both know? Once you’ve acknowledged their reality, what is the purpose of staying critical? To feel better about yourself? Because some part of you fears you’re just like them? Be honest.

So on this anniversary of independence, if you feel compelled to say that we are inappropriately celebrating 250 years of oppression, imperialism, exploitation, racism, slavery, brutality, and warmongering, spare us the complaints. Take that energy and go make something better instead.

We here in the USA are so damn lucky. Yes, even you. And while things may feel dystopian at this particular juncture in our history, only by choosing to be grateful for what we have can we stave off those threatening to take it away from us.

As we celebrate America’s 250th birthday, join FAIR in cultivating a common culture of gratitude. The more of us who do, the less we’ll have to criticize.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

What America’s 250th Actually Asks of Us

Fair For All — Fri, 03 Jul 2026 11:31:04 GMT

Dear Friends of FAIR,

I was a kid when America celebrated its bicentennial anniversary. I don’t remember much about what was happening in the country at the time, but I remember the feeling: parades, red-white-and-blue everything, collector’s items everywhere, and a sense that the whole country had agreed on what we were celebrating. It was simple. We had made it 200 years, America was doing well, and that seemed worth being proud of. Nobody felt compelled to qualify their pride or patriotism with an asterisk or explanation.

This year feels different, and I don’t think I’m the only one who feels it. We’re marking 250 years as a country still fighting a war, still sorting out how much division we can absorb before it becomes something worse, still trying to figure out what AI, social media, and a fast-changing economy are going to do to the way we live and work. A lot of people who love this country, who have given real parts of their lives to it, are feeling something more complicated than pride this year. Conflicted might be the better word. Even people deeply invested in America’s future are struggling to say, in one clean sentence, what this milestone means to them.

Our constitutional inheritance was never a finished project handed to us so we could admire it from a distance. It was built by people who often disagreed with each other, sometimes bitterly, and kept working anyway. They understood that America would only survive if each generation was willing to look honestly at where we stood and recommit to the work. Our country wasn’t built on consensus, but by people who realized the value of holding genuine disagreements and committed to staying at the table regardless. That’s the part of the founding story that tends to get lost or smoothed over during celebrations.

Our country is fifty years older than it was the last time we celebrated. If America were a person, it would be more experienced, but not always wiser for it. Being part of this moment requires us to step up and examine our history honestly — the parts we’re proud of and the parts we’re still wrestling with — without collapsing into either uncritical celebration or blanket cynicism. To honor America’s 250th anniversary, we need to do the hard work of showing up for the arguments like our Founders did instead of walking away from them. It means extending patience to neighbors who see the country differently than we do. That’s a lot harder than showing up for a parade or watching fireworks explode in the sky, but it’s a more fitting tribute to the grand experiment our founders built.

So what does this look like in practice? Here’s one small, concrete place to start: go back to the sources. Not a summary of America’s history, but the actual record of how our country has evolved and understood itself over time. Because history examined through primary resources is often more complicated and more interesting than the version we read secondhand through the lenses of other people.

Our own Many Stories, One Nation curriculum was built on a similar premise: that understanding this country and what it represents means being able to hold multiple, sometimes competing, true stories about it at the same time, rather than flattening our history into a single narrative in either direction.

Our friends at FAIR in Libraries and the Association of Library Professionals just released three reading lists (elementary, middle & high school, and adult) for America’s 250th, built by librarians who care about the same free and open discourse our founders cherished. These lists are a good way to spend part of your holiday weekend, and worth passing along to a librarian in your life who isn’t yet an ALP member.

If you’re not already a member of these communities, this is a good week to change that: join FAIR in Libraries or ALP. Their membership drive closes July 11th, and it’s a small, direct way to support the people doing the quiet work of keeping libraries places for open inquiry rather than ideological battlegrounds.

None of this resolves the tensions our nation is grappling with, and it’s not supposed to. But learning our own history honestly and supporting the people and institutions that help others do the same feels like a fitting way to meet a complicated anniversary. This year, honor America with more than a parade. Honor the actual work this anniversary celebrates.

We don’t get another 250th. Let’s do this one right.

Join us.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the nation is still wrestling with some of its oldest questions: Who belongs? What does equality require? How should we understand our differences?

This summer, FAIR’s Film Series will explore these questions through four compelling documentaries produced by Eli Steele and discussions with filmmakers, scholars, and thought leaders.

Join us for this can’t-miss lineup:

🎬 How Jack Became Black — July 1

🎬 What Killed Michael Brown? — July 15

🎬 Killing America — July 29

🎬 15 Days — August 12

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

FAIR in Conversation has relaunched with a new monthly format built for this moment. We’re leaning away from books and into the issues themselves: the debates, decisions, and developments that are defining what fairness, free speech, and equal dignity mean in America, and beyond, right now.

Each session will center on a pressing topic of the day, drawing on a curated mix of articles, book summaries, short essays, podcasts, films, and other multimedia resources to ground the conversation before opening the floor for discussion.

These are exactly the conversations America needs now, and we are committed to modeling them. Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

Join the FAIR Community

How do public libraries select the wrong books for kids?

Fair For All — Thu, 02 Jul 2026 11:30:26 GMT

Libraries across North America have recently been under fire from parents and authorities concerned that their collections of children’s and young adult books contain material that is sexually graphic. In many cases, the books in question are perceived as part of a progressive agenda that pushes the young to question their sexuality and gender identity. Books introducing gender and sexuality viewpoints to very young audiences have become alarmingly common in libraries. While only a minority veer into graphic sexual territory, together they raise community concern about age-appropriateness.

For the libraries in question, the defensive position is one that invokes intellectual freedom. Outside forces should not limit or direct the content of library collections—that is the purview of professional librarians, who choose material in accordance with carefully considered criteria with the goal of serving the needs of their users and communities. This argument is invoked with particular fervor when it comes to books that express the viewpoint of “marginalized” groups, because these are the groups deemed most vulnerable to censorship. The stated goal is a wide variety of viewpoints, including viewpoints that are potentially not aligned with majority opinion. But how did we get to the point where the professional selection process, seeking to include a wide variety of (often unpopular) opinions, actively collects books that promote a progressive ideology to such an extreme that graphically sexual material is allowed for young people. Has indoctrination of the vulnerable become the norm?

First, let me make clear that in many, if not most public libraries, the actual selection of books by staff librarians is limited. In the past, librarians may have spent hours perusing catalogues and review journals, and in some cases attending publishers’ showcases. Today, public libraries often do not have the resources for that level of labor-intensive work. The number of books published in a given year, thanks to electronic and self-publishing, has grown too large, and library budgets are increasingly stretched.

Instead, many public libraries rely on their suppliers to do part or all of the work. A small number of library wholesalers are in the business of supplying libraries with pre-selected books and providing them shelf-ready, with catalogue records, spine labels, and security tags included. These wholesalers select materials based on profiles that the library supplies, which detail community demographics, interests, genres, copies-to-waitlist ratios, and other criteria. Typically, a local librarian will examine the shipments before acceptance, modify the profile as needed, and supplement these “automatic release plans” with backlist orders, customer request items, specialized books, local history, and anything else that the plan doesn’t cover. The profiles in question often contain a reference to “diversity” with specified targets of books written by or about particular minority groups. In practice, the books that meet these criteria are inevitably skewed toward the progressive viewpoint within these minorities.

But the libraries and wholesalers are only one part of the selection ecosystem. The other players are the publishers themselves, eager to satisfy their progressive impulses, who trip over themselves to sign “minority voices”; and the professional book reviewers and journals, who also are eager to support identity-based causes. This favoritism—born out of an effort to support unheard voices—creates a new silence for stories and others that fall outside of target groups. Wholesalers base their decisions on major publishers’ offerings and positive reviews in library and literature journals. The resulting pipeline leading to library acquisition is ideologically skewed, and deviating from it would take some effort, even if local libraries were not ideologically captured themselves.

Even if these elements are not always aligned, the process still results in library collections being stacked with books for kids on gender and sexuality that skew heavily toward a one-sided viewpoint. These views, presented as fact to an audience not yet capable of critical analysis, are in some cases accompanied by descriptions and illustrations of a sexually explicit nature, compounding the age-inappropriateness of the works. All the actors consider “queer inclusion” to be part of their mandate, not a political stance, and even where skepticism exists, it often succumbs to self-preservation.

Opponents of gender ideology in kids’ books will often call it “grooming.” This is hyperbole; it’s more akin to propaganda, the presentation of a contested ideology as fact in an environment that is intended to be neutral and non-political. Prospects for reform make for some difficult choices. Governmental oversight, community review, and parental permission regimes all present their own challenges to the independence and effectiveness of public libraries. Somehow, we have to find a way to take social-justice ideology out of the decisions at all levels.

To combat some of this skewing and keep libraries neutral and reading options open, readers should request books—most libraries have a purchase request option online. Librarians should try to operate with more autonomy and critically evaluate what publishers are putting out even when it sacrifices some efficiency. As individuals, we should prioritize the value of experiencing a range of literary topics and viewpoints, allowing us to expand our horizons and keep us open to a wide variety of experiences.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 28 Jun 2026 11:31:20 GMT

Running the DEI Gauntlet

This week, we featured Jim Condon’s firsthand account of his final years at the National Radio Astronomy Observatory and the legal battle that followed. After publicly opposing workplace DEI policies he believed conflicted with principles of merit, equal protection, and free expression, Condon says he was removed from the position he had held for decades.

Reflecting on that experience, Condon argues that institutional pressure to affirm particular viewpoints can have unintended consequences for employees who feel unable to support contradictory policies. His essay raises broader questions about compelled speech, workplace culture, and how organizations can pursue diversity while preserving viewpoint diversity, due process, and merit-based decision-making.

“The real issue throughout all of this ordeal was never about a truly diverse workplace where all are judged equally on their merits; it is about using diversity to justify compelled speech, bullying, discrimination, and retaliation by employers.”

Read the Full Article

Commencement 2026: Jonathan Haidt Address

Jonathan Haidt’s 2026 NYU commencement address, is a reflection on attention, resilience, and human connection in an age of constant digital distraction.

Drawing on decades of research, Haidt argues that our attention has become one of our most valuable resources—and one of the most contested. He encourages graduates to reclaim agency over their lives by resisting technologies designed to capture their focus, embracing difficult challenges, and investing in meaningful relationships.

Rather than offering career advice alone, Haidt presents a broader vision of human flourishing: one grounded in intentional living, real-world connection, and the courage to pursue what truly matters. His message serves as a timely reminder that how we choose to spend our attention ultimately shapes who we become.

“I ask them to delete social media apps from their phones just for one week…They get back precious hours each day and a feeling of agency over how to spend that time. So treasure your attention more than the people who want to take it from you. Never forget what it’s worth. For Meta, it’s more than a trillion dollars. For you and your life, it’s priceless.”

Watch Full Speech

‘Disagreement itself has become morally legible’: Glenn Loury critiques self-censorship

This week, Stanford welcomed economist and public intellectual Glenn Loury for a conversation on self-censorship and the state of public discourse. Drawing on themes from his recent book Self-Censorship, Loury argued that fear of reputational consequences can discourage open inquiry, leading individuals to remain silent even when disagreement could improve public understanding. His remarks explored the relationship between free expression, institutional incentives, and the importance of candid conversation in a healthy democracy.

“Loury described self-censorship as “the equilibrium outcome of rational behavior,” and emphasized its compounding nature stating “silence today produces greater silence tomorrow.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

FAIR’s Summer Film Series: Four Documentaries. One Summer. The Conversation We Need Now.

Fair For All — Fri, 26 Jun 2026 11:31:43 GMT

Dear Friends of FAIR,

This summer, FAIR is launching a four-film series exploring how Americans have debated and constructed racial identity, belonging, and the nation itself. These documentaries ask urgent questions about what we owe one another across differences and how we talk about it.

The series launches July 1st with How Jack Became Black, a documentary that traces the invention of Blackness as a racial category in America. The film examines the roots of colorblindness, the hope that we might one day see people as individuals rather than group members, and shows how that promise collides with lived experience. It’s a fitting opener for a series running alongside the nation’s 250th anniversary, a moment when we’re reckoning with what America is, who belongs to it, and what we’ve promised ourselves about equality and freedom. Monica Harris, FAIR’s Executive Director, will host the discussion with Eli Steele.

July 15th, we screen What Killed Michael Brown?, a sharp, unflinching look at the facts, rhetoric, and storytelling that followed the shooting in Ferguson. The film eschews easy narratives and instead asks viewers to sit with an uncomfortable complexity: the difference between what happened and how it was told.

July 29th, we move to Killing America, a documentary that wades into the historical and contemporary tensions between individual rights and group identity. The film traces how America has wrestled with inclusion, exclusion, and the meaning of membership.

We close our summer series on August 12th with 15 Days, directed by Natalya Murakhver, a New York City mother who sued to reopen schools during the COVID pandemic. The film investigates why America’s closures lasted longer than nearly every other nation and examines the science, policy decisions, and human costs ignored along the way.

Each screening will be followed by a discussion with subject matter experts and scholars who can help audiences think carefully about what these films reveal.

FAIR believes that civil discourse across genuine disagreement is foundational to a free and equal society. The COVID pandemic was one of the most traumatic moments in American history, and race and racial identity remain among the most contested topics in our society. We struggle to discuss these issues clearly. We retreat into defensive positions. We mistake agreement for understanding. We assume bad faith instead of engaging with hard questions.

FAIR believes these topics cannot be discussed and debated on the fringes. They shape education policy, civil rights enforcement, hiring practices, and how young people understand themselves and their country. These films don’t promote a single perspective or conclusion. They present evidence, arguments, and human stories that require viewers to think. They are an invitation to think carefully, together, across lines of difference.

These screenings are open to FAIR newsletter subscribers and community members. Whether you work in education, media, or civil rights advocacy, or simply want to engage with evidence-based analysis and diverse expert perspectives on some of the nation’s most contested questions, this series is for you. Stay tuned for details in our newsletter or follow us on social media for registration information and screening times.

This summer, as we celebrate America’s 250th anniversary, our country is reckoning with its founding promises of equal protection, free expression, and belonging. These four films tackle that question from different angles. They model what it looks like to engage seriously, to resist easy narratives, to think together across genuine disagreement. That’s the conversation America needs now.

Join us.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

As America approaches its 250th anniversary, the nation is still wrestling with some of its oldest questions: Who belongs? What does equality require? How should we understand our differences?

This summer, FAIR’s Film Series will explore these questions through four compelling documentaries produced by Eli Steele and discussions with filmmakers, scholars, and thought leaders.

Join us for this can’t-miss lineup:

🎬 How Jack Became Black — July 1

🎬 What Killed Michael Brown? — July 15

🎬 Killing America — July 29

🎬 15 Days — August 12

The Canadian Free Speech Crisis with Lisa Bildy

Canada shares our values, our language, and our legal traditions — yet free speech there is under pressure in ways that would have been unimaginable a decade ago. FAIR Advisor Lisa Bildy of the Free Speech Union of Canada will walk us through the landscape: who’s being silenced, who’s pushing back, and the cultural pressures that are reshaping expression north of the border. Join us for a candid look at what’s happening in Canada and why it matters for all of us.

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

These are exactly the conversations America needs now, and we are committed to modeling them. Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

FAIR Educators Alliance 2025-2026

Join the FAIR Educators Alliance for the 2025–2026 school year to equip PK–12 educators with the knowledge, strategies, and community support they need to foster schools that are more enriching and free from bias for students and educators.

Each monthly gathering will open with updates and presentations from FAIR staff, fellows, Chapter Leaders, and occasional guest speakers. Together, we’ll explore strategies to support educators, communities, and local chapters—and to advance positive change at the local, regional, and national levels.

Following the presentations, participants will have space for open-forum discussions to connect, seek advice, and coordinate on pressing issues in their schools. Breakout rooms will be divided into PK-6 and 7-12 grade levels with experienced teachers facilitating those conversations.

Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 7 PM ET via Zoom Duration: 1 hour

Join Us!

Join the FAIR Community

Running the DEI Gauntlet

Jim Condon — Thu, 25 Jun 2026 11:30:56 GMT

My lifelong career in radio astronomy began in 1972 when I joined the National Radio Astronomy Observatory (NRAO) as a new postdoc in Charlottesville, VA. After four decades as a Tenured Astronomer, I became an Astronomer Emeritus. Working with its excellent astronomers, engineers, and computer scientists was extremely rewarding—until the NRAO betrayed its founding principles of non-discrimination and merit in favor of DEI discrimination. For example, its revised hiring policy, “If two candidates for the same position have equal qualifications within the uncertainties, the candidate from the under-represented group should be hired” mandated discrimination against majority candidates, violating both Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act and the 14^th Amendment guarantees of equal protection. All scientists and managers were expected to “champion” NRAO’s version of “diversity,” which promoted performative inclusion. Most NRAO employees who oppose DEI discrimination have been silenced by fear of losing their jobs.

In 2017 the NRAO required its employees to complete online training on NRAO’s non-discrimination policies and certify that they understood them. I believed the policies were self-contradictory, and balked at this compelled speech. Consequently, in 2018 I was tasked by the NRAO Director, HR Head, and Office of Diversity and Inclusion (ODI) to write a confidential memo documenting institutional discrimination that I observed during my four decades at the NRAO.

I emailed my memo “Institutional Discrimination by Race and Sex at AUI/NRAO” to the Director. I hoped he would follow HR’s investigation policy and promptly address my claims. Instead, he tried to suppress them. Legal discovery later revealed his email to the heads of HR and ODI: “ugh. Despite how we may feel about the fight, we really need this to die down and go away.” That email showed that the NRAO would never oppose discrimination in the name of maintaining DEI standards. A month later, the HR Head emailed me to suggest I seek employment elsewhere and threatened to place a negative note in my HR file. Having tenure and nearing retirement, I was annoyed but not intimidated.

In August of 2020, the NRAO Director held my UVa PhD student hostage by threatening to remove me as her supervisor. Having nearly finished her thesis and applied for several postdocs, removing me would have set her research career back a year. I had to pay her ransom by falsely certifying that I understood NRAO’s DEI policies. Even though the NRAO Director could not punish me directly, he could exploit others to compel my speech.

On September 14, 2022 the NRAO announced that “Advance broader, equitable, inclusive participation in science and engineering” had been added to its original mission statement. The announcement also linked to NRAO’s web page advertising several prima facie discriminatory DEI programs. Who could speak up for those grad students, job applicants, and employees who would not be accepted, hired, or promoted because they were of the wrong race, sex, or sexual orientation, or because they simply wouldn’t “champion” DEI discrimination? As a 77-year-old unpaid Astronomer Emeritus, I could and so I had to. I reluctantly sent an email to the whole scientific staff publicly opposing NRAO’s discriminatory programs and policies.

The Director promptly halted the scientific staff emailer. Within an hour, he proposed to the AUI President the method of retaliation approved by the AUI Board of Trustees at its next meeting.

Less than four hours after my email, the Director emailed the Heads of HR and ODI:

“I am going to suggest to a carefully selected few members of scistaff that they create a petition (outside observatory resources) to state their support for D[E]I, then get every damn member of scistaff to sign it and present [it] to the observatory to show their support. Every. Damn. One.”

The next day he emailed the AUI President “I have seeded an effort in the scientific staff to provide a widespread condemnation of Condon’s actions/opinions, and demonstrate a firm D[E]I support.” The resulting condemnation was deceptively styled “grass-roots” but was astroturf seeded by the Director for his own benefit.

The NRAO Director also emailed the scientific staff, falsely describing my email as an “egregious abuse” of the Scistaff emailer. The Director also claimed my email disparaged other members of the staff, and AUI later claimed that I falsely alleged that NRAO engaged in career-ending retaliation. My email did neither; both claims were based on fabrications. This completed his “degradation ceremony” and led to my cancellation an hour later by the UVa Astronomy Department, where I had taught their radio astronomy course ten times.

On November 4, 2022 I was shocked to receive a letter from AUI President Cohen informing me that my Astronomer Emeritus status had been revoked, any access I had to NRAO resources would be discontinued, and I should remove my personal items from the NRAO Headquarters building under guard. The letter didn’t say why, but it was in retaliation for my public opposition to DEI discrimination by race and sex at the NRAO. I hadn’t expected the AUI Board would retaliate because the previous AUI President had explicitly promised all NRAO employees “that you will never be subject to retaliation for reporting any concern that has the objective of helping this organization and its people.” Nor had I imagined the Board would act behind my back, denying basic due-process rights.

I was dismayed that my research career would be truncated by losing access to NRAO’s physical and digital libraries, critical computer support, and being made too “radioactive” for my colleagues to work with me. A week later, I removed my personal items from my office, saving what would fit into my small car and losing the rest. I will never forget looking back on the building where I arrived as a postdoc 50 years ago and was now leaving in disgrace, never to return.

I was unfairly dismissed from my lifetime career. Forcing employees to affirm contradictory policies is unjust compelled speech. I worried for the future of qualified scientists like myself who would be excluded due to their race or sex—which is ironic for DEI. Consequently, I sued AUI in federal court for retaliation made illegal by Title VII of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. This can cost about $100,000 out-of-pocket for legal expenses, several hundred hours of work helping your legal team prepare your case, and a three-year wait for results. The expensive and time-consuming process makes lawsuits like this impossible for most employees to resist injustice.

Soon after the judge ruled “AUI’s reason for terminating him [Condon] was pretext,” my case concluded in March 2026 with a clear legal victory—a judgment in my favor ordering AUI to pay $130,000 damages plus $79,171.52 to reimburse legal expenses.

Was my legal victory worth the ordeal? I was terminated, but the NRAO director was not. Because I was silenced, most NRAO employees are still afraid to oppose DEI discrimination. Even so, I don’t regret having opposed DEI discrimination, and now I can no longer be silenced. I believe that widely exposing NRAO’s actions is the best way to discourage any future attempts at discrimination or retaliation. The real issue throughout all of this ordeal was never about a truly diverse workplace where all are judged equally on their merits; it is about using diversity to justify compelled speech, bullying, discrimination, and retaliation by employers.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 21 Jun 2026 11:31:01 GMT

“You Can’t Say That!”: How Speaking About My Experiences as a Woman Researcher Ended My Academic Career

This week, we highlighted a personal essay by postdoctoral researcher Sylvia B.

In the piece, Sylvia reflects on the professional fallout that followed her attempts to discuss the challenges women in academia face. What began as a conversation about career mobility and sex-based differences evolved into accusations, formal complaints, and ultimately her decision to leave academia altogether. Through her experience, she asks whether institutions that encourage employees to “bring their whole selves to work” truly make room for diverse perspectives and imperfect conversations—or only some of them.

“A healthy intellectual community should be able to tolerate imperfect conversations and different viewpoints. I am not rejecting inclusivity or efforts to make all people feel welcome in science. I am asking whether the exhortation to “bring your whole self to work” actually includes everyone. Instead of empowering the performatively self-righteous to demand ideological obedience, we should promote open communication and professional tolerance of different lived experiences—for all people, not just select groups.”

Read the Full Article

Breaking the Spell: White Guilt from Belfast to Britain — with Jenny Holland

In a recent episode of Man of Steele, filmmaker and writer Eli Steele speaks with Belfast-based commentator Jenny Holland about the social and political tensions unfolding in the UK. Drawing on her proximity to recent unrest in Belfast, Holland discusses immigration, policing, identity politics, and the influence of what she and Steele describe as a culture of “white guilt.” Their conversation explores concerns about institutional ideology, the changing character of Irish republicanism, and growing frustrations among segments of the British public. Together, the pair argue that many of these issues are being overlooked or misunderstood by political and cultural elites.

“The younger generation aren’t seeing the benefit of the anti-colonial resistance narrative. In fact, they’re really getting it in the rear, to be crude about it. And they know they are. They know that they’re getting fucked, basically. And they’re like: no, we’re not going to endure this — so that you can pontificate in front of a microphone about how great and good you are, and how migrants are welcome. You’re not doing that off our backs. I think there’s more of that sentiment on the ground than has been reported.”

Read the Full Article

Why We Should Listen to Robert Coles — and to Each Other

Shared by FAIR board advisor Nadine Strossen, this reflection by historian Jonathan Zimmerman revisits the life and legacy of psychiatrist Robert Coles, who died on June 4. Coles spent decades listening to Americans from across racial, social, and political divides. He resisted reducing people to stereotypes, insisting that understanding begins with curiosity and conversation. He was best known for his conversations with children, especially those who had faced racial violence. Through more than 50 books and hundreds of articles, Coles championed the idea that every person—and especially every child—has something important to say. His work offers a timely reminder that listening to one another as individuals, rather than caricatures, is essential to a more humane and less polarized society.

“…every individual you meet becomes exactly that: an individual. They’re no longer a category or a caricature. They’re a human being, trying to make sense of the world. Just like you, and like me.”
“I don’t look upon them as good or bad,” Coles explained. “I look upon them as human beings, strong and sensible, weak and full of faults.” He readily acknowledged “the blindness, the distortions, the racism, the meanness” among them. But he refused to reduce them to that.”

Read the Full Article

Engaged citizens built America. Today, civics education is coming back.

Can a divided nation rediscover the habits of self-government? As America nears its 250th anniversary, a growing movement to strengthen civics education aims to do just that. Across the country, students are learning not only how government works, but how to wrestle with competing interpretations of history, engage opposing viewpoints, and participate responsibly in civic life. In an era of deep polarization, many see these efforts as essential to preserving a culture of pluralism and constructive disagreement.

“Nicholas Longo, director of the Rutgers Democracy Lab at Rutgers University, says young people want to be engaged, and when they have opportunities, they do great things. In these tumultuous and highly polarized times, teaching young people civics skills can have a profound impact on society, he says.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

Juneteenth Reminds Us That Equal Protection Requires Our Vigilance and Constant Work

Fair For All — Fri, 19 Jun 2026 11:31:23 GMT

Dear Friends of FAIR,

Today, millions of Americans will observe Juneteenth — a day of remembrance, gratitude, and moral clarity.

On January 1, 1863, President Abraham Lincoln issued his final Emancipation Proclamation declaring that “all persons held as slaves” within rebellious states “are, and henceforward shall be free.” But that proclamation could not be enforced in places under Confederate control. The roughly 250,000 enslaved people in Texas, the westernmost state of the Confederacy, remained in bondage after Lincoln’s Proclamation.

It wasn’t until June 19, 1865 — two and a half years later — that General Granger arrived in Galveston to publicly deliver General Order No. 3, announcing that enslaved men, women, and children in that state were free. The order began simply: “The people of Texas are informed that, in accordance with a proclamation from the Executive of the United States, all slaves are free.” Order No. 3 also included language that seemed extraordinary at the time: freedom involved “an absolute equality of personal rights and rights of property between former masters and slaves.”

The moment that Order No. 3 reached enslaved Texans marked the final stroke in a long and bitter struggle for freedom. Hundreds of thousands of men, women, and children who had been waiting years for freedom finally learned they were free. The following year, citizens gathered to celebrate in their finest clothes, with prayer, music, food, and deep thanksgiving.

That was the first Juneteenth celebration.

Juneteenth isn’t merely a holiday about delayed news. It is a holiday about the long and bloody effort to bring American law into alignment with American principle: that all men are created equal.

Here’s why that matters: Juneteenth marks the moment when American law finally aligned with American principle. The nation had declared its independence in 1776 on a self-evident truth: “all men are created equal,” yet slavery persisted for nearly 90 years. The contradiction was glaring and unavoidable.

Throughout history, many cultures and governments accepted slavery as natural and even customary. But America could not. The moment our nation declared universal human equality to be the foundation of its legitimacy, slavery became an unbearable moral problem. Good people living within a nation founded on good principles cannot indefinitely tolerate such a contradiction.

This inconsistency demanded resolution, but that resolution came at catastrophic cost: a civil war that claimed more than 600,000 lives, a constitutional amendment, and the complete reconstruction of American law and society. In less than a century after its founding, Americans finally ended a practice that had existed for thousands of years across cultures and continents.

The story of American abolition teaches something vital: When a nation’s founding principles are rooted in genuine respect for human dignity and equal protection, its work becomes the work of ensuring these principles are adhered to in practice.

That is the bedrock of FAIR’s mission.

We believe that a pluralistic democracy built on equal protection and free expression requires constant, deliberate work. It requires that each of us practice civil discourse, even when we are in disagreement. It requires that we defend the constitutional rights that protect minority groups and dissenting voices from majoritarian overreach. It requires that we educate citizens so they can better understand one another and grapple seriously with difficult history.

It requires the work that Juneteenth represents: aligning law, practice, and culture with our Founders’ commitment that all people deserve equal dignity and equal rights.

This commitment was not fully realized on June 19, 1865, and it is still not fully realized today. The arc of justice does not bend toward itself; rather, it demands that people who see the contradiction between principle and practice refuse to accept it and work tirelessly to resolve it.

Today, we honor those who fought and sacrificed to bring law into alignment with principle — and we invite you to ask: What does it look like to continue that work in your own community?

We all have a unique role to play in this mission. You can answer the call today by:

Engaging Your Community: Join the conversation by attending an upcoming webinar, educational program, or local discussion.
Building Local Connections: Connect with a FAIR Chapter near you or spark something new by starting a chapter to host events, conversations, and outreach in your area.
Bringing History to Light: Help us introduce FAIR’s new Many Stories, One Nation curriculum to schools and civic leadership in your community.
Fueling the Movement: Every program, resource, and classroom tool we offer is made possible entirely by the generosity of people like you. Consider making a donation to sustain this work.

This is FAIR’s calling, and it’s a calling that Juneteenth reminds us all to answer.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

The Canadian Free Speech Crisis with Lisa Bildy

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

These are exactly the conversations America needs now, and we are committed to modeling them. Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

FAIR Educators Alliance 2025-2026

Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 7 PM ET via Zoom Duration: 1 hour

Join Us!

Join the FAIR Community

“You Can’t Say That!”: How Speaking About My Experiences as a Woman Researcher Ended My Academic Career

Sylvia B — Thu, 18 Jun 2026 11:31:26 GMT

After devoting half of my life to academia, I learned a career-destroying lesson in irony: In a workplace that celebrated diversity, equity, and inclusion, discussing my own experiences as a woman post-doctoral researcher was professionally dangerous.

It started at lunch in a restaurant with my non-binary research supervisor and two graduate students. We were discussing short-term visiting professor positions in our field (chemistry). Often these positions lack a clear path to stability, and so position-hopping can continue indefinitely. I made an observation (backed by data from Stanford University): Men are less likely than women to relocate for their partner’s career. I admit I was hyperbolic: “Men won’t follow women around for their careers,” I vented. At the time, I was struggling to find academic positions that would allow me to remain in contact with my friends, family, or partner. I worried that I would have to choose between human connection and employment.

My supervisor (whose wife is fortunate enough to have a dual-hire arrangement — the kind of institutional accommodation that, for some, solves the problem I was describing) became visibly angry and shouted: “You can’t say that!” Even though I explained that I was referring to a possible statistical or cultural pattern, their response was to liken my observation to the racist misuse of crime statistics.

I was stunned and shaken, too distressed to explain myself in a more nuanced way. My supervisor’s publicly posted policy was to immediately fire anyone who said anything they deem racist, sexist, or “-phobi”c: “The consequences will be swift and severe.” That didn’t stop others in the group from routinely making sweeping generalizations about society and identities without consequence. Yet when I referenced a sex-based pattern I had noticed in my own life, I was loudly and publicly shut down.

My supervisor heavily promoted their nascent research group as a place where people should “bring their whole selves to work.” Discussions of sexuality, gender identity, mental health, and personal struggles were common. I always listened supportively when others shared their experiences, feelings, and identities.

Initially, I brushed off the incident. My young supervisor and I were close: I cat-sat for them, and we went night-time owl-watching together. They shared a lot of personal information with me, so I felt comfortable making myself vulnerable. I was their ally and sang their praises to anyone who would listen. After a conference we attended together, they texted me their hope to remain “lifelong friends.” But over time, further conflicts arose between us whenever I mentioned issues that disproportionately affect women.

A few months later, while discussing my academic career plan with my supervisor, I opined, “Nobody wants to talk about it, but I think there are differences between men’s and women’s experiences in academia.” I mentioned that some women may face cultural and biological realities—such as women’s health problems necessitating a hysterectomy, or menopause—that affect their ability to remain in extended periods of geographical mobility and career uncertainty. I was not criticizing men (and certainly not non-binary people) or arguing that women are a uniquely oppressed group. I was sharing my own anxieties as a woman on the tenure-track academic job market who also hopes to have a family someday. In that same meeting, I also tried to explain to my supervisor how their often belittling or even angry comments about my “terse,” “direct” academic writing style contributed to my feeling deeply discouraged about my professional future.

By the end of the meeting, I thought we had achieved mutual understanding. But a few days later, I received a formal email stating that my speech had made my supervisor feel “unsafe” and “extremely uncomfortable.” The department chair and Faculty Affairs were alerted. My supervisor planned to reduce mentorship and seek official guidance on ominous “next steps.” My request for mediation through the ombuds office was declined. It seemed that I would imminently be fired—“swift and severe consequences.” My supervisor updated their group policy sheet with boldface and underlining to emphasize the dire consequences for anyone perceived as being intolerant at any time.

I spent over a month trying to figure out what I had done wrong. Eventually, my supervisor revealed that my comments had “made [them] feel like [they were] being binned in with a gender that [they] don’t identify with.” Apparently, any discussion of my personal, female experiences could be reframed as an attack on another gender.

Early in my post-doctoral appointment, the university counseling center dropped the “TQIA+” from the “LGBTQIA+ Peer Support Space” calendar event listing, an ultimately temporary omission. My supervisor described the “erasure” as “genocide” on our research group messaging board, and I responded with a prayer emoji to offer my sympathy for their distress at the university’s seeming pre-emptive over-compliance with new government mandates. But it occurred to me that once an issue is cast in terms of “genocide,” colleagues who hold different views can easily be treated as participants in violence who deserve “swift and severe” punishment. In retrospect, I should have foreseen my fate.

A few more tense months passed until I spoke up again. I was troubled by what I perceived as new, retaliatory, gendered work expectations. I knew my supervisor had told the department chair that I was a productive researcher. But my supervisor started to limit my autonomy while still allowing my male colleague the freedom to work from home at his own discretion, on his own schedule. Now, my workdays were spent listening to loud student conversations in the chaotic group office and doing what felt like student babysitting at the expense of my productivity and career.

They summoned me to their office to discuss my written concerns. That day, my attempt at self-advocacy culminated in a threat to withhold future recommendation letters. In academia, that is career-ending. My concerns and observations were dismissed as “unprofessional” and even unspeakably disgusting when they involved women’s health. My supervisor warned me to look harder and more broadly for a new job. Then they told me to get out of their office. Leaving tearfully, I explained how much their friendship meant to me, emphasizing that I respected their gender identity. Nevertheless, HR began an “information-gathering process” later that day.

Months later, I have still received no resolution from the university, which committed $1 million to start up my supervisor’s lab. Faculty Affairs and HR conspired to employ misleading tactics, tried to impose a prohibited gag order, and, before seeing the evidence, told me I was somehow more “unprofessional” than my supervisor. I decided to complain to the Title IX office. After an initial interview, the office failed to follow up as promised or even respond to my emails for two months until my Family Medical Leave Act job protection was scheduled to end. (Having my career threatened for a perceived transgression took a toll on my mental health and triggered an autoimmune flare, necessitating unpaid leave.) The university appeared far more responsive to accusations framed through the gender-identity lens than to concerns I raised as a subordinate woman. This is an issue because it unjustly serves one group over the other rather than providing dignity for both sides and the opportunity to respectfully resolve conflict. As a result of my experiences, I’ve made the decision to leave academia—happily, at this point.

A woman describing sex-based realities affecting her career makes no one “unsafe.” A healthy intellectual community should be able to tolerate imperfect conversations and different viewpoints. I am not rejecting inclusivity or efforts to make all people feel welcome in science. I am asking whether the exhortation to “bring your whole self to work” actually includes everyone. Instead of empowering the performatively self-righteous to demand ideological obedience, we should promote open communication and professional tolerance of different lived experiences—for all people, not just select groups.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 14 Jun 2026 11:31:14 GMT

Wildcard: On Authorship and Refusing the Script

This week, we featured Johari Mayfield’s (M. Octavia Faulkner) reflection on Wildcard, an evolving performance project inspired by the life of Saartjie Baartman. What began as an attempt to confront spectatorship and objectification gradually became something more personal: an exploration of embodiment, artistic integrity, and the tension between inherited narratives and lived experience.

Drawing from years of research, collaboration, and recovery, Mayfield traces how Wildcard transformed from an intellectual exercise into what she describes as a “satirical séance” — a communal practice of integration rather than accusation. Her essay raises enduring questions about identity, historical memory, and the relationship between art and authenticity, suggesting that wholeness cannot be engineered or imposed, but must be continually practiced.

“Wildcard is evolving into a larger work — part satire, part embodied inquiry- and what I call a “satirical séance.”…Through movement, dialogue, and humor, participants explore what it means to remain whole — to resist fragmentation in their own thinking and bodies. The aim is not accusation, but integration. Wholeness is not achieved in isolation; it is practiced in relationship.”

Read the Full Article

When the UK Betrayed Justice for White Guilt

This week, FAIR Board of Advisors member and filmmaker Eli Steele examines the cultural and historical forces that have shaped modern conversations about race, identity, and institutional responsibility in Britain. Reflecting on the legacy of anti-racism policies and the tension between group identity and individual dignity, Steele argues that societies flourish when they remain grounded in universal principles rather than inherited guilt or tribal divisions.

His essay explores how the pursuit of justice can lose sight of its original aims when institutions prioritize narratives over individuals, and asks what it would mean to renew a shared commitment to character, accountability, and common humanity.

“If we do not wish to be defined by tribes or condemned because of our skins, then we must accept that we are judged by what we do. That is what it means to be Western. We are judged by our character and actions and that includes protecting and defending the universal Western principles and values for all.”

Read the Full Article

Kemi Badenoch: My Plan to Bring Back Common Sense

Kemi Badenoch, leader of the British Conservative Party, gave a powerful speech outlining her vision for restoring what she describes as common sense to public life. The speech provides a compelling case for the importance of free speech, institutional trust, and civic confidence. Addressing questions of national identity and political culture, Badenoch argued that democratic societies function best when they are grounded in shared values, open debate, and a willingness to engage with disagreement rather than suppress it.

“The answer to Black Lives Matter is not a white lives matter born of the same racial grievance. We will not defeat identity politics by building a mirror image of it.”

Watch Full Speech

Critical Social Justice and Its Cognitive Distortions: Diagnosing the Liberal’s Poor Mental Health

In a new paper, Arnoldo Cantú and Nathan Gallo explore the relationship between ideology and mental health. Drawing on concepts from Cognitive Behavioral Therapy, the authors examine how certain patterns of thinking embedded within contemporary social frameworks may reinforce cognitive distortions and shape psychological well-being.

Their paper offers an alternative perspective on rising rates of psychiatric diagnoses and invites further discussion about the connections between cognition, culture, and mental health.

"In addition to the distortions listed, a throughline that can certainly cut across the entire ideology is that of the certainty trap: “A pervasive cognitive distortion that leads individuals to treat their knowledge and beliefs as definitive and final rather than provisional, particularly regarding contentious social and political issues”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

FAIR in Charleston: Bringing Many Stories, One Nation to School Board Leaders

Fair For All — Fri, 12 Jun 2026 11:31:01 GMT

Dear Friends of FAIR,

We’re thrilled to announce that FAIR will be attending the School Boards for Academic Excellence (SBAE) Summer Conference in Charleston, South Carolina. The event brings together school board members and education leaders from across the country who are navigating complex curriculum decisions for K-12 students. This will be an important opportunity for FAIR to introduce Many Stories, One Nation to those who often hold the greatest power in adoption conversations — and to show them a path to Ethnic Studies instruction without the polarization that has derailed adoption efforts in many communities.

Charleston itself holds particular significance this year. The historic city’s role in both America’s founding and the transatlantic slave trade illustrates the competing narratives that have often defined our national story. As our nation marks the 250th anniversary of its independence, Charleston reminds us that understanding America’s heritage requires grappling with competing narratives: the ideals enshrined in the Declaration of Independence alongside the lived realities of enslaved people, settlers, and immigrants whose stories are often omitted or minimized in textbooks. That complexity is not something we should dismiss or ignore; it’s the foundation of responsible and educated citizenship.

The question for education leaders is: how do we teach these stories in a way that brings communities together rather than dividing them? That question is what inspired FAIR to assemble our team of educators to create Many Stories, One Nation.

Our work in California, Oregon, and Minnesota has taught us that decisions about Ethnic Studies adoption are rarely made by educators alone. Administrators and school board members, too, have legitimate stakes in what students are taught, yet these stakeholders often operate in a vacuum. They face pressure to choose curricula, but lack the information they need to evaluate these options critically.

School boards want a curriculum that won’t create controversy — and won’t sanitize history. Does it reflect their community’s values? Will it prepare students for college and careers? Will parents be skeptical, and how will board members address their concerns? They want assurance that their adoption efforts won’t invite backlash in their communities.

In Charleston, we’ll have direct conversations with education leaders about how Many Stories, One Nation addresses the real pressures they face. We’ll walk them through lesson materials and explore what adoption will look like in their districts.

Board members gain confidence when they understand FAIR’s unique approach: students learn not just that groups experienced history differently, but why. Through primary sources and civil discourse methodology, Many Stories, One Nation teaches students to engage deeply with difficult history without the ideological freight that often triggers parent complaints. FAIR’s curriculum gives school boards what they need to lead: Ethnic Studies material that’s academically rigorous and defensible in their communities.

Board members are navigating pressures most people don’t see: the need for rigorous instruction, community trust, and curricula that won’t undermine their credibility. FAIR is bringing a solution specifically designed to address those pressures. This is partnership-building at the level where it matters most. Stay tuned — we’ll share what we learn from these conversations in Charleston in our next update!

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

The War on Words: A Conversation with Nadine Strossen

From college campuses to corporate boardrooms to the chambers of Congress, the pressure to restrict speech is intensifying, and it’s coming from every direction. Nadine Strossen and Greg Lukianoff have heard every argument for censorship, and they take each one apart in their new book, The War On Words: 10 Arguments Against Free Speech―And Why They Fail.

Join Fair For All’s Executive Director Monica Harris on Thursday June 11th, 4pm PT / 7pm ET, for a conversation with Strossen, a member of FAIR’s Board of Advisors and former ACLU president, as they dissect the case for censorship and what it will take to defend free expression in an era that is increasingly hostile to it.

This webinar will be livestreamed on FAIR’s X, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Zoom.

The Canadian Free Speech Crisis with Lisa Bildy

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

These are exactly the conversations America needs now, and we are committed to modeling them. Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

FAIR Educators Alliance 2025-2026

Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 7 PM ET via Zoom Duration: 1 hour

Join Us!

Join the FAIR Community

Wildcard: On Authorship and Refusing the Script

Johari Mayfield — Thu, 11 Jun 2026 11:31:08 GMT

The first time I approached the story of Saartjie Baartman, I built a cage around the audience. It was a sound cage — an attempt to make the audience feel, even for a moment, what it might mean to be placed on display. My movements triggered a sound loop that repeated through the room as the choreography continued. Beat after beat, the structure relied on repetition until sensation overtook comfort. In her time, Baartman was displayed throughout Europe objectified and exhibited as a curiosity for audiences eager to consume difference. I wanted to trouble the act of looking itself. I set out to haunt the conscience of the room. Instead, I found myself haunted.

Beneath the concept of exploring objectification and discomfort was something more personal. A tell-tale heart — a sound that grows louder the more you try to contain it. I believed that if I engineered the structure precisely enough, the meaning would land — that scale would intensify truth. Instead, the performance structure exposed me. During one performance, the loop cut out. The repetition vanished — and with it the cool effect that made the work seem innovative. The floor went silent. I stood there, aware that the audience was no longer watching the concept. They were watching me. In frustration, I broke the fourth wal l— not as strategy, but as ego. I cussed out the audience — not at them, but because I had just ruined my own piece.

From the ruins of the piece, I had a realization. It is easier to accuse spectatorship than to examine one’s own role in it. I was trying to make something architecturally airtight and intellectually impressive. If I am honest, I was also trying to sound smart. The work did not falter because it lacked ambition. It faltered because I had not yet aligned myself with what I was asking the work to hold.

Saartjie Baartman’s name carries historical weight. A South African woman, she was exhibited in 19th-century Europe under dehumanizing conditions. Ultimately, her body became a spectacle and taxonomy. For artists, that symbolism is potent and opens urgent conversations about race, power, and objectification. As I continued researching her experience, something unsettled me. My lived experience as a contemporary Black American woman did not mirror Baartman’s historical conditions. I could study her life. I could feel proximity to her story. But proximity is not equivalence.

Around that same time, I was volunteering with young people who had survived sexual exploitation. Listening to them shifted something fundamental. In their stories, I heard echoes of lives that felt closer to Baartman’s historical reality than to my own. The recognition was sobering. One question kept returning: Was I constructing work around inherited suffering that was not fully mine to perform? Instead of abandoning the project, I complicated it.

I met a visual artist willing to imagine Baartman differently. Together we began rewriting her —not as a specimen or tragic emblem, but as a superhero in a mini zine titled Wildcard. Saartjie, or Lady Sarah, was self-possessed, wry, powerful, and refused containment.

In a deck of cards, a wildcard does not belong to a single suit. It can shift value. It can alter the direction of the game without overturning the table. The name felt right. Baartman’s historical image had been fixed — categorized, labeled, contained. A wildcard refuses fixed placement. It introduces movement into systems that prefer certainty.

And still, I wrestled with form.

At one stage, I borrowed the beat from L’il Mama’s Lip Gloss and looped it until the room leaned forward. I understood what that rhythm carries — shine, visibility, consumability, and I let the complexity sit there. I bopped to it, and so did the audience. A rhythm can celebrate presence. It can also shrink Black women into surface. That tension lived inside the work.

I stitched body parts into the choreography as fragments layered onto fragments, intending to critique the dissection and display imposed on Black bodies. Yet in doing so, I confronted how easily critique can mirror the structure it seeks to expose. The piece had become a creature assembled from theory, history, sound, and ego. The gloss shimmered, but the question of alignment did not disappear.

In later iterations, the work shifted tone. I presented Wildcard in academic and community spaces where satire replaced immersion. The setting became Club Afterlife: a liminal space where history loosens its grip long enough to be examined differently. Here women of history who have faced undue objectification could imagine a new end to their stories.

Marie Antoinette and Saartjie Baartman were not adversaries. They were unlikely companions — two women shaped by spectacle in different centuries, comparing notes — yet history had flattened them into symbols. In this imagined afterlife, they could speak.

The metaphor was simple: Can you perform a whole-bodied act in parts? Can you separate intellect from flesh, head from torso, history from body — and still succeed? Marie strategizes. She intellectualizes. At one point, she even removes her head, determined to prove that thought alone can win. She still loses. Saartjie stays intact. The body refuses fragmentation.

At one conference, I invited the audience to test the theory. We found ourselves — academics in sensible shoes included — bending backward beneath an imaginary bar in a hotel ballroom. It was slightly absurd. But it was also clarifying. We were all trying very hard to understand embodiment. Then we had to embody it. Embodiment cannot be footnoted. Integration cannot be compartmentalized.

In the years following the pandemic, conversations around identity and representation intensified across artistic spaces. Statements often came before movement. Language grew sharper. Expectations became more explicit. I felt the subtle pressure to position myself before I moved — to define my place in the conversation before making the work. Instead, I found myself asking a quieter question: Was I aligned with the work I was making? Not politically aligned. Not rhetorically aligned. Ethically aligned. Nearly nine years of sobriety have taught me the difference between intensity and clarity. I know what heat feels like. I also know what quiet feels like. If Wildcard was going to survive, it needed alignment — not proximity to trauma, not institutional approval.

Before literary ghosts entered the room, the name Faulkner already lived in my family. My great-grandmother was Marie Faulkner. The story began at a kitchen table long before it entered theory. Choosing the pen name M. Octavia Faulkner was not an attempt to borrow weight. The “M.” holds two lineages — my great-grandmother Marie, and Mary Shelley, whose stitched creature once echoed in my studio experiments. Blood and imagination. Inheritance and invention.

Wildcard is evolving into a larger work — part satire, part embodied inquiry- and what I call a “satirical séance.” Unlike the private haunting of misalignment, this séance is communal. It invites participants to call history into the room not to reenact spectacle, but to examine it together. The workshops that accompany the piece are designed as spaces of reconnection rather than division. Through movement, dialogue, and humor, participants explore what it means to remain whole — to resist fragmentation in their own thinking and bodies. The aim is not accusation, but integration. Wholeness is not achieved in isolation; it is practiced in relationship.

The FAIR Artist Grant supports this developmental stage: rehearsal time, collaboration, embodied testing. Applying did not feel like chasing validation. Receiving the grant did not feel like triumph. It felt like seeking and making room. Room to draft. Room to test. Room to build without constructing another cage. Saartjie — Lady Sarah — is no longer displayed. No longer compartmentalized. No longer engineered.

FAIR’s support allows Wildcard to move from concept into embodied experimentation, where these questions live not just on the page, but also in the body and in the community. The tell-tale heart I once tried to engineer into the floor was never Baartman’s alone. It was my own misalignment, beating louder each time I tried to bury it beneath structure, theory, or spectacle. I mistook intensity for truth. I mistook volume for clarity. Alignment does not silence the heart. It steadies it. Fully whole, she wins, we all win — and in her wholeness we are reminded that none of us stand intact alone. The script is still in progress. The stage is waiting.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 07 Jun 2026 11:30:43 GMT

When Conscience Meets Compelled Speech

This week, we highlighted the story of Laureen Boll, a Colorado fitness instructor who says she has been forced to choose between her job and her conscience. After her employer adopted a policy requiring the use of preferred names and pronouns, Boll informed her employer that she would treat everyone with dignity and respect — but would not be compelled to speak against her sincerely held beliefs.

Her story raises broader questions about free speech, freedom of conscience, and how society can balance inclusion with the rights of individuals to hold and express differing views.

“…two things can be true at once: every person deserves to be treated with fairness and dignity — and no one should be required by the government, or a taxpayer-funded employer, to affirm beliefs they do not hold. These principles are not in conflict. They are both essential to a free society.”

Read the Full Article

White Guilt Silenced Henry Nowak

FAIR Board of Advisors member and filmmaker Eli Steele, reflects on the death of British teenager Henry Nowak and the public response that followed. Steele argues that the case raises difficult questions about race, media attention, and whether society applies the same standards of empathy and scrutiny across different groups. The essay explores how identity-based narratives can shape public perception and challenges readers to consider what a truly consistent commitment to justice would require.

“My father, Shelby Steele, has argued for years that white guilt is not merely a feeling but the accusation that whites are collectively guilty for the past racial sins of the West. The fear of this accusation drives whites to dissociate from these past sins by seeking ally-ship with people of color. Everybody is trapped in a script with whites eternally the oppressor, people of color eternally the oppressed.”

Read Full Article

Why You Should Be a Techno-Skeptic

Social psychologist and FAIR Board of Advisors member Jonathan Haidt argues that the growing role of technology in childhood raises important questions about early development, education, and human connection. Drawing from research on social media, educational technology, and AI, he makes the case for a more cautious approach—one that prioritizes children’s development, real-world relationships, and opportunities for independent growth. Haidt’s talk is a reminder that innovation and human flourishing are not always the same thing. New technologies should be evaluated not only for what they can do, but for how they shape the lives of the people who use them.

“...human beings are ultrasocial creatures who need to matter to one another in order to flourish. We are so brilliant that we’ve invented technologies that can replace us, that can take us out of each other’s lives. But human connection is not optional. It’s who we are.”

Read the Full Article

Must U.S. and U.K. women be forced to change clothes in front of men?

Kara Dansky explores the case of Scottish nurse Sandie Peggie, who was suspended after objecting to the presence of a transgender-identifying colleague in a women's changing room. The dispute has become a focal point in the broader debate over sex-segregated spaces, workplace accommodations, and competing rights claims. As courts and policymakers continue to wrestle with these questions, the case highlights the challenge of balancing privacy, dignity, and inclusion while maintaining space for open and respectful public discussion.

"Eight years after “Me Too,” women are being…gaslighted into believing that if we have a problem with men in our intimate spaces, we are actually the problem. We are being told that we must simply deal with men’s indecent exposure and voyeurism if they call themselves women."

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

When Conscience Meets Compelled Speech

Fair For All — Fri, 05 Jun 2026 11:30:31 GMT

Dear Friends of FAIR,

This week, we shared the story of Laureen Boll, a substitute fitness instructor at South Suburban Parks and Recreation District (SSPRD) in the south Denver metro area. By her own description, she is not an activist; she is a mom, a fitness professional, and a person who simply wants to do her job.

Now her job is at risk — not because of anything she did, but because of something she refuses to say.

SSPRD recently updated its harassment policy to include the “deliberate use of the wrong name or gender pronouns.” For Laureen, complying would mean affirming beliefs she does not hold about gender identity. She treats every patron and coworker with courtesy and professionalism, and she uses neutral language wherever possible. But she will not be compelled to speak words she believes to be false. So she formally notified her employer of her refusal — and FAIR stood with her.

In March, FAIR sent a formal letter to SSPRD leadership putting the district on notice: compelling employees to use language that violates their sincerely held beliefs implicates the First Amendment, and FAIR is prepared to pursue legal remedies if Laureen faces discipline or termination as a result. We have not yet received a response from the district.

Laureen’s situation isn’t happening in a vacuum, and SSPRD is not the villain here; it is merely following Colorado state law. But that law, HB 25-1312 (the Kelly Loving Act), has pushed the state into genuinely difficult constitutional territory. The Act expands the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to treat chosen names and preferred pronouns as protected aspects of “gender expression.” Refuse to use them in employment or public accommodations, and you risk a discrimination claim.

The result is that well-meaning public employers like SSPRD are caught in an untenable position: comply with the statute and risk infringing on the First Amendment rights of employees, or protect those constitutional rights and risk a confrontation with the state Civil Rights Commission. That isn’t a choice any employer should be forced to make, and it’s not a position any employee should be forced into simply for declining to affirm a contested ideological claim.

Like Laureen, FAIR believes that two things can be true at once: every person deserves to be treated with fairness and dignity — and no one should be required by the government, or a taxpayer-funded employer, to affirm beliefs they do not hold. These principles are not in conflict. They are both essential to a free society.

Laureen is standing her ground. FAIR is standing with her. We will keep you informed as this situation develops.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

The War on Words: A Conversation with Nadine Strossen

This webinar will be livestreamed on FAIR’s X, Facebook, LinkedIn, YouTube, and Zoom.

The Canadian Free Speech Crisis with Lisa Bildy

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

These are exactly the conversations America needs now, and we are committed to modeling them. Sessions will run monthly through September 23rd. We hope you’ll join us!

FAIR Educators Alliance 2025-2026

Meetings: First Thursday of each month at 7 PM ET via Zoom Duration: 1 hour

Join Us!

Join the FAIR Community

Between Conscience and Compliance: Why I’m Standing Up for Speech Rights in Colorado

Laureen Boll — Thu, 04 Jun 2026 11:31:31 GMT

I consider myself a law-abiding person. I’ve never seen a jail cell, I’ve never been sued. I’ve gotten one speeding ticket (I was driving to the airport and was concerned I would miss my flight) and two parking tickets (both times were unintentional). I begrudgingly pay my taxes — on time and always respect the rights of others.

So why am I, of all people, formally notifying my employer that I won’t comply with their policy on “respectful treatment” in the workplace? Because it demands that I use names and pronouns to affirm a gender identity I do not believe exists. My refusal isn’t about disrespect. It’s about refusing to let the government, or my taxpayer-funded employer, force me to speak words I do not believe.

I work as a substitute fitness instructor for South Suburban Parks and Recreation District (SSPRD) in south metro Denver. I’ve been there for several years, teaching a few classes a month. I love this job! The recreation centers are community hubs where people of all ages come to move, sweat, connect, and feel alive. There’s joy in the air, but also real responsibility: I’m recertified in first aid every two years because instructors have literally saved lives when patrons suffer heart attacks or strokes mid-workout. Safety isn’t optional here. It’s part of the community culture.

SSPRD recently updated its definition of harassment to include the “deliberate use of the wrong name or gender pronouns.” Under this policy, a woman who objects to undressing alongside a trans-identifying male in the women’s locker room — or who simply voices discomfort — now risks being accused of harassment. These are not abstract concerns. Locker rooms and restrooms are spaces where women and girls are at their most physically vulnerable. The expectation of privacy is not a preference; it’s a fundamental aspect of human dignity that the law is now stripping away. The district is simply following state law, but that law has pushed Colorado into dangerous territory.

Living in this state feels increasingly surreal. Colorado’s governing majority has made it crystal clear: the feelings of the LGBTQ community must be protected at almost any cost. No hurt feelings. No perceived slights. No “misgendering.” Ever. The message is that immutable sex, as well as the privacy and safety needs of women and girls in sex-segregated spaces, — must take a back seat. If you’re a woman like me who believes that sex is a biological reality determined by chromosomes, not feelings, and that locker rooms, restrooms, and sports should reflect that reality, you’re the problem. You’re the one who must be retrained, silenced, or punished.

This isn’t balance. It’s ideology enforced by law. This is compelled speech, and it has gone too far. Constitutional scholar Jonathan Turley recently called Colorado “arguably the most anti-free speech state in the union.” In a recent opinion piece, he documented how the state’s latest law — HB 25-1312, the so-called Kelly Loving Act — expands the Colorado Anti-Discrimination Act to treat “chosen names” and preferred pronouns as protected aspects of “gender expression.” Refuse to play along in employment or public accommodations, and you risk a discrimination claim. Turley sees this as part of a broader, relentless pattern: Colorado keeps passing laws that compel speech, punish dissent, and test the limits of the First Amendment — only to lose in federal court again and again.

I’m not a lawyer or an activist. I’m a mom, a fitness instructor, and a woman who simply wants to do her job without being forced to overlook basic biology. I will treat every patron and coworker with basic courtesy and professionalism. I will use neutral language where possible. But I will not affirm what I believe to be false. And I will not quietly accept that women must surrender our privacy in locker rooms and restrooms to accommodate a trans-identifying man’s feelings.

This is why FAIR sent a letter to SSPRD leadership on my behalf in March. The letter puts SSPRD on notice that compelling employees to use language that violates their sincerely held beliefs implicates the First Amendment, and that FAIR is prepared to pursue legal remedies if the district moves to discipline or terminate me for my refusal. I will not comply with any directive that compels me to speak against my conscience. I remain fully committed to performing every other aspect of my job. If the district chooses to discipline or terminate me for this, I am prepared to defend my rights under the First Amendment.

The Colorado Legislature has determined that compelling speech on a contested ideological matter is a legitimate condition of employment. They have decided that one group’s emotional comfort outweighs everyone else’s speech rights and physical safety. And they have put every taxpayer-funded public entity in an extraordinarily difficult position: either comply with the statute and risk infringing on the First Amendment rights of employees and patrons, or prioritize those constitutional protections and prepare for a potential confrontation with the state Civil Rights Commission. It is unfortunate that well-meaning employers like SSPRD are caught in the middle of this broader legal and cultural conflict.

Two things can be true at once: every person deserves to be treated fairly and with dignity, and no one should be required by the government or their employer to affirm beliefs they do not hold. I hope that the Colorado Legislature comes to that understanding sooner than later.

We welcome you to share your thoughts on this piece in the comments below. Click here to view our comment section moderation policy.

The opinions expressed here do not necessarily reflect those of Fair For All or its employees.

We are actively seeking perspectives on this topic and others. If you’d like to join the conversation, please send completed drafts to submissions@fairforall.org.

Weekly Roundup

Fair For All — Sun, 31 May 2026 13:31:09 GMT

The sudden death of literature — and why we must save it

In this week's featured essay, author Kimberley Tait traces a decade-long transformation in literary publishing, from the rise of sensitivity readers and identity-based gatekeeping to the unchecked infiltration of AI-generated fiction, and argues that both forces are symptoms of the same underlying disease: the displacement of beauty, truth, and the human voice by compliance and ideology. Tait founded Dogstar Press as a direct response, launching a 100% Human seal to authenticate fiction written entirely by people. Her essay is a passionate, personal defense of literature as a sacred and irreducibly human art form.

A lifelong believer that literature is the expression of the human soul — divinely inspired to illuminate the human condition and offer meaning and light in pain and darkness — I wasn’t willing to alter my work to meet external standards. Pitching my new novel, I ran straight into the brick wall of gatekeepers, who told me my writing didn’t honor the current political and social climate, lacking relevance and committing the ultimate crime of insensitivity. Yielding to others’ sensitivities, expectations, or ideologies betrays that enlightenment and puts a stranglehold on the creative process. This leads to more and more homogeneous and theatrical literature, with authors more concerned about offending people and saying the ‘right thing’ than producing beautiful and genuine art.”

Read the Full Article

The Settlement That Admits Antisemitism Is Real

FAIR Board of Advisors member and filmmaker Eli Steele, whose documentary Killing America documented antisemitism at Menlo-Atherton High School in California, responds to a landmark settlement this week between a group of parents and the Sequoia Union High School District. The settlement requires the district to explicitly name antisemitism as a prohibited form of discrimination, adopt a definition that includes denying Jewish self-determination as a form of antisemitism, and designate the Israel-Palestine conflict as a “controversial issue” requiring impartial classroom treatment. For Steele, the settlement is a vindication — but an incomplete one. The ideology that enabled the antisemitism, he argues, remains embedded in the curriculum.

“This settlement is one of the clearest acknowledgments yet that antisemitism in our public schools is real, systemic, and can no longer be brushed aside with slogans about ‘equity’ and ‘inclusion.’ Ethnic studies, as implemented across California, pushes variations of this oppressor-oppressed model grounded in liberation ideology, and it has given antisemitism its intellectual and moral cover. Within that framework, Jewish students are placed in the ‘white’ box. Their history as a persecuted people is erased. Their ancestral identity is flattened into a racial category of convenience. But Jews are far from the only ones harmed by this. The American, the individual, is most harmed. Anytime you see the word ‘studies’ — black studies, chicano studies, ethnic studies — you are looking at the institutionalized study of victimization. The worthy victory of the settlement fixes the district. But the ideology still remains in the classroom and in the minds of many. That is the next fight.”

Read the Full Article

Free Speech and Respect for Student Autonomy

Political science professor Ronald Den Otter argues, drawing on his new book, that the strongest case for protecting student speech is not merely constitutional but philosophical: restricting what students can say is fundamentally incompatible with respect for their autonomy as developing individuals. Den Otter contends that paternalistic censorship — the idea that school authorities know better than students what ideas they should be exposed to — stunts intellectual growth, undermines self-reliance, and treats teenagers as incapable of the very reasoning they are in school to develop. The piece is a timely reminder that free expression in schools is not just a legal question but a moral one.

"Simply put, censorship at a public school is incompatible with respect for the autonomy of each student. When you treat teenage students as children in junior high or high school, including policing their speech, they will act like children. Nobody learns how to become more independent and responsible by being told what to do. Restrictions on speech stunt intellectual growth, self-reflection, and the acquisition of knowledge, thereby undermining the development of the autonomous capacities that help to make us who we are."

Read the Full Article

Greg Lukianoff: ‘The Worst of Both Worlds’ for Campus Free Speech

Greg Lukianoff, president of the Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE), delivered a sharp diagnosis of the state of free expression at American universities at a Dartmouth Dialogues event this week. Lukianoff argued that higher education is now caught between two illiberal forces: the "2020-style cancel culture" that punishes faculty and students for heterodox views, and the Trump administration's "unprecedented targeting" of universities for political purposes. The result, he said, is a "terrible mess" — the worst of both worlds for anyone who cares about open inquiry. His prescription: genuine viewpoint diversity among faculty, and a commitment to "radical open-mindedness" that treats even deeply offensive ideas as worthy of engagement rather than suppression.

"We're still seeing old school, as in 2020-style, cancel culture campaigns against students and professors who step out of line in some cases. But we're also seeing massive efforts from politicians on the right to go after professors and students who say things they don't like. Higher education absolutely needs reform, but any reform must comply with the First Amendment and academic freedom. This kind of group-think leads to less intellectual honesty and consequently less trust in higher education."

Read the Full Article

Safetyism Has Made Society Terrified of Disagreement

Writing in Spiked, political analyst Stefano Gujon examines how "safetyism," the doctrine that intellectual discomfort constitutes harm, has spread from university campuses into companies, media, and public life, with measurable and damaging results. Citing FIRE data showing that 42 percent of American university faculty self-censor during classroom discussions, a rate roughly four times higher than during the McCarthy era, Gujon argues that the institutions meant to defend free thought have become breeding grounds for illiberal conformism. The piece draws directly on the work of FAIR Advisors Jonathan Haidt and Greg Lukianoff, whose concept of "safetyism" is at the center of his analysis.

“We’re still seeing old school, as in 2020-style, cancel culture campaigns against students and professors who step out of line in some cases. But we’re also seeing massive efforts from politicians on the right to go after professors and students who say things they don’t like. Higher education absolutely needs reform, but any reform must comply with the First Amendment and academic freedom. This kind of group-think leads to less intellectual honesty and consequently less trust in higher education.”

Read the Full Article