Check out the mission statement or strategic plan of most public or academic libraries, and you will swiftly encounter the near-universal assertion that libraries should strive to “create an inclusive environment.” For example, the Strategic Plan of the Brantford (Ontario) Public Library declares that “[a]n inclusive environment, where diverse backgrounds, identities and perspectives are valued” is essential to its role in the community. Some libraries have gone further and developed entire “inclusion policy statements,” such as the “Diversity and Inclusion Policy” of Hamilton (Ontario) Public Library. The library literature is similarly replete with commitments to inclusion, often in the context of providing equal opportunities for persons experiencing a disability, meeting diverse needs in facility design, welcoming seniors and integrating new immigrants.

These forms of inclusion are very positive and necessary. Most library professionals—and indeed the vast majority of the library-using public—will surely see nothing objectionable in such declarations. After all, who could oppose including all members of the public in publicly-funded libraries? If this is all the term “inclusion” means, then there should be no problem in championing it as a core professional value.

However, what few people understand is that the term inclusion is being used in professional and academic contexts to justify two rather different objectives. James Lindsay, writing at the New Discourses website, articulates the distinction between the two interpretations of inclusion as “not exclud[ing] anybody” on the one hand, and on the other a critical social justice commitment to welcoming marginalized groups by “silencing certain ideas like conservatism, meritocracy, or support for freedom of speech.” The first interpretation is integral to the mission of the public library; the second represents a potential conflict with laws governing free speech and the principle of intellectual freedom.

The first sense—being welcoming to everyone—has long been a core commitment of librarianship, and we see it articulated in the American Library Association’s 1939 Library Bill of Rights. The bill states that “A person’s right to use a library should not be denied or abridged because of origin, age, background, or views.” Over the decades this recognition has expanded to removing barriers to accessibility, and ensuring that libraries are inclusive of persons with disabilities.

This historic view of inclusion contrasts with that espoused over the past couple of decades by critical and radical librarianship—which advocates for broadening the scope of inclusion to encompass matters of race, sexuality and gender identity in pursuit of social justice. This version of inclusion fuels a more activist approach to librarianship. For example, the Inclusion Policy of the Oakville (Ontario) Public Library vows to “actively challenge and break down systemic oppression,” while the Equity, Diversity and Inclusion Policy of the London (Ontario) Public Library, commits to “apply[ing] an anti-racism and anti-oppression lens to our purpose, values [and] strategic plan…”

These opposing views constitute what Stephen Macdonald calls a “Values War” in librarianship between neutrality and interventionism. To establish the nature of this “war,” Macdonald cites a 2022 article I co-wrote with John Wright, in which we articulate two distinct definitions of neutrality: a mistaken ontological belief that libraries are neutral, and a normative ethical commitment that the library worker should strive to carry out their duties in a neutral fashion. Furthermore, we specified that neutrality referred to personal and institutional values, the library’s stakeholders, transparent processes, and respect for the goals of the user. It is this latter version that we recommended, arguing that in diverse, multicultural, and multifaith societies such as ours, activism on the part of the library worker to advance their favored socio-political cause or group risks alienating at least some of those diverse constituencies.

This sense of neutrality and universality is reflected in the Canadian Federation of Library Associations’ “Position Statement on Diversity and Inclusion” which asserts that “Libraries act to ensure that people can enjoy services free from any attempt by others to impose values, customs or beliefs.” However, the critical social justice version of inclusion risks excluding books or speakers to which favored groups might object, and adjudicating rights claims unequally.

Such was the case in an incident at the Mary L. Stephens Davis Library in Davis, California (a branch of the Yolo County Library) in August of 2023: A young woman defending women-only sports and sex-based rights (also known as gender-critical feminism) as part of a program entitled “Forum on Fair and Safe Sport for Girls” (a Moms for Liberty event) was ejected from the program room by the library’s regional director for referring to trans-identified athletes as “males” and “biological men.” The incident sparked a lawsuit filed by the Alliance Defending Freedom, resulting in the library agreeing to change their policy and allow Moms for Liberty to hold their event. Additionally, the library paid the claimants $70,000 in damages and legal fees. Earlier that same year, the London (Ontario) Public Library system cancelled an event sponsored by the Society for Academic Freedom and Scholarship (SAFS) because their speaker Dr. Joanna Williams was to deliver a free public talk entitled “Sex, Gender, and the Limits of Free Speech on Campus.” The Library claimed (with no small irony) that the subject matter would violate their commitment to “anti-oppression” and so the Society was forced to move the event to another venue.

Furthermore, (and as I’ve previously written at Heterodoxy in the Stacks), some librarians have been practicing “shadow banning” of works they find objectionable by refusing to purchase them at all or in sufficient numbers to meet demand. Academic librarians in particular have, in large numbers, publicly disavowed efforts to represent gender-critical perspectives in libraries, whether through adult collections (e.g., purchasing copies of Abigail Shrier’s Irreversible Damage) or public speaking events (e.g., Toronto Public Library hosting Meghan Murphy in 2019). I have therefore argued that

[a]cting with such prejudice towards a particular point of view risks our social license as professionals, the permission granted by the public to act in their interest. For…members of the public, shadow-banning controversial materials concerning gender ideology results in a situation where—as fired Niagara-on-the-Lake Public Library CEO Cathy Simpson argues—the “‘freedom to read’ has come to mean the freedom to read what certain librarians have decided you should have the freedom to read.”

These examples illustrate how “inclusive” policies can result, ironically, in a form of exclusion. In applying this social justice lens to library policy, librarians can end up imposing their own world views onto the craft and seeking to champion diversity and inclusion through the removal of ideas they view as harmful. All other things being equal, however, holding unpopular views–even those some find offensive–is not grounds for censorship.

The public library as an institution has always embraced and trained its workers to expect and accommodate conflicting views. As the Canadian Federation of Library Associations acknowledges, “an acceptance of differences can place individual and collective values in conflict.” For this reason, institutions like public libraries simply cannot embrace a particular political agenda or adopt and champion the grievances of one group, while at the same professing to provide a welcoming environment to diverse, multicultural, multiethnic, and multifaith communities–who will (inevitably) not universally share those priorities.

The problem is not that some public libraries are explicitly positioning their inclusion policies as either “neutral” or “interventionist,” but rather that this distinction isn’t widely recognized. As a result, it’s not difficult to imagine a public library inclusion policy stating both that it strives to be “welcoming to everyone” while also adopting an explicitly “anti-oppression” lens in order to “dismantle systems of oppression,” while not realizing how incompatible these approaches can be in practice.

To be clear, these do not, in policy terms, represent distinctly-articulated and mutually-exclusive approaches, but rather positions existing on a spectrum, whereby an institution leans either in the direction of neutrality or interventionist radicalism. For example, a library espousing neutrality is still capable of recognizing that not all users or user communities come from the same backgrounds, economic capacities, or abilities, and may require extra attention in terms of policies or facilities so that all are afforded equal opportunities to access information. At the other end of the spectrum, political favoritism for one constituency can end up excluding the interests of other groups, resulting in library spaces not only lacking in diversity of ideas but in actually physically removing people from the library for espousing those ideas.

The rights which librarians have always professed to defend, including the freedom to read and the commitment to securing the intellectual freedom of our users, stand jeopardized. If “inclusion” actually means excluding books, ideas, and legal speech that we believe one group may find offensive–or which we personally oppose for ideological reasons–then librarianship as a publicly-trusted profession risks becoming delegitimized in the eyes of the tax-paying public. If public libraries are to promote equal opportunities for users while avoiding being drawn into identitarian conflicts, it matters a great deal what principles libraries choose to include in their definition of “inclusion.” How these centers of knowledge and community understand inclusion can determine which worldviews are allowed to remain, and which are unduly silenced.

Share

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.

Donate

The Artist’s Obligation is to the Work

By KJP Howes, Interim Director of FAIR in Arts, reflects on what FAIR has come to mean to her as an artist and why spaces that protect artistic freedom are increasingly important. Howes describes FAIR as a community where people can disagree, question, and debate while maintaining civility, mutual respect, and a shared commitment to art for art’s sake. She argues that artists should be free to follow their ideas wherever they lead, explore complexity, and tell the truth as they see it without having to make their work politically useful or conform to prevailing cultural expectations.

“There is enormous pressure today for artists to become activists and for works of art to affirm particular social or political perspectives. But activism is not the artist’s obligation.

The artist’s obligation is to the work. To follow an idea wherever it leads. To tell the truth as the artist sees it. To illuminate contradictions rather than conceal them. To explore the complexity of human beings rather than reduce them to categories. I believe that is the kind of art that needs to be protected and supported.”

Read the Full Article

AGAINST SELF CENSORSHIP IN THE ARTS

Heather Shayne Blakeslee examines how cultural and political pressures can cause artists to censor themselves before their work is even made. Through her conversation with painter Charles Browning, Blakeslee explores how concerns over identity, representation, and who is “allowed” to tell certain stories can leave artists questioning whether they should create at all. She argues that artists need the freedom to follow their creative instincts, take risks, and explore unfamiliar territory without being constrained by the expectations of the moment.

“In the ’90s, Browning felt that he’d become stuck as an artist, and that maybe no one needed his voice, thinking to himself, “White men have had plenty of space to speak,” he told me. Other white male artists I’ve spoken with have also become so absorbed in a certain kind of progressive worldview about whose voice should be lifted and whose we don’t need to hear from that they considered not making art anymore. I find this a troubling phenomenon, not least of which because the amount of art that should be made is not finite, nor is there a finite number of souls who deserve to make it.”

Read the Full Article

THE CASUALTIES OF THE CULTURE WAR

Angel Eduardo explores what happens to art when everything is expected to serve a political purpose. Eduardo argues that artists need the freedom to create work that is strange, challenging, beautiful, or simply human—not art designed to “further the cause.” When ideological conformity becomes the standard by which art is judged, we risk losing the experimentation, complexity, and dissent that make art valuable in the first place.

“We also need institutions that are viewpoint neutral, so that the rebels, nonconformists, oddballs, kooks, and contrarians have the chance to contribute something without having to tick identity boxes or fulfill ideological requirements. We need works that stir something in us, that cause us to stop and think, that get us roaring with laughter and seething with rage. It’s all valuable. It’s all necessary. It’s all human.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

FAIR has submitted a comprehensive comment letter to the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) supporting its investigation into The Walt Disney Company for potential unlawful employment discrimination practices related to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs.

In March, the FCC opened a public docket following evidence that Disney has systematically prioritized demographic characteristics over individual merit in hiring, promotion, and content decisions. FAIR argues that Disney’s practices violate both federal civil rights law and the FCC’s public interest standards for broadcast licensees.

FAIR’s letter addresses two interconnected problems. First, Disney’s explicit racial and gender targeting in recruitment, measurable demographic quotas in hiring and promotion, and performance evaluations tied to “diversity metrics” constitute unlawful employment discrimination. The Supreme Court’s recent decision in Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard made clear that using race as a factor in decision-making, even with good intentions, violates equal protection principles.

The individuals harmed are clear: those denied opportunities because they don’t fit demographic targets, and those hired partly on the basis of race or sex rather than qualifications. But the harm extends beyond individual employees. When advancement is conditioned partly on demographic representation, the workplace message is inescapable: merit is secondary to identity.

Second, and equally important, Disney’s DEI infrastructure threatens editorial independence. The FCC has long recognized that broadcast licenses carry a “public trustee” obligation. Licensees must serve the public interest, which includes ensuring that a broad spectrum of viewpoints is represented in news, entertainment, and children’s programming.

When hiring, promotion, and content decisions are filtered through DEI metrics, an ideological test replaces editorial judgment. Producers, writers, and on-air talent are selected not solely based on talent and vision, but in part on demographic alignment and ideological conformity with the company’s stated commitments. The result is narrower, not broader, viewpoint diversity, particularly around issues of identity, equity, and race.

FAIR’s filing argues that this isn’t simply an internal corporate matter. Disney holds broadcast licenses for ABC and affiliated stations granted by the FCC in trust for the public. Those licenses require compliance with federal civil rights law and service in the public interest.

If the FCC investigation finds violations, the consequences can and should extend beyond Disney. FAIR’s filing calls on the FCC to use this investigation as a clear signal to all broadcasters that employment discrimination and ideological conformity, even when framed as diversity and inclusion, will be subject to enforcement action.

When large corporations condition employment on demographic conformity and use that conformity to shape what millions of Americans see and hear, they narrow the marketplace of ideas and institutionalize orthodoxy while claiming to advance inclusion.

FAIR has always believed that civil rights law protects everyone — not as a function of demographic category, but as a matter of principle. That principle is now being tested in the FCC docket. The Commission’s response will signal whether equal protection means what it says, and whether viewpoint diversity is something the FCC actually intends to protect.

Holding major institutions accountable to equal protection law requires resources — legal expertise, strategic filing, sustained pressure. If you share FAIR’s commitment to equal protection for all, please consider making a gift today to help us sustain this fight.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Other Ways to Give

How Colorado and Other States Are Testing Parental Authority, Free Speech, Child Welfare, and Clinical Professions

This will be the first in a two part series intended to highlight new laws that breach our Constitutional rights. Colorado has passed a series of laws that many parents, clinicians, and citizens believe undermine parental authority, chill free speech, place children at risk, and degrade the mental health and medical professions. In this first webinar of the Constitutional Rights Series, four leaders on the front lines will examine how these policies are playing out in real time—and what is at stake for families and free expression.

Featured speakers:

• State Representative Brandi Bradley will discuss the steady erosion of parental rights in Colorado and the legislation she has championed to restore them.

• Dr. Travis Morrell, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm, sees first-hand how bad medicine morphs into laws that impinge on civil rights.

• Dr. Eddie Waldrep, clinical psychologist, will address how therapists are increasingly pressured into self-censorship and why the practice of therapy itself is at risk.

• Erin Lee, co-founder of Protect Kids Colorado, will outline three ballot initiatives appearing before Colorado voters this November that offer a direct opportunity to strengthen protections for children’s well-being.

Join us for a clear-eyed look at the legislative landscape and the concrete paths still available to defend the rights of all Coloradans and Americans as we use one state as a case study of what to do when the state and federal laws conflict with each other.

Date: September 15, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

Practical Paths for Citizens Defending their Constitutional Rights

When state statutes clash with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ordinary citizens are left asking a practical question: What can we actually do? This second webinar in the Constitutional Rights Series moves from diagnosis to action, examining both the legal roots of the problem and the lawful tools available to protect individual rights.

Featured speakers:

• James Kerwin of the Center for Individual Rights will explain how Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act has become the legal foundation for recent laws that elevate group identity over individual rights and free speech.

• Leigh Ann O’Neill of America First Policy Institute will walk through concrete, practical steps citizens can take to safeguard their constitutional protections when state policy conflicts with higher law.

• Monica Harris

This session is designed for parents, professionals, and engaged Coloradans and all Americans who want clarity on the legal terrain and realistic next steps for defending their rights.

Date: September 17, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

Is Woke Dead… or Just on Pause?

Have we actually turned the corner and are now walking away from Woke policies? What about Critical Race Theory – is it already so institutionalized that we don’t recognize it?

DEI offices are closing. Corporations seem to be abandoning once-mandated initiatives. Universities are retreating from some of their most controversial policies.

It’s hard to believe that a sweeping political movement built on strong, activist ideas would simply vanish overnight, and that Woke-ism, CRT and DEI have suddenly lost their popularity and influence. So, is it true that Woke-ism is over? Or is it possible that the Woke agenda has become less visible while quietly building strength and devising new tactics to reshape our institutions and culture?

This month’s FAIR In Conversation will look beyond headlines and political talking points to examine what has actually changed, and what hasn’t.

Join us for a thoughtful, evidence-based discussion as we ask the questions many are wondering, but few have carefully examined.

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

Register Here

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

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

I first discovered FAIR four years ago when I witnessed the effects of identity politics, bullying, and cancellations across different spaces in education, medicine, and the arts. While volunteering on several initiatives in Los Angeles that aligned with FAIR’s work, I had the privilege of joining projects whose members were thoughtful, intellectually grounded, and genuinely wonderful people, committed to human dignity, freedom of expression, and civil liberties. Again and again, I found that the people who support and contribute to FAIR’s many endeavors represent a pinnacle in generosity and professionalism, and a willingness to stand for pro-human principles.

As I began to focus more on FAIR’s role in both education and the arts, I took on active roles reviewing FAIR’s extraordinary “Many Stories, One Nation” curriculum, co-hosting Fair in Conversation, facilitating FAIR’s Playwright’s Think Tank, its Novel and Poetry Writers Group, and leading one of their many chapters. Throughout, I came to appreciate something increasingly rare: a genuine diversity of thought. For me, especially as an artist, FAIR is a tribe that isn’t tribal. If you were to join one of FAIR’s monthly In-Conversation Zooms or listen to one of the writers’ gatherings, you’d hear disagreement, questioning, arguments, and also appreciation, compassion, and laughter.

In the artist groups, we understand that supporting the art is more important than agreeing on politics, and we are openly able to share our artistic achievements, struggles, disappointments, and convictions. What holds us together is not agreement on every issue, but a commitment to art for arts’ sake, and especially for the principles of civility and mutual respect that allow people who disagree to continue speaking and listening to one another.

This commitment is where FAIR in Arts comes into play and where the organization’s work occupies a particularly important place. The arts are often among the first subjects cut from schools and among the last endeavors supported by public and private institutions. Yet, the arts remain among the most powerful ways a civilization reflects on itself.

After more than thirty years working in theater and publishing, as well as teaching philosophy, writing and literature, I have come to believe that while politics may be downstream from culture, culture is itself downstream from the arts. Depending, of course, on the art.

I’m not talking about the art that imitates whatever ideas happen to be fashionable. Not art created to secure political affirmation or demonstrate conformity. And not art whose expression has been decided before the artist begins the work. I mean art that is deeply human. Art that is introspective, curious, unsettling, original. Art that finds itself in places its creator did not expect to go. Art that asks questions without knowing in advance the acceptable answers.

Today, as throughout history, that kind of art can be discouraged. It can be defunded, censored, ridiculed, and temporarily driven underground.

FAIR in the Arts is where I found the support that I needed to rebuild my own courage to be that kind of artist. It is where I found a community that encouraged me to do what the work itself required without constantly looking over my shoulder for censorship, cancellation, or ideological judgment. And it is also where I discovered that the artists and audiences I hoped were still out there–really are. I have come to think of FAIR in the Arts as a kind of home that is increasingly difficult for an artist to find, which is why I’m committed to supporting it as a space that gives artists the security to think openly and widely, and to make art without first having to demonstrate political usefulness.

There is enormous pressure today for artists to become activists and for works of art to affirm particular social or political perspectives. But activism is not the artist’s obligation.

The artist’s obligation is to the work. To follow an idea wherever it leads. To tell the truth as the artist sees it. To illuminate contradictions rather than conceal them. To explore the complexity of human beings rather than reduce them to categories. I believe that is the kind of art that needs to be protected and supported.

Your contribution, whether monetary or in-kind, helps FAIR create opportunities for artists who still believe in art that reaches us where identity and politics are subordinate to our shared humanity. I hope you will consider supporting FAIR in the Arts to help us preserve a place for artists willing to take the risks that real art has always required. And I hope you’ll subscribe to the FAIR in the Arts newsletter and join us in what comes next.

Warmly,

Karen Howes
Interim Director, Fair in the Arts

karen.howes@fairforall.org

Share

Donate

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.

Civil Discourse, Civic Friendship, and Civil Liberties

This week, we highlighted Robert P. George’s reflections on the role of intellectual humility in preserving meaningful civil discourse and protecting civil liberties. George argues that recognizing our own fallibility is essential to genuine truth-seeking, particularly when engaging with people whose political, moral, or religious convictions differ from our own.

Rather than treating disagreement as a battle to be won, the essay encourages readers to approach opposing viewpoints as opportunities for dialogue, challenge, and deeper understanding. George ultimately warns against both relativism and dogmatism, making the case that a shared commitment to truth can help sustain civic friendship even amid profound disagreement.

“People of goodwill, intellectually and morally serious people of every shade of belief, have in common a desire to know the truth and to live by the truth. We want to avoid falling so deeply in love with our opinions, whatever they happen to be, that we prefer them to the truth. If something we believe, even if it’s a belief we cherish, is in fact false, we want to know that. We want to get ourselves in line with the truth, even if it means abandoning an opinion we had deeply held. Even when the truth is a hard truth, we’d rather know it than continue to embrace a falsehood, even a comfortable and comforting falsehood.”

Read the Full Article

What Yale Law School Taught Me About Free Speech and Friendship

Jonathan Kay reflects on his time at Yale Law School, where political disagreements were often sharp but did not prevent students with very different beliefs from becoming friends. He contrasts that experience with today’s increasingly polarized, digitally mediated political culture, where ideological differences can become barriers to meaningful relationships and conversation. Kay argues that real-world friendships create an important incentive to listen, debate in good faith, and remember that the person on the other side of an argument may also be a colleague, neighbor, or friend. His essay ultimately asks what is lost when political identity becomes so central that it prevents us from engaging with people who see the world differently—and whether genuine friendship across disagreement can help preserve the open dialogue essential to a healthy civic culture.

“By today’s standards, however, these discussions were reasonably civil, in part because they were conducted exclusively in person, not on social media (which didn’t yet exist). YLS is a tiny place (a third the size of Harvard’s law school) and so you had to keep in mind that your debating opponent might also be your friend, law-journal colleague, roommate, softball-team teammate, or racquetball partner (yes, that sweatband-and-Tab sport was still a thing back then). These real-world social and civic connections kept your tongue in check.”

Read the Full Article

What Happens When We Stop Trying to Win a Difficult Conversation?

Willow Paul explores how curiosity, empathy, and a willingness to listen can transform difficult conversations. Drawing from her own experience and work in public deliberation, Paul argues that understanding someone’s perspective does not require agreeing with them—it requires looking beyond conclusions to the experiences and values that shaped them. Ultimately, the essay offers a case for choosing curiosity over certainty and seeing disagreement not as a contest to win, but as an opportunity to learn from one another and build stronger communities.

“The goal, I discovered, should never have been agreement. It was understanding, the point where someone’s view makes sense to you as something a person could reasonably arrive at, even when reaching that point is hard. That was exactly what my father and I had never had a way to give each other. It showed me the path I wanted to take in life.

Even beliefs that look irrational on the surface usually trace back to a real concern or value underneath. Understanding that root does not mean every belief holds up equally against facts. Some do not. What it means is that curiosity about the person’s underlying concern is what makes deep value-based conversation possible. You can respect where someone is coming from and still hold the line on what is true.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

I’m thrilled to announce Karen Howes as Interim Director of FAIR in the Arts, stepping into the role following Brent Morden’s departure. Brent gave this department its shape and gathered the first community of artists around it, and much of what Karen inherits exists because he built it. We’re grateful for that foundation and energized by her vision for what comes next.

Karen is no stranger to the FAIR in the Arts community. She serves as Co-Leader for FAIR’s Tennessee Chapter, has built and sustained FAIR’s writers’ groups, and has been a driving force behind FAIR in Conversation. Anyone who has joined one of those gatherings knows that Karen brings genuine curiosity about other artists’ work and has a rare talent for making a group of fiercely independent creatives feel like they belong to something bigger and more meaningful.

She has spent more than three decades as a playwright, teacher, and builder of arts institutions. An award-winning writer with more than 30 plays produced across the country, Karen has received the Maxim Mazumdar New Play Award, the Bennett Prize for comedy, and a Susan Smith Blackburn nomination. She has taught more than 50 undergraduate and graduate courses, founded Atlanta’s Young Actors Ensemble and Pierian Springs Academy, and holds an MFA from UC Riverside.

Karen comes to this role with a clear diagnosis of the persistent problem in the arts and years of relationships to draw on in addressing it. Artists who value free expression and viewpoint diversity have spent more than a decade discovering how few doors will open to them. Grant funding, prize committees, and programming decisions are shaped by a narrow set of assumptions about what art is for and who is permitted to make it. As a result, many talented people find themselves working in isolation, each of them convinced they’re the only one who sees, or is impacted by, intolerance and groupthink in the arts.

But they aren’t alone, and Karen is committed to ensuring artists know this.

FAIR in the Arts has consistently emphasized that politics is downstream from culture. If we hope to move this country away from identity politics and toward individual dignity, curiosity, and open inquiry, the arts will be instrumental in making this shift. Our community of artists is one of the features that most distinguishes FAIR from other organizations working in this space, and under Karen’s leadership I believe it can become one of our defining initiatives.

Her first priority will be to strengthen communication among the artists already in FAIR’s orbit so our members know each other’s names and their work. Her second will be outreach to artists who share our values but have never heard of FAIR and aren’t aware that there is a home here for them. Her third will be laying the foundation for the department’s long-term growth, so FAIR in the Arts can do more to serve artists tomorrow than it does today.

Karen described the challenge this way:

“Artists, and writers especially, seem to embody two seemingly opposing instincts: we are fiercely independent, typically working alone, yet we also value and need connection, friendship, and a community of people who understand what we are trying to create. One of my primary goals as we re-infuse FAIR in the Arts with energy and purpose is to find meaningful ways for our artists to support one another, champion one another’s work, and bring more artists into the fold.”

Karen is already weighing a range of ideas, some her own and some proposed by FAIR artists and past artist grant recipients. One example: a regular roundup of our artists’ new books, album releases, exhibitions, performances, and screenings, so members can find and champion one another’s work. If you are an artist — whether a writer, a musician, a painter, a filmmaker, an actor, a dancer, a designer, or a poet — and you have been quietly grateful that FAIR exists without ever raising your hand, this is the moment to raise it. Karen wants to know who you are and what you’re working on. Feel free to introduce yourself to her [<karen.howes@fairforall.org>] and share what you’ve done and what’s coming next. We want our members to know what FAIR artists are making.

Plenty of people lament what has happened to the arts, but Karen has spent years building the relationships that make doing something about it possible. That’s the spirit I want FAIR in the Arts to carry forward, and it’s why I’m confident handing her the reins.

But this isn’t work we can do alone. It only happens because people like you make it possible.

Your gift today helps us transform FAIR in the Arts into a nurturing and invigorating home for artists who believe in free expression, viewpoint diversity, and artistic excellence over ideological conformity. No matter the size, your donation helps us reach the artists who are still working alone.

Thank you for standing behind this work, and please join me in welcoming Karen!

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Other Ways to Give

How Colorado and Other States Are Testing Parental Authority, Free Speech, Child Welfare, and Clinical Professions

This will be the first in a two part series intended to highlight new laws that breach our Constitutional rights. Colorado has passed a series of laws that many parents, clinicians, and citizens believe undermine parental authority, chill free speech, place children at risk, and degrade the mental health and medical professions. In this first webinar of the Constitutional Rights Series, four leaders on the front lines will examine how these policies are playing out in real time—and what is at stake for families and free expression.

Featured speakers:

• State Representative Brandi Bradley will discuss the steady erosion of parental rights in Colorado and the legislation she has championed to restore them.

• Dr. Travis Morrell, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm, sees first-hand how bad medicine morphs into laws that impinge on civil rights.

• Dr. Eddie Waldrep, clinical psychologist, will address how therapists are increasingly pressured into self-censorship and why the practice of therapy itself is at risk.

• Erin Lee, co-founder of Protect Kids Colorado, will outline three ballot initiatives appearing before Colorado voters this November that offer a direct opportunity to strengthen protections for children’s well-being.

Join us for a clear-eyed look at the legislative landscape and the concrete paths still available to defend the rights of all Coloradans and Americans as we use one state as a case study of what to do when the state and federal laws conflict with each other.

Date: September 15, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

Practical Paths for Citizens Defending their Constitutional Rights

When state statutes clash with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ordinary citizens are left asking a practical question: What can we actually do? This second webinar in the Constitutional Rights Series moves from diagnosis to action, examining both the legal roots of the problem and the lawful tools available to protect individual rights.

Featured speakers:

• James Kerwin of the Center for Individual Rights will explain how Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act has become the legal foundation for recent laws that elevate group identity over individual rights and free speech.

• Leigh Ann O’Neill of America First Policy Institute will walk through concrete, practical steps citizens can take to safeguard their constitutional protections when state policy conflicts with higher law.

• Monica Harris

This session is designed for parents, professionals, and engaged Coloradans and all Americans who want clarity on the legal terrain and realistic next steps for defending their rights.

Date: September 17, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What is the difference between the isms? Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism…

The United States was founded on a constitutional system that places individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law at its center. Yet throughout history, competing political philosophies, including socialism and communism, have offered very different answers to fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual, the state, property, equality, and freedom.

How different are these competing visions? Can they coexist within America’s constitutional framework? And what do we actually mean when we use labels like communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and democracy?

Whether you believe communism represents a growing influence in American life, think the concern is overstated, or simply want a deeper understanding of the issues, this conversation is designed to encourage thoughtful discussion rather than partisan talking points.

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!

Register Here

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

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

A universal and ineradicable feature of the human condition is our fallibility. We can be, and all of us sometimes are, wrong about things. Even when doing our best to be attentive, intelligent, dispassionate, judicious, and honest, we can draw conclusions that are unwarranted and unsound.

Our fallibility extends not only to minor, relatively unimportant matters; we can be wrong about big, profoundly important questions, too—questions of meaning and value; questions of human nature, the human good, human dignity, and human destiny. Even while sincerely regarding and proclaiming ourselves to be on the side of justice and human rights, we can be wrong—deeply, even tragically—about what justice requires or what are, in truth, human rights. And we can be wrong even when we are supremely confident in our convictions.

Consider that each and every one of us, at every conscious moment of our lives, holds in his or her head some beliefs that are false. That’s certainly not because we want to believe things that are untrue. It’s simply a feature of the human condition.

People of goodwill, intellectually and morally serious people of every shade of belief, have in common a desire to know the truth and to live by the truth. We want to avoid falling so deeply in love with our opinions, whatever they happen to be, that we prefer them to the truth. If something we believe, even if it’s a belief we cherish, is in fact false, we want to know that. We want to get ourselves in line with the truth, even if it means abandoning an opinion we had deeply held. Even when the truth is a hard truth, we’d rather know it than continue to embrace a falsehood, even a comfortable and comforting falsehood.

If, however, we are to swap out at least some of the false beliefs we hold for true beliefs, then not only must we respect the right of freedom of speech of people who wish to challenge our opinions, we must also—and this is more difficult—be willing to actually listen to their challenges and criticisms and engage them in an honest, truth-seeking spirit. This is the upshot of what it means to practice intellectual humility—a virtue without which true civil discourse, and therefore true civic friendship, is impossible.

It is important to understand what civil discourse is—and isn’t. Civil discourse is not mere politesse. It does not consist of merely listening politely and patiently while someone makes the case for a view that is contrary to one’s own opinions. In genuine civil discourse, each party to the discussion or debate allows himself genuinely to be challenged by his interlocutor. Why? Because the goal—shared by the partners—is not winning a victory for oneself or one’s party or tribe; rather, it is getting to, or deepening understandings of, the truth. Participants in civil discourse argue, sometimes passionately, but not with the ultimate objective of winning—as in competitive high school or collegiate debate. And so, the conversation partners consider and assess the arguments presented by their ostensible adversaries in their most favorable light. Each sincerely entertains the possibility that the view he or she currently holds is wrong and should be abandoned.

Of course, this can be very hard indeed.

Why? Because of another feature of the human condition. We human beings do tend to fall in love with our opinions. There are beliefs that we deeply hold and, indeed, cherish—especially moral, political, and religious beliefs—that we come to regard as so integral to who we are that we experience challenges to them as personal attacks or assaults on our very selves.

In other words, we human beings tend to wrap our emotions more or less tightly around our convictions.

Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing; it’s certainly not bad in itself. In a certain respect, it’s a good thing, and indeed a necessary thing. We need some measure of emotional investment in our convictions if we are to get anything done. And this is true not only when it comes to serving big, important causes that may require courage and sacrifices; it’s true of even mundane, but nevertheless important, matters. For example, it would be one thing to have the bare belief that it would be good to get the kids up in the morning, washed, dressed, fed, and sent off to school. But it takes some degree of emotional investment in that belief to actually get oneself to do the work of getting the kids up, washed, dressed, fed, and off to school. Those of you who are parents know what I’m talking about.

So, it’s not wrong—quite the contrary—to wrap our emotions around our convictions. Indeed, we should aspire to be people of conviction who are prepared to act (and sacrifice, and take risks, and bear burdens) for what we believe is good and right and true. And yet, if we wrap our emotions too tightly around our convictions, if we fail to leave at least a little distance between ourselves and our beliefs– enough to consider our fallibility and the possibility that we could be wrong and those who disagree with us and challenge us could be right, or at least partially right)—then we are on the fast track to becoming ideologues, dogmatists, and even fanatics. There are few vices that place freedom of speech and other basic civil liberties in greater jeopardy than ideology, dogmatism, and fanaticism.

What’s more, these vices are the great enemies of the very value that ideologues, dogmatists, and fanatics purport to be upholding, namely truth. They jeopardize truth and undermine the love of truth and the enterprise of truth seeking precisely because they neglect that central truth about the human condition with which I began these reflections, namely, the universal and ineradicable reality of human fallibility.

Truth and truth seeking are under threat today from two opposing impulses. One is the denial, be it formal or merely implicit, of the existence or possibility of objective truth. The spirit of relativism or subjectivism claims that there is no truth to be attained, and therefore none to be sought. Or that there is merely “your truth,” and “my truth,” but no such thing as the truth—at least about questions outside the domain of empirical inquiry—or that “truth,” so called, is simply the rule of the strong, of whoever can force his will upon others.

If there is no truth, then there is no reason to believe in or respect the rights of others, including their right to freedom of speech, or of thought, inquiry, judgment, conscience, and religion. Where there are competing or conflicting desires or perspectives, there is no point in having a conversation or trying to reason with one another, for if there is no truth there is simply nothing to reason about or toward. Contrary to what one hears at cocktail parties or in freshman philosophy classes, relativism—especially moral relativism—is the predicate not of tolerance, but of repression and authoritarianism. Where there is nothing to reason about, because there is no truth, there are no reasons for respecting liberty; there is only power.

At the same time, and now we get to the second great threat to truth, the belief in truth, when severed from an authentic, deep, not merely notional but genuinely existential acknowledgement of one’s own fallibility, poses no less a threat to liberty and to truth itself. Such a belief devolves into dogmatism. Those holding it see no reason to entertain challenges to, or criticisms of, what they deeply believe. They know the truth, or so they suppose, know it more or less completely and perfectly, and therefore have nothing to learn from those with whom they disagree. Their critics, as believers in and promoters of falsehoods, are to be regarded and treated as enemies of truth. They are certainly not to be engaged in the hope of learning from them; rather, they are to be defeated, even destroyed.

By contrast, someone who rejects both relativism, which denies the possibility of objective truth, and absolutism, which refuses to reckon with the reality and universality of human fallibility, will regard reasonable people of goodwill with whom he or she disagrees not as enemies to be conquered but rather as friends who engage each other with the shared goal of getting at the truth of disputed questions or more deeply understanding the truth. In the domain of politics, genuine truth seekers are bound together as civic friends, despite their differences of perspective or belief, by a common goal, a common good, namely the great good of truth. For the sake of this good, they respect and honor freedom of speech, even for those whom they judge to be profoundly mistaken, and engage each other in a truth-seeking spirit—that is, with a view not only to correcting the other’s errors, if, indeed, they are errors, but also learning from them.

Share

Robert P. George is McCormick Professor of Jurisprudence at Princeton University. This is the text of remarks delivered at the 2026 ARC conference in London.

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.

I Am Not Your “Black Friend” — An Experience of Race.

This week, we examine race, identity, belonging, and the assumptions that can shape how we see ourselves and one another. In “I Am Not Your ‘Black Friend,’” offers a deeply personal reflection on growing up without rigid racial categories, confronting them later in life, and navigating the expectations placed on her because of her appearance and identity. From experiences with racial bullying and cultural erasure to confronting racism from different communities, Fox considers what it means to be seen as an individual rather than a representative of a particular group. Ultimately, her essay is about the freedom to define yourself beyond the labels others place upon you—and the importance of embracing the complexity of our own stories.

“As an adult, standing up still looks like calling out injustice even when it doesn’t immediately create change, and, more importantly, accepting myself. I used to hold firmly to the identity of multiracial. I would suck in my lips, copy trends in Eurocentric fashion and never wear my hair out. Being multiracial made others more comfortable, and I experienced much better treatment when I was “exotic.” I have since accepted the racial marker Black, partially for convenience, but also because if that is what others already see me as, then fine—I will be Black, but I will be my version of Black.

I will wear my afro. I will have a story that goes against stereotypes. I will see myself and others as human first. I am an artist, an author, Polish, American, Bahamian, French-speaking, human... and yes, I am also proudly Black.”

Read the Full Article

White Guilt Releases on October 6

This week, we look at how ideas about race, identity, and history shape the stories we tell about ourselves and our society. In “White Guilt Releases on October 6,” filmmaker Eli Steele reflects on the long journey behind his new documentary, the ideas that inspired it, and his father’s decades-long examination of what he calls “white guilt.” Steele considers how these questions have increasingly entered public debate—and asks what happens when a society assigns permanent guilt to an entire race. The piece offers a look at the film’s origins, the cultural conversations surrounding it, and the broader questions Steele hopes the documentary will provoke.

“The one thing I admire about my father is that he took the blows for warning about white guilt when there was no reward for it. There was only a cost. This was in the 1990s and the 2000s, which were brutal, isolating times in the culture wars. CNN and the New York Times and the like iced him out completely. Universities stopped inviting him. If the left could not debate his ideas, they would isolate him to the margins. His books were dropped from bookstores and libraries.”

Read the Full Article

Deracialization Now

Deracialization Now explores the possibility of moving beyond race as a defining category of identity and public life. Greg Thomas argues for separating race from culture and heritage, allowing people to embrace their histories without being bound by racial classifications or stereotypes. Drawing on thinkers including Glenn Loury, John McWhorter, Kmele Foster, and Charles Johnson, the essay asks whether a more individualistic, human-centered approach to identity could help Americans move toward greater pluralism and shared civic life.

“By definition and intent, race separates and divides. Conflating race and culture twists and tightens this division. Separating or bracketing culture from race tends toward appreciating human commonalities and differences in a more nuanced manner than judging and stereotyping groups of people based on skin color will allow.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

FAIR is delighted to announce that John Wood Jr. has joined FAIR’s Board of Directors.

John is no stranger to this community. He has served on FAIR’s Board of Advisors, lending his counsel, his platform, and his considerable moral clarity to our work. In stepping into a governing role, he deepens a relationship that has already shaped how we think about our mission.

For those meeting John for the first time: he spent years as National Ambassador for Braver Angels, the nation’s largest cross-partisan bridge-building organization. He is a former Vice-Chairman of the Republican Party of Los Angeles County and a former Congressional nominee. He hosts The John Wood Jr. Show, and his writing on race, faith, politics, and civic life has appeared in The Wall Street Journal, USA Today, Quillette, The Washington Examiner, and elsewhere. He advises The American Project and 1776 Unites, and is a member of the Progress Network and the New Pluralists Collaborative.

What connects all of John’s work is a single, stubborn conviction that he has spent his career defending: that Americans who disagree profoundly can still find common ground, and that the work of proving this is the most urgent civic task of our time. John argues this position with passion and rigor to audiences on both sides of the political and cultural divide, where it is often unwelcome. He epitomizes the disposition FAIR wants in its governance.

John’s appointment to FAIR’s Board arrives at a pivotal moment. He recently left his role at Braver Angels to found The OmniAmerican Society.

The OmniAmerican Society begins as a Substack, but John’s ambition for it is considerably larger. Over the next five years, he intends to build a multimedia network — podcasts, video, journalism, even music production — designed to do two things at once.

The first is narrative. Omni exists to drive a new story of American culture, identity, and politics into the mainstream of our national conversation. In John’s words, the goal is to “redefine the mainstream itself.”

The second is engagement. Omni’s network is meant to serve as a front door, bringing Americans from across the political and cultural spectrum into direct contact with the organizations working to repair our country’s frayed relationships on the ground.

John frames the project with an analogy worth sitting with. A student of the Civil Rights Movement, he observes that the movement operated along two dimensions: method and narrative. The marches, the sit-ins, the boycotts, the freedom rides were the methods; the story of an America transformed and carried by Dr. King into the nation’s aroused conscience was the narrative.

That narrative reached Americans through the new media of its era. Television was still in its infancy in the 1960s, young, but it brought the moral drama of Selma and Birmingham into living rooms across the country. Without it, the aroused conscience of the nation might never have been moved.

Today’s new media are online: podcasts, video channels, and social platforms. John’s argument is that the movement for pluralism and civic repair has built a great deal of method but comparatively little narrative. The vehicle has yet to be built.

This is where we see opportunity.

FAIR has created the method through our chapters in communities across the country, legal advocacy, and a growing body of work in education, including our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum. What we have less of is reach: the ability to place our case before Americans who have never heard of FAIR and have no particular reason to come looking for us.

A venture built to drive attention toward civic repair and an organization built to give people something concrete to do with that attention fit together naturally. Omni can carry the story, and FAIR can offer the on-ramp: a chapter to join, a petition to sign, a curriculum to bring to a school board.

The alignment is clear, the relationship is strong, and the conversation about what we might build together has already begun. We will keep you posted as it develops.

We are grateful that a person of John’s experience and caliber has chosen to invest more deeply in FAIR. Please join us in welcoming him. And we encourage you to follow The OmniAmerican Society on Substack. What John is building deserves an audience, and we would like ours to be part of it.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Other Ways to Give

How Colorado and Other States Are Testing Parental Authority, Free Speech, Child Welfare, and Clinical Professions

This will be the first in a two part series intended to highlight new laws that breach our Constitutional rights. Colorado has passed a series of laws that many parents, clinicians, and citizens believe undermine parental authority, chill free speech, place children at risk, and degrade the mental health and medical professions. In this first webinar of the Constitutional Rights Series, four leaders on the front lines will examine how these policies are playing out in real time—and what is at stake for families and free expression.

Featured speakers:

• State Representative Brandi Bradley will discuss the steady erosion of parental rights in Colorado and the legislation she has championed to restore them.

• Dr. Travis Morrell, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm, sees first-hand how bad medicine morphs into laws that impinge on civil rights.

• Dr. Eddie Waldrep, clinical psychologist, will address how therapists are increasingly pressured into self-censorship and why the practice of therapy itself is at risk.

• Erin Lee, co-founder of Protect Kids Colorado, will outline three ballot initiatives appearing before Colorado voters this November that offer a direct opportunity to strengthen protections for children’s well-being.

Join us for a clear-eyed look at the legislative landscape and the concrete paths still available to defend the rights of all Coloradans and Americans as we use one state as a case study of what to do when the state and federal laws conflict with each other.

Date: September 15, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

Practical Paths for Citizens Defending their Constitutional Rights

When state statutes clash with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ordinary citizens are left asking a practical question: What can we actually do? This second webinar in the Constitutional Rights Series moves from diagnosis to action, examining both the legal roots of the problem and the lawful tools available to protect individual rights.

Featured speakers:

• James Kerwin of the Center for Individual Rights will explain how Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act has become the legal foundation for recent laws that elevate group identity over individual rights and free speech.

• Leigh Ann O’Neill of America First Policy Institute will walk through concrete, practical steps citizens can take to safeguard their constitutional protections when state policy conflicts with higher law.

• Monica Harris

This session is designed for parents, professionals, and engaged Coloradans and all Americans who want clarity on the legal terrain and realistic next steps for defending their rights.

Date: September 17, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What is the difference between the isms? Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism…

The United States was founded on a constitutional system that places individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law at its center. Yet throughout history, competing political philosophies, including socialism and communism, have offered very different answers to fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual, the state, property, equality, and freedom.

How different are these competing visions? Can they coexist within America’s constitutional framework? And what do we actually mean when we use labels like communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and democracy?

Whether you believe communism represents a growing influence in American life, think the concern is overstated, or simply want a deeper understanding of the issues, this conversation is designed to encourage thoughtful discussion rather than partisan talking points.

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!

Register Here

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

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

Growing up, it never occurred to me that my Polish-European grandmother was White and that, by extension, my mother and her siblings were biracial. Even when I was forced to relocate preschools, suffer a mental breakdown, and eventually enter homeschooling (at my own request) as a result of racial bullying, it did not occur to me. My parents never taught me terms like Black, White, Asian, etc., and when I came home and asked what such terms meant—having heard them from others—my parents always replied, “They don’t matter. We are not a box of crayons; we are all just people.” (Back then ‘skin-colored crayons’ were not as common as they are today.)

I can still recall attending my school’s “International Week.” It was a celebratory week aimed at honoring the range of identities at our school, and yet I was told “you can’t be from more than one place” when I chose to honor my Polish, American, and Bahamian identities. Later in life, I recall a student of mine saying “oh well you’re not really American then” when I told her I had grown up in the Bahamas—I am a US citizen.

As a result of my parents’ attitudes toward race—or lack thereof—I grew up without a concept of race and with a concept of humanity centered on simply seeing others as people. I learned to judge people by their actions and not their race, religion, or identity. When I moved to the U.S. at 16, things changed. My relocation came during the BLM marches. At the time I didn’t know much about the movement and thus I felt great fear for mine and my family’s safety. I worried we would be ‘mislabeled’ as Black and face violence as a result. I also faced the classic immigrant experience: new culture shock and loss of the previous culture. I was told the uninspired jokes of “go back to your country” from White friends, to which I replied, “I am in my country. I am a citizen.” I went to a majority White private school. Even then, many “White” students were diverse ethnically, in language, or in religion. What I noticed was a culture of complete erasure of diverse identities and the perpetual retelling of ‘the single story’ rather than one that reflected the reality of diverse people coming in all shades, shapes and histories.

In hopes of feeling more accepted, I joined my high school’s Black Student Union (BSU) but left after one day. The club felt like a living stereotype, with fried chicken and watermelon served and a movie about the “hood experience” being played. We were in the middle of very wealthy downtown Boca. Rather than connecting to the experience of Blackness in front of them, the school created a narrative they felt the students should—even must—subscribe to. It is silly to honor one story of race while ignoring the one in front of you. It creates the idea that all people of a given demographic must have the same experiences and, therefore, beliefs rather than taking each person as an individual with unique experiences that don’t always have to be associated with their phenotype.

In fact, the only reason I attended the club in the first place was because another student told me, “You should join the BSU.” When I told her I wasn’t Black, she dismissed me and told me, “Well, too bad. You look Black.”

That was one of the first times I had ever considered race and had the sudden and horrifying realization that others saw me as Black first and human second. I became more aware of things said to me, of expectations placed on me, of the deviations from ‘the norm’ that I lived, and how my race seemed to wear me.

When I got to college, I had the unwelcome experience of having the N-word written on my dorm door in all caps. I reported the incident to my school’s counseling center, a place I had been visiting to help with the transition of moving halfway across the country from my family in a nation I was still adjusting to. I was effectively dismissed and told there was nothing to be done. I was livid, not because that word necessarily meant anything to me—another term I did not grow up hearing—but because I knew what it meant to others and that, yet again, my whole identity had been collapsed into just my race.

Most recently, I experienced racism in the workplace. My manager began a joke she called “Racism Fridays.” It entailed her berating me with subtle and not-so-subtle racist comments, criticism, and outright remarks. I was only a month or so into the job when it began, and I put up with it for nearly two months after. When—advised by friends and my boyfriend—I did speak up about it, nothing much was done. Our boss got both sides of the story, apologized, and then arranged for my manager to apologize to me. She did, although the apology was mixed in with excuses and passing the whole thing off as an ill-placed joke.

I would like to note, too, that not all my racist experiences have come from White people or non-Black people of color, but also from other Black people.

When my White Canadian boyfriend and I go out for dinner, we have to brace for heckling and comments implying that our “race mixing” is negative. We were once even yelled at during a concert and ultimately had to relocate to another side of the crowd. “Sista, how do you feel about being with this White man?” I was asked, among other harsher comments.

What did these experiences teach me? First off, that hate can come from anywhere. The idea that racism is always White people toward Black people is false. Anyone can be racist, and anyone can face racism.

I learned, too, that I myself will never identify as Black first and won’t allow anyone else to identify me as such. I am not your Black friend or a Black author. I am a friend and an author. My race already precedes me, but I can work to change that.

Standing up is hard and often fruitless, but not pointless. Standing up for myself as a child, when I was segregated from peers, denied recess, punished for no other reason than my race, and accused of bullying when I, in fact, was being bullied, looked like advocating for homeschooling. As a teen and early college student, it was reporting hate, speaking up, holding to my beliefs in crowds, and walking away when I realized situations weren’t for me. Sometimes things can’t be solved in the moment, but that doesn’t mean one should allow themselves to be subjected to mistreatment.

As an adult, standing up still looks like calling out injustice even when it doesn’t immediately create change, and, more importantly, accepting myself. I used to hold firmly to the identity of multiracial. I would suck in my lips, copy trends in Eurocentric fashion and never wear my hair out. Being multiracial made others more comfortable, and I experienced much better treatment when I was “exotic.” I have since accepted the racial marker Black, partially for convenience, but also because if that is what others already see me as, then fine—I will be Black, but I will be my version of Black.

I will wear my afro. I will have a story that goes against stereotypes. I will see myself and others as human first. I am an artist, an author, Polish, American, Bahamian, French-speaking, human... and yes, I am also proudly Black.

Share

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.

Challenges in Navigating the Good, the Bad, and the Ugly of American History

This week, we highlighted an essay by Matt Marsden examining how conflicting narratives about American history can shape our understanding of the country’s founding, Native American history, and ideals of liberty. Responding to a PBS video that he argues presents an overly simplified account of America’s past, Marsden calls for greater context and nuance when examining the country’s complicated history.

Marsden explores the dangers of replacing one revisionist narrative with another, arguing that difficult chapters of American history should neither be erased nor reduced to simple categories of good and evil. Ultimately, the essay makes the case for greater informational literacy and intellectual humility, encouraging readers to research competing claims, acknowledge historical complexity, and engage in good-faith dialogue about the past.

“Cycles of competition and cooperation are the norm throughout human history—an unfortunate aspect of our shared humanity.”

“But while American history has seen no shortage of bias, it must be maintained that replacing one revisionist history with another isn’t the answer. Such stark representations may instead create misunderstanding, confusion, distrust, or even resentment, while stunting efforts towards progress for all parties.”

Read the Full Article

Ferguson at Twelve: The Lie That Divided a Nation

This week, Eli Steele revisits the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, and the competing narratives that emerged in its aftermath. Steele examines how the “Hands up, don’t shoot” account became a powerful cultural narrative despite subsequent investigations challenging key elements of the story, and argues that its legacy continues to shape how Americans understand race, policing, and justice.

Steele explores how the Ferguson narrative moved beyond the original event and into schools, universities, politics, and racial justice organizations, arguing that the reluctance to question an established narrative can have consequences long after the original facts have been established. Ultimately, the essay asks what happens when political and cultural narratives become so entrenched that challenging them is treated as a moral failing rather than an invitation to examine the evidence.

“On August 9, 2014, Michael Brown was eighteen years old when he was shot and killed by Officer Darren Wilson. Within hours of the shooting, Dorian Johnson, who had been with Brown prior to the shooting, told the world that Brown had his hands up in the air and said, don’t shoot. The “Hands up, don’t shoot” slogan spread across the world like wildfire…It became, to use my father’s phrase, a poetic truth, the kind of lie that a nation believes not because the evidence supports it but because it confirms what many Americans suspected of their nation.”

Read the Full Article

Why Knowledge-Rich Curriculum Never Wins

This week, we highlighted an essay by Robert Pondiscio examining why knowledge-rich education remains difficult to implement despite growing evidence that background knowledge is essential to reading comprehension and critical thinking. Pondiscio argues that the barriers are not primarily scientific, but instead stem from competing educational philosophies, institutional structures, teacher autonomy, local control, and an emphasis on skills over shared knowledge.

Pondiscio explores the tension between educational pluralism and a common body of knowledge, as well as the challenges posed by AI, which can make information easier to access while making genuine understanding more important than ever. Ultimately, the essay argues that while the evidence for knowledge-rich education may have won the debate, the deeper cultural and structural obstacles to putting that evidence into practice remain.

“None of these obstacles are disputes about cognitive science. Most analysts and advocates now accept that knowledge matters. There is nearly universal acceptance that reading comprehension depends heavily on what readers already know. Said differently, the obstacles to knowledge-rich education are not scientific; they are ideological, professional, structural, political, cultural, and increasingly technological. That should be sobering for curriculum advocates. It is a profound misunderstanding of the current moment to assume that knowledge-rich education is merely a matter of implementation.”

Read the Full Article

Is the Backlash Against Tech in Schools Going Too Far?

This week, we highlighted an essay by Lina Eroh examining the growing backlash against technology in schools and the need to distinguish between tools that hinder learning and those that genuinely support it. Eroh acknowledges legitimate concerns about excessive screen time, artificial intelligence, and the loss of deep thinking and human connection, but argues that treating all educational technology as equally harmful risks eliminating tools that can provide meaningful academic and accessibility support.

Eroh ultimately calls for a more evidence-based approach to ed-tech, asking whether a tool actually improves student outcomes, strengthens rather than replaces good teaching, and serves a clear educational purpose. Rather than framing the debate as technology versus no technology, she argues that schools should focus on understanding when technology helps students learn—and when it gets in the way.

“The past decade offers plenty of reasons for skepticism. Schools adopted lots of technology rapidly, often without clear evidence that it improved student outcomes. One study of tools built specifically for education purposes found only 1 in 5 showed any evidence of impact. It’s no wonder that teachers experienced firsthand how devices and poorly designed products could interrupt learning rather than support it and that parents watched children struggle with attention, social connection, and mental health in an increasingly digital world.

Those lessons matter. But another lesson matters too: Schools, teachers, and students continue to face real challenges, and technology can help address them.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

Every August, parents around the country wrestle with the same question: “I read something in my child’s handbook that doesn’t seem right. What am I supposed to do about it?”

Parents have the instinct that something doesn’t feel right, but they often lack the language that helps them articulate their concerns or the confidence that expressing them is worth the trouble.

FAIR has the language, and it’s yours to use.

As families gear up for the 2026–27 school year, we’ve updated two of our most-requested templates. Both are grounded in current federal law, and both are written to be sent by an ordinary parent, not a lawyer.

The Title IX template

The legal landscape has changed, yet many districts have not kept pace.

In 2024, the Department of Education issued a Title IX Final Rule expanding the statute beyond sex to include gender identity. On January 9, 2025, a federal court vacated that rule in State of Tennessee v. Cardona. As a result, no rule expanding Title IX to gender identity is legally enforceable anywhere in the country today. The Department’s Office for Civil Rights has been explicit that Title IX’s requirements control, regardless of state law or athletic association rules.

The Department has also demonstrated that it will enforce the restored framework directly. Its case against Jefferson County Public Schools, Colorado’s second-largest district, escalated from a finding of violation to a formal warning to enforcement action. In July, the district sued the Department rather than revise its policies.

Our template asks districts to proactively review their policies on restrooms, locker rooms, overnight accommodations, and athletics. Districts with the foresight to adjust their policies now can maintain control over how and when they communicate with families. Districts that wait for a complaint risk facing a ten-day compliance order and public backlash in the middle of a crisis.

You can download the template here.

The Pronoun Policy template

On November 6, 2025, the full Sixth Circuit, sitting en banc, ruled in Defending Education v. Olentangy Local School District that a public school district could not discipline students for declining to use a classmate’s preferred pronouns. The court held the policy amounted to viewpoint discrimination and compelled speech under the First Amendment, finding no evidence the speech would materially disrupt the classroom.

The ruling follows a line running back to West Virginia State Board of Education v. Barnette, where in 1943 the Supreme Court held that schoolchildren could not be forced to salute the flag. As Justice Jackson wrote: “If there is any fixed star in our constitutional constellation, it is that no official, high or petty, can prescribe what shall be orthodox.”

Our letter, available for download here, guides a district through the Olentangy ruling and asks it to review any policy that compels pronoun use, whether directly or through the threat of discipline under an anti-harassment rule.

These templates are fully editable and allow you to:

• Raise a specific concern in writing, with the case law already cited for you

• Ask your district to act on its own schedule, rather than under federal pressure

• Create a written record in case you ever need one

All you need to do is add your district’s name, list the policies that concern you, sign the letter, and cc the school board.

To be clear, these templates do not ask schools to be unkind to any student, nor do they demand that any child be excluded, ignored, or made to feel unsafe. Every student deserves dignity, and a school that cannot extend that to all of its students has failed at something more fundamental than policy.

These letters present a straightforward request that should be uncontroversial: public schools must follow federal law and ensure that no student is compelled to affirm a belief they do not hold. Those twin commitments protect every child in the building, including the children whom a given policy was intended to help.

In our experience, a calm, well-sourced letter from a parent who has done their own research is one of the most effective tools a family has.

Maintaining these legal resources requires time and effort. Every FAIR template is researched, drafted, and reviewed before it’s published, then revised each time a court moves the ground underneath it. We provide them because we believe a parent’s ability to advocate for their child should never depend on whether they can afford an attorney, and the families who most need these letters are rarely the families who can hire one.

If these templates are useful to you, please consider making a donation today to help us keep these resources freely available to every family who needs them.

Thank you for standing with us.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Other Ways to Give

How Colorado and Other States Are Testing Parental Authority, Free Speech, Child Welfare, and Clinical Professions

This will be the first in a two part series intended to highlight new laws that breach our Constitutional rights. Colorado has passed a series of laws that many parents, clinicians, and citizens believe undermine parental authority, chill free speech, place children at risk, and degrade the mental health and medical professions. In this first webinar of the Constitutional Rights Series, four leaders on the front lines will examine how these policies are playing out in real time—and what is at stake for families and free expression.

Featured speakers:

• State Representative Brandi Bradley will discuss the steady erosion of parental rights in Colorado and the legislation she has championed to restore them.

• Dr. Travis Morrell, Senior Fellow at Do No Harm, sees first-hand how bad medicine morphs into laws that impinge on civil rights.

• Dr. Eddie Waldrep, clinical psychologist, will address how therapists are increasingly pressured into self-censorship and why the practice of therapy itself is at risk.

• Erin Lee, co-founder of Protect Kids Colorado, will outline three ballot initiatives appearing before Colorado voters this November that offer a direct opportunity to strengthen protections for children’s well-being.

Join us for a clear-eyed look at the legislative landscape and the concrete paths still available to defend the rights of all Coloradans and Americans as we use one state as a case study of what to do when the state and federal laws conflict with each other.

Date: September 15, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

Practical Paths for Citizens Defending their Constitutional Rights

When state statutes clash with the U.S. Constitution and federal law, ordinary citizens are left asking a practical question: What can we actually do? This second webinar in the Constitutional Rights Series moves from diagnosis to action, examining both the legal roots of the problem and the lawful tools available to protect individual rights.

Featured speakers:

• James Kerwin of the Center for Individual Rights will explain how Colorado’s Anti-Discrimination Act has become the legal foundation for recent laws that elevate group identity over individual rights and free speech.

• Leigh Ann O’Neill of America First Policy Institute will walk through concrete, practical steps citizens can take to safeguard their constitutional protections when state policy conflicts with higher law.

• Monica Harris

This session is designed for parents, professionals, and engaged Coloradans and all Americans who want clarity on the legal terrain and realistic next steps for defending their rights.

Date: September 17, 2026

Time: 7:00 EST

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What is the difference between the isms? Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism…

The United States was founded on a constitutional system that places individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law at its center. Yet throughout history, competing political philosophies, including socialism and communism, have offered very different answers to fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual, the state, property, equality, and freedom.

How different are these competing visions? Can they coexist within America’s constitutional framework? And what do we actually mean when we use labels like communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and democracy?

Whether you believe communism represents a growing influence in American life, think the concern is overstated, or simply want a deeper understanding of the issues, this conversation is designed to encourage thoughtful discussion rather than partisan talking points.

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!

Register Here

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

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

PBS is often seen as a reliable educational resource, which is why I was concerned when, days before the 4^th of July, they released “The Independence Day History They Don’t Teach You: How America’s Foundation was Built on Propaganda”, produced by Mahebe Media. This video preaches that America’s foundation was built on hardly more than genocide and associated propaganda while also claiming that our governmental systems mainly derived from Native societies. These questionable and conflicting claims lean away from proper context or nuance and also overlook the unique, complex, and successful aspects of our modern American nation. Journalistic standards for productions like this mirror those in education: accuracy, fairness, responsibility, courage, etc. Educators and journalists alike carry the burden of upholding these challenging standards as leaders in fields aimed at being sacred endeavors of truth-seeking and ethics teaching for a complex and controversial world.

Let’s begin with the introductory theme and crux of the video: “Can a national identity built on the erasure of Native genocide ever fully separate itself from propaganda?” This framing suggests that America is built mainly on genocide and associated lies, rather than the more complex reality of colonial war and conquest. Whereas genocide typically focuses on large-scale extermination, conquest usually involves both war and treaties, trading or the purchasing of land. The bad and ugly parts of this history shouldn’t be erased, rather they should be put in an appropriately broad context. We must consider the limits of our present-day perspectives and the reality that an ugly history is often an incomplete story. This oversimplified understanding of genocide vs. conquest occurs throughout the video, such as its portrayal of the Indian Wars. The narrow perspective ignores examples of justice and reparations for Native people and several other founding realities–such as the Founders’ pursuit of liberty–that are fundamental aspects of the “American Identity” worth highlighting and defending.

As the video progresses, the producers make a variety of claims regarding the Founding Principles and social systems of the U.S.: “America often frames democracy as one of its greatest achievements. The irony of it is that Natives were the ones to inspire it.” It is inaccurate to claim that Native people were the primary inspiration for American democracy , or that America brands itself as “the global founder” that “invented democracy”. There certainly were beneficial Native influences that are too often overlooked, but it remains wildly incomplete to ignore the important people and commonly established influences beyond Native people that draw on generations of equally valuable experience and deep debate.

In a related instance, the producers claim that: “When Thomas Jefferson wrote the Declaration of Independence, he did not have Black or Native Americans in that vision.” More accurately, Jefferson’s original vision of the Declaration specifically included an anti-slavery component. This component was ultimately omitted to appease the colonies with the intent to create a more unified and hopefully improving nation. The Declaration and Constitution were written intentionally as ideals to be achieved over time rather than a finalized statement of progress. This long, slow march of progress has continued to manifest in remarkable ways that make America today a beacon of hope for many minds, hearts, and hands the world over. As a result, our imperfect Founders should be appropriately honored for their significant virtue and positive contributions. Secondly, Native people’s lack of inclusion in founding visions occurs mainly because they were involved in their own complex wars and diplomatic efforts. Many tribes wanted to maintain national or tribal sovereignty as any nation under threat would.

The Founders’ understanding of liberty is further critiqued: “I guess to them, liberty means freedom to embark on brutal invasions and occupation of Indigenous lands.” Upon further exploration we see the Founders’ philosophical and practical regard for liberty was significantly deeper as peoples who themselves were running from oppression. It must also be acknowledged that “brutal invasions and occupation[s]” were not uncommon and also conducted by Native people towards each other and their territories. Cycles of competition and cooperation are the norm throughout human history—an unfortunate aspect of our shared humanity. Ironically, the first example of Native conquest my research provided was the Haudenosaunee Confederacy during the Beaver Wars in fairly recent colonial times. This is the same confederacy celebrated in the video despite it being a largely undesirable moment in Native history that remained inadequately explored by the video. Despite the controversial history of the time, the narrator takes pride in stating his heritage as part of the Mohawk Nation and Haudenosaunee Confederacy, while simultaneously insinuating that the American national identity and pride is problematic despite having a similarly controversial history. A blatant double standard. Building on these observations, we reach some limits of the term “ancestral homelands.” Although at times, tribes forcefully or violently took territories from each other, including in fairly recent history, some still refer to these gains as ancestral homelands, which may be particularly problematic for some Land Acknowledgments. While we can’t turn back the clock, we can recognize that conquest is an undesirable part of many of our histories, and that today’s world would benefit most from a focus on our most practical options for moving forward united.

Exploring assimilation, the video features the phrase “Kill the Indian, Save the Man”, a slogan tied to the Carlisle Indian Industrial School. This phrase was not literally intended to mean “kill Natives to save colonists”, but rather it was a poorly executed effort to help create better social navigation in the increasingly dominant but often challenging new colonial culture. The hope was to avoid further conflict and distrust. The Carlisle Indian Industrial School is often conveyed as simply an inhumane or nefarious endeavor, but in its time, it had the support of some tribal leaders and mixed success in aiding some Native POWs and others in navigating the profound and fast-developing societal differences of the time. Despite this, it should be simultaneously acknowledged that the school resulted in confusion, despair, and significant hardship for many others. The ethics and realities of assimilation are challenging, but are also a feature of our common humanity. Moving forward, this dual understanding of assimilation in American history and a focus on seeking reciprocal respect, support, and the honoring of differing cultures will be most beneficial to us all.

Overall, there are myriad polarizing claims of truth and converse accusations of propaganda or lying throughout the video, for example: “As always, U.S. propaganda gets in the way of the truth”. Absolute claims like this do not promote healthy discourse or give credence to good faith efforts at representing history. We need to remember that with such statements there are often fingers pointing back at us.

In reflection, the producers brought up many important overlooked points, but an opportunity to promote a more solid and healthy representation of these important, intricate, controversial topics, alongside the time-tested virtues of America was also squandered. As an educator, I worry that videos like this may find their way into the classroom and further damage already declining rates of historical and civic literacy. Journalism and education alike can unfortunately be biased from many angles surrounding American and Native American history. But while American history has seen no shortage of bias, it must be maintained that replacing one revisionist history with another isn’t the answer. Such stark representations may instead create misunderstanding, confusion, distrust, or even resentment, while stunting efforts towards progress for all parties. Left unchecked, misinformation and revisionist narratives can be damaging to how people understand and act in the world, including in this case, by relying too heavily on oversimplified binaries of good vs. bad or right vs. wrong. What results is an undermining of people’s confidence in respectable virtues and systems, and a failure to understand the world in the context of both our diversity and common humanity…for better and worse.

A couple of important but also challenging remedies for this are to focus on informational literacy and intellectual humility by taking the time to be intellectually and emotionally open to the complex facts, circumstances, and ethics of the world. Overall, everyone should muster courage and responsibility to speak up in their arenas. We should be careful to leverage this truly fragile but very important opportunity for understanding and progress through healthy cycles of dialogue, debate, agreement, acknowledgment, and action.

Share

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.

My name is Natalya Murakhver. In 2021, a year into the Covid-19 pandemic, I sued Mayor Bill de Blasio to reopen New York City’s public schools. Today, I run Restore Childhood, and recently directed my first film: 15 DAYS: The Real Story of America’s Pandemic School Closures.

In the process of creating 15 Days I interviewed nearly 60 people over three years to answer one question: Why did American schools stay closed longer than almost any other schools the world over?

I came into this fight as a parent, not a filmmaker. I went to the hearings, I organized other parents, and I filed the lawsuit. What I kept running into was a decision-making process with no regard for the people it affected most. Parents demanded to be heard during a time of great social, health and educational turbulence and were placated – being told to ‘trust the process’. In all of this, children had no seat at the table. Somewhere in that fight I understood that no one intended to preserve this history honestly, so I picked up a camera.

Eli Steele, a writer, filmmaker and FAIR board of Advisors member, mentored me from the moment I had the idea. He still does today as the film screens around the country in theaters and online. He watched the early cuts. He told me the cameras and lights to buy, the scenes to keep, cut, and rearrange. I could not have made this film without him, and closing out FAIR’s Eli Steele Film Series is a real honor.

Eli makes documentaries that follow the evidence past the point of discomfort. He directed What Killed Michael Brown?, which Amazon banned before public pressure forced it back onto the platform, where it rose to number one in documentaries. He directed How Jack Became Black, a film about the cost of sorting people by group identity, and, after October 7th, Killing America.

15 DAYS digs deeply into what happened to kids when our schools closed. Two doctors in the film, Jay Bhattacharya, now Director of the NIH and Scott Atlas, argued in the fall of 2020 that schools could open safely and that keeping them shut would harm children more than the virus could. What happened next is a civil-liberties story as much as a public-health one. Bhattacharya co-wrote the Great Barrington Declaration on October 4, 2020, with Martin Kulldorff of Harvard and Sunetra Gupta of Oxford. Four days later, NIH Director Francis Collins emailed Anthony Fauci calling for a “quick and devastating published takedown” of three scientists he labeled fringe. Reporters accused Bhattacharya of wanting to let the virus rip. Strangers sent him death threats. Social media platforms suppressed his account, which he only found out about later when internal files surfaced. Whatever you make of his conclusions, a system that answers dissent with suppression instead of debate fails everyone, and children lost a year of school (more in some places) to that failure.

Older students like Garrett “Bam” Morgan paid too. He played high school football in Queens at a level that draws college scouts. New York City shut down public school sports for over a year while private schools kept theirs open. No games, no scouts. No scouts, no scholarship. He repeated his senior year. He rebuilt his life, became his community college’s student body president, and is now headed to Howard University. He will still tell you plainly that he never got that lost year back.

Institutions stopped reasoning from evidence, treated disagreement as a threat to manage, and made life altering decisions for millions of children who had no voice in the matter.

That’s what 15 Days is about.

Join me online on Wednesday, August 12 as FAIR closes its Summer Film Series with a virtual screening of 15 DAYS, followed by a discussion with me, Eli Steele, and FAIR Executive Director Monica Harris.

Register here.

15 DAYS is also streaming on Amazon Prime, Apple TV, Google Play, and the Restore Childhood Substack, where we publish regularly. More about the film at 15daysfilm.com.

Share

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.

The Case Against Andrew Tate, but For Free Speech

This week, we highlighted an essay by Michael Mohr examining the controversy surrounding Andrew Tate’s presence on Substack and the broader debate over free speech, censorship, and deplatforming. While Mohr makes clear that he does not endorse Tate or his views, he argues that defending free speech requires protecting the right to express even ideas that many people find offensive or objectionable.

Mohr explores the tension between private platforms and the increasingly important role social media plays as a modern “town square.” He argues that cultural censorship and deplatforming can have consequences beyond any individual platform, particularly as society’s definitions of what is acceptable, offensive, or harmful continue to change. Ultimately, the essay asks whether free speech can truly protect everyone if it only extends to ideas that are considered acceptable by the prevailing culture.

“Free speech has one main purpose: To protect citizens’ unpopular speech. The problem with people mobbing together and deciding who can stay and who must go is that we as a society don’t have agreed-upon understandings of what is ‘moral,’ ‘good,’ ‘safe’ and ‘right.’”

Read the Full Article

The Cambridge Fabulist

This week, Eli Steele examines the controversy surrounding Cambridge professor Jason Arday and journalist Jack Grove, who investigated allegations that Arday’s doctoral thesis contained passages similar to those in an earlier dissertation. Steele focuses not only on the disputed plagiarism allegations—which Arday denies and which remain contested—but also on what followed when Grove raised questions about the thesis.

Steele argues that Grove’s inquiry raises broader questions about academic scrutiny, institutional accountability, and the consequences of invoking accusations of racism in response to criticism. He contends that legitimate questions about academic work should be examined on their merits, regardless of the identities of those involved, while acknowledging that the underlying allegations remain unresolved.

“…white guilt and the genius of this power is that it never has to argue. It only charges racism. It makes no offer to review and pick apart the evidence … and it makes the examination of the evidence itself the crime. Arday’s black skin in this culture of victimization gave him the power to flip the script on Grove and the accused became the accuser. And the terror of being seen as a racist strikes fear in the newly accused. Grove had committed the sin of asking the question of a black man who reached not for merit but the charge of racism in response.”

Read the Full Article

Public university employees feel less free to speak out on campus, surveys show

We’re also highlighting a recent report from the Iowa Capital Dispatch examining free expression among public-university employees and students. New survey results suggest that while a majority of students do not feel their free-speech rights are restricted, more than two-thirds of university employee respondents reported feeling less free to speak openly on campus.

The findings raise broader questions about academic freedom, workplace culture, and whether professors and university employees feel able to express controversial views without fear of professional or social consequences.

“More than two-thirds of surveyed faculty said they worried at least a little bit about being reported inside their classrooms, Kysar-Moon said, and the more closely respondents pay attention to higher education policy, the more likely they are to self-censor. This could include avoiding certain topics in academic or research settings or changing their behavior or engagement with social media and public spaces.”

Read the Full Article

2026 College Free Speech Rankings

This week, we’re also highlighting FIRE’s 2026 College Free Speech Rankings, which examine the state of free expression on college campuses across the country. Drawing on years of student survey data, the rankings explore how comfortable students feel expressing controversial opinions, engaging in political discussions, and disagreeing with their peers and professors.

The findings offer a broader look at the climate surrounding free expression and speech in higher education and raise an important question: Can meaningful intellectual debate exist when students are afraid to speak openly?

“After six years of surveying almost 300,000 college undergraduates nationwide, a sobering picture has emerged: students are reluctant to speak their minds, especially on controversial political issues. Many report that they self-censor regularly, avoid certain topics entirely, and doubt their administrators would defend free expression if controversy struck.”

“The 2026 rankings reveal a bleak picture: 166 of the 257 schools evaluated received an overall score below 60 — earning a failing grade for their campus speech climate. This group includes some of the nation’s most prestigious institutions: Brown University, Carnegie Mellon University, Johns Hopkins University, Princeton University, the University of Pennsylvania, the University of Michigan, and both the University of California at Berkeley and in Los Angeles. Notably, UCLA also holds the distinction of being the lowest-ranked “green light” school this year.”

Read the Full Report

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

• Help fund our work

Dear Friends of FAIR,

This summer, two cases at the center of FAIR’s work finally broke into the national conversation — proof that the work we do quietly doesn’t stay quiet for long.

In 2023, the producers of Broadway’s Wicked teamed up with Maestra Music and Musicians United for Social Equity (MUSE) to offer the “Music Director Experience,” a paid, three-week apprenticeship funded in part by federal grants that flowed from the National Endowment for the Arts to the New York State Council on the Arts (NYSCA). There was just one catch: Maestra’s roster is restricted to women and nonbinary musicians, and MUSE only accepts “people of color.” Kevin Lynch, a FAIR in the Arts member and working music director, applied anyway. His applications to both organizations were denied or left indefinitely pending, effectively locking him out because he’s a white man.

Kevin turned to FAIR for help.

In June 2025, we filed a federal civil rights complaint with the NEA, arguing that Maestra and NYSCA had misused public funds to run a hiring program that excluded people based on race and sex, in violation of Titles VI and VII of the Civil Rights Act. Our complaint asked the NEA to investigate Maestra’s use of federal funds, mandate civil rights training, and ensure people like Kevin can compete for future opportunities on equal terms. The timing lined up with a unanimous U.S. Supreme Court ruling in Ames v. Ohio Department of Youth Services, which ruled that Title VII applies equally to all individuals, regardless of whether they belong to a majority or minority group.

In June, the story broke wide open. The American Alliance for Equal Rights filed a federal lawsuit on Kevin’s behalf against Wicked, Maestra, and MUSE building on the same facts FAIR’s complaint had identified. The New York Post picked up the story, and coverage quickly spread as the Washington Free Beacon and The Broadway Maven both weighed in. A complaint FAIR filed quietly a year ago is now part of a national conversation about who gets to compete for opportunities funded by federal tax dollars.

On the other coast, FAIR has been in federal court since October 2024 in FAIR v. Walker, a lawsuit filed alongside Pacific Legal Foundation. The litigation challenges Washington State’s Covenant Homeownership Program, which offers zero-interest secondary mortgage loans to first-time homebuyers who meet certain income, residency requirements, and race requirements.

The program is open to homebuyers who are Black, Hispanic, Native American, Native Hawaiian or other Pacific Islander, Korean, or Indian. Homebuyers of Japanese, Jewish, or European descent don’t qualify, even if they meet income and residency requirements. FAIR argues that the program violates the Fourteenth Amendment’s guarantee of equal protection and has asked the court to declare the race-based eligibility criteria unconstitutional, issue a permanent injunction, and enforce race-neutral eligibility criteria in its Program.

In March, the U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development opened an investigation into the program, directing the Washington State Housing Finance Commission to preserve records and signaling that findings could be referred to the Department of Justice. Then, in June, the story landed in The New York Times. As I told their reporter a few weeks earlier, Washington’s program sets a dangerous precedent because if discrimination “is selectively used to advance the needs of one group, then it can be selectively used to disadvantage another group.”

Neither case is decided yet, but both are proof of something important: when FAIR takes on discrimination, whether it’s embedded in a Broadway apprenticeship or a state-subsidized mortgage program, the fight doesn’t stay quiet for long. Our work draws the scrutiny it takes to hold these programs accountable, long before a judge ever issues a ruling.

We’ll continue to keep you posted as both cases move forward.

None of this happens without your help. Filing federal complaints, building legal cases, and staying in court until they’re resolved takes funding and resources. If you support FAIR’s fight to eliminate discrimination in employment, housing, and beyond, please donate today. Your gift helps us keep fighting cases like these and keep filing the next one before it ever makes headlines.

Thank you for standing with us.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

Donate

Other Ways to Give

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:

🎬 15 Days — August 12 — 69 minute run time then 1 hour discussion

Directed by Natalya Murakhver, co-founder of Restore Childhood, a national nonprofit dedicated to empowering parents in guiding their children's upbringing, education, and health. A longtime advocate for children's welfare, she spearheaded efforts against pandemic-era school closures, co-organizing #KeepNYCSchoolsOpen in 2020 and filing a lawsuit to reopen New York City schools for in-person learning. She launched the #MaskLikeAKid campaign in 2021 and collaborated with global experts in 2022 to establish the Urgency of Normal, advocating for a return to pre-Covid childhood norms. Her directorial debut, "15 DAYS: The Real Story of the Pandemic School Closures," has been viewed more than 1 million times in an exclusive month-long run on X and is now screening around the country, galvanizing parents to reclaim their agency in their children's education and health. Parents can host their own screenings and learn more at 15daysfilm.com.

Date: Wednesday, August 12th

Time: 7pm EST/4pm PST (until about 9:30pm EST)

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What is the difference between the isms? Socialism, Capitalism, Fascism, Communism…

The United States was founded on a constitutional system that places individual liberty, limited government, and the rule of law at its center. Yet throughout history, competing political philosophies, including socialism and communism, have offered very different answers to fundamental questions about the relationship between the individual, the state, property, equality, and freedom.

How different are these competing visions? Can they coexist within America’s constitutional framework? And what do we actually mean when we use labels like communism, socialism, capitalism, fascism, and democracy?

Whether you believe communism represents a growing influence in American life, think the concern is overstated, or simply want a deeper understanding of the issues, this conversation is designed to encourage thoughtful discussion rather than partisan talking points.

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!

Register Here

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

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

“If liberty means anything at all, it means the right to tell people what they do not want to hear.” – George Orwell, Animal Farm

Recently, everyone was buzzing about the latest Substack drama like flies around fresh waste.

Yes, it is true: Andrew Tate, a prominent misogynistic manosphere influencer, is on Substack. Apparently, he has been on the platform since 2024 but only now, after being booted from Meta for “harmful language”, has he moved his subscriber base to Substack. He instantly (and briefly) shot up to #1 bestseller, but has since gone down some slots.

Predictably, there was a furor about it and many argued for his removal from the platform based on his harsh ideas, strong opinions and sexual assault and abuse accusations.

However, they are only accusations. In America we have the rule of law and due process. Innocent until proven guilty. A process that helps provide time for investigations, protects the wrongly accused and better helps to ensure justice. This is a legal practice in any rational democracy.

So, whether you love or hate Tate, he should be allowed on Substack. Why? Because of free speech.

In my view cultural censorship, deplatforming, cancelling, online mobs, campaigns to prevent an author from even getting published to begin with, even book banning, is just as bad and in some ways perhaps even worse than legal censorship.

Free speech has one main purpose: To protect citizens’ unpopular speech.

The problem with people mobbing together and deciding who can stay and who must go is that we as a society don’t have agreed-upon understandings of what is “moral,” “good,” “safe” and “right.”

My point: Society contains multitudes. As a result, open forums like Substack will host many conflicting personalities, ideologies, religions, ideas, and posts that the mainstream may consider outdated, vile or offensive. But I support all people’s right to have bad, caustic ideas because I believe in free speech. We’re all diverse in ideas and word definitions change rapidly. As a result, it could be me or YOU caught by cancel culture next. The idea that we’d be able to be expelled from a platform for having an opinion should be anathema to everyone who cares about democracies.

The only exceptions, of course, are direct, specific calls for violence against an individual or group– “fighting words.” Look, I get it. Substack, like Meta, is a private company. They can technically expel anyone they want if that person violates their guidelines. That’s what Meta did, essentially for “Hate Speech.” Okay. Fine. Fair enough. And if Substack chooses to do that with Tate: Fine. I don’t subscribe to Tate. He clearly has an audience composed mostly of young, insecure men who feel unduly jettisoned by Feminism.

What then is the point? We as Americans and as defenders of Western democracies should use a very high standard for removing someone from a platform. Theoretically the “town square” is now on social media. Yet social media is owned by private companies, one of which, Meta, operates like a monopoly. The whole idea of a democratic nation is that we have the right to criticize our government for any reason. In autocratic nations dissent is crushed. But in democracies we have the right to speak out without fear of state retribution. This isn’t even fully true in some democracies today such as the UK, unfortunately.

As I mentioned earlier, cultural banning, cancellation, and deplatforming is just as bad if not worse than legal banning. No books in America are fully banned everywhere—as far as I know. Sure, some districts have banned certain books in libraries and schools (this is very bad and I hate it as well)…but you can still buy those books on platforms like Amazon. But, when you remove someone from a major platform their voice is actually gone from the public ‘square’.

Why defend someone with as reprehensible views as Andrew Tate? Simple: If you look at culture on both political sides over the past decade the definitions of what is moral, right, good, and normal have changed drastically.

Think about identity politics and ideology over the past ten years. Definitions change rapidly. In 2026 if you ask a cross-section of ages, nationalities, races and genders what racism, sexism, misogyny, capitalism, etc. are you’ll get a plethora of wildly divergent answers. My point: It could be YOU next that faces undue censorship or retaliation for voicing what you as an individual believe or espouse. Not that you will sound like Andrew Tate, but that culture changes, faster now than ever before due to tech and the internet. To be safe—to protect us all—we should protect free speech for everyone, both legally and culturally, unless, as I mentioned earlier, someone is specifically calling for violence. I do not see any other way around this Gordian knot.

If offensive ideologies aren’t banned, what is there to protect us? The answer yet again is free speech. It’s not that actions don’t have consequences or that words can’t cause psychological harm, just that being unpopular shouldn’t be a crime (figuratively or literally). We all have the power to ignore those we find offensive, to support speakers we align with, to engage educationally with opinions we dislike and most importantly—thanks to free speech—voice that dislike openly, publicly and safely.

Share

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.

Where Are You From?

This week, we highlighted an essay by Vic Levitin reflecting on identity, immigration, and the search for belonging in an increasingly interconnected world. Drawing on his experiences growing up in Israel after being born in Ukraine, and later raising his family in Thailand, Levitin explores how moving between cultures reshaped his understanding of home, tribe, and human connection.

Rather than viewing identity as something determined by nationality or ethnicity alone, he argues that belonging is built through shared experiences, relationships, and the communities we create throughout our lives. Through deeply personal stories of family, travel, and parenthood, the essay asks readers to reconsider what it really means to answer the seemingly simple question, “Where are you from?”

“When everything from the money to the social codes becomes unreadable, your brain starts desperately scanning for any familiar anchor just to simplify things again. This is not to suggest one culture is superior to the other. As a multilingual, multicultural traveler, I have experienced the best and worst of many nations. Rather, in a world that often sends us out from our homes, away from our tribes and into places we can’t speak our mother language, familiarity becomes the ultimate comfort.”

Read the Full Article

FAIR SCREENING - KILLING AMERICA

This week, FAIR hosted a screening of Killing America, followed by a live discussion with filmmaker Eli Steele, FAIR Executive Director Monica Harris, and Diana Blum, whose fight against antisemitism in one of America’s wealthiest school districts became the focus of the film.

In a companion essay, Steele reflects on the unexpected barriers the documentary faced before its release, recounting how organizations that publicly champion viewpoint diversity and combat antisemitism repeatedly declined to host screenings. The piece asks an uncomfortable but important question: What responsibility do institutions have to act on the values they publicly endorse?

“It raises a question the institutions should have to answer: What is the point of an organization that claims to fight antisemitism if it will not show up for the film, or even for the families, when it actually matters? And why do so many of these organizations refuse to address the underlying conditions that give permission to antisemitism such as liberated ethnic studies and other similar forms of indoctrination?”

Read the Full Article

Watch Film

Cultural Misunderstandings: On the Misuses of the Term “Culture”

Dr. Doug Novotny, FAIR’s new Interim Director of FAIR in Medicine, explores how the term culture has becomee increasingly flattened in modern mental health discourse. Rather than treating culture as a static collection of demographic traits, Novotny argues for a richer understanding rooted in shared meaning, history, traditions, and lived experience.

Drawing on psychology and anthropology, he suggests that viewing people through the lens of dynamic cultural systems—rather than fixed identity labels—allows for deeper human connection, more effective therapy, and a fuller appreciation of individual complexity.

“True culture is fascinating and evocative, like a novel, the arts, or cinema. A person, an education, or the arc of a therapy can be fruitfully understood in this way. In contrast, fetishized culture diminishes anything or anyone viewed through that lens. No one should be regarded as a mere set of concrete traits, least of all by professionals, whose job it is to see beyond—not be bound within—dehumanizing tendencies.”

Read the Full Article

Join the FAIR Community

• Join us and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.

Dear Friends of FAIR,

I’m thrilled to announce Dr. Doug Novotny as Interim Director of FAIR in Medicine, stepping into the role following Nikki Johnson’s departure. We are grateful for the foundation Nikki built and energized by Doug’s vision for FAIR in Medicine’s next chapter.

Doug is a licensed clinical psychologist with a Ph.D. from the University of Chicago and more than 25 years of experience in clinical practice. He currently serves as Senior Advisor at Open Therapy Institute, where he leads a peer group helping clinicians restore client-centered, evidence-based practice against politicized pressure in the field. Doug brings a rare combination of clinical expertise and moral clarity to this role, skills that are desperately needed as identity politics continues to reshape the teaching and practice of psychotherapy.

Doug comes with a clear diagnosis of the problem in the medical and mental health professions and a track record of doing something about it. For years, licensed practitioners have been subjected to ideologically charged training that sorts patients by identity rather than treating each one as an individual. Indoctrination begins in medical school and extends well into their careers through the Continuing Education (CE) they’re required to complete to keep their licenses. This unwarranted activism insults the intelligence of professionals who are perfectly capable of thinking through, on their own, the best ways to treat their patients.

Doug was inspired to create an alternative: informed consent that’s actually informed, a commitment to first do no harm, and a model for practice that sees the whole patient, not a label. That’s the direction he’s taking FAIR in Medicine, and we’re excited to have him lead it.

Doug’s leadership builds directly on work already underway at FAIR. Since February, FAIR has offered “Culture in Psychotherapy, Without the Corrosion of Identity Politics,” a CE course Doug developed that draws on FAIR Advisor Jonathan Haidt’s Moral Foundations Theory, giving clinicians a structural model for their work and restoring moral depth without moralism. The course was offered live in February, March, and April and is still available for those who couldn’t participate. Whether you’re a clinician navigating these pressures or simply someone who cares about keeping psychotherapy grounded in evidence rather than ideology, you’ll benefit from this course.

With Doug helming FAIR in Medicine, we will develop additional CE offerings that reach more clinicians, educators, and others looking for a pro-human alternative to the identity-politics frameworks reshaping their fields. More details on upcoming CE courses and how to get involved are coming soon.

Doug will also continue the work of expanding FAIR’s network of professionals and thought leaders willing to apply pressure to institutions that violate their duties and subject practitioners to cancellation for refusing to submit to groupthink. Under his leadership, FAIR in Medicine will also expand support for Suzannah Alexander’s research into accrediting agencies that pressure educational institutions to indoctrinate students rather than educate them. This is critical work aimed at reforming the incentives at the root of the problem, since accreditation is where much of this damage originates, yet is difficult to see from the outside. Lastly, FAIR in Medicine will endeavor to reach medical students entering the field who lack an understanding of the fundamental principles and ethics of medicine and are best positioned to help us recover them.

FAIR in Medicine isn’t only for physicians and clinicians. It’s for everyone — because sooner or later, all of us are patients. Confidence in the medical field has plummeted over the past several years, and rebuilding it means giving people tools they can actually use. To that end, Doug will lead the development of toolkits to help patients identify practitioners they can trust.

Plenty of people criticize a broken system. For the past several years, I’ve watched Doug create the infrastructure to offer something better. That’s the spirit I want FAIR in Medicine to carry forward, and it’s why I’m confident in handing him the reins.

But this isn’t work we can do alone. It only happens because people like you make it possible.

Your gift today helps us do all of this: grow FAIR in Medicine’s CE series under Doug’s leadership, deepen our support for Suzannah Alexander’s accreditation reform work, build the network of professionals standing up for their colleagues, and put trustworthy-practitioner tools directly into patients’ hands.

No matter the size, your donation will help FAIR restore confidence in medicine.

Thank you for standing behind this work, and please join me in welcoming Doug!

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

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:

🎬 15 Days — August 12 — 69 minute run time then 1 hour discussion

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.

Date: Wednesday, August 12th

Time: 7pm EST/4pm PST (until about 9:30pm EST)

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

Defining & Understanding the “Isms”
What do we actually mean when we say capitalism, fascism, socialism/democratic socialism, communism or any of the other “isms”? In a culture where these words are used constantly and often imprecisely, clarity matters.

Join us for an open, rigorous conversation as we examine the definitions, histories, and real-world applications of some of the major “isms.”

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!

Register Here

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

• Join us, and become a member of FAIR.

• Become a FAIR volunteer, or join a FAIR chapter.

• Sign up for a Welcome to FAIR Zoom information session to learn more about our mission.

• Share your reviews and incident reports on our FAIR Transparency website.

• View our Many Stories, One Nation curriculum.
  

For most people, “where are you from?” takes three seconds to answer, but I need a moment.

As a kid, I never really knew what my mother tongue was. The first language I spoke was Russian. But we moved to Israel when I was six, and ever since, I think and dream in Hebrew. So which culture is the more accurate answer?

At 42, the question only got harder. I was born in Ukraine. I grew up in Israel. Now my wife Lital and I are raising our kids on an island in Thailand. If there’s a single clear answer, I still haven’t found it.

My parents left Ukraine for Israel with a box of vodka bottles, which they traded for bananas somewhere in Hungary along the way. They were running from a hard life toward a country that promised them safety and belonging–a tribe.

Thirty years later, their kid walked away from the stability they’d worked so hard to build.

I built my life on the foundations they provided, and I don’t blame them for the stability they worked so hard to create. But eventually, that stability started to feel less like a foundation and more like a ceiling. Everything was predictable, safe, and finished–and honestly, I was suffocating under all that certainty. I realized I needed a little friction just to feel alive. As it turns out, I’m not an outlier. I keep meeting other children of immigrants who are doing the exact same thing: walking away from the safety our parents fought for, not because we reject their struggle, but because it’s not the life we want to live.

For years in Israel, I could predict almost exactly what my life would look like ten years out. Not a bad life, just a predictable one. Same morning traffic, same supermarket, same news, same playgrounds, and the clarity, strangely, started to suffocate me. Apparently, I need some uncertainty to feel alive.

My wife Lital didn’t. She loved what we had. I understood that dragging her and the kids into an adventure she didn’t want wouldn’t end well, so I let the dream go.

And then a war started in our home, Israel. We flew to Thailand for two weeks, to spare the kids the worst of it.

The ability to simply leave, to seek refuge in a tropical paradise while the world we knew was consumed by conflict, is a privilege I know most don’t have. While others were huddled in shelters or facing the front lines, we were able to trade the sound of sirens for the sound of the ocean; a reality that carries a weight of its own.

Two weeks became two months. Two months became almost three years. Without ever intending to, we’d left our whole life behind.

A few months in, we had to fly to Cambodia for a visa run. I thought I was starting to understand Asia. Cambodia didn’t fit any pattern I had previously encountered.

Cambodia didn’t feel like another country, it felt like another planet. Even the airport was a ceremony: lines, entry fees, a police officer offering to move us up the queue with the kids for a little extra. I still don’t know if that was a bribe or an express lane. Even the money felt made up. Tens of thousands of the local currency for a coffee.

That sense of total disorientation–feeling like I’d landed on an alien world– forced me to see how much of my “clarity” was really just lazy pattern recognition. When everything from the money to the social codes becomes unreadable, your brain starts desperately scanning for any familiar anchor just to simplify things again. This is not to suggest one culture is superior to the other. As a multilingual, multicultural traveler, I have experienced the best and worst of many nations. Rather, in a world that often sends us out from our homes, away from our tribes and into places we can’t speak our mother language, familiarity becomes the ultimate comfort.

That was the hard part, actually: I couldn’t read the people around me. I came from a place where people mostly say what they think. Here, “yes” didn’t always mean yes, and a smile didn’t always mean agreement–sometimes it was just a way to keep the peace. Once I pressed my palms together and bowed to thank a taxi driver, the way I do in Thailand. He smiled, then shook my hand. I hadn’t broken a rule, I had just used the wrong cultural gesture. Living between so many shifting worlds meant I was constantly recalibrating, forever switching gears just to avoid stumbling over a cultural line I couldn’t quite see.

One night we had a Friday dinner with a group of Israeli travelers, and everything clicked at once. My people. Same humor, same codes, the same inside language you can’t fake. I felt safe before anyone had said a single real thing.

We all do this. We land somewhere strange and scan the room for someone who looks like us. Drop me into a world of aliens, and suddenly every human feels like family.

But the identity boxes aren’t fixed. That’s the part I didn’t expect.

Lital was sure no place but Israel could ever feel like home. Today she sings in Thai in the island bars, goes out dancing with Thai friends, trains Muay Thai, and has a Thai flag tattooed on her arm. She’s smashed every box that used to define her and built a life she couldn’t have imagined.
What does “where are you from” tell you about her?

It tells you perhaps where she was born or what her passport says, but it tells you nothing about her, who she is, or what cultures she truly belongs to.

And then there are the kids.

We recently got stuck in Vietnam for three weeks–another visa run. Almost every day we’d take the boys somewhere to burn off energy: a play zone, a roller rink, a park.

It never stopped amazing me. Every time I came to collect them, they were in the middle of a pack of Vietnamese kids, proudly introducing them to me: “Dad, I made two new friends.”

No shared language. No shared country. No passports checked. Just two new friends, in a city we were only passing through.

I went to Cambodia looking for my own tribe, just to feel safe. Lital learned you can belong to more than one. The kids don’t look for tribes at all, they just look for someone to play with.

Maybe that’s the real difference. Some of us have to understand a person before we’ll connect. Others connect first, and understand later.

When was the last time you met someone before it mattered where they were from?

Share

About the Author:

Vic Levitin built four startups, then stepped off the default path to rebuild life from the ground up on a Thai island with his family. Writing about the experiment at viclevitin.com

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.