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.

Oh, Great Nation

This week, we featured an essay by Anisa Fox reflecting on America’s 250th anniversary through the perspective of a Bahamian-American immigrant. Drawing on her experiences growing up in the Bahamas and later moving to the United States, Fox argues that patriotism and honest criticism are not mutually exclusive. While acknowledging America’s flaws, she contends that they should not overshadow the freedoms, opportunities, and stability that continue to make the nation worth celebrating.

Fox’s appreciation for the everyday aspects of American life that are often taken for granted—from reliable infrastructure and educational opportunities to civic freedoms and public institutions informs her sense of gratitude and national self-reflection. She recognizes that America’s imperfections need not diminish its enduring greatness.

“I will never forget the first time a package arrived at my door after I moved to the United States. It felt like magic. I will never forget my first time in a Super Walmart. I thought it was a mall—I couldn’t imagine such abundance. I will never forget my first time riding a train or visiting a library or museum, many of which are free in America. Having police that respond in minutes, a court system that takes its cases seriously, and being able to vote in ways that bring about impact are all things that as an American I am thankful for and as a Bahamian am amazed by.”

Read the Full Article

How to Raise a Grateful American

This week, we also recommend an essay by Robert Pondiscio examining the role parents can play in cultivating gratitude and civic responsibility as America marks its 250th anniversary. Arguing that schools alone cannot instill a love of country, Pondiscio encourages families to teach children not only about America’s failures, but also about the freedoms, institutions, and opportunities that generations have worked to build and preserve.

Rather than advocating for blind patriotism, the essay argues that gratitude and honest criticism are complementary civic virtues.

“For all our political divisions, cultural anxieties, and a litany of daily complaints, I suspect most of us would choose America. Not because America is perfect. Not because it is free from injustice, conflict, or disappointment. Simply because if you had to place a bet on which nation offered you the greatest likelihood of living your life in safety, prosperity, dignity, and freedom, you would be hard-pressed to make a better wager. Needless to say, this is not how many Americans think about their country. Nor, alas, is it the way many children learn about it.”

Read the Full Article

Devon Akmon explores the unique role museums can play in rebuilding trust at a time of growing social division. Drawing on research showing that museums remain among America’s most trusted public institutions, Akmon argues that they are uniquely positioned to foster curiosity, dialogue, and meaningful engagement across political and cultural differences.

Akmon suggests that by encouraging thoughtful conversation instead of ideological certainty, museums can help strengthen the habits of empathy, curiosity, and civic trust that underpin a healthy democracy.

“At a moment when trust in public institutions is fragile, museums hold a rare and valuable position. They are places where people still expect to learn something new and to encounter ideas different from their own. When museums invite visitors to think together about complex issues, whether through exhibitions, conversations or community partnerships, they help nurture the habits of curiosity and empathy that democracy depend on.”

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,

This summer, FAIR attended two important education conferences: the School Boards for Academic Excellence (SBAE) Summer Conference in Charleston and the Utah Rural Schools Association (URSA) Summer Conference in Cedar City. The feedback we received from educators and administrators has been incredibly energizing and provides valuable guidance for our work going forward.

In June, FAIR Executive Director Monica Harris attended the SBAE Summer Conference in Charleston, South Carolina, an event bringing together school board members and education leaders who are navigating complex curriculum adoption decisions. What emerged was both clarifying and inspiring.

Too often, the narrative around school boards centers on disengagement or powerlessness, but SBAE painted a different picture. The board members Monica met were deeply invested in their communities, genuinely committed to finding non-polarizing alternatives to liberated Ethnic Studies, and motivated to make meaningful curriculum decisions. Many were eager to continue the conversation post-conference and discuss adoption possibilities immediately. One attendee from Georgia, whose district has struggled with polarizing curricula, became emotional describing the relief she felt upon learning about Many Stories, One Nation. It was truly a moment that captures why FAIR’s work matters and can make a difference in so many communities.

These conversations confirmed what we at FAIR have long suspected: education leaders want a curriculum that won’t create controversy and won’t sanitize history. They want assurance that their investment in rigorous instruction won’t invite backlash. Many Stories, One Nation answers those questions by teaching difficult history through civil discourse methodology while maintaining academic rigor without ideological polarization.

This month, Jefferson Shupe, Aly Shupe, and Gabe Brown represented FAIR at the URSA Summer Conference in Cedar City. The conversations there revealed another critical insight: adoption pathways are multiple and creative.

Chuck Woodhouse, who teaches on an Indian reservation, asked how Many Stories, One Nation treats Native American history. When Jefferson handed him Chief John Ross’s letter and showed how it connects to the Declaration of Independence, Woodhouse’s immediate response reflected what educators across the country are discovering: this curriculum is exactly what they need. Three high school history teachers realized they could integrate Many Stories, One Nation into existing courses rather than adopting an entirely new curriculum. For rural districts with limited resources, this adaptation model may prove just as powerful as standalone adoption.

What both conferences revealed is how adoption happens in practice: through relationships with decision-makers, through educator-to-educator conversations about real constraints and creative solutions, and through board members like those in Charleston who are ready to lead their communities toward more complete American history.

We’re so grateful for everyone who represented FAIR this summer, and so energized by the momentum we’re building across the country!

With gratitude,

The FAIR Team

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

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

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

Join us for this can’t-miss lineup:

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

🎬 15 Days — August 12

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What does it mean to have “rights”?

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

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

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

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

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

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.
  

With America’s 250th anniversary having just passed, many conflicting opinions on the nation have risen to the surface. There are those who are enamored with our great nation and whose faith in the American dream is unshakable. On the opposite end of the conversation are those who see endless issues with the USA and can’t wait to emigrate elsewhere. While both stances are valid in their own rights, I feel the truth is somewhere more in between.

As a Bahamian-American raised primarily outside of the US, I feel uniquely able to bridge this gap. I have experienced life in a developing nation, and the hustle of modern American life.

Growing up on the tiny island of Nassau–147 square miles and less than the length of the average marathon–I was fortunate to have a two-parent household, a private education and enjoyed a middle-class lifestyle. Despite these privileges I was only partially shielded from the reality at hand. Many Bahamians can’t swim–which is dangerous when you live in a country surrounded by water, many don’t pass grade school, and have no post-secondary education options unless they leave the country. While Nassau has two hospitals—one private and one public, both lacking in many ways–other islands–such as Grand Bahama where I lived for three years–have no real medical facilities.

Food and water are also a national concern. The majority of food in the Bahamas is imported, as a result supply chain issues, governmental corruption and resource scarcity have increasingly devastating effects on the population. Water that isn’t bottled is unsanitary for drinking and alternatives, such as rainwater collection, are costly and hard to maintain.

Additionally , the nation operates on an insufficient power grid as a result of the government catering to the power needs of ever-expanding hotels. These touristic hubs take precedence over residential neighborhoods and the daily power needs of locals because tourism is the nation’s sole industry–there is an economic reliance on foreign comfort. Most homes, excepting those who can afford a generator of which my family was not one, are without power daily for substantial lengths of time. The frequent on/off of the power damages appliances, and interrupts business. It also makes it impossible to cool homes–the ones that have air conditioning–which is hazardous in a hot humid nation.

The geographical location of The Bahamas also makes it a prime target of severe yearly hurricanes. Candle light baths with salvaged water and cold rationed dinners were not uncommon during hurricane season. Coupled with high rates of violence, an astronomical cost of living, an internationally valueless dollar, a corrupt government and storms that can leave locals without adequate food and water for weeks to months, the Bahamas is a travel beauty but a living disaster.

Hurricane Dorian, for example, was a category five storm that decimated the nation after stalling over islands like Grand Bahama for three days (storms usually blow through in a matter of hours). Dorian flooded 80% of the island, left the island’s only airport out of commission and forced locals to rely on foreign aid. It also led to an unreported death toll in the dozens without any concrete plans to rescue people or rebuild infrastructure.

Despite the hardship of life in the Bahamas, I love the country of my childhood and celebrate its joys just as I love my present American home.

I moved to America after losing a lot: My parents gave up their dream of owning a house in their home nation in favor of moving to a nation of greater stability. I had to, in the middle of high school and in the months precursing covid, change schools which brought a total cultural whiplash. Travel is expensive and time consuming, as is filing mountains of paperwork to demonstrate that your family are decent law-abiding people. Paper work that often makes no sense without legal guidance becomes an all day task. Packing is busy and even busier when you realize you will have to sell or leave behind boxes of belongings that meant so much to you. Learning that the humane society you had spent years volunteering at had become a watery death trap for pets and the brave workers who stayed with them during the storm reminds you that you have lost a lot and yet still less than others.

Walking away with my life, family, pets and most important belongings was a sobering experience and has given me a deep appreciation of our American nation. While we can argue about the government, bicker about history, acknowledge that the American dream is fleeting or take issue with any number of things across the country, one thing remains true: This is a great nation. That doesn’t mean perfect or always unified, but it does mean great. We live in a nation where we can freely voice opinions, contact our leaders, demand representation, access any part of the country reliably through public transport, and receive medical care from a licensed doctor who is up to date on modern medicine (however expensive it might be). We can select our educational paths, shop online and in-person, and reliably expect both the availability of products and the consistency of pricing.

I will never forget the first time a package arrived at my door after I moved to the United States. It felt like magic. I will never forget my first time in a Super Walmart. I thought it was a mall—I couldn’t imagine such abundance. I will never forget my first time riding a train or visiting a library or museum, many of which are free in America. Having police that respond in minutes, a court system that takes its cases seriously, and being able to vote in ways that bring about impact are all things that as an American I am thankful for and as a Bahamian am amazed by.

So, as we move beyond July 4th and continue our celebration of the 250th year of this great nation, I hope that we can all remember that it is ok—and even good —to love your home nation, to love your American nation and to simultaneously recognize its faults. Our areas for growth should not detract from our greatness and do not detract from the value of celebrating 250 years of that American greatness.

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 Publishing Industry Stopped Believing in Its Readers

This week, we featured an essay by exploring what the extraordinary success of Theo of Golden reveals about the modern publishing industry. Using Allen Levi’s bestselling novel as a case study, Libes argues that publishers have spent decades favoring minimalist, fast-paced fiction while increasingly assuming that readers lack the appetite for slower, more intellectually demanding literature. She suggests that Theo of Golden challenges those assumptions, demonstrating that ambitious literary fiction still has a broad audience when given the chance to reach one.

Looking beyond a single bestselling novel, the essay examines how editorial preferences, BookTok culture, and an industry-wide emphasis on accessibility may be reshaping not only what gets published, but also how readers engage with literature itself. Libes contends that publishing plays a powerful role in shaping culture and argues that if publishers once again champion complex, reflective fiction, readers may prove far more willing to embrace it than the industry has long assumed.

“Publishing shapes our culture more than we like to admit. The very books championed by our publishing professionals become the books that we not only read and discuss but also aspire to write ourselves. If year after year the publishing industry rewards simpler, faster, and more disposable fiction, then readers inevitably become accustomed to “fast-paced” books that require no afterthought.

If, on the other hand, publishers start championing ambitious, intellectually rich novels again, then there is every reason to believe readers would rise to meet them.”

Read the Full Article

This week, we shared a tribute by Natasha Willowdale remembering educator and FAIR chapter leader Richard Bilkszto on the third anniversary of his passing. Reflecting on their friendship, Richard's unwavering commitment to fairness in education, and the profound impact he had on colleagues and students alike, Willowdale offers a deeply personal remembrance of a man who continued advocating for the principles he believed in long after his retirement.

The essay also reflects on the importance of preserving Richard's legacy by continuing the work he dedicated himself to throughout his career.

Learn More Here

Friends of Richard Bilkszto

What Killed Michael Brown?

This week, FAIR hosted a screening of What Killed Michael Brown?, the award-winning documentary by filmmaker Eli Steele and his father, Shelby Steele. Revisiting the 2014 shooting of Michael Brown and the national conversation that followed, the film examines how one of the defining events of the last decade shaped public discourse on race, policing, and systemic racism.

Ahead of the screening, Eli reflected on the making of the documentary, the climate in which it was released, and why he believes revisiting Ferguson remains important today. Missed the screening? You can still read Eli’s reflections on the film and explore additional resources using the links below.

“What makes us most proud is the impact the film had on so many Americans. It gave them the voice and the ability to push back against the narrative. We have many letters from people calling it “freeing” and “liberating.”

Read the Full Article

Watch the Full Film

Learn More

Why Did We Let Big Tech Take Over Education?

Jonathan Haidt features a discussion by Sophie Winkleman on his After Babel Substack exploring the growing role of screens, educational technology, and AI in the classroom. Drawing on research from educators, neuroscientists, and learning scientists, Winkleman argues that the rapid shift toward device-based learning has come at the expense of children’s attention, imagination, handwriting, and critical thinking while weakening the essential relationship between teachers and students.

Rather than rejecting technology outright, Winkleman makes the case for a “paper-first” approach to education—one that reserves technology for situations where it genuinely enhances learning rather than replacing it.

“When we talk about children, social media, smartphones, iPads, we tend to frame the discussion around the issue of harmful material. But Justine’s pupils weren’t traumatized by harmful material, they were just dazed, glazed, and passive, their young minds deactivated by constant, low-level stimulation.”

Read the Full Article

A cross-party UK parliamentary inquiry has called for the UK National Year of Reading to become a National Decade of Reading, arguing that reversing the decline in reading for pleasure will require sustained cultural change rather than short-term initiatives. The report recommends expanding access to school and public libraries, ensuring every child has regular opportunities to read for enjoyment, and addressing barriers ranging from increased screen use to unequal access to books.

“The rise of screen use is a “major factor” reducing the time children spend reading for pleasure, according to the report. Author, illustrator and teacher Onyinye Iwu told the inquiry that when she asked students why they don’t read, “a lot of them were like: ‘Miss, but we have TikTok. What is the point?’ That is it. You have TikTok, you have Netflix, you have the film coming out; why would you read the book?”

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,

Three years ago this week, on July 13, 2023, FAIR Chapter leader Richard Bilkszto took his own life.

A retired Toronto principal, Richard spent his career championing the students who needed the most support: the ones who were bullied and overlooked, the kids who didn’t fit the mold. He could have spent his retirement on the beaches he loved. Instead, he kept showing up for the causes he believed in. Richard was a public servant who believed fairness and academic merit weren’t in conflict with one another — and he paid an enormous price for saying so out loud.

Richard’s death followed a diversity training session in which he was publicly accused of racism for voicing a disagreement while the administrators around him stayed silent. The story became international news, cited widely in debates over how DEI programs are run and who they’re allowed to hold accountable. But before he was a headline, Richard was a colleague, a friend, and to many of us at FAIR he was proof that one person’s willingness to speak plainly could move an entire conversation forward.

This week, our Substack published a tribute to Richard by Natasha Willowdale, a friend and fellow educator who worked alongside him on the issues he cared about most. It’s a personal, unflinching piece about grief, about regret, and about the fight over merit-based admissions to specialized school programs that Richard was in the middle of when he died.

Natasha’s tribute also carries a piece of good news that Richard unfortunately didn’t live to see: after three years of advocacy from groups like Friends of Richard Bilkszto and Save Our Schools Ontario, the lottery-based admissions policy that replaced merit-based entry has been revoked. Starting this school year, students will be admitted through a centralized evaluation. It’s not a perfect system, as Natasha acknowledges, but it’s a meaningful step toward the standards Richard fought for.

And that’s the part of this story that belongs to all of us now: not just mourning what happened to Richard, but continuing the work he started. FAIR exists because people like him were willing to speak plainly when too many people around them weren’t. Honoring him means refusing to look away from that discomfort when it’s our turn to speak up.

One reader’s poignant comment on Natasha’s tribute resonated with us. Tom Dearie, who knew Richard only briefly, observed that news of his death was “framed into a cynical narrative that overlooked the human side of his story.” That’s the risk when any tragedy becomes a symbol: the individual gets lost inside it. We don’t want to make the same mistake.

Richard was not a talking point. He was a principal who stayed late to help the kids other adults had given up on, and a man whose family and community are still living with the aftermath of his tragic death three years later.

We’ll leave you with the sentiment that Natasha’s piece closes on: Richard would be glad to know that his work wasn’t in vain, and that the work he was committed to doing is now bearing fruit.

Rest in peace, Richard. You are missed.

If you’d like to support the organizations carrying this work forward, visit Friends of Richard Bilkszto or Save Our Schools Ontario.

If you or someone you know is struggling, the 988 Suicide & Crisis Lifeline (call or text 988 in the US) and Talk Suicide Canada (1-833-456-4566) are available 24/7.

With gratitude,

Monica Harris
Executive Director, FAIR

Subscribe now to receive FAIR News weekly in your Inbox

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

Conference Link

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

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

Join us for this can’t-miss lineup:

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

🎬 15 Days — August 12

Register Here

FAIR in Conversation is Back!

What does it mean to have “rights”?

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

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

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

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

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

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.
  

Allen Levi’s Theo of Golden is this summer’s go-to read for BookTokers and academics alike—and it broke every rule in contemporary publishing.

This past week, The Wall Street Journal ran a feature on Levi’s unconventional journey to literary fame following the publication of his bestselling novel Theo of Golden. While I tend to gloss over most contemporary fiction news (which often pertains, as The Wall Street Journal admits, to BDSM or vampires), this particular story immediately captured my attention: Since its publication, three years ago, Theo of Golden has sold 2.5 million copies—amazing for an originally self-published work.

That fact alone should give every editor in New York City pause: If a novel capable of reaching millions of readers could not initially find a home in the traditional publishing industry, then literary professionals have erroneous assumptions about what readers desperately crave today.

Upon its initial release, Theo of Golden sold three thousand copies—a more than respectable number for a self-published title. It continued to reach indie fiction lovers across the country until Simon & Schuster finally recognized what readers knew long ago: Our culture is in desperate need of serious literary fiction.

As someone who has spent the past few years analyzing trends in the publishing industry, I can only chuckle at the reaction of Levi’s literary agent, who felt like she was “walking into the woods and discovering a unicorn.”

No hate for Theo of Golden, which abounds with beautiful sentences and complex ideas, but the irony is, of course, that the book only appears to be a unicorn because the publishing industry has spent decades engineering a literary landscape in which slow, introspective, and profound books have become exceedingly difficult to find.

The rise of BookTok culture—a TikTok book community characterized by algorithm-driven content and bite-size recommendations—has increasingly conditioned readers to expect stories that deliver immediate gratification rather than those that require sustained intellectual engagement. Several “BookTokers,” in fact, admit to reading only dialogue in novels while skipping over “slower” scenes, creating a reading culture where books are almost literally reduced to screenplays. Publishers, in turn, cater to the BookTok community, and the cycle continues.

In other words, Theo of Golden has only earned its claim to uniqueness precisely because the publishing industry systematically turns away all other books like it.

Every year, the publishing industry churns out hundreds of new fiction titles that all sound the same. Teeming with short sentences and declarative phrases, these books no longer require readers to consider what a work of fiction means. The value of a book has been reduced to its ability to provide quick, digestible entertainment rather than to challenge its reader.

The result is an entire literary ecosystem that has surrendered its capacity for reflection—and a broader culture that has lost its ability to think critically about our world.

Let’s look at some examples from recent literary fiction bestsellers, starting with Sally Rooney’s Normal People.

Marianne answers the door when Connell rings the bell.

She’s still wearing her school uniform, but she’s taken off the sweater, so it’s just the blouse and skirt, and she has no shoes on, only tights.

Oh, hey, he says.

Come on in.

She turns and walks down the hall. He follows her, closing the door behind him.

Rooney’s sentences are simple to a fault. Her prose contains overly simplistic words and ideas, communicating only the bare minimum information required to advance the plot.

One could excuse the publishing industry if it were just Rooney writing in this infantile style, but such literary minimalism has infested nearly every single literary fiction title that lines our shelves today.

Let’s take a look at another bestselling example—Caro Claire Burke’s Yesteryear, the literary rave of the past few months.

THIS IS THE LAST DAY of the life I imagined for myself.

I woke up two minutes before my alarm went off, like usual.

Five fifty-eight and bing: eyes wide open, ready to greet the day. I’ve never had a hard time waking up in the morning. Never used the snooze button, either, not once in my life. Sobriety helps. I don’t drink. Discipline helps, too.

Burke’s prose follows much the same pattern as Rooney’s: short, declarative sentences move the reader rapidly from one assertion to the next. We can describe Burke’s prose as utilitarian, creating a novel that is easy to consume but difficult to contemplate.

Let’s contrast these examples with the opening of Levi’s Theo of Golden:

On his first full day in Golden, Theo woke early, pulled back the curtains of his hotel room, and looked out over the southern dawn. He had arrived the previous afternoon from his home in New York City, where winter, with a newsworthy late-season mixture of snow and ice, was in full fury. The flight to Atlanta (on a private jet) and the drive farther south to Golden (in a chauffeur-driven Lincoln Town Car) had transported him to a world of warmth, abloom in myriad shades of green, yellow, lavender, and pink.

The difference is almost immediately apparent. Where Rooney’s prose reports, Levi’s evokes; where Burke explains, Levi reveals. Theo of Golden demonstrates that language is not simply a vehicle for plot but an art form in its own right. Levi trusts his readers to slow down and savor the cadence of a well-crafted sentence—and the meaning of his ideas as a whole.

Theo of Golden therefore stands as a direct antithesis to the prevailing wisdom of the contemporary publishing industry. It challenges the broader orthodoxy that readers want fiction that reads like a movie script.

But if readers are clearly willing to embrace the thematic and stylistic complexity of Theo of Golden, why, then, does the publishing industry keep pushing out didactic and minimalist literature?

The fact is that the stylistic similarities among the novels we examined above are not accidental—they reflect an editorial philosophy that increasingly equates literary quality with accessibility.

In the contemporary publishing world, minimalism has become not only the norm but a hard requirement. Publishing professionals routinely claim that any sentence over fifteen words causes readers to “concentrate too hard.” Such language suggests that the publishing industry has not only become convinced that readers of contemporary fiction do not have the attention spans to digest long, flowery sentences but also that the industry itself has shaped the tastes of its own readers.

Operating in this paradigm, writers are frequently told to avoid “poetic prose and metaphors,” with one agent offering the following advice on her blog:

Often times the writers will focus on sounding “literary” and write meandering, prosy or metaphor laden sentences. While it is a style choice, it’s not usually a successful one… Flowery prose and metaphor often detract from your writing.

Thus, this type of “literary” voice becomes not only the less desirable writing style but an active faux pas. Writers who take after Fitzgerald or Nabokov face rejection, while writers who produce “legible” writing see their books line our shelves. Over time, these editorial preferences have created the very reading habits they claim merely to reflect: Readers are told they no longer have the patience for long, intellectually demanding books but are rarely given the opportunity to encounter them in the first place.

Despite this, the success of Theo of Golden offers hope for a civilization that has increasingly abandoned its capacity for reflection.

Publishing shapes our culture more than we like to admit. The very books championed by our publishing professionals become the books that we not only read and discuss but also aspire to write ourselves. If year after year the publishing industry rewards simpler, faster, and more disposable fiction, then readers inevitably become accustomed to “fast-paced” books that require no afterthought.

If, on the other hand, publishers start championing ambitious, intellectually rich novels again, then there is every reason to believe readers would rise to meet them.

As our literature loses its capacity to challenge readers, an entire generation of thinkers becomes less comfortable with complexity—but we can restore the critical thinking brought by complex stories by daring to publish difficult books again.

Perhaps, then, the real lesson of Theo of Golden is not that readers suddenly rediscovered serious literary fiction but that they never stopped wanting it.

So maybe it’s time for the publishing industry to take notes from Theo—and to believe in its readers again.

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.

Three years ago, July 13, 2023, I received the dreadful news that our friend, Richard Bilkszto, had taken his own life. Nothing prepares you for news like that.

Our friendship started through a FAIR meeting for Ontario educators and carried its course through our mutual concerns, commitments, and convictions. Those who knew Richard remember his belief in supporting the most vulnerable students, his efforts to stop the bullies, and his understanding of the needs of students who did not fit in some way or another.

The last time I was in touch with Richard was a week before this tragic event when I had messaged him. His response was brief: two-words, “thank you”. I assumed he was simply busy. I should have called. I should have asked. The “what ifs” and the regrets will not undo this tragedy. They will not bring him back to his family, to us, to the many people he was so passionate about helping or to those whose lives he touched when he didn’t have to. As a retired principal, he could have easily chosen to sit back on a beach, relax, and enjoy the well-deserved, hard-earned freedom of retirement.

But that was not who Richard was.

Even though we will never know exactly what or who pushed Richard to the edge, the fact remains that something did. Someone did. Society did. The system did. A system that claims to value diversity, equity, and inclusion — words I now loathe. A system that constantly beats the drum about the importance of mental health, yet has no qualms about blaming everything on the white man. Yes, that is what he was accused of being by a paid presenter, for expressing his opinions while numerous other administrators – principals and vice principals who attended that session – remained silent and went on with the flow. Appalling! They should have objected, stood up, walked out, denounced. Nope! They did no such thing. They approved the blatant racism by remaining a bystander. Ironically they are the ones running our schools. Go figure!

Openly blaming people simply for being white, specifically men at that time, was the prevailing trend. Now, the attitude seems more subtle, implied in job and admissions applications like an underlying disease that, instead of being treated, has simply been managed.

Richard’s tragic passing in July 2023 stirred an uproar not only in Canada and the United States but also globally, with coverage appearing across different media outlets and in multiple languages. The DEI mandates came under scrutiny and continue to be scrutinized, not only by some institutions and organizations, but most importantly by members of the general public, some of whom are gradually, but finally, beginning to question them.

Yet like any other news story, it is only “breaking” until something else breaks — and as we all know, things keep breaking all around the world. So, to not let Richard’s legacy be forgotten, a group of his friends who shared his values on education, merit, fairness, and equality of opportunity decided to recognize, encourage, and honour exceptional teachers, and future teachers in his honor. Friends of Richard Bilkszto was born. The group continues their advocacy for preserving and improving the education system including but not limited to policies regarding specialized programs.

Why things have to get really bad before they start getting better beats me—it is such an uncommon sense.

Three years ago, under the umbrella of DEI, the merit- and qualification-based admission process for specialized programs was revoked and replaced with a lottery system that considered historical backgrounds and, bluntly put, perceived victimhood as eligible criteria for admission. The community consultation meetings in which many of us — parents and teachers alike — participated and voiced our opposition to the idea, were simply a checkbox exercise; the decision had clearly already been made. A decision that was influenced, in no small part, by the loud voices of those who had the time and energy to accuse the system of racism and, quite literally, disrupt a system that was working and had proven successful. At the very least, it was not failing.

Like many of us, Richard was also opposed to this change. He recognized the social injustices that students in less fortunate families face, he was familiar with the barriers in their way, however, like me, he did not believe the new lottery-based admission policy is the solution. We both had ideas that would address the issue in the long term. He was vocal about his concerns and my proposed solutions received a written rejection and a verbal warning by the people above. Nevertheless, we worked together to try to prevent the change from happening or, at the very least, to educate the public and parents about the inevitable negative consequences of implementing such policies on a large scale without addressing the underlying causes of adversity. At a minimum, conducting small-scale pilot projects, or simply listening to us — the teachers who work with students day in and day out, those who know the lay of the land should have been better explored

That would have made sense.

There is a possibility that the entire process was a way to eliminate specialized school programs that required significant investment and funding by making them appear ineffective. The best way to justify getting rid of them would be to demonstrate that they were no longer successful. That is exactly what happened after the top-down implementation of the lottery system. Many of the students admitted through this process struggled to manage the workload, academic level, and intensity required to complete such programs. As a result, some schools adjusted their programs to better match students’ level. This effectively diluted and lowered the standards of programs initially designed to educate students at a much higher level. Once again, professionals who knew better went along with the flow.

There is something sinister about this approach.

Family and education are the foundations of a society. One would expect these two pillars to be treated as sacred and protected, especially by those entrusted with serving the public. Yet, instead of strengthening and preserving these pillars, there appears to be an insistence on making them irrelevant, fragile, or reduced to something resembling casual entertainment. Whether this is done intentionally or out of ignorance is ultimately irrelevant. The leadership responsible for this flagrancy must be held accountable. After all, we are the ones paying their salaries.

Three years have passed, and the lottery admission policy has now been revoked.

The students entering the specialized programs in the 2026–2027 school year have been admitted based on a centralized evaluation test. It is the closest one can get to merit-based admissions; however, it is still not the ideal approach. Different specialized schools offer different programs, each with its own requirements and standards for admission, which were designed based on the specific nature and demands of those programs. Those who deliver these programs are best positioned to establish the appropriate entrance criteria, and that is something a centralized test cannot fully accomplish. Nevertheless, it is a significant improvement over a lottery system and the consideration of victimhood as a determining factor in admission to specialized programs that require a strong foundation as a prerequisite.

During the past three years, instead of selecting the best of the crop and educating them according to their abilities so they could become the best contributors to their society, as one would expect to be the purpose of our schools, our education system ignored the professional judgment of its own teachers, wasted three years of students’ time, and misused publicly funded programs. The last cohort of students admitted to merit-based specialized programs graduated in June 2026. The next cohort of students admitted through a semi-merit-based process will begin these programs in September 2026. Over the past three years, the larger number of students admitted to these programs, in between these two groups, were placed in a difficult and unfair situation, while many others were denied the opportunity to gain admission. The result speaks for itself.

An inevitable and preventable failure. What a shame.

It has taken three years and an insane amount of work for an army of teachers, parents, individuals, and organizations such as Friends of Richard Bilkszto and Save our Schools Ontario to pressure the Ministry of Education to reverse this decision. Going backwards and returning to where we were in 2023 is not an improvement; that said, it could be considered one if it marks the point at which we stop the downward spiral of destructive policies.

Richard would be happy to know that we are closer to restoring what we had, and therefore the prospect of improvement could now be on the horizon. Rest in peace, Richard. You are in our thoughts and prayers.

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.

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

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

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

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

Read the Full Article

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

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

“The researchers’ most troubling finding is that teachers serving disadvantaged students consistently assign fewer books. Students in high-poverty schools or majority nonwhite schools, multilingual learners and students with disabilities all appear less likely to experience sustained encounters with complete works of literature.

That matters, because reading a book is not just an extended version of reading a passage. It requires different cognitive habits…”

Read the Full Article

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

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

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

Read the Full Article

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

“Among the report’s key findings:

• Public libraries are on the front lines of media literacy, helping patrons evaluate sources, navigate digital content, and access trustworthy information every day.

• More than 65% of respondents said patrons struggle to use digital resources, while staff training emerged as the top investment needed to help libraries meet growing demand for digital literacy support.”

Learn More Here

Join the FAIR Community

• 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.