Hide table of contents

Please consider joining an open discussion to explore Civics education as a scalable, cost-effective input to preserving democracy

Where: Workshop House, 1717 15th Street NW, Washington, D.C.
When:  December 12 2024, 6pm – 9pm
Eats:   A vegan meal will be provided
Who:  Individuals with interest in / seeking solution for preserving democracy

Where does an individual's "spark of altruism" come from? In conversations with people engaged in altruistic pursuits, I often find that it came from an early experience contributing to a cause, which drew them bit by bit into later commitment. These first experiences are often quite modest and local to a community. Many people were inspired by examples of social action they encountered in Social Studies and other civics education in school. Civics instruction also offered an understanding of how citizens can engage in government to create positive outcomes. Together, inspiration and understanding helped to build the confidence that their contributions can have substantive impact.

Beyond the potential to grow altruistic participation, how is civics education important to the world's most important cause areas? The impact of most long-term programs – especially those based on science and/or public good – will certainly be realized only in the context of stable democracies. But in the United States and elsewhere, democracy is under threat.

The threat to American democracy is real and present. American democracy is flagged as under “significant threat” according to the Authoritarian Threat Index and the U.S. no longer ranks among the world’s “full democracies” (i.e. Canada, Japan, and most of Western Europe) but among the “flawed democracies…”
(The Economist Democracy Index, 2023)

Preserving democracy requires an educated, engaged citizenry. Involvement in high-quality civics education has been shown to help students discover their agency, equipping them with the knowledge and confidence required to engage.

Why invest in this particular pathway? In our discussion on December 12, we’ll explore the emerging evidence that civics education is a scalable and cost effective input to healthy democracy.

Regarding scale: America’s schools are the best opportunity for sustainable growth of civic engagement; they reach nearly 50 million diverse K-12 students each year. This is where young people learn how their system of government works (and should work), their place in it, and how they can participate. 

On cost-effectiveness: There is dramatic neglect in funding for social studies / civics education. Relative to STEM, civics receives 1/100th the level of per student spending. The differential value of redirecting relatively small levels of funding to civics education may yield disproportionate benefit. 

The discussion will be led by David Ritter. David is in the third act of his 40-year career as an engineer, technology executive and management consultant. He held leadership positions at Oracle Corporation and several start-ups, and was a Partner at The Boston Consulting Group for 18 years. David is committed to the cause of preserving democracy as an essential platform for long-term programs. He serves on the Board of Directors for iCivics, the leading organization that promotes and enables civics education in the United States (iCivics.org). He hopes to better understand how Civics Education may support aspects of the EA mission – as a cost-effective input to preserving democracy, and more broadly in creating more engaged citizens who may take up other specific causes.

Also expected to attend is Shawn Healy. Shawn leads iCivics’ efforts to influence government policy regarding civics education. Learn more about Shawn here:

https://vision.icivics.org/shawn-healy/

For an introduction to the work of iCivics, have a look at this interview with CEO Louise Dube:

https://www.c-span.org/video/?534103-5/louise-dube-importance-civics-education

Comments2


Sorted by Click to highlight new comments since:

Update: If you'd like to attend, please register here:

https://www.effectivealtruismdc.org/event/democracy-preservation-event-icivics

Walk-ins also welcome.

Further update:

A fully vegan meal will be provided, catered by Pow Pow -- a popular DC venue :).

Please join us if you're interested and able!

Curated and popular this week
Paul Present
 ·  · 28m read
 · 
Note: I am not a malaria expert. This is my best-faith attempt at answering a question that was bothering me, but this field is a large and complex field, and I’ve almost certainly misunderstood something somewhere along the way. Summary While the world made incredible progress in reducing malaria cases from 2000 to 2015, the past 10 years have seen malaria cases stop declining and start rising. I investigated potential reasons behind this increase through reading the existing literature and looking at publicly available data, and I identified three key factors explaining the rise: 1. Population Growth: Africa's population has increased by approximately 75% since 2000. This alone explains most of the increase in absolute case numbers, while cases per capita have remained relatively flat since 2015. 2. Stagnant Funding: After rapid growth starting in 2000, funding for malaria prevention plateaued around 2010. 3. Insecticide Resistance: Mosquitoes have become increasingly resistant to the insecticides used in bednets over the past 20 years. This has made older models of bednets less effective, although they still have some effect. Newer models of bednets developed in response to insecticide resistance are more effective but still not widely deployed.  I very crudely estimate that without any of these factors, there would be 55% fewer malaria cases in the world than what we see today. I think all three of these factors are roughly equally important in explaining the difference.  Alternative explanations like removal of PFAS, climate change, or invasive mosquito species don't appear to be major contributors.  Overall this investigation made me more convinced that bednets are an effective global health intervention.  Introduction In 2015, malaria rates were down, and EAs were celebrating. Giving What We Can posted this incredible gif showing the decrease in malaria cases across Africa since 2000: Giving What We Can said that > The reduction in malaria has be
LewisBollard
 ·  · 8m read
 · 
> How the dismal science can help us end the dismal treatment of farm animals By Martin Gould ---------------------------------------- Note: This post was crossposted from the Open Philanthropy Farm Animal Welfare Research Newsletter by the Forum team, with the author's permission. The author may not see or respond to comments on this post. ---------------------------------------- This year we’ll be sharing a few notes from my colleagues on their areas of expertise. The first is from Martin. I’ll be back next month. - Lewis In 2024, Denmark announced plans to introduce the world’s first carbon tax on cow, sheep, and pig farming. Climate advocates celebrated, but animal advocates should be much more cautious. When Denmark’s Aarhus municipality tested a similar tax in 2022, beef purchases dropped by 40% while demand for chicken and pork increased. Beef is the most emissions-intensive meat, so carbon taxes hit it hardest — and Denmark’s policies don’t even cover chicken or fish. When the price of beef rises, consumers mostly shift to other meats like chicken. And replacing beef with chicken means more animals suffer in worse conditions — about 190 chickens are needed to match the meat from one cow, and chickens are raised in much worse conditions. It may be possible to design carbon taxes which avoid this outcome; a recent paper argues that a broad carbon tax would reduce all meat production (although it omits impacts on egg or dairy production). But with cows ten times more emissions-intensive than chicken per kilogram of meat, other governments may follow Denmark’s lead — focusing taxes on the highest emitters while ignoring the welfare implications. Beef is easily the most emissions-intensive meat, but also requires the fewest animals for a given amount. The graph shows climate emissions per tonne of meat on the right-hand side, and the number of animals needed to produce a kilogram of meat on the left. The fish “lives lost” number varies significantly by