The politics of listening


The US House of Representatives was not successful in passing a bill to “repeal and replace” the Affordable Care Act. This is being portrayed as a failure of policy and leadership, with blame leaving virtually no person, party, or organization in Washington unscathed. At the same time, there is a general consensus that parts of the Affordable Care Act are in need of a policy fix. For instance, insurance premiums are rising, not enough healthy and young people are signing up, and insurance companies are not finding it profitable to enter the marketplace across the board. Each of these are separate but related issues that require a set of solutions that expand and enhance access for all citizens to quality, affordable care.

There are ideological, practical, financial, and philosophical divides on these and other issues related to health care, as there are with any number of other social and economic issues now confronting political leaders. With such divisions, “debate” and argument and protest will often become emotionally charged, leading the most dispassionate among us screaming in frustration and the most passionate among us engaging in rhetoric and behavior that is frankly unbecoming of a people who claim to cherish their freedoms of speech and assembly.

Freedom is not, as Janice Joplin sings, just another word for nothing left to lose. Freedom is more than fierce individuality; freedom is real only when a person lives, acts, thinks, speaks, or believes without fear of oppression, censorship, or emotional, social, financial or physical retribution for a livelihood, behavior, thought, message, or belief that is somehow different than that of any other person or any group of other people.

What are missing from the arguments around health care are two things: freedom (citizens do not feel as though they can speak openly) and politics.

Yes, politics is missing from the argument. To be sure, I do not mean party politics; there is certainly enough of that occurring to make us want to curl up with George Washington’s Farewell Address by a soft fire and think about “happier times” when at least one man dreamed of a country without factions.

Politics and political participation are often measured and discussed in terms of voice and action. How many of us are voting? How many attending community or local council meetings? How large was the protest? Who is still writing letters to the editor of a newspaper, or expressing their view of politics on social media or other website?

Passivity is considered a civic and political ill. As former US Senator and Florida Governor Bob Graham writes in America, the Owner’s Manual, civics is not a spectator sport.

However, a certain amount of inaction is necessary in a politics designed to produce responsive policies. Inaction that consists of listening and striving to understand can be the most meaningful form of political participation in a society, and it is a form that is now ill practiced.

The decision to stop, sit, and listen can be the most courageous political act a person can take. Our 24/7 media, always connected social media and networks, and politics of promises and bluster, push us all to speak first, speak over someone second, speak third, and maybe, if we are still engaged, listen fourth.

On Monday, April 3, 2017, the College of Health and Public Affairs, with support from the School of Public Administration and Center for Public and Nonprofit Management, is convening a Community Conversation on Health Care. This is the second such conversation, the first having occurred on December 22, 2008 following a call from the Obama transition team to citizens around the country.

In 2008, with 70+ people crammed into a room fit for 30, we demonstrated that civil discussion is possible, that individuals from different backgrounds and with different values, can sit in a single space without once raising a voice in anger or disgust, or raising a fist in intimidation, or raising a photo of any political leader defaced to look like Hitler.

In these times, when we have social fragmentation more manifest than any we have seen in recent and perhaps long-term memory, we aim to demonstrate the potential of politics once again to be a unifying force, discussion to be a means to understanding the complexity of our individual and collective lives, and listening to be the tool most underused in a society that is known through its history to be civil but often in word only and not always in deed.

This is a political event; it is not an event with a policy agenda, partisan agenda, or to produce an advocacy outcome beyond process. This is about the politics of listening.

RSVP to attend through email to, or write to the same for more information.



Too Many Walls?

Too Many Walls?

The Obligation for University Public Service Programs to Create Discord, Redefine Access, and Facilitate Unsafe Space


Remarks Prepared for the American Society for Public Administration Super Session Panel, “The Role of Public Service in American Universities in the Future,”

21 March 2016

Thomas A. Bryer, PhD

We have too many walls in our society. Not only in the United States but around the world, we have too many walls. Some walls are real, physical structures. Some are imaginary but psychologically as real as the physical.

Too many walls already exist, and there is popular sentiment to construct new walls: a physical wall on the US southern border to keep out the Mexicans, a bureaucratic wall in immigration offices to keep out Muslims, fences and walls within Europe and entering European territory to slow or prevent the free movement of refugees, a wall on the US northern border to keep Americans out of Canada… that last one is a joke… I think.

We have walls around our neighborhoods, with gated communities. A few years ago, in a Florida community, a resident of such a gated community expressed a fear of the larger area becoming a full functioning municipality—a fear grounded in the perceived threat that the walls of the neighborhood would be taken down.

We have walls around our individual homes. Some are real walls in the form of fences and locked gates, sometimes with big signs that say “Stay Out. Private Property. Beware of Attack Dog.” Some are symbolic walls, which we know exist looking at social science survey data. Neighbors do not know neighbors; small percentages of us talk to our neighbors, help our neighbors, work with neighbors to solve community problems, or even know the names of our neighbors. At a community meeting only a few weeks ago, a woman told a story of how a neighbor was speaking to her on her front porch, suffered a heart attack, and died, right there on her porch. She felt guilty, because when paramedics arrived, she could not tell them the neighbor’s name.

There are walls between individuals. These are walls that prevent trust development; they are walls that reduce empathy; they are walls that make us most comfortable talking to and interacting with people who look like, think like, talk like people who are just like us. They are walls that facilitate fear when confronted with people who are considered as “others” or “outsiders” or people from the wrong side of the wall, the wrong neighborhood, the wrong religion, the wrong race, the wrong ethnicity, the wrong gender, the wrong sexuality, the wrong nationality, the wrong ideology, the wrong political party, and so on.

Our Facebook and other social media walls are constructed as such. They are not walls akin to bulletin boards to post photographs and reminder notes, celebrations and announcements. They are walls that create separation masked as popularity contests: whose post gets the most likes? Whose life is the most successful as measured by social media self-promotion? These walls create jealousies, and we know through research that they can create loneliness, isolation, and they can exacerbate social divisions. Our social media friends tend to be people who agree with us. When our posts are liked, they are liked by a chorus of like-minded individuals who occupy similar social and economic strata. We must be clear: the Facebook wall is as much a wall of division as the walls barricading our neighborhoods, our national borders, our homes and our minds. It is the same kind of wall as exists between universities of exceptional standing and the rest of society.

Here is my walk-away conclusion: universities, and specifically public service programs at universities, must take as a mission to breakdown walls within their institutions and between their institutions and the broader community. They must take as part of their mission to create discord by upsetting the safety of life behind walls; they must redefine the idea of access to university education to include not only access for underserved populations to become enrolled students to earn degrees; access means taking the educational process outside the walls and confines of tuition-paying or fee-generating students.

Public service programs must take as part of their mission to eliminate the idea of safe space in the university, because when we aim to build social capital, enhance empathy, cultivate more active and ethical citizens, and develop socially responsible entrepreneurs, we are aiming to dismantle the walls that divide us. With such an aim, safety that does not lead to critical self-reflection, questioning of one’s values, questioning of one’s upbringing, and challenging one’s deepest held biases, is not possible nor desirable.

The way to get here, to a place where public service programs in universities are deconstructing walls and forging new ties, requires some critical actions. I discuss several of these in more depth in my book, Higher Education beyond Job Creation: Universities, Citizenship, and Community, published with Lexington Books.

Our ability to achieve our intended aims requires that we fundamentally change the way we think about and operationalize the way we teach, the way we research, and the way we serve. If we remain stuck behind the narrative of the economic rationale of the university, we will box ourselves in, indeed inside a rather oppressive set of walls.

This is where we start. There are four dominant narratives about the role of universities: the economic rationale to create jobs, the economic rationale to develop skills of the workforce of today and the future, the knowledge production and dissemination rationale, and the citizen cultivation rationale. If we treat each narrative on its own, as we often do, we have internally divided universities pursuing these individual goals and competing for scarce resources to achieve them.

The narrative we must create, and we are in a powerful position within public service programs to lead the way, is a narrative that recognizes the legitimacy of each individual narrative but also recognizes the bigger narrative, the larger goal that can be achieved if we do not operate in silos but operate with integrated purpose. The bigger purpose is stronger communities and the guaranteed opportunity for all people to pursue the good life.

Let me give an example. Advocates of the economic rationales of the university often, as part of their argument to reallocate scarce resources, disparage the other legitimate aims that exist. They draw a line in the sand; they create wall of separation, and say that the “others” are not legitimate functions of the university. Consultants to a task force convened by Florida’s Governor Rick Scott asked in a report what they considered a serious question. They observed that in the past 50 years or so, there have been more than 35,000 published articles and books about Shakespeare or the work of Shakespeare; they asked, presumably with a straight face, would not the first 1,000 or even 100 have been enough? How does such activity contribute to the creation of jobs, they asked.

I can give more examples, and they appear both in the political sphere in the battle for funding of public universities, as well as in scholarship. Suffice to say here that the battle lines have been drawn, the walls erected, and the outcome is what one observer wrote as institutions that are not uni-versities but multi-versities, institutions that serve multiple masters without coherence.

If we aim to improve the lot of public service programs in our universities, we must simultaneously use the language of the dominant narrative of economic rationale while seeking to change the implementation of that narrative and to change the narrative itself to be more integrative of all other legitimate narratives.

For example, when our universities are asked to report statistics on average alumni salaries within the first 5 years of graduation—a common category of metric for performance funding of universities—we must advocate more nuanced measures that recognize the human value of lower-wage public service careers. When asked to report how many new businesses have been launched by alumni, we must advocate to include how many nonprofit organizations have been launched.

When we are asked for measures of Return on Investment that include financial metrics alone, we must advocate for measures of Return on Engagement that include organizational, policy, and social measures. ROI asks what financial return we get when we invest our financial and human capital in certain research enterprises; ROE asks what policies, procedures, relationships, and ultimately lives change when we put our professors, staff, and students directly in the community as part of the research, teaching, and service processes.

Universities have tremendous human capital potential. At the University of Central Florida, the second largest university in the United States by enrollment with approximately 63,000 students, we are surrounded by communities that have significant need. In the three counties around the university, we have approximately 15,000 homeless students kindergarten through twelfth grade. These are students who do not have a stable and permanent place to sleep at night; some sleep outside, some in cars, some in short-term motels, and some move from friend to friend night after night. The human capital potential of the university is made clear when we do some simple math; if we divide all UCF students into groups of 4, and each group commits to providing support, mentoring, and encouragement to 1 homeless student, we can go a long way to breaking any multi-generational cycle of poverty that exists within this population.

You might say, yes, this sounds good, but that will never happen. I will not be naïve and ask, “but why not?!” I agree, it will not happen. However, our potential to achieve a high ROE, Return on Engagement, is real, when we commit to both breakdown the walls within our universities, eliminate the walls between our universities and our communities, and to help facilitate the removal of walls and prevent the construction of new walls between neighborhoods, neighbors, and nations.

As an association of public service professionals, with international membership and recognition, the American Society for Public Administration is in a powerful position to change the narrative of the university that is dominant today, and to ensure fairness to public service programs in the narrative that is now being predominantly implemented. ASPA can highlight innovative practices in public service programs around the globe; it can provide reward and recognition to policymakers who go against the grain to promote public service and broader public good purposes of universities; it can celebrate global partnerships that encourage multi-cultural understanding, such as the program funded by Seoul Metropolitan Government and the University of Seoul and that includes numerous American universities in cultural and educational exchange.

I suggest that ASPA establish a strategic priority to ensure the narrative about the role of university education maintains faithfulness to public service programs and public service professionals. Establish a strategic taskforce to develop specific actionable steps that can be taken with policymakers, the media, and other stakeholders with influence, and do so in coordination as, perhaps a joint taskforce, that includes our friends in ARNOVA, NASPAA, APPAM, AOM, PRMA, and others. ASPA can take the lead in coordinating like-minded associations, to breakdown some pretty low walls as a demonstration of what can be done if we fight to prevent the more dangerous walls in our society from remaining in place or being built ever higher.

Thank you.


Training NGOs in Lithuania

Over the next two days, I am conducting training on project management, leadership, and strategy for 18 NGOs in Vilnius, Lithuania in coordination if Transparency International Lithuania and with support from the U.S. Embassy. See 

The participants in the training program are of diverse ages, include organizational directors and project managers, and represent a wonderful diverse set of social, economic, and community interests. These interests include:

  • Childhood nutrition
  • Emotional support for youth
  • Investors forum
  • Volunteerism promotion
  • Women’s and gender issues
  • Anti-corruption
  • Hunger and homelessness
  • Youth education for democracy
  • Duke of Edinburgh’s International Award program
  • Urban design and transformation
  • British Chamber of Commerce
  • Drug abuse prevention
  • Promotion of science and research among younger scholars
  • Disability awareness, including mental health
  • Experiential education for youth
  • Elections monitoring
  • Social equality

I’m thankful for the honor of leading these sessions and such an inspiring group of civic leaders in Lithuania.


The War on Impoverished Citizenship: Reflections for Government-Citizen Relations around the Globe

Extended Abstract of Remarks Prepared for Delivery at the Institute of Public Affairs, Chonnam National University, Gwangju Metropolitan City, South Korea,

October 27, 2014

 Thomas A. Bryer, PhD

The War on Impoverished Citizenship: Reflections for Government-Citizen Relations around the Globe

A central question to ask in citizen-government relationships, and one that is not so easily answered is: “Are we on the same side?” In the United States, survey researchers regularly ask about citizen trust in government, and observers often lament the lack of trust and, in recent decades, declining trust. However, the political and governmental system in the United States is grounded in assumptions of distrust and skepticism. The U.S. constitutional democracy established a separation of powers across three branches of government based on the assumption that, as one of the nation’s founders wrote, men are not angels. Checks and balances were and are necessary to protect against one branch, or any group of people with authority, from acting in a selfish way.

The distrust embedded in the constitutional framework of the United States further seeped into the thoughts about the role of citizens. The nation’s founders held a rather dim view of the capability of citizens, taken as a whole, to think and act reasonably. They considered citizens as more driven by passion than by reason, thus easily manipulated by the urgency of the moment. Indeed, one founding thinker—and future president of the United States—thought the citizens subject to “temporary delusion,” the kind of which needed systems in place to protect the people from themselves. The people, dominant thinking suggested, are not capable of knowing or representing their own interests. From a public administration perspective, Woodrow Wilson, who went on to become another president of the United States, thought it necessary to endure meddlesome citizens with their oft-changing public opinion while focusing on the core administrative value of efficiency?

Fast-forward to the year 2014, and these biases and challenges are embedded in democracies around the world—old and new. Some democracies have emerged from authoritarian pasts; others have plodded along effectively tolerating active citizens without fully embracing them. The question remains: are citizens and government on the same side, where genuine power-sharing collaboration and authentic dialogue are normatively desirable and practically possible? Or, is it theoretically more compelling and practically more feasible to conceive of the relationship between government and citizens as adversarial?

My response to the question is, yes, genuine power-sharing collaboration and authentic dialogue are both normatively desirable and practically possible. Stated differently, government and citizens are on the same side. However, to make it so, and to persuade as to the desirability of it being so, requires thinking a bit less abstractly. As such, I will focus on the substantive policy issue of poverty alleviation and the involvement of citizens with government to help that cause.

Citizenship and poverty are inextricably linked. Active, ethical citizenship is required in the development of interpersonal empathy, generalized social trust and felt belongingness. Alleviating poverty, or the conditions leading to or consequences of living in poverty, is more possible with empathetic, trusting, and community-oriented citizens. Attending to the substantive democratic needs of a society requires attention to the procedural democratic means of a society, and vice versa simultaneously. To win a war on poverty requires an equally strategic and aggressive war on impoverished citizenship.

The battle will be to destroy the active weapons used in the War on Citizenship that perpetuate and make real the myth that citizens are not capable of reasonable thought and accurate representation of their own interests. The battle will on the following fronts: (1) expertise versus mass competence, (2) transparency versus informed judgment, (3) volunteers versus active citizens with the state, (4) consumerism versus citizenship, (5) quantity versus quality, (6) representation versus inclusivity, and (7) tolerance of ignorance versus empowerment.

Each battlefront will be reviewed and strategically assessed, and conclusions will be suggested to reinterpret Maximum Feasible Participation, an initial core component of the War on Poverty in the United States, for the 21st century. Such reinterpretation will provide lessons for established and emergent democracies around the world to reinvigorate or develop anew strong, sustainable, and skeptical but civil government-citizen relations.

Crowdresearching: How to Create Civically Healthy Communities

I am launching a new idea, a new concept that marries the practice of community-engaged research with the social and innovation process of crowdsourcing. My research question is this: How do we create more civically healthy communities?

This is an initiative driven by my receipt of an inaugural Reach for the Stars research award from the University of Central Florida. The award gives me $10,000 per year for at least three years in a discretionary research fund. I intend to use these limited dollars as leverage for additional financial and non-financial resources to answer my question: How do we create more civically health communities?

A civically healthy community is one in which participatory processes are inclusive and diverse and in which participants have the skills, tools, and confidence to contribute meaningfully to the social, economic, and intellectual strengthening of communities.

I am going to launch a series of interactive online tools over the summer to engage the community defined as broadly as it wants to be to piece together a series of related but distinct actionable research projects that engage geographic communities, government officials, citizens (including the passive, active, and civically disconnected by every measure), scholars, nonprofit leaders, and private sector leaders.

These stakeholders will share an interest in investing in our people and communities so that citizen engagement and public participation is elevated for all citizens and governments, enabling more trusting citizens, more trustworthy governments, more responsive government, more civil citizens, and enhanced social and economic outcomes in our communities. 

Why crowdresearching? I am perfectly capable of designing a research study in a vacuum, but on the question of creating more civically healthy communities, I know only what my experiences and passive reading of research reports have taught me. To design a study, or set of interlocking studies, I need the community. The community can help identify geographic locations and government jurisdictions that are willing to partner in experimentation, can help raise funds to conduct the experimentation, can help implement and provide mass oversight of the study process, and can help translate the findings to civic and government leaders around the United States and beyond–thus spreading innovation and ideas about what works, why, how, and for how much.

I have written in previous publications that unless we as a society invest properly in the civic and participatory efforts maintained by our various governments and other public serving entities, then we should quit the facade, because we may be doing more harm than good. We may be leading to more distrust than increased trust. It is time to invest, but to invest, we need to know more about how to invest across and within the diverse populations that makeup the majority of citizens who are just not showing up.

If you are interested in helping understand how we can give citizens the skills, tools, and confidence to participate meaningfully in our civic and political life, contact me I will sign you up, sign you in, and we can begin together to create more civically healthy communities.

Teaching Impact: A New PA Times Column

For the next six months, at least, I will be writing a monthly column for PA Times, the newspaper of the American Society for Public Administration entitled Teaching Impact. This is a dual meaning title; the column will be about teaching activities and pedagogical strategies that can achieve impact in communities and the lives of community members, and it will be about impactful pedagogy for students. The first column will be coming out in the coming weeks that introduces these themes in more detail. In the interim, if you have stories, cases, or examples that you would like to share, send me a note, and maybe I’ll integrate into a future column!