Part I: Millennial Public Policy Symposium

Part I features session summaries and proceedings from the April 2018 Millennial Public Policy Symposium at New America. Joined by an esteemed group of activists, academics, and policy makers, the Millennial Fellows used their one-day symposium to elevate new voices and crosscutting policy ideas.

The aim for our April 26, 2018 Millennial Public Policy Symposium: New Voices and Ideas on Care, Community, Technology, and Civic Engagement was to elevate some of the most consequential issues facing the rising generations by promoting cross-cutting conversations that advance policy solutions with the potential to make a difference in the lives of young adults.

This convening was designed to raise big questions and make the case for meaningful change by asking:

• What are the collective responsibilities for care given changes in the economy, evolving gender roles, and expectations of families, employers, and educators?
• How can we implement technological solutions in an era of big data that don’t undermine individual rights or public goods?
• How do we expand the policymaking table to include new voices and the underrepresented and foster the political engagement necessary to make policy change happen?

These questions are posed at a time when new economic realities are complicating how young people assemble the traditional building blocks of success. The prevailing public policy framework is increasingly out of step with the experience of Millennials, creating a social and economic precariousness that is undermining the potential of an entire generation. This is a problem for us all. We know our economy can do better to share prosperity, and our society can be more just, but we will need a new set of forward-looking policy ideas to meet the moment.

Because effective policy should align with prevailing attitudes, preferences, and behaviors, we need the engagement of Millennials to help drive this ideas-generation process. This was part of thinking behind creating a Millennial Public Policy Fellowship at New America. Since their arrival in August 2017, our ten Millennial Fellows have been engaged in focused policy research. They are outstanding individually and as a group. It has been my pleasure to work with them throughout this year, and this program is the fruit of their seeding.

I’m extremely thankful to the Citi Foundation for their financial support of this fellowship program and their substantive engagement in promoting pathways to progress for a diverse set of opportunity youth. Their President Brandee McHale and her team are leaders in the field and truly committed to supporting a new generation of leaders.

In that spirit, this symposium was an opportunity to explore how the world and our society are changing and to think harder about how a policy response can create new pathways to progress for the rising generations.

Thank you for your engagement.

Reid Cramer, Ph.D.

Director, Millennials Initiative, New America

Consisting of a pair of short conversations facilitated by Millennial Fellows Myacah Sampson, Roselyn Miller, and Jenny Muñiz, this session advanced past justifying why inclusive care and education policies matter and toward implementing solutions that address the needs and aspirations of low-income communities of color. Speakers from New America’s Family-Centered Social Policy program, Better Life Lab, and Education Policy teams strategized best practices for how to reduce systemic barriers, build robust programs that encourage engagement, and lay the groundwork for equitable policy.

Part I:

• Myacah Sampson, Millennial Fellow, Family-Centered Social Policy, New America
• Roselyn Miller, Millennial Fellow, Better Life Lab, New America
• Alieza Durana, Senior Policy Analyst, Better Life Lab, New America

Alleviating or Exacerbating Inequality?

Jenny Muñiz

#HandsOffSNAP is among this month’s most notable Twitter hashtags. Those using it are giving Republican lawmakers considerable flak for proposing a Farm Bill that would gut the country’s premier anti-hunger program, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP. This assault on SNAP is the latest in a series of attempts to scrap vital safety net programs that Americans use in times of need, including after-school meals for students, home-delivered meals for incapacitated recipients, and health care for seniors.

In light of the alarming resurgence of so-called “entitlement reform” it seems an odd time to have conversations about expanding the social safety net. But such a conversation is possible, at least in the case of paid family leave—a traditionally Democrat-backed program that recently won a surprising endorsement from Marco Rubio and the First Daughter, Ivanka Trump. This rare move toward consensus about the value of paid family leave allows us to sidestep the usual debate about justification of safety net programs and, instead, delve into the weeds of program design. Although it remains unclear whether Marco Rubio or Ivanka Trump will be effective backers, it is important to begin considering what an effective federal paid family leave program should look like.

As part of the Millennial Public Policy Symposium: New Voices and Ideas on Care, Community, Technology, and Civic Engagement, Roselyn Miller and Alieza Durana, members of New America’s Better Life Lab, along with Myacah Sampson, Millennial Fellow with New America’s Family-Centered Social Policy program, led this very conversation. As Durana explained, despite the bipartisan support for paid family leave, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle remain widely divided about the program’s design. While the Democrats’ FAMILY Act would create a social insurance fund that allows workers to pool money that they can later access after the birth of a child or during family illness, the Republican plan would allow new parents to borrow from Social Security after the birth of a child, delaying their retirement.

Despite the bipartisan support for paid family leave, lawmakers on both sides of the aisle remain widely divided about the program’s design.

Not only is Rubio and the Republicans’ plan troublesome because it blunts the Social Security program, as Durana explained, it is particularly nefarious because of who it leaves out. Their plan would only allow parents to take time off for a new child and would not cover those who need to take time off for other family-related issues including sickness. Their proposal would also be an unfair burden for low-wage workers and for those who work physically demanding jobs. These workers, too, need to take time off and may be especially hurt by a delayed retirement. What’s more, the panelists pointed out that the proposal leaves little room for non-traditional families and could potentially exacerbate the gender wage gap.

The conversation between Durana, Miller, and Sampson also shed light on a broader question of how well-intentioned policies run the risk of overlooked negative consequences. To this end, history can be instructive. The Family Medical Leave Act, for instance, allowed affluent white families to take unpaid time off, which further exacerbated inequality. To avoid replicating programs that leave out communities by design, or worse, cause undue harm, Durana suggested asking: “How would this policy affect marginalized communities? By gender? By Race? At the intersection of those two?”

Part II:

• Jenny Muñiz, Millennial Fellow, Education Policy, New America
• Abigail Swisher, Program Associate, Education Policy, New America
• Ernest Ezeugo, Program Associate, Education Policy, New America

Intervening with Care: Why Inclusive Education Policies Matter

Dillon Roseen

As policymakers and researchers look to optimize outcomes for innovative social and educational policies, they must be mindful of whether their policies equitably meet the needs of affected communities. To that end, thoughtful policy leadership starts and ends with the following questions:

How do you intervene with care? And, how do you design policies with different communities in mind to minimize unintended consequences that could actually lead to inequitable outcomes?

At the Millennial Public Policy Symposium in April, Millennial Public Policy Fellow Jenny Muñiz tackled these questions as they relate to education policy alongside two of her colleagues from the education program at New America— Abigail Swisher, whose work centers on college and career readiness through youth apprenticeship, and Ernest Ezeugo, whose research explores the use of predictive analytics and algorithms in higher education. Specifically, they presented a powerful argument as to why inclusive education policies matter and, building off this argument, offered strategies and solutions for addressing the needs and aspirations of low-income communities of color.

Youth apprenticeship, Swisher explained, is a partnership between a high school, a post-secondary partner, and an industry player that provides students with paid, on-the-job mentorship in combination with early access to post-secondary, for-credit classroom training. Apprenticeship programs, if done right, should provide individuals with a family-sustaining wage and a clear path forward in a specific industry. But as Swisher explicated when describing the equity dimensions of youth apprenticeship, there is a pernicious history surrounding vocational programs in the United States. This history is rife with discrimination. As Jeannie Oakes writes in her book Keeping Track, “An underlying function of vocational education has been to segregate poor and minority students into occupational training programs in order to preserve the academic curriculum for middle- and upper-class students.”

How do you design policies with different communities in mind to minimize unintended consequences that could actually lead to inequitable outcomes?

Given this history, proposals for expanding apprenticeship opportunities that lead toward vocational occupations are rightfully met with increased scrutiny, even if the overarching intention behind such programs is good and these programs show great promise. Muñiz summarized these quandaries by describing the thin line that can cause even well-intentioned policies to reinforce deficit perspectives and stereotypes that track low-income and minority communities. Similarly, Ezeugo warned of the potential unintended consequences of using algorithms and predictive analytics to forecast expected behaviors, a system that often disproportionately targets and tracks underserved populations.

Building on Virginia Eubanks and Cathy O’Neil’s research on the destructive power of algorithms, Ezeugo made the case that algorithms have historically tended to benefit richer and whiter communities, while being forced onto lower-income communities and communities of color. Specific examples illustrate how algorithms can propagate racist stereotypes around Black criminality, exclude job applicants based on gender, race, age, disability, or military service, and, ultimately, perpetuate poverty.

Despite these legitimate warnings, there is still incredible promise if strategies are approached thoughtfully and data is used both ethically and effectively. Critically, human interventions are needed to understand how data is unfairly deployed and interpreted, such that inequity-reinforcing biases are mitigated before being scaled across entire systems.

Swisher offered an equitable framework to achieve this goal. She emphasized, first, being able to articulate who programs are designed for, then making sure those individuals’ voices are at the table while creating programs. Throughout a program’s development, policymakers must take care to fully understand the scope of data being collected, quickly report the impacts of using this data, and adjust approaches before programs are scaled.

Ezeugo gave a specific example of a program at Georgia State University that has successfully implemented such an equity framework. The university created a program that uses predictive analytics to provide key insights on early interventions that can support struggling students. Rather than relying on entrenched, black-box algorithms to make decisions, the program continues to emphasize human interaction and iteration based on in-person feedback from students directly impacted by the program. Part of this strategy led Georgia State to invest in a robust counseling system, reducing the student-to-counselor ratio from 700 students per counselor to 300 students per counselor.

A key theme from this conversation is that innovations in education policy, founded on the ethical and effective use of data, can be used to teach us more about student success than we have ever known. This introduces new possibilities for promising interventions that would support individuals throughout their education. Being mindful of the risks, policymakers should embrace equitable and targeted frameworks that better deliver education outcomes to historically underserved communities.

How can data and technology be used to strengthen policy? What are the benefits, risks, and challenges associated with data and technology-driven policymaking? This session sought to answer these questions within the context of CVE (Countering Violent Extremism), health care, and the role of technologists in decision-making processes by having Millennial Fellows Emma Coleman, Spandana Singh, and Dillon Roseen each facilitate distinct conversations with their fields’ leading experts.

Introduction

• Braxton Bridgers, Millennial Fellow, Resource Security, New America
• Cecilia Muñoz, Vice President, Public Interest Technology and Public Interests, New America

Big Data, Bigger Challenges

Myacah Sampson & Aaron Noffke

It’s a question we ask frequently at New America: How can we leverage technology and data to better solve public problems? It’s also a question gaining more urgency as we rapidly reconsider the role of technology in public life. From Facebook’s data misuse to the proliferation of high-tech surveillance on marginalized communities, it has become apparent that we must transition away from the mindset that data collection and technological development turned loose in the world will bring about the changes we’d like to see in public policy.

In addition to serving as New America’s vice president of Public Interest Technology and Public Interest, Cecilia Muñoz has been at the helm of a new era where tech and policy experts come together to address inequities exacerbated by technology while developing effective tools to build a more connected and equitable world. It was only fitting that she introduce the second portion of the Millennial Public Policy Symposium, titled “Promises and Perils of Technology and Big Data,” a series of short conversations facilitated Millennial Fellows across the Public Interest Technology, Cybersecurity Initiative and Open Technology Institute programs.

Muñoz emphasized the need to place a greater value on collaboration across skill sets, especially policy analysis and tech product development. Policy experts and elected officials alike might have a great deal of expertise on how a particular public service operates, but because of a lack of digital literacy may not possess the full skill set needed to effectively design legislation that pushes tech to work for the public interest. As Muñoz spoke, we could not help but think of how evident this was last month as senators grilled Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg with a series of non-starter questions like, “Is Twitter the same as what you do?” or whether Facebook is capable of deploying targeted advertising based on what one might say in WhatsApp. It is apparent that our current policymakers need to better acquaint themselves with digital tools.

Tech experts on the other hand, might possess a trove of knowledge about gaps in public services and infrastructure, but lack the perspective of a policymaker on the implications a new technological tool may have on existing government services. An example that comes to mind is when ride-sharing company Lyft announced a pilot service called Lyft Shuttle—a fixed-route van that arrives at optimal meeting points in a city. If this sounds like a public bus to you, you’re not alone. Twitter users quickly derided Lyft Shuttle as a pompous Silicon Valley reinvention. Without mindful collaboration, tech might not only duplicate public services but create additional public policy challenges as well.

It is apparent that our current policymakers need to better acquaint themselves with digital tools.

Muñoz’s past work demonstrates that tech and policy experts do not need to be enemies. When they come together under effective management, useful tools that foster transparency and equity emerge. She recounted how programmers were brought in from the private sector to assist in the creation of tech policy during her tenure as Director of Intergovernmental Affairs, and later as Director of the Domestic Policy Council under President Obama. Bringing together policy experts with engineers and product developers, Muñoz spearheaded the creation of the College Scorecard, a digital college rating tool, and the Opportunity Project, an agency dedicated to bringing in tech to solve big and small public problems alike. To grow this transformative work, Muñoz said that organizations working for the public good “must operate with the same technological capacity as the private sector.”

To be frank, we haven’t quite figured out how this will work yet. Instead, we see the perils of big data—from racialized, predictive policing in Los Angeles to automated welfare programs in Indiana that kick our most vulnerable community members off public assistance. No doubt, technology does not inherently make our political systems more just. On their own, they can only reflect or exacerbate our established ways of running government. But, as Muñoz emphasized, in collaboration with those that truly know the impacts and outcomes of our public and civil institutions, we can better identify when disparities are happening and better understand what to do about them.

And so thinking about technology as another tool for the public interest is essential. “The way we protect voting rights in America is primarily through litigation…it’s never been a perfect tool, and it’s not going to become one. That’s why we need additional tools.” As technology transforms more aspects of daily life, how technology can address public problems becomes a question that can’t be ignored.

Why We Need Technologists at the Policy Table

• Emma Coleman, Millennial Fellow, Public Interest Technology, New America
• Dipayan Ghosh, Fellow, Public Interest Technology and Open Technology Institute, New America

Why Policymakers Need Technologists

Spandana Singh

In early April, following the onset of the Cambridge Analytica controversy, Facebook CEO Mark Zuckerberg testified in front of Congress. Many heralded Zuckerberg’s rare appearance in Washington, D.C., as an opportunity for lawmakers in the United States to get answers from Facebook on important issues such as consumer privacy, information manipulation, election integrity, and its supposed commitment to its users. However, following the two-day marathon of hearings, it became clear that policymakers had failed to elicit useful information from Zuckerberg, as they lacked the appropriate technical knowledge and expertise to do so.

Aside from sparking the creation of a number of noteworthy memes that highlight the derelict technical education most of America’s policymakers have, the Zuckerberg hearings also revived a long-standing discussion on why it is important to have technologists involved in the policymaking process.

At New America’s Millennial Public Policy Symposium, Millennial Fellow Emma Coleman and Dipayan Ghosh, a fellow at New America and the Shorenstein Center at Harvard Kennedy School, dove into this issue further. Ghosh, a technologist who has worked for both Facebook and the White House, explained that as technology has become an integral aspect of our daily lives, it has created a number of opportunities for economic growth and access. Simultaneously, however, it has also given rise to a number of tensions and inequalities that need to be appropriately navigated. Without technologists who are capable of explaining these opportunities and resolving these tensions in the room when decisions are made, resulting technology policies cannot and will not be successful.

There are currently a handful of organizations that are working to remedy this gap in technology expertise in the United States. One of them is TechCongress, which has been working since 2016 to provide talented technologists with one-year Congressional Innovation Fellowships with Members of Congress or Congressional Committees. These fellowships provide technologists with the opportunity to gain policymaking experience and to shape the future of technology policy in Washington, D.C., while also offering much-needed tech expertise to congressional offices.

But, as Ghosh pointed out, in order for tangible change to be made in this space in the long term, policymakers need to recognize the importance of having technologists at the decision-making table. Currently, technical expertise is not considered one of the primary specialties needed on the Hill, and with limited budgets, this often means that members of Congress end up lacking staffers with the expertise to guide them through the increasingly complex world of technology policy. In addition, as outlined in a report on the flow of technology talent into the public sector commissioned by the Ford Foundation, as salaries and employment benefits in the traditional technology sector continue to grow and expand, it is also becoming increasingly difficult to convince technologists to join government or other policymaking spaces, where salaries and benefits are more moderate.

In order for tangible change to be made in this space in the long term, policymakers need to recognize the importance of having technologists at the decision-making table.

As we head into the latter half of 2018, a number of technology policy issues are at the forefront of public attention, including the Honest Ads Act on online political advertising, discussions on intermediary liability for online platforms and fake news, and the FCC’s alterations to the Lifeline program. There is a critical need for technologists in the policymaking space. The onus now falls on both lawmakers and technologists to come together to educate each other and collaborate in order to ensure that the next time a major technology sector executive comes to town or the next time major technology legislation is proposed, lawmakers are ready.

Countering Violent Extremism Online: How We Can Leverage Data, Transparency and Metrics to Build a Safer Internet

• Spandana Singh, Millennial Fellow, Open Technology Institute, New America
• Evanna Hu, Partner and CEO, Omelas; and Fellow, International Security, New America

Building Metrics for Success When Combating Extremism Online

Braxton Bridgers

In January, representatives from the nation’s most influential tech companies convened on Capitol Hill to discuss methods for combating the publication of violent and extremist content on their respective platforms. Leaders of Companies such as Facebook, Twitter, and YouTube highlighted their work in Countering Violence and Extremism (CVE)—a term that encompasses campaigns meant to counter extremist rhetoric—online. During the hearing aptly titled “#IsBigTechDoingEnough,” high-level business officials were quick to shine a spotlight on various statistics as metrics for success, citing an increase in workers to scan extremist content, as well as the large amount of extremist content their companies have taken down. But do these numbers truly illustrate the effectiveness of Silicon Valley’s campaign to combat the presence of such content online?

During New America’s Millennial Public Policy Symposium, Spandi Singh, a Millennial Fellow with the Open Technology Institute, hosted a discussion with New America International Security Fellow Evanna Hu that explored the role of data in enhancing the field of CVE, as well as the validity of content takedown statistics that are often referred to by tech companies as metrics for success. Both Singh and Hu began the conversation by establishing that it is extremely difficult to equate actions pertaining to CVE as a direct cause for the disruption of extremist activity. For this reason, legislators are eager to consume data—such as click-through rates, shares, and likes—that may seem impressive on the surface, but does not necessarily represent progress in countering extremist narratives.

It is extremely difficult to equate actions pertaining to CVE as a direct cause for the disruption of extremist activity.

The discussion also drew attention to the disconnect between the threshold for success established by legislators on Capitol Hill and their understanding of the technologies companies use to engage in CVE. Last month, Facebook co-founder and CEO Mark Zuckerberg attended a heavily publicized congressional hearing following the company’s data-breach scandal. While the focus of the hearing revolved around Facebook’s capabilities to protect the data of it users, Zuckerberg was also questioned about the company’s practices regarding the censorship of violent and extremist content. Facebook’s CEO proudly illustrated the company’s capabilities to address such content by highlighting the fact that 99 percent of ISIS and Al Qaida content taken down from the platform is identified by Artificial Intelligence (AI).

However, research conducted by Omelas, an advisory firm co-founded by Hu that maps the online information environment for security assessments, revealed that large swaths of extremist content can go undetected for a significant span of time, even under the watchful eye of AI programs. Unfortunately, legislators have traditionally found a false sense of comfort in surface-level metrics provided by tech companies, stifling their ability to truly measure the success of CVE campaigns. What’s more, the technical illiteracy of legislators at the highest level of government drives the creation of insufficient indicators of success in the CVE space.

Singh and Hu also explored the consequences of tech companies operating unproven CVE programs. Not only do unproven CVE methods have the potential to further marginalize legitimate voices through censorship, they can also further radicalize target audiences. Additionally, CVE programs tend to emphasize content takedown of larger extremist organizations, such ISIS and Al Qaida, creating an avenue for smaller organizations to increase their presence online.

The discussion closed by identifying steps that can be taken to strengthen the field of CVE. While tech companies are moving in the right direction by providing transparency reporting on actions associated with CVE, a neutral party functioning as an independent auditor has the potential to illustrate the state of online information environments beyond non-descriptive statistics. Lastly, Hu highlighted the potential of civil society organizations in developing strong metrics for success in the CVE space, by educating organizations to become literate in CVE terminology and breaking the current threshold established by legislators lacking sufficient knowledge of the field.

The Rise of Health Care Data: Why We Should Be Both Excited and Concerned

• Dillon Roseen, Millennial Fellow, Cybersecurity Initiative, New America
• Robert Lord, Co-Founder and President, Protenus; and Fellow, Cybersecurity Initiative, New America
• Sonia Sarkar, Chief Policy and Engagement Officer, Baltimore City Health Department; and Fellow, Public Interest Technology, New America

Patient Care, Security, and Equity: Toward a More Holistic Framework for Health Care

Becky Chao

Whenever I walk into a new doctor’s office for the first time, the receptionist hands me a stack of paperwork to complete. I’ve learned to anticipate these forms and their thorough questions now; they list questions about my medical history, current medication, insurance information, and emergency contact. Usually at the bottom of the stack are pages about the office’s privacy practices and a request for authorizing the release of identifying health information, with dotted lines for my signature. I sign away—the potential that I may be, in the words of New America’s Cybersecurity Initiative Fellow Robert Lord, “essentially giving all the rights away to every one of the most sensitive pieces of data that might be in [my] life” isn’t exactly top of mind for me as a patient seeking care. I’ve given little thought to who has access to my health care records, and what they could possibly be doing with this data.

Other patients and stakeholders, however, have raised these very questions to health care providers. Lord and Sonia Sarkar, New America’s Public Interest Technology Fellow, spoke about the questions they heard while working in Baltimore, Maryland, with Millennial Public Policy Fellow Dillon Roseen at New America’s Millennial Public Policy Symposium in April. As a first-year medical student working at an HIV clinic, Lord was shocked that he had access to this sensitive patient data—in fact, in most hospitals across the nation, it may be the case that even volunteers would have access. Understandably, patients were hesitant to share information that would then be recorded in their health records. Similarly, in her former role as the chief policy and engagement officer for the Baltimore City Health Department, Sarkar participated in a coalition of health care and social program providers in which a representative from House of Ruth Maryland, an organization that does work around domestic violence, raised questions about the extent of data collection and the mechanisms in place to ensure that the right level of data was getting to the right people.

I’ve given little thought to who has access to my health care records, and what they could possibly be doing with this data.

Unfortunately, these issues of consent and security do not appear to be a top priority within the health care industry. Lord pointed out that while most comparable industries dedicate about 8 percent of their budgets to addressing basic cybersecurity hygiene and protection, the health care industry dedicates only about half a percentage. Despite these risks to patient privacy, the move from paper to electronic health records (EHR) has been transformative, with increased opportunities for collaboration that make a critical difference in patients’ health.

With much of what impacts health outcomes—things like diet, work, and transportation—lying outside the medical care system, the opportunities for leveraging technology and data to provide more holistic care are certainly exciting. Through programs like Accountable Health Communities implemented by the Baltimore City Health Department, EHR can increase collaboration between the health care network and social services to more comprehensively address individuals’ health-related social needs. For a patient at a clinic in East Baltimore, a community where there are significant health disparities, having a module in the EHR for food needs helps identify a patient’s social needs, enabling the clinic to refer them to government programs and resources in the community such as a local food bank or an urban garden program. By addressing an individual’s overall health as a person and not just as a patient, Sarkar noted, we can link health care issues to food advocacy efforts around food deserts and disparities that send individuals struggling to put food on the table at the end of the month to the emergency room, integrating information about social programs into health care providers’ standard of care.

Similarly, community organizations are interested in this data as well. Health issues may also be related to housing access, and using technology in the health care system may be one way to track the number of referrals to housing assistance programs that are being met. This holistic approach to health care, Sarkar said, may also inspire unlikely allies at hospitals and clinics who may not be actively involved in housing advocacy work.

By addressing an individual’s overall health as a person and not just as a patient, we can link health care issues to food advocacy efforts around food deserts and disparities that send individuals struggling to put food on the table at the end of the month to the emergency room.

Lord pointed to this culture of open collaboration in health care as being responsible in part for the prevalence of security risks in the field. The lack of protections can also be contributed to the urgency of some health care scenarios; the medical team may need access to a patient’s EHR to check for allergies to certain medications before administering it. In other words, health care systems would prefer the risk of an insider threat to patient privacy and security over a patient’s death—especially one that would’ve been easily avoidable.

The question that remains is: How do we manage these risks while still leveraging the benefits of technology and data in health care? One problem, Lord noted, is that the usual security protocols for protecting data in institutions do not apply to the health care setting because of the complex nature of health care workflows. In other sectors, it might make sense to grant permission settings according to an employee’s role and the level of access needed to complete his or her job effectively. This segmenting is called role-based access control (RBAC). In health care, nurses and doctors work across a variety of practices, from inpatient care to outpatient care, in oncology wards and operating rooms, each dealing with different contexts and different types of patients. These differentiated roles might seem like the perfect opportunity to implement the traditional RBACs that are used in other sectors. However, this doesn’t work in health care given the legitimate need to keep patient records readily available in case of emergency.

Nonetheless, the ways that the health care industry already uses data to improve outcomes and perform clinically-focused analytics could also be leveraged to protect data. In this vein, Lord is working on using artificial intelligence to defend health care institutions with his company, Protenus.

Just as importantly, Sarkar reminded us of the importance of listening to both patients and subject-matter experts. Technology can be a force for good by lifting up patient voices. In collecting data on health and social services, the health care system can also provide patients with the opportunity to voice opinions on whether those services are or are not meeting their needs. Technologists must join the conversation in a mode of learning instead of a mode of designing technological solutions. Lord echoed this sentiment and warned entrepreneurs to be mindful of cultural norms, challenges, and, especially, nomenclature—no surgeon wants to hear that someone is going to “disrupt” their hospital, after all.

This panel discussion focused on the political and historical context, myths and realities, and political possibilities surrounding youth activism. Featuring Millennial Fellows Christian Hosam and Aaron Noffke in conversation with Georgetown Professor and New America National Fellow Marcia Chatelain and Split This Rock Youth Coordinator Joseph Green, this panel addressed the contemporary challenges and unforeseen strengths of centering young people in political activism.

• Aaron Noffke, Millennial Fellow, New America
• Christian Hosam, Millennial Fellow, Political Reform, New America
• Dr. Marcia Chatelain, Associate Professor, Georgetown University; and Wendy and Eric Schmidt Fellow, New America
• Joseph Green, Director of Youth Programs, Split this Rock

What Happens When Young People are Centered in Political Activism?

Roselyn Miller

From the establishment of the Black Panther Party at Merritt College in 1966 to the recent March for Our Lives activism displayed by the Parkland students, youth activism serves as an important tool for political change. Young people participating in social change leads to new perspectives gaining traction, as well as new models for political organizing. However, it is important to take a broader historical view on youth activism to ensure that youth-led movements maintain momentum and remain grounded in tangible change.

During the “Policy Engagement and Political Activism” panel at the Millennial Public Policy Symposium in April, Millennial Public Policy Fellows Christian Hosam and Aaron Noffke were in conversation with Marcia Chatelain, a professor and historian at Georgetown University and a New America National Fellow, and Joseph Green, a nationally recognized poet and director of youth programs for Split This Rock, to discuss how political organizations could serve and empower young people.

Young people participating in social change leads to new perspectives gaining traction, as well as new models for political organizing.

Noffke framed the conversation by emphasizing the impact of lived experience on social movements, stating “rather than approach the concept of youth activism as an inherently progressive or transformative force, it is perhaps more valuable to think of young people as a cohort shaped by laws, institutions, and political events that have transpired in their lifetimes.” From the LA riots of the early 90s to today’s Black Lives Matter movement, young people’s experiences continue to shape discussions and policies on race, income, and inequality in America.

Centering young people in political activism comes with opportunities and challenges; moving from lived experience to action requires education on social movements as well as a platform to market and leverage ideas. Chatelain noted how people today put so much faith in sponsors, like private corporations, or institutions, like the church, that often when communities fail to meet their own needs they start to blame the community, and not a larger structural or institutional failure. This idea limits the amount of individual agency young people think they can take. Green added that youth activism is most successful when young people can create a space for themselves to push continuously for the change they care about, even without institutional permission.

Hosam pointed out that the financial aspirations, rather than foundations, that young people have lead to different approaches to political activism in determining what areas of change might be the most interesting, impactful, and timely. Because of this financial insecurity, seemingly non-political factors, like access to secure housing, lead young people to engage with political activism because of the individual impact these experiences have had on their lives. Chatelain noted the importance of acknowledging this financial insecurity as a generational divide, and warned against turning social change into a leisure-class activity. In order for youth activism to have an impact, people must move beyond applauding young people’s energy and initiative to listening to their concerns, educating themselves on the historical political landscape, and recognizing their position in a broader progressive social movement. Green found that in order to reignite a historically rooted campaign, such as Dr. Martin Luther King Jr.’s Poor People’s Campaign, then “it has to be reinvigorated with the problems and the issues and the blood of the people who are trying to deal with the issues that are happening to them right now.”

In order for youth activism to have an impact, people must move beyond applauding young people’s energy and initiative to listening to their concerns and recognizing their position in a broader progressive social movement.

In that sense, youth-led movements should be understood as both deeply personal and community-driven actions, as well as historically rooted and influenced. To better serve the political education of young people, older generations must lead by example, broadcast better decisions by explaining their reasoning, and change ideas of what security means in terms of finances, success, and vulnerability in spaces. By allowing youth to take initiative not only in leading movements but also determining and then fighting for the causes that affect them most, historically impacted issues can continue to gain traction.

This interactive panel highlighted the work of youth activists around some of the most critical issues that affect both contemporary and future public policy. In particular, this panel focused specifically on immigration and gun control from often underreported perspectives and engaged with the audience on how to practically build movements of change. NAKASEC community organizer Sumi Yi, University of Maryland American Studies PhD candidate Tatiana Benjamin, and youth poet and activist Asha Gardner from Split This Rock were in conversation with Better Life Lab’s Millennial Fellow Roselyn Miller.

• Roselyn Miller, Millennial Fellow, Better Life Lab, New America
• Tatiana Benjamin, American Studies PhD Candidate, University of Maryland – College Park
• Sumi Yi, Community Organizer, National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, Virginia (NAKASEC-VA)
• Asha Gardner, Poet-Activist, Split This Rock

Expanding the Table: Millennials Aren’t Just Asking for a Seat at the Table–They’re Expanding It

Christian Hosam

Though the massacre at Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School in Parkland, Florida, took place in February, it is already receding into the past. There is a near irresistibility of our media landscape to move on to the next calamity or the next development within the ongoing sagas of our current political moment. However, it might be instructive to realize that while the media coverage might have waned, the activism sparked and led by Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students has only just begun.

There are national marches planned for the month of June as a follow-up to the March for Our Lives that took place in April. The Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students have begun conducting voter registration drives themselves to realize a formal kind of political power at the ballot box that has, at least up until now, remained informal. And beyond the direct politicization of the Parkland students, there is a slowly growing, yet unmistakable, shift for young people’s political engagement.

Indeed, over a year before Parkland, the 2016 presidential election served as an inflection point for young people, with the GenForward reporting that a majority of young adults in every major racial and ethnic group claimed to have participated in at least one political activity since the election.

While the media coverage might have waned, the activism sparked and led by Marjory Stoneman Douglas High School students has only just begun.

It was in this spirit that the final session at New America’s Millennial Public Policy Symposium, “Expanding the Table: Intergenerational Activism and Policy Change,” was held. By highlighting the work of activists on the ground, “Expanding the Table” was designed to show that young people aren’t waiting for permission to engage with politics. As a result of this more unrepentant activism, the cast of characters that enters into the ever-expanding “political” space is more diverse and more unapologetic than ever.

As the session progressed, each panelist touched on the tension between self-advocacy and the needs of those with more social power and influence to also step in and stand up for the issues critical to young people. Tatiana Benjamin, an American Studies PhD from the University of Maryland, identified the fact that the burden of social justice cannot completely be borne by those who are the most marginalized. She shared the story of deportation within her own family and community, and how having access to nationalistic privilege spurred her to organize around issues of undocumented Black communities. Similarly, panelist Sumi Yi from the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium, or NAKASEC, recounted a story about the struggles of living with Deferred Action immigration status from a close friend that led her to join the organization.

It is important to note that the event was crafted out of a desire to think about what kinds of voices would be necessary to even begin to capture the activist orientations of young people at this political moment. Elevating the voices of three women of color all representing issues that highlight the intersections of issues that cut across various populations of young people is instructive. As Split this Rock poet-activist Asha Gardner remarked, it was having her voice centered by those that she looked up to as poets that both inspired her and gave her the efficacy to step into leadership and support the development of other young people’s critical consciousness.

The burden of social justice cannot completely be borne by those who are the most marginalized.

The key points of political contention that activate the young electorate are shifting and expanding over time. Issues such as immigration, racism, net neutrality, and environmental degradation, and, even more specifically, how the consequences of those issues are meted out to different marginalized populations are creating the raw material for organizing young people. While no generation is ever single-issue, the activists on stage argued that all issues are intersectional and cross-cutting.

This foregrounding of multifaceted issues speaks to a larger critical point that they all spoke to in one way or another and was described explicitly by the moderator, Millennial Public Policy Fellow Roselyn Miller: Culture change is not separate from policy change, but in fact emerges in tandem with it. That young people are not waiting or asking permission is important because it speaks to cultural shifts. The role of public policy is to facilitate that agency and to help develop it.

How do we, as the session description stated, practically build movements of change? An answer gleaned from the event’s powerful conversation is that we must understand and remember that lasting change and purposeful, impactful movements are loud, inconvenient, and insistent on their righteousness. Millennials (and younger folk) are showing this more and more.

Beyond the Symposium: What Now?

Emma Coleman

D.C. is full of exciting and interesting events. Every week, I get invited to at least a dozen workshops, panels, and public forums at nearby think tanks, universities, and nonprofits. In my opinion, it’s one of the best parts of living in D.C.—the chance to hear from and meet so many fascinating people who are pushing their respective policy fields forward.

But what often accompanies the excitement of these opportunities is an element of frustration. After listening to someone outline their vision for a better world, I always want to know: What now?

As the Millennial Fellows designed our symposium, “New Voices and Ideas on Care, Community, Technology, and Civic Engagement,” we were conscious of this itch to get further involved with what we heard on stage from our panelists. So, in order to expand the work we saw represented at our symposium to our audience, we put together a list of action items for anyone looking to get involved. These options are meant to suit whatever you have to give—time, money, or even just a follow on social media. The title of our symposium reflects the engagement we want to see, and we welcome all new voices and ideas on the topics presented last month.

For those with time to read and do both personal online activism, or for those who want to speak with their Congressperson about ad tech policy, we recommend perusing Dipayan Ghosh’s recent report, Digital Deceit: The Technologies Behind Precision Propaganda on the Internet. In addition to covering why we need technologists in policy, as he did during our panel “Promises and Perils of Technology and Big Data,” Ghosh also notes in the report how to recognize when you might be seeing biased content online and what you can urge politicians to do to regulate it.

After listening to someone outline their vision for a better world, I always want to know: What now?

For those looking to become involved with community activism, our panel “Expanding the Table: Intergenerational Activism and Policy Change” provided three fantastic options for nonprofit work the D.C. area. The Southeast Asia Resource Action Center (SEARAC) is a civil rights organization that empowers Cambodian, Laotian, and Vietnamese American communities to create a socially just and equitable society. Their Take Action resources make it clear how you can become involved. You can also become involved with the campaign for immigrant rights of the National Korean American Service & Education Consortium (NAKASEC) by filling out their volunteer form. For those who like to combine activism with art, our last panel also featured a poet from Split This Rock, D.C.’s youth poetry organization that holds public events you can attend.

For those interested in policy work, our panel “New Perspectives on Communities of Care” brought Better Life Lab’s Alieza Durana to the stage to discuss U.S. paid family leave policies. For the latest on this subject, follow PL+US to learn how you can get involved.

Finally, for those with the financial capability to make a donation, consider UndocuBlack, a group of currently and formerly undocumented Black people that organizes within communities to ensure their safety, facilitate resources, and provide support.

Hopefully these resources prove helpful as you take the step beyond the symposium and answer the question “what now?”