Podcasts about American University

How much money will you need when you exit? The answer to this third question very much impacts your answers to the other questions regarding departure date and who you end up selling to…We believe that the following are critical elements in creating a successful exit plan…- a preliminary business valuation- a forecast of future business cash flow- an experienced advisor team- your targeted departure date- your targeted successor- And a preliminary financial needs analysisAnd it's this last element…the preliminary financial needs analysis…the analysis that will answer the question “What's Your Number?” that we want to discuss today…What's Your Number???Want to learn more? Go to: ennislp.comConnect with Joe: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephdurnford/Check out JD Merit: https://jdmerit.com/DISCLAIMER:The information in this presentation is provided as education only, with the understanding that neither the presenter nor ENNIS Legacy Partners or GRF CPAs & Advisors is engaged to render legal, accounting, or other professional services. If you require legal advice or other expert assistance, you should seek the services of a competent professional. Neither the presenter nor ENNIS Legacy Partners or GRF CPAs & Advisors shall have any legal liability or responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly, by the information contained in this presentation.============================================“We want you to help you build a business that is sellable and exit successfully on your own terms and conditions.” - Pat Ennis============================================

Perpetrators of mass violence are commonly regarded as evil. Their violent nature is believed to make them commit heinous crimes as members of state agencies, insurgencies, terrorist organizations, or racist and supremacist groups. Upon close examination, however, perpetrators are contradictory human beings who often lead unsettlingly ordinary and uneventful lives.  Drawing on decades of on-the-ground research with perpetrators of genocide, mass violence, and enforced disappearances in Cambodia and Argentina, Antonius Robben and Alex Hinton explore how researchers go about not just interviewing and writing about perpetrators, but also processing their own emotions and considering how the personal and interpersonal impact of this sort of research informs the texts that emerge from them. Through interlinked ethnographic essays, methodological and theoretical reflections, and dialogues between the two authors, Perpetrators: Encountering Humanity's Dark Side (Stanford UP, 2023) conveys practical wisdom for the benefit of other researchers who face ruthless perpetrators and experience turbulent emotions when listening to perpetrators and their victims. Perpetrators rarely regard themselves as such, and fieldwork with perpetrators makes for situations freighted with emotion. Research with perpetrators is a difficult but important part of understanding the causes of and creating solutions to mass violence, and Robben and Hinton use their expertise to provide insightful lessons on the epistemological, ethical, and emotional challenges of ethnographic fieldwork in the wake of atrocity. Jeff Bachman is Senior Lecturer in Human Rights at American University's School of International Service in Washington, DC. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices Support our show by becoming a premium member! https://newbooksnetwork.supportingcast.fm/new-books-network

Bisi Adebayo investigates why so many young, highly skilled people leave Nigeria, known in the country as Japa. Bisi hears from journalist Victoria Idowu who re-located to Canada with her family and a teacher in Lagos who is about to pack her bags and move to the UK. We also hear from an expert in employment data Babajide Ogunsanwo who tells us how much this costs Nigeria and Wale Smart an employer who explains how tricky it is to find and retain staff. Presenter / producer: Bisi Adebayo Image: Graduating students of the American University of Nigeria; Credit: Getty Images

This Ramadan we teamed up with du Business for a special series called Inspiring Growth, to celebrate entrepreneurship and highlight business success. We feature eight successful entrepreneurs and innovators who shared their personal stories to help others learn valuable lessons. Throughout the show, we will focus on growth, exploring the path of how they turned their dreams into reality.  We hope this proves to be both inspirational and valuable for those who are facing their own personal and business challenges, as always du Business is your partner to enable business and personal growth. Joining me in the first episode is Fatma Al Mulla, the founder and creative director of FMM, a collection of pop culture inspired shirts, dresses, abayas and accessories that can be found in Dubai's coolest boutiques. After graduating from the American University of Sharjah, where she studied visual communication and photography, Fatma established her own Khaleeji pop-culture brand, FMM, which takes its name from her three initials. The collection pokes fun at social and cultural stereotypes and misconceptions with its detailed illustrations and tongue in cheek Arabic captions. You can follow Fatma on Instagram and visit her website for more. Timestamps: 0:00 Intro 1:17 Fatmas's Ramadan Routine 2:22 How did you come up with the concept  5:41 The learning curve 6:33 How did you build your audience? 10:19 How did you establish your work culture? 13:12 Fatma's advice to start your own business 14:36 Outro 

Photo: No known restrictions on publication. @Batchelorshow #SaudiAtrabia: #Iran: No gain. Hussain Abdul-Hussain is a research fellow at FDD. He focuses on the Gulf region and Yemen, including on Gulf relations with Iran and Gulf peace with Israel. Born and raised in Beirut, Baghdad and Baalbek, cities that have been the theater of major Middle Eastern events, Hussain earned a degree in History and Archeology from the American University of Beirut, after which he worked as a reporter, and later managing editor, at Beirut's The Daily Star. Malcolm Hoenlein @Conf_of_pres @mhoenlein1 https://www.fdd.org/analysis/2023/03/21/whats-in-the-saudi-iranian-beijing-deal/

Parvez and Omar are joined by Shaykha Muslema Purmul, co-founder and Religious Director at The Majlis.  They discuss her family's journey from Afghanistan to Southern California, as well as her travels to Egypt, where she pursued religious scholarship for a number of years, and the work she is doing today as Religious Director at The Majlis. ABOUT SHAYKHA MUSLEMA PURMUL Muslema Purmul was born in Raleigh, North Carolina and raised in San Diego, California. She graduated from the University of California, San Diego with a double major in Religious Studies and Middle Eastern Studies. During these years she served a number of different roles at her local MSA at UCSD as well as MSA West. After graduating she left to study in Egypt where she spent the better part of the next 7 years. She completed the Bachelors program in Sharia from al-Azhar University in Cairo and also completed almost two years of graduate work at the American University in Cairo in Islamic Studies. She also attended the International Union of Muslim Scholars “Future Scholars Program” while she was studying in Cairo. Upon her return to America, she served the Southern California community in various capacities including religious instruction, directing youth and young adult programs, university chaplaincy, and offering community pastoral care at and with local masjids and organizations. She has taught classes and spoken nationally and internationally about issues related to Islamic law and ethics in an array of educational settings including conferences, retreats, universities, libraries, and mosques. Currently she serves as Religious Director at The Majlis, a community organization she and her husband co-founded together seeking to nurture safe community spaces where people can learn and live Islam, based on the traditional sources of understanding the faith, while acknowledging the particular challenges of the American context. She is a mother of two and resides with her family in Southern California.  

Daniel M. Gerstein works at RAND and is an adjunct professor at American University. He formerly served as the undersecretary (acting) and deputy undersecretary in the Science and Technology Directorate of the Department of Homeland Security from 2011 to 2014. Healthy nation, safe nation: Build health security into national security

This episode we hear from Senator Sarah McBride about how to advance equality. Senator McBride became the highest-ranking openly trans official in the country in 2020 when she was elected to the Delaware state senate. But this wasn't the first time she made history. In 2009, McBride was a junior at American University when she used her social media platform to come out as a trans woman. She says coming out was the most difficult thing she'd ever done and realized she wanted to play a larger role in creating an accepting world for more trans people. So, while still in college, she led the way in advocating for the adoption of Delaware's first gender identity non-discrimination bill. This is episode 4 from a special segment for Women's History Month about how we can build a more feminist future....and take care of ourselves and each other when the work is daunting. Find more trailblazers in our new book, It's a Good Day to Change the World.

Mihaela Berciu joins the podcast to help us understand why being busy isn't the answer to our problems. Using her Core Values Model Mihaela has worked with and advises board members, top-level managers, angel investors, and senior professionals seeking to excel in their careers and improve performance to drive even greater success. Mihaela's client portfolio ranges from banking, financial consulting, pharmaceuticals, FMCGs, retail, fashion, television, aviation services, and more. She received her Executive Coaching Certification from Cambridge University, an MBA from the American University in London, and Studied Psychology of Mind and Theory of Knowledge at Oxford University. She was the host of a national TV show viewed by hundreds of thousands and is the author of two bestselling books “Dress for Success” and “Success is in the Details”. Her mission is to get leaders to experience their excellence by exploring values, understanding aspirations, removing barriers, and visualizing the path to their personal and professional success. This episode is sponsored by CultureBot: https://getculturebot.com/humanhr Connect with Mihaela here:  https://mihaelaberciu.com/  https://www.linkedin.com/in/mihaelaberciu/  Connect with Traci here: https://linktr.ee/HRTraci   Don't forget to rate, review, and subscribe!   Disclaimer: Thoughts, opinions, and statements made on this podcast are not a reflection of the thoughts, opinions, and statements of the Company by whom Traci Chernoff is actively employed. --- Send in a voice message: https://anchor.fm/hrtraci/message Support this podcast: https://anchor.fm/hrtraci/support

Last week, Vladimir Putin was indicted for war crimes. The International Criminal Court issued an arrest warrant for the Russian dictator for kidnapping Ukrainian children and taking them to Russia. Diane Orentlicher from American University breaks down the case against Putin, what comes next, and the US role in all of this. See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Recently the Endocrine Society published a new clinical practice guideline entitled, “Treatment of Hypercalcemia of Malignancy in Adults: An Endocrine Society Clinical Practice Guideline.” What exactly is hypercalcemia of malignancy? What are its symptoms? How is it treated? And what do the guidelines recommend? To help answer these questions, host Aaron Lohr talks with Ghada El-Hajj Fuleihan, MD, MPH, professor of medicine at the American University in Beirut in Lebanon. She is the chair of the Society working group that developed this guideline. For helpful links or to hear more podcast episodes, visit https://www.endocrine.org/podcast

We want to help you build your business value, but also protect the value of your business, and one way to do that is through careful tax planning…Tax planning as you're growing and building the business, but also planning that will minimize taxes when you eventually sell or transfer your business.Too often at sale an owner is sadly surprised with how much of their sale proceeds will go to both federal and state income taxes.And so that's today's topic: Minimizing Taxes at Sale with a Section 664 Business Owners Trust Our expert guest today is Roger Silk, Phd, who is the Founder and CEO of Sterling Foundation Management Want to learn more? Go to: ennislp.comWant to learn more? Go to: ennislp.comConnect with Joe: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephdurnford/Check out JD Merit: https://jdmerit.com/============================================“We want you to help you build a business that is sellable and exit successfully on your own terms and conditions.” - Pat Ennis============================================

How do you put a price tag on a blue whale? According to Ralph Chami, Assistant Director for the International Monetary Fund, it's worth around $2 million, if not more. But how does that translate to real-world economics, with wide-reaching implications for business success? In this episode, he explains how an unusual encounter motivated him to explore the nexus of sustainability and profit in the hopes of creating a “nature-based” economy. He tells us how businesses can spearhead the creation of markets that serve nature and its restoration in ways that solve for the climate crisis. And what the future of business can look like so humanity and nature work together to reward investors and stewards of the planet alike. Lead With We is Produced by Goal 17 Media - https://goal17media.com Ralph Chami: Ralph Chami is an Assistant Director at the IMF. He is currently on sabbatical from the IMF working on tackling the two risks to humanity–climate change and biodiversity loss. He has developed a model for valuing natural capital, including blue and green nature as well as flora and fauna, and a framework for developing the natural capital markets for ecosystem services. He has co-founded two entities working on bringing this new paradigm to life–Rebalance Earth and Blue Green Future that are engaged in realizing the value of the natural world to our well-being and integrating it into our economic system. He has co-authored a number of peer-reviewed publications that value the carbon sequestration service of keystone species such as the Great Whales and Elephants. His work on valuing natural capital has been featured at TED 2022, TEDEx2022 Fiesole, UN, and in National Geographic, Financial Times, Washington Post, WEF, among others. During his 24-year career at the IMF, he has been known as an expert on fragile states and low-and middle-income countries (LMICs). He oversaw surveillance for 32 countries in MENA and Central Asia, and program work in Egypt, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, South Sudan, and Yemen, and was Mission Chief for Libya and Somalia. Prior to joining the IMF, he was on the faculty of finance at the Mendoza School of Business, University of Notre Dame, IN, USA. Ralph has PhD in Economics from the Johns Hopkins University, MBA from University of Kansas, and BS from the American University of Beirut.   Resources: Learn more about International Monetary Fund at: https://www.imf.org/en/Home Connect with Ralph on LinkedIn: https://www.linkedin.com/in/ralph-chami-63785313/ Visit leadwithwe.com to learn more about Simon's new book or search for "Lead With We" on Amazon, Google Books, or Barnes & Noble. 

“Networking is a ripple effect… It's hard to track how those connections play out and what the value is in the long term for the founder who makes that first connection." —Kate Fosson   The world is changing, and businesses must keep up to remain competitive. To do so, they need to look beyond their own resources and start collaborating with others to create sustainable solutions. Engaging with other companies not only leads to creative ideas that can be propelled forward quickly but also gives valuable access to the resources of others involved in the collaborative project.    Moreover, amplifying voices through collaboration can create a larger platform on which to affect change and bring people closer together. By forming these connections, businesses  generate more innovative ideas, increase sustainability initiatives and corporate social responsibility, as well as drive brand recognition.    This is the mission behind Brand Pollinators, founded by speaker, author, and connection-maker, Kate Fosson. Brand Pollinators is dedicated to helping brands spark positive change through their sustainable and socially responsible initiatives. This unique approach harnesses the importance of humanity in order to drive meaningful progress toward shared objectives.   Listen in as Justine and Kate discuss how building connections can be an asset, how to manage the community that you are building, how to ensure that your conversations are mutually beneficial, the pros and cons of having a co-founder and being a solo founder, finding the right time to charge for the value you provide, and how networking creates a ripple effect.  Meet Kate:  Kate is a 2X founder, speaker, author, and connection-maker. She has worked alongside entrepreneurs from a variety of industries, providing expertise in branding, marketing, operations, and personal development. Kate has also served in various leadership roles with non-profits and local government. She is a certified business mentor and has an MBA from American University.   Website Instagram LinkedIn YouTube   Connect with NextGen Purpose: Website Facebook Instagram  LinkedIn YouTube Episode Highlights: 00:51 Connection is an Asset 06:58 Managing the Community  11:30 Why Limited to Founders 13:08 Having a Co-Founder vs Being a Solo Founder 18:06 Resources for Founders  22:32 Networking Is a Ripple Effect  

WTOP Entertainment Reporter Jason Fraley chats with D.C. author and American University professor Dolen Perkins-Valdez, who just earned an NAACP Image Literary Award for her harrowing novel "Take My Hand." It explores the tragic true story of the Relf sisters, who were sterilized by a federally-funded family-planning clinic in Montgomery, Alabama in 1973. (Theme Music: Scott Buckley's "Clarion") Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

“Working with great leadership and great organizations gives you the keys to the kingdom and to being great yourself. And the more individuals who have jobs, the more we can tackle the systemic ills in our society.” – Rondu Vincent Devin Carsdale is the Associate Director of Sustainability for Strategic Sourcing and Procurement at Bristol Myers Squibb. Devin drives short- and long-term strategy and builds partnerships with internal and external stakeholders to govern the company's Sustainable Procurement program. Before joining Bristol Myers Squibb as a Sustainability Manager in 2020, Devin served as a Sustainability Compliance Auditor for IKEA and Performance Consultant at Gap International. He holds a Certificate of Corporate Sustainability from New York University and a Master of Arts degree in International Affairs from the American University. Rondu Vincent is a global procurement and supplier diversity executive and a leader in DE&I. He serves as the Executive Director for Supplier Diversity and Sustainability at Bristol Myers Squibb, a company he has been working with for over eight years. Prior to joining Bristol Myers Squibb, Rondu served as the Manager of Supplier Diversity at Pfizer, a post he held for seven years before moving up as Pfizer's Director of Supplier Diversity. He is also the former Strategic Sourcing Manager at Becton Dickinson. Devin and Rondu join us today to discuss how supplier diversity and sustainability can drive systemic change and impact communities economically. They describe their professional backgrounds and how they became passionate about supplier diversity work. They outline Bristol Myers Squibb's programs and commitments around inclusion, equity, and supplier diversity. They discuss what makes a great supplier diversity professional. They explain the economic reasons to comply with supplier diversity and dissect the Environmental, Social, and Governance (ESG) framework. They also highlight how any company, regardless of size or scale, can play a part in ESG work and underscore why professionals need to think about where they want to be as supplier diversity practitioners. This week on Breaking Barriers: Devin's background and journey in supplier diversity and sustainable procurement How European companies are driving sustainability and diversity Rondu's career in the healthcare industry and how he gravitated toward supplier diversity The importance of authenticity and passion in the mission of inclusion Bristol Myers Squibb's supplier diversity and environmental sustainability goals How strong leadership support empowers supplier diversity professionals Rallying buy-in for Environmental, Social, and Governance goals Bristol Myers Squibb's programs and projects on supplier diversity and ESG How small and diverse businesses drove supply chain resiliency in the pharmaceutical industry amid the pandemic Quiet quitting and conscious quitting The difference between lifestyle entrepreneurs and serial entrepreneurs Connect with Devin Carsdale: Devin Carsdale on LinkedIn Connect with Rondu Vincent: Rondu Vincent on LinkedIn Rondu Vincent on Instagram Rondu Vincent on Twitter Connect with Bristol Myers Squibb: Bristol Myers Squibb Bristol Myers Squibb on LinkedIn Bristol Myers Squibb on Instagram Bristol Myers Squibb on Facebook Bristol Myers Squibb on Twitter This podcast is brought to you by Hire Ground Hire Ground is a technology company whose mission is to bridge the wealth gap through access to procurement opportunities. Hire Ground is making the enterprise ecosystem more viable, profitable, and competitive by clearing the path for minority-led, women-led, LGBT-led, and veteran-led small businesses to contribute to the global economy as suppliers to enterprise organizations. For more information on getting started please visit us @ hireground.io today! If you enjoyed this episode, please subscribe and leave a review wherever you get your podcasts. Apple Podcasts | TuneIn | GooglePlay | Stitcher | Spotify Be sure to share your favorite episodes on social media and join us on Facebook, Twitter, and LinkedIn.

In this episode, Dr. Russel Robinson and I discuss an upcoming event specifically for public servants - No decks, no slides, no handouts. The purpose is to connect with like minded professionals, learn, and affect change in your sphere of influence. Here are the details: Stories have the power to inspire, strengthen, and heal. And the stories we tell, especially about how we celebrate our triumphs, overcome adversity and help shape how we think about our lives. Replicate how workplaces should be by actively listening, giving people a voice and making it more human. No distractions, just a focus on storytelling and action. INSPIRE: Inclusive; No Presentations; Storytelling; Psychologically Safe; Insightful; Relationship building; Empowering. Listen to the following four storytellers from the public sector share their experiences and what they learned:  Dr. Elida Sarmiento, PhD, US Department of Justice Herb Rouson, JD, DC Courts Dr. Theresa Horne, PhD, Defense Counterintelligence and Systems Agency Love Rutledge, Host of the FedUpward podcast The hosts of this event include Dr. Russell Robinson, Chief Inspiration Officer, Inspire:DC; Founder, Amplified Research and Consulting; Adjunct Professor, and Key Executive Leadership Programs at American University.  Because of the intimate and powerful nature of this experience, seats are limited. Only 50 participants can join and you can register at this link: Don't wait - register today! 

Welcome to Mysteries to Die For and this Toe Tag.I am TG Wolff and am here with Jack, my piano player and producer. This is normally a podcast where we combine storytelling with original music to put you at the heart of mystery, murder, and mayhem. Today is a bonus episode we call a Toe Tag. It is the first chapter from a fresh release in the mystery, crime, and thriller genre.Today's featured release is Duplicity by Shawn Wilson Duplicity was released October 2022 from Oceanview Publishing and is available from AMAZON LINK and other book retailers.About Shawn WilsonShawn Wilson is a produced playwright and author of Relentless, the first novel in the Brick Kavanagh mystery series. She earned a Bachelor of Science Degree in Administration of Justice from American University in Washington, D.C. and spent over thirty years working for the U.S. Marshals Service, the U.S. Attorney's Office, the Federal Bureau of Prisons, and the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts. Having traveled on five continents, she is very happy to call Chicago home.TG Wolff ReviewDuplicity is a mystery, the kind I call a “follow along.” Brick Kavanagh is officially retired from the Washington DC police Homicide Squad. Unofficially, he's got a few irons in the fire. The most promising is an airline stewardess named Nora that just might be worth relocating to Chicago. A potential paying gig, Brick is invited to mentor law students through a cold case in their own back yard. Then there is the thing that happens to his partner's wife. For that, everything else can wait.Bottom line: Duplicity is for you if you like appealing characters getting in the weeds of missing persons and cold case mysteries.Strengths of the story. Brian “Brick” Kavanaugh is a strong leading character who you want to succeed. The secondary characters are equally engaging and, always a winner with me, I could keep them straight. The “missing person” and “cold case” storylines hold up front-to-back and then back-to-front. The rapid storytelling style is engaging and keeps you wanting to know what happens next.Where the story fell short of ideal. While there were no plot holes, the main storyline pivoted to resolution on a coincidence, not Brick's actions or deductions. Being a mystery fanatic, I look for the detectives to drive to the solution. In this case, he was more in the right place at the right time, which falls short of ideal. Notably, Brick does drive the solution of the secondary storyline. If it wasn't for him sticking with what should have been a dead-end lead and pressing buttons marked “do not touch” then the status quo would have been sadly maintained.

Great companies are made by great leaders, and great leaders are built from the inside out. Using her Core Values Model Mihaela has works with and advises board members, top-level managers, angel investors, and senior professionals seeking to excel in their careers and improve performance to drive even greater success. Mihaela's client portfolio ranges from banking, financial consulting, pharmaceuticals, FMCGs, retail, fashion, television, aviation services, and more. She received her Executive Coaching Certification from Cambridge University, an MBA from the American University in London, and Studied Psychology of Mind and Theory of Knowledge at Oxford University. She was the host of a national TV show viewed by hundreds of thousands and is the author of two bestselling books “Dress for Success” and “Success is in the Details”. Her mission is to get leaders to experience their excellence by exploring values, understanding aspirations, removing barriers, and visualizing the path to their personal and professional success. www.mihaelaberciu.com https://www.linkedin.com/in/mihaelaberciu/ https://twitter.com/MihaelaBerciu https://www.instagram.com/m_berciu/ https://www.facebook.com/MihaelaBerciu

There are two facets of the Humira biosimilar market and launch that Anna Hyde, my guest in this healthcare podcast, talks about. One is market dynamics. The second is provider and patient confidence. These two concepts are tangled up together and cannot be separated. But let me back up a sec and explain, although Anna Hyde covers this really well and offers context in the interview that follows. So, first facet: market dynamics. This means fostering competition so the price of something goes down. That is the basis of capitalism. After all, you need competition to get in there and try to steal customers from each other by scuffling over price. In 2023, there's supposed to be 12 biosimilar products for Humira that come out. So, we'll see scuffling and lower prices? Hmmm … maybe not so fast. Second intertwined facet: provider and patient confidence that the biosimilars are as effective and have similar side effects (ie, there is confidence that the biosimilars are actually, for reals, interchangeable with the so-called reference product [ie, Humira]). Bottom line, if providers and patients are not confident in the biosimilar, then no prescribing is gonna happen. Couple those provider and patient clinical concerns with a concern about manufacturer financial assistance. If providers and patients are worried that the out of pocket will be too high and the biosimilar manufacturers are not gonna offer any financial assistance, then, again, no confidence, no prescribing. So, if either or both of these concerns is present and the no prescribing is the result, this vote of no confidence means there will be no or limited uptake of the biosimilars. And what does the no uptake mean? It means no lower prices. Having competition per se isn't gonna lower the prices because the monopoly remains the monopoly. It's having uptake of the competition that will erode the monopoly. It's having patients who are willing to migrate to the competitive products. And this is pretty vital here because, right now, there's a lot of cynicism out there about this biosimilar launch and that it is not really going to lower the cost of these drugs much for plan sponsors. And, you know, is anyone terribly surprised given it sure seems like AbbVie, who is the manufacturer of Humira, still has a lot of dominance in the market? “How do they still dominate the market even though their patent thicket years are officially over?” you might ask. For one, they have payers over a barrel because members who need the Humira molecule are still 100% on Humira. Thus, AbbVie can still demand contract terms for Humira like the demand that Humira has the lowest patient out of pocket for patients or has an equivalent out of pocket to any formulary biosimilars. And this is currently going on. (Listen to the show with Dea Belazi [Encore! EP293] for why that matters so much from a market dynamics standpoint.) A second reason why Humira can still dominate the market even after their patent expiry is that plans and PBMs (pharmacy benefit managers) are, as Chris Sloan put it in episode 216, “addicted to rebates”; and Humira offers big rebates, which they will likely increase to match any pricing pressure from biosimilars. Here's a quote from the Goodroot white paper on this Humira biosimilars business, which is otherwise known as the “hottest topic in pharmacy.” Goodroot says, “Given the cost-rebate power play—and the monetary loss that PBM[s] ... assume when rebate dollars are removed—we don't anticipate any significant shift to biosimilars or cost savings as Humira biosimilars become available.” So ... doom? Not so fast. The Goodroot white paper continues with this next quote, and this is exactly what Anna Hyde also talks about and gives some historical proof points for, actually. Goodroot says, “There may be a tipping point in biosimilar pricing where the net cost differential will be significant enough to force [plan sponsors/payers] to make their PBMs prefer the biosimilars.” And then the white paper says exactly what Anna Hyde also says, and which I reiterated moments ago: “[For this tipping point to happen], this significantly lower net price must be coupled with a significant shift in market share to make up for the loss of [the] Humira rebate.” Let me translate that: Provider and patient uptake has to happen here for the prices in this therapeutic category to go down across the board to meet that tipping point. Anna Hyde gives some great advice, and this advice is all summed up on a landing page on the Arthritis Foundation Web site. This landing page includes advice for health plans, and a big part of that advice is to communicate clearly with physicians and other providers and also, essentially, with members and patients. Patients cannot find out that they just got switched to a biosimilar when they get a different box in the mail with a different med with a different delivery device that they have never seen before with a needle that's gonna pop out from some mystery location. This is a Fail (with a capital F) for all kinds of reasons that could ultimately undermine the whole Operation Biosimilar some plan is trying to pull off in an effort to try to lower prices to a tipping point so everybody can save money. There is evidence to suggest that, over time, biosimilars can reduce costs—maybe a lot. But for this to happen, it's gonna take really a thoughtful approach filled with bidirectional communication with providers and patients. Cannot forget this step. If everybody's on the same page, it may take a bit; but market dynamics will eventually kick in and prices will go down across the board. Everybody wins. My guest today, Anna Hyde, is VP of advocacy and access over at the Arthritis Foundation. She's a federal lobbyist and helps advance legislation and policies so patients can have better access to affordable medications and specialists. If you're looking for more insights into topics we discuss today, I suggest listening to the encore with Dea Belazi (Encore! EP293) about co-pay assistance programs; the show with Chris Sloan (EP216) about how plans get addicted to rebates; and if you really want to take a deep dive, check out this playlist of eight specialty pharmacy episodes. Listen to all of these shows and you will know more than 99% of healthcare insiders about who is kicking back to who and where the dollar is going in the specialty pharmacy market—which is essential background information if you're planning to evaluate the impact or the potential impact of these biosimilars.   You can learn more by emailing Anna at ahyde@arthritis.org and connect with her on LinkedIn.    Anna Hyde is the vice president of advocacy and access at the Arthritis Foundation. She oversees both the federal and state legislative programs, in addition to grassroots engagement. Her focus is to raise the visibility of arthritis as a public health priority; build support for federal and state legislation that ensures access to affordable, high-quality healthcare; and enhance patient engagement in the policy-making process. Anna previously served as senior director of advocacy and access, managing the federal affairs portfolio and overseeing the state advocacy team. Prior to joining the Arthritis Foundation in 2014, Anna worked as senior manager for federal affairs at the American Congress of Obstetricians and Gynecologists, where she managed a portfolio of issues, including appropriations, physician workforce, and health IT. She began her health policy career as a Congressional Fellow for Energy and Commerce Committee members, where she drafted legislation and staffed committee activities. Anna received a bachelor's degree in history from Southern Methodist University and taught junior high and high school history before moving to Washington, DC, in 2007 to pursue a master's degree in political science from American University.   07:38 What does a successful biosimilar market depend on? 09:07 Why does uptake seem to reduce prices? 10:24 How important is the relationship with the healthcare provider? 11:35 Where are we in getting these biosimilars to market? 13:02 Are there differences between the reference product and biosimilars? 19:26 Why does the way you approach the patient matter? 22:36 Why do providers feel like they don't have a lot of agency in the biosimilar conversation? 24:50 What should health plans be thinking if they want to go down the biosimilar path? 27:36 “Our goal is to keep a feedback loop such that no patient falls through the cracks.” 28:21 What is the “nocebo” effect? 31:27 What is Anna's advice to plan sponsors on communicating with providers and plan sponsors?   You can learn more by emailing Anna at ahyde@arthritis.org and connect with her on LinkedIn.   Anna Hyde of @ArthritisFdn discusses the #humira #biosimilar market and launch on our #healthcarepodcast. #healthcare #podcast   Recent past interviews: Click a guest's name for their latest RHV episode! Dea Belazi (Encore! EP293), Brennan Bilberry, Dr Vikas Saini and Judith Garber, David Muhlestein, Nikhil Krishnan (Encore! EP355), Emily Kagan Trenchard, Dr Scott Conard, Gloria Sachdev and Chris Skisak, Mike Thompson, Dr Rishi Wadhera (Encore! EP326)  

We discuss the trend with Kogod School Dean David Marchick of American University where applicants to its MS in Sustainability Management are up 100% in the past year

Dr. Haass, author of the New York Times best seller The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens, discusses how to reenvision citizenship if American democracy is to thrive or even survive. His guide is particularly relevant for college students who are learning how to navigate and participate fully in life on campus and in civic society. FASKIANOS: Thank you. Welcome to today's Educators Webinar. I'm Irina Faskianos, vice president of the National Program and Outreach here at CFR. Today's discussion is on the record and the video and transcript will be available on our website, CFR.org/Academic. As always, CFR takes no institutional positions on matters of policy. We're delighted to have CFR President Richard Haass with us to discuss the themes in his new book, The Bill of Obligations: The Ten Habits of Good Citizens. Dr. Haass needs no introduction, but of course I will say a few words. He is in his twentieth year as president of CFR. He has served as special assistant and senior Middle East advisor to President George H.W. Bush, served in the U.S. State Department as a director of policy planning under Secretary of State Colin Powell, and held various positions in the Defense and State Departments during the Carter and Reagan administrations. He is the author or editor of fourteen books on U.S. foreign policy, one book on management and, of course, this one on American democracy. So, Richard, thank you very much for being with us today to discuss this book. I thought we could begin with you giving us an overview of your book, why you wrote it and, more specifically, why the focus on obligations rather than on rights. HAASS: Well, thank you, Irina. Thank you all for giving us some of your time. So really two separate questions—why the book and why the focus on obligations. Why the book is, look, I'm a foreign policy guy, for better and for worse. But increasingly, when I thought about all the challenges this country faced in the world, they all presume that we would have a functioning democracy that others in the world might want to emulate, others in the world would feel comfortable depending on, relying on. Our foes in the world might be deterred by. That we would generate the resources we needed and the political unity we needed to act in the world. Increasingly all that came under—has come under question. So I don't see how you can talk about American national security and just talk about the sort of stuff that the Pentagon or State Department do, but increasingly our ability to have a working democracy, to have a society that has the bandwidth and the unity to carry out our foreign policy. That's in question. And that's one of the lessons of the last few years. We assume these things are just fine at our peril. So, you know, that's what led me to write this book. And I actually have come to see the state of American democracy as, in many ways, the biggest threat to our national security. More than China, or Russia, or climate change, or anything else, because this is the foundation of our ability to contend with all these external threats. Moving to the question of “why obligations,” look, no one should get me wrong here. Rights are central to this American experiment, as I expect all of you know. You know, the Bill of Rights was politically essential in order to get several states that were holding out to ratify the new Constitution. A lot of people understood that the Articles of Confederation were woefully inadequate, but it was something very different to say they were prepared to sign on for a much stronger federal government and a much stronger executive. And the condition that several states set then was, hey, we need this Bill of Rights which protects states and individuals from the reach of the federal government. Over the last nearly two and a half centuries, we've lived with the reality that there's often a gap between our political realities and the Bill of Rights, you know, what Lincoln called the “unfinished work” of this country remains unfinished. I fully appreciate that. But just try a thought experiment: Just imagine that somehow we managed to close the gap between our reality and the Declaration of Independence, and suddenly rights were 100 percent what they ought to be. Then the question you have to ask yourself, if we were to reach that point, would American foreign policy be on safe, firm ground? And the answer is no. Because what would happen is someone would say, hey, the mother has an absolute right to choose. And someone else would say, no, the unborn, they have absolute rights. Or someone would say, I have all sorts of rights under the Second Amendment to bear arms and someone else would say, oh, hold on a minute, I've got rights to public safety, to physical safety, and so on and so forth. You know, it wasn't by accident that Justice Steve Breyer said that the toughest cases before the court are right versus wrong, but rights versus rights. So what do we do? How do we avoid the clash of rights which, at a minimum, would mean gridlock, and worse yet, in all sorts of situations, one could imagine things descending into violence. If people felt that adamantly about their rights, and if their rights were not adequately recognized, from their point of view, what's holding them back from political violence? And that's what led me to this book. And that's what led me to obligations. Obligation is the other side of the citizenship coin. Rights are essential. To use the political science idea, they are necessary, but they're not sufficient. We need obligations. We need to complement rights, supplement rights with—we need obligations to one another—you to me, me to you, Irina, me to everybody on this Zoom—and vice versa. And then, second of all, we all need to think about our obligations to the country. What do we—in the spirit of John F. Kennedy—what do we owe this country? Only if we balance or complement rights with obligations do I think this experiment of American democracy has a good chance of surviving another two and a half centuries. FASKIANOS: So when you were writing this book, Richard—clearly we all need to read it—but what was your target audience? HAASS: It's a good question. Let me give you a couple of answers. One is, and it's something you and I know from our work here, I'm always interested in finding multipliers in American society. So in this case, it's a lot of the kinds of people on this call, educators, because they all have students. So whether they're administrators, classroom teachers, you know, university, four-year schools, two-year schools, colleges, at the high school level, what have you. So educators are my principal—if not THE principal audience, as the principal multiplier. Obviously, students as well because, you know, particularly if you think about it, college students by—well, we can talk about this more—but they're a perfect audience for this. I'm also, though, interested in other multipliers in this society. One is journalists. They have tremendous reach. They have obligations. Religious authorities, the people who give the sermons. You know, tens if not even more than a hundred million Americans hear sermons every week. Well, why can't religious authorities do things like discourage political violence, say nothing justifies violence, or civility is always called for, or compromise ought to always be considered. Or, how about this, you are your brother's and sister's keeper. You have an obligation to look out for the common good. Who better than a religious authority to do that? I think parents have certain special opportunities, if you will, to carry out these obligations, to model certain behavior. So I'm interested in all of them. And what I found is a lot of—you know, and the good news is I think it's resonating. Particularly a lot of older people know there's something amiss in this country. And what they want to make sure is that younger people get a chance to take this in. FASKIANOS: Right. So in your book, you have laid out ten principles. And under the ten principles— HAASS: We call them obligations, Irina. FASKIANOS: Ten obligations, yes. So what are the key insights that you would want, or the obligations that you would want educators and students to take away from reading this book, and that you would want educators to promote or to share with their students? HAASS: Well, first of all, all ten I think are valuable. You know, if we were in a religious context and you say which of the commandments would you jettison, you know, we all might have our favorite for jettisoning, but—Mel Brooks had his ideas in one of his movies. But I think all ten are necessary, in this case. I'd begin with being informed, which I think is particularly relevant to this kind of a group. You know, Jefferson's notion of the informed citizen is basic to a democracy. And then I think it immediately then calls for a conversation on exactly what is it we mean by being informed in terms of the basics. What do we mean in terms of current issues that come and go? How then do you get informed? How do you avoid being misinformed? I think it's a really rich conversation. Again, with students, we want to urge them, once they are informed, to get involved. To use an old quote of Ronald Reagan's, we don't just want patriotism we want informed patriotism. So we want people to be involved, but we want them to be involved once they are informed. You know, we can go through all of them, just things like behaviors, civility, compromise, observation of norms. Those are all important. Just kind of attitudes and behaviors become important. Then there's more specific things. I'd love for younger people to get involved in public service. Several states have instituted, like California, a large public service program. I think it's great. I think too many of us in this country are now leading very separate lives defined by geography, educational attainment, wealth, race, religion, gender, what have you. I love things that produce a bit of common experience, I think would be good. I'm obviously big, and we'll probably get to this, about teaching civics. I think it's simply wrong that anybody should leave a campus without having been exposed to civics. We wouldn't let them leave the campus if they couldn't read or write. Why would we want them to leave a campus if they didn't have—if they weren't, essentially, literate about citizenship, given how important that is. So, you know, I thought hard about the obligations. And I just think that this is what is required if American democracy is going to prosper. FASKIANOS: We've talked a lot about how this book is a perfect fit for the first-year experience and for incoming students to college campuses. And I thought you could talk a little bit about the connection of this book, and why it would be such a perfect fit. HAASS: Couple of things. One is, the average freshman is pretty close to eighteen. So what a perfect time to be doing this, because they're going to have the right to vote. And we want them to vote. And we want them to be informed voters. So that's one thing. But this is—the timing is perfect for people stepping onto campus. Second of all, in addition to voting, campuses, like any other, if you will, environment are political environments. And so over the course of their two, three, four, however many years on campus, students are going to be in all sorts of formal and informal, structured and unstructured, settings in which politics are going to come up. So I believe they need some help in navigating what they're going to experience on a—in classrooms, over drinks, over coffee, study groups, what have you. I think it's really essential there. I also like the idea of first-year experiences—and first principles—I love the idea that people read something and have it in common and they can talk about it. So whether you're a flute major, or a physics major, or a computer sciences major, I love the fact that everybody's reading something. And this is something with real, I think, practical payoffs, again, for the years on campus, and for life afterwards. So I actually think it's a good thing. And, just to be clear, the book doesn't tell them about what's the, quote/unquote, “right” or “wrong” policy on any issue. It's simply about how one approaches political life, whether it's on campus or beyond. And I just think it's—for eighteen-year-olds about to embark on a college experience and on a life experience, I think the timing's pretty good. FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Jim Zaffiro, who is a professor of political science at Central College. And he asks along the same lines— HAASS: Central College in Iowa? FASKIANOS: Yes. HAASS: I got a—I was lucky enough to get an honorary degree from Central College in Iowa. It's a wonderful, wonderful place. FASKIANOS: So he would like to know, how would you present the nature and significance of this as a common reading for eighteen-year-olds? Like, how would pitch it to an incoming freshman about why they should read it? So from the student's perspective? HAASS: It's a good question. Like it or not, government is essential to our lives. And indeed, both whether you like it or not, that makes the case for learning about it. It's going to affect you. But, more important, government is not some impersonal force. Government is affected by citizens. So I want students to understand that government is what we make of it. And it's who we vote for. It's who we reward or penalize politically. It's who they work for. I'd love them to get involved themselves. Not just in campaigns, one day some of them may choose that as a career—I did for a long time—in public service. And it could be—in my case it was working on the policy side. It could be the military. It could be intelligence. I've got a daughter who works for the Department of Sanitation here in the City of New York. There's all sorts of ways to have a public service kind of career. But even if you don't, we still, as citizens, have the right—and I would say, the obligation—to vote. And if they don't, well, that's just another way of saying you're going to let this other person decide what your future is. Why would anybody want to abdicate the chance to influence their own future and lets the person sitting in the seat next to them make choices that would affect them? So I would want students—I would want to remind them that government is responsive. That we've made enormous changes. I think a lot of young people have a really negative view of government. They see what's happened in recent years—whether it's the Iraq and Afghanistan wars, or economic crises, or pandemics, or climate. And a lot of them are very down on government. And I get it. I get it. But government also, over the decades, has delivered in important ways. And even when it's failed, the failure wasn't inevitable. So I want to give students a sense of possibility. And that government is really important. And the good news, in a non-authoritarian, democratic system, is governments are potentially responsive, and that there are real opportunities to make an impact that will affect their future and the futures of others they care about. And, you know, as I've learned in life, for better and for worse, not acting—you know, if you will, omissions—are just as important as acting in commission. And so I want students to understand that it's consequential not to get involved. And it's probably consequential and bad in ways that are most – more likely than not, not to be good for them. FASKIANOS: Wonderful. So I'm just going to—people are already writing questions in the Q&A box. Love to see that. So if you do that, please also include your affiliation or I will try to pull out your affiliation. You can always also raise your hand on the screen to ask a question. And on an iPad and tablet, you can click the “more” button. For those of you who have written your question, if you want to ask it yourself please do raise your hand because we love to hear your voices. The first person, Miriam Kerzner, wants to know what you mean by “civics.” And I think that's a good jumping off point for you to talk about civics and why it needs to be—how you think about it. HAASS: No, it's a great—yeah, in a funny sort of way, everyone—well, not everyone—but almost everyone is in favor of civics until you drill down a little bit. (Laughs.) And then they go, oh, I didn't mean that. So it's not enough to be in favor of it in principle, but you've also got to be in favor of it in practice. So it seems to me, and it's complicated, I get it. It ain't going to be easy. I get it. But I think there's certain things about our history, about certain documents people should be exposed to, certain, you know, dates and events that people should be exposed to, certain understandings about how government works at the national, the state, and then the local level people should be exposed to. Certain behaviors and attitudes that are consistent with a democracy that people should be exposed to. I think civics has got to do all of that. And I also think modern civics has to also take into account or include what is increasingly known as information literacy, to teach students to be critical consumers of this flood of information that's coming at them. And it's ironic. It's almost strange that in an age in which we're deluged with information, it's also harder than ever to be informed. But there you have it. So I think modern civics has to teach elements of history, teach some of the elements or basics of the American political system. Probably teach some basic elements of American society, the economy, and so forth, foreign policy. Talk about attitudes, behaviors, almost the culture of democracy, get into things about rights and obligations, talk about information literacy. And it's demanding. It's going to be very hard to—it's going to be impossible to satisfy not just everybody, probably anybody. This has now become a politicized terrain, probably a minefield's a better metaphor. Again, I'm not naïve about that. But I don't think we can throw up our hands and say it's too hard. It's probably impossible to get anything done at the national level just now, but not at the state level. I've already talked to several governors who are willing to take a try. I see certain schools are willing to take a try. I mean, Stanford's going to introduce a civics module for all of its freshmen starting next winter term. Other schools have some things like it. The service academies have been doing work in this area for quite a while. I don't mean to leave anybody out, but I know that schools like Purdue and Virginia, some others, have elements of this. Johns Hopkins is debating it. And so I just think it's also that universities have far more flexibility because, you know, I think it's tougher for public high schools, given the roles of state legislatures and politics. It's probably somewhat tough also, obviously, for public universities, given the way they're funded and the oversight. I think private colleges and universities have enormous discretion. There's nothing stopping them. They could do it tomorrow. There are resource issues. I get it. And not everybody has the, shall we say, resource advantages of a Stanford. So I think, you know, for a lot of schools, they're going to have to look at what's not just desirable, but you've always got to ask what's doable, what's feasible. I get it. But I think every—I think this is a conversation faculties, administrators, boards, students, and others need to have. Which is, one, whether civics? I would say the answer to that is yes. And then, OK, then let's have a follow-on conversation. What should go into it? And we can talk more about it, but I think particularly when it comes to history, which is probably the most controversial area, my own advice is to simply say there's got to be certain things about history which are not terribly controversial. There are certain documents that are essential, certain Supreme Court decisions, certain speeches, certain commentaries. Certain things happen. There's the factual spine of American history. Then there's interpretations of what caused certain things, what are the consequences of certain things. OK. Well, there, I think the lesson is not to teach a single history, not to impose a vision of history, but to expose students to a range of responsible historical analyses and interpretations. And then maybe in the classroom provide mechanisms for debating them in a civics course. And, indeed, I could imagine lots of other ideas—and there's teaching notes we just produced. One could imagine all sorts of model or mock legislatures where people—students would introduce certain legislation. One of the ideas I proposed was a model constitutional convention, and students would have a chance to propose amendments to the current Constitution and debate it out. So I think things like that. I think there's all sorts of participatory things that one could introduce or incorporate into a civics curriculum without imposing a single vision or interpretation of history, which would obviously be unacceptable to, you know, significant constituencies. FASKIANOS: Great. Thank you. And Miriam's at Columbia Basin College in Pasco, Washington. So I'm going to go next to Larry Mead, who has raised his hand. And if you could identify yourself and accept the unmute prompt, that would be fantastic. HAASS: Or not. FASKIANOS: Larry, you still need to unmute, or not. All right, I will go next to Laura Tedesco, and we'll come back to Larry. Or, we'll try. Laura. There you go, Laura first, OK. Laura, you just muted yourself again. Q: OK, now? FASKIANOS: You've got it. Q: OK. Thank you very much. My name is Laura Tedesco. I'm working from Madrid, Spain, working at St. Louis University, in the campus that they have here in Madrid. And my question is basically how we are going to—I agree with you about, you know, the education of citizenship here. But how are we going to really make people understand—not only students in universities, but everybody else, you know—about the right and the need to act as citizens? For instance, in a country like the United States, where your vote is not obligatory, yeah? You know, how can we make people understand that, you know, democracy should not be taken for granted, and we should all work to improve democracy from the different positions we are? Thank you. HAASS: No, it's a great question. How do we incentivize people not to take democracy for granted? One is to teach them in a civics curriculum a little bit about what are the structural strengths and advantages for democracy in terms of everything from the freedoms and rights they tend to provide and protect, to democracy's ability to adapt and innovate. We also got a pretty good historical record. I mean, yes, this democracy and other democracies have made serious mistakes, and they're imperfect to say the least, but there's a lot that they have accomplished and a lot that they have provided and delivered. So I think we need to remind people about the record of democracies to—and to also—I'd be more than comfortable pointing out some of the shortcomings of the alternatives, because obviously the alternatives do have, shall we say, more than their share of flaws. And I—again, to encourage, you know, informed participation—I think you have to make the case that democracies are responsive, that individuals and groups can make a difference. There's almost nothing that's inevitable. And history is, in many ways, what we make it. And that's what I want students to come away with, the sense of possibility and empowerment. I mean, what I came to conclude in writing this is if we wait for democracies to be delivered, if you will, or saved by someone at the top, it's going to be a long wait. And what we really need to think about is empowerment, whether it's young people or, again, these critical constituencies in American society from business to religious leaders, to teachers, to journalists, officials, and so forth. You know, we all have a chance to make a difference. And I want students to get excited about both why democracies are worth saving and the difference that individuals can make. And I think if we do that, we can generate some greater political involvement. And what the last two elections show is even minute amounts—you know, 1 percent here or there—of greater political involvement can have enormous impact. And that's what I want, again, students to come away with. The, yeah, well my vote won't matter. Well, probably not, if you're talking about one vote. But it doesn't take a whole lot of people getting involved in order to tip the scales. And so I want students to get a sense of empowerment. FASKIANOS: So you can build on—that starts to answer Robert McCoy's question, who is at the University of Montana, in the Maureen and Mike Mansfield Center in Missoula, Montana. He says: Read the book. Think it ought to be mandatory reading for all, not just students. However, your opening chapters paint such a dire picture that I fail to see how today's issues can be rectified. Can you speak to that? HAASS: Hmm. I'll have to go back and reread the opening chapters. I thought the first chapter was kind of about the— is really neutral. It's kind of the march of American history—American political history. It's kind of how we got to where we are. You know, the second chapter is on backsliding. And the reason it's that way is if things weren't in a bad way, I wouldn't have needed to write the book and I could have focused on my golf game and lowering my handicap. But because democratic backsliding in this country—and, by the way, in others—is a reality, I felt compelled to write this book. So I didn't have confidence that it would just sort itself out by itself. I actually think very few things just sort themselves out by themselves, whether we're talking about domestic political systems or international systems. I think it takes agency. And but again, small numbers could have really large impact. I mean, we just had a midterm here where roughly, I don't know, 45 percent of the eligible voters voted. And which was, you know, slightly higher than traditional midterms. Still disappointing. But some of the outcomes were pretty impressive. And in terms of stabilizing American democracy. Very easily, though, there could have been other outcomes. And think of the consequences there. So the whole argument for making—you know, for obligations is that nothing's baked into the cake, for better and for worse. So we shouldn't assume that everything's just going to turn out just fine. And we shouldn't assume that it won't. And I think, again, small numbers could have real impact. And, again, it's an empowerment argument. And I think there's a lot—there's a lot of distributed authority—obligation, or authority, or potential for various groups within the society, various constituencies, as well as with individuals writ large. And I think possibly reminding people about how government over the years has adapted, I think people need to, in some ways, rediscover a bit of respect and admiration for government. And I look at some of the changes we've had over the course of, say, the last—take my last seventy-five years, or even, you know, from on domestic things. Civil rights, you know, extension of the vote to eighteen-year-olds, what we've recently done on gay marriage, and so forth. The degree of adaptability and change, government turns out to be quite flexible in this society. So I want students to get jazzed about the potential here, about the possibility, but to remind them it just doesn't happen by itself. And people have to get involved. And politics is not dirty. It's a calling. And so I want the best and brightest to do this. You know, I've had a career that's been in and out of government, and I wouldn't trade it for just about anything. And it's really satisfying. I talk to them about careers and other things also. So I mean, not just people that are going to become doctors, and lawyers, and plumbers, and electricians, and whatever. And I want them to be involved, informed citizens. But I would love a chunk of the best and brightest to go into government and choose that as a calling. So again, one of the reasons I love the idea of a public service experience, say, for a year or two years after high school, before college, or during college, or after college, not only do would I think a lot of people come into contact with one another who ordinarily wouldn't meet where people grow up, but I think they would see what government could do. They would see that public service can actually accomplish some things that are good for the public. So I think students need to realize that. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next back to Larry Mead. And let's see if we can get your technology—there we go. Q: Can you hear me now? OK. Thank you. FASKIANOS: Yes, we can. And identify yourself, please. Q: What I wrote was, I thought I was the only political scientist to write about obligation. I wrote a book about that back in the 1960s. It was about domestic policy, mainly. I think your book is—I think the second book to really focus on obligation. And my question is this: In fact, our system presumes a very high level of civic obligation. We are, in fact, one of the most civic countries in the world, one of the best governed in the world. And that all depends on that civic culture. So why then do we talk only about rights? HAASS: Great question. First of all, what's your book? My research was inadequate. Tell me about your book. Q: (Laughs.) OK. It was called Beyond Entitlement: The Social Obligations of Citizenship. It's about welfare, poverty, and reform of welfare. It makes a case for work requirements. And later on, I became the theorist of welfare reform. But the general argument is that freedom depends on obligation. And actually, freedom is a form of obligation. But people aren't thoughtful about that. They somehow think that freedom is simply liberation from all sets of outside expectations. No. Our heaviest obligations are the obligations we set for ourselves in our own lives. We work very hard to achieve those things. So freedom isn't free, and yet we don't talk about it. HAASS: I agree. And good for you. Thank you. I will now make up for my impoverished scholarship and researching skills. Q: Well, I'm going to read your book, and I will write you a reaction, I promise you. HAASS: Thank you. Be kind. Look, there's a lot of—in the course of writing this, I read some religious and political philosophers. And that was their argument, that freedom without obligation is dangerous. It actually leads you to anarchy. And but obligation and the rest without freedom denies you basic rights. And you've got to—you got to get both. Find it infused in religious and philosophical literature. I found it in some educational literature after World War II. So I've asked myself, to your question, how did we kind of lose the balance? Because if you go to early American history, there was such an emphasis on rights, and my hunch is people were much more conscious of rights because the entire context was not reimposing tyranny after getting out from under the yoke of Britain. I also think our culture was different. That a lot of obligations, or the notion of obligations, was assumed. It was implicit. It wasn't missing. It was there. And when you go back—when I went back and read de Tocqueville, and Bryce, and others, you re-read a lot of this—even the Federalist Papers, they didn't spend a lot of time hammering away on obligations. I think they saw it all around them. I think what's happened, and it's probably beyond my paygrade, or at least beyond my intellectual understanding—because I'm not an anthropologist or a sociologist—was somehow this notion of the balance between rights and obligations in American society, to use a technical phrase, has gotten out of whack. We've become much more rights focused, almost rights obsessed. What are we owed? Whether they're political rights or economic rights. And we've lost a sense of what do we owe in turn. And, you know, how that happened is an interesting conversation. And it's something I've been meditating about and thinking about. But however it happened, it happened. And that's why I think we need something of a corrective. And I'm no longer confident it'll just happen. The ship won't right itself. And I think that we have to now be conscious about advocating for obligations, because they have the coin of citizenship has lost its balance there. And it's gone way too much in one direction. So what I'm trying to do is by talking so much about obligations, decades after you did—is in some ways resurrect the idea and strengthen a recognition that we've somewhat lost our way. And, by the way, I think people know that. I got to tell you, I've been on the road a lot the last six weeks, talking about this book to all sorts of citizen groups. I did one last night about fifty miles from here. And people know it. I got to tell you, particularly people who are middle-aged and older, they look out their window, they get up and they look out at this society, and they go: This isn't the American I remember. There is something amiss. There is something wrong. I'm not saying the old America was perfect. It was obviously flawed in some significant ways. But there is something wrong about our culture. I think if de Tocqueville were to come back, he would not be happy, in some ways. He would see things that were missing a little bit from the relationship between individuals and society, and particularly the obligation I have, say, about the common good. I think there's a degree now of selfishness and individualism. And I think it's gotten out of hand in American society. We saw a lot of that during the pandemic. And that, to me, was yet another message that we've got some work here to do. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Louis Caldera, who is a professor of law at American University. Can you talk about our democracy as an example to the world that is foundational to achieving our foreign policy and national security goals? Do you agree? Do we undermine our leadership in the world if our own democracy is undermined by things like gerrymandering, vote suppressing laws, unchecked special interest money, and so on? HAASS: In a word, yes, we do. We certainly undermine the appeal of democracy. It's very hard to talk the talk if you don't walk the walk. And January 6 was probably the low point. But again, when people look at American democracy or look not just at democracy but American society, I think our ability—and, how do I put this—we're not quite the shining city on the hill we should be or could be. So, we can have—we can arm every diplomat with talking points about preaching democratic reform, but it's not going to have any traction if it's done against the backdrop of what we now have in this country. So I think that's just a fact of life. So you're spot on. And I also think the divisions in our society and the lurches, increasingly, in our politics have made us much less influential in the world, because we're no longer seen as predictable or reliable. And allies, by definition, what have they done? They have essentially made a security choice to put a big chunk of their security in our hands. If our hands are no longer seen as reliable, predictable, or safe, they're either going to put security in their own hands—and that's a world of much more proliferation or something like that—or they're going to defer to some powerful neighbors. That is not a pretty world. I also worry that our—my own guess, I can't prove it—but Vladimir Putin was somewhat encouraged to do what did in Ukraine because he didn't think the United States had the will to come together to resist. And so I take these things seriously. So, yeah. So I think, again, this is directly—what's going on here, you know, to use the old line about Las Vegas, it doesn't stay here. This isn't Las Vegas. And it's—if anybody's on this from Nevada, I apologize. But it does have real foreign policy consequences. So I think you're spot on. FASKIANOS: Thank you. I'm going to go next to Collette Mazzucelli, who has raised her hand. Q: Hello. Good afternoon, Dr. Haass. And I just wanted to ask you if you think that there's a need for a new model of citizenship because of the evolution of the internet, the next phase that's coming, the prevalence and, you know, omnipresent nature of misinformation, disinformation in our society, and also across the world. Thank you. HAASS: It's a really thoughtful question. It was about, what, two weeks ago the Supreme Court had two days of oral hearings—or arguments on Section 230 of the 1996 law, the Communications Decency Act. I think we're struggling with the internet, because these companies, or the pipes that they operate, are carrying millions and millions of messages from millions and millions of people. So the question is, can we—and if so, how, and the rest—can we in any way regulate the content? So I think there's real issues. And social media is, in many cases, inflaming divisions within a society. It is encouraging some bad behaviors in many cases. But it's not quite clear to me what the remedies are, what's practical, and what's desirable. Some things are simply impractical given the number of users, the volume of messaging. And some things may not be desirable because where do you draw the line on First Amendment rights, free speech, and so forth. And who does the drawing? Who's in charge of line drawing? And do we want to necessarily delegate the ability to draw certain lines to some individuals who may be working for Twitter, or Facebook, or Instagram, or what have you? So I think these are really tough issues. My guess is the Supreme Court will probably punt to Congress. Congress will not pick up the ball, would be my guess. There might be some movement. If you look at one of the cases heard before the court now, I think they'll issue their decision in, say, June or so. Where it's one thing for the companies to say they're neutral, they can't be expected to regulate content. OK. I think it's different, though, when they highlight, or accelerate, or intensify certain content through algorithms or what have you. So I think there might be some pushback there, that they can't necessarily police or regulate all the content. But they can be held accountable for not—or, regulator-required, not to highlight certain content. I think it might get at their business model, but I can live with that, to say the least. And then the other half of the coin is how do we make ourselves more critical consumers? And that gets at the whole information literacy movement that we're seeing in New Jersey at the high school level, and other places. But I would think, again, on university campuses, the idea—if I had my way, there would be a mandatory civics course. And, again, one dimension of it would be information literacy. So even if we'll never succeed in totally regulating what goes on social media, in whatever form. But I do think we can improve our ability to be critical consumers of it. And I think that is out there. But, look, when I look at democratic backsliding around the world, not just in the United States. We're seeing it in Mexico, we're seeing it in India, we're seeing it in Israel. We're seeing it in lots of places. The proliferation of media, social media, you know, my word for it is narrowcasting. We now live in an era of narrowcasting. And people are no longer exposed to common things, and they increasingly go into various social and regular media outlets, which tend to either confirm certain views or prejudices, what have you. I think it's a real challenge for democracy. FASKIANOS: So we have a written question from Victoria Powers, who's at Capital University in Ohio. I agree with you that teaching civics is critical, and I understand that it's complex in the current environment for some high schools to teach civics. Although I hate to give up requiring civics in K-12 schools. Do you have ideas about what we could do to help provide an education in civics for all those young people who will not be headed to two- or four-year college or universities or community colleges, obviously. And, sorry, she is an adjunct at the Capital University Law School in Ohio. HAASS: Well, I think the takeaway I take from that question, and it's a good one, is what we do on two- and four-year college and university campuses is part of the answer, it's not the totality of it. And we've got to get to citizens younger. So that gets at what you do at high school, junior high school, even middle school. I mean, iCivics has been active in middle schools for a long time. And it also raises questions of what we do away from school. And that's where, again, I think that those who give the sermons have a certain responsibility, media has a larger responsibility than it is often willing to carry out. Businesses, corporations have a responsibility. I think there's got to be distributed obligations here. And I believe each one of these segments of society has obligations and should be pressured by citizens to carry it out. But I do think, yes, we ought to be pushing civics down younger, but we also—we need—as important as classrooms are, we've also got to do things beyond—outside the classroom. But the basic point is right, particularly since the only thing most Americans have to do is attend school through the age of sixteen. So we can't afford to miss that opportunity. Irina, you're on mute. FASKIANOS: Right. How long have I been doing this? OK. (Laughs.) HAASS: For about half an hour, but we've been waiting for you. (Laughter.) FASKIANOS: I'm going to go next to Jody McBrien, who is a professor of social sciences at the University of South Florida. I understand why young people feel powerless, especially when you consider gerrymandering voting and using misinformation. You mentioned state level, she lives in Florida, enough said. How do you suggest getting students engaged in spite of these issues that understandably cause a feeling of helplessness. HAASS: Well, again, you know, the people who are in power passing certain laws now, or redrawing lines, they weren't always in those positions. They got there. So my view is if one disagrees with them, then one has to get them out of there and put other people in there. And that's what political involvement is all about. There's nothing inevitable. There's nothing permanent. These things go in cycles and so forth. So I would tell students, yeah, channel your frustration. Channel your anger. But channel it in ways that will change the political realities. Don't just protest. Don't just get—certainly don't give up. I mean, I think the worst thing is to walk away from it and saying it's hopeless. That becomes self-fulfilling, because then, again, you leave your political future in the hands of others who are unlikely to have your best interests at heart. So I think the best thing is to sit down with students and talk about how politics have changed American time, and time, and time again. And they ought to essentially think about collective action. And that's the history of American political life. FASKIANOS: I will take the next written question from Ali Abootalebi, who is a professor at the University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire. Would you comment on implications of your civic education argument for U.S. foreign policy? The American public is fundamentally divorced from U.S. foreign relations, leaving the foreign policy establishment free from certain obligations and in pursuit of narrowed interests. HAASS: Well, the latter we can have a debate about, to what extent does American foreign policy always served American interests. And I would say, at times it has and at times it hasn't. I'm often a critic of what we do in the name of the national interest, which at times to me seems to be anything but. But that's almost a case-by-case type thing. But, look, I would say that one part of being an informed citizen is understanding the world and understanding foreign policy. It's one of the reasons about a decade ago here, at the Council on Foreign Relations, we made it a real priority to promote literacy in matters of the world and matters of foreign policy. And we've got an entire curriculum. We've got simulation resources. We've got resources aimed at younger students. We do now all sorts of public fora on our website, CFR.org. The most trafficked items tend to be the explainers of these complicated issues to give people a basic understanding of these issues. I think it's part of being an informed citizen. So my own view is we want to have what we call global literacy, in addition to having what I would call civics literacy. I think they are both—since we live in a global world, where everything we do or don't do affects the world and vice versa, everything that goes on the world affects us, for better and for worse, we want citizens to be aware of that loop, and to think about the consequences of certain policies or actions for that. So I think that as an extension of informed civic involvement. It's just the content, in some cases, has to involve things international, and not just things domestic. FASKIANOS: All right. I'm going to take the next question from David Cheney. And I'm trying to pull up affiliation. While I am: How can young people stay accurately informed, given their reliance on social media? And how would you have them balance right-wing with left-wing media sources to arrive at a closer approximation of the truth? And he is at NYU. HAASS: I've heard of NYU. Look, a couple things. Yeah, I know what is not in my answer. TikTok is not the answer. Let me say that. A couple of things. One is, and in the book I have a whole section on where to go for more. And I also think—you know, because there are certain quality publications. Certain newspapers just tend to be good, or better than others. They're not perfect, but they're better. Certain magazines, certain television and radio shows, certain websites. So there are quality places to steer people to. I think as a rule of thumb we ought to encourage multi-sourcing, not to put all your—not to depend on a single source. It's almost like a journalist. A journalist would never write a story based on a single source. They have to double-source it. And I almost feel as citizens we ought to double-source our information, and not just depend on one. I used to have a rule when I went to the gym in my pre-COVID life, when I went on the elliptical, I would divide my time among Fox, MSNBC, and CNN. And I'll admit, I did cheat and ESPN would get a chunk of it as well. But the whole idea was the be exposed. It was just—it was interesting just to see the different “realities,” quote/unquote, that were put forward. But I think it's important to—if you read a national newspaper, then read a local newspaper, maybe. Or if you do something of the left, do something of the right. Or if you read this book, as a professor or teacher, you'd encourage someone to read something else to—so you're not, again, single sourcing. And I think that's the—if I had a single rule of thumb, it would probably be that, to protect yourself from the structural biases. Because all authors or publications have a bias either in what they cover or how they cover it. I take that for granted. So the only way—the best way to protect yourself from it is a degree of multiple exposure. FASKIANOS: OK. I think we have time for one more. Dana Radcliffe at Syracuse University. President Obama in his farewell address referred to the citizen as “the most important office in a democracy.” The philosopher Joseph Tussman in 1960 offered an insightful characterization of “the office of the citizen.” Might the suggestion that citizen is a public office help advance the thesis that citizenship entails obligations as well as rights? HAASS: An interesting construct. I like it. It kind of adds a bit of heft, because we tend to sort of just talk about citizenship, almost dismiss it at times. Well, he's just an ordinary person. But I like the idea of an office, that it's—that you're—because that suggests a degree of empowerment and a degree, again, of obligation. So I like the idea. I think it kind of—kind of it gets people to take the potential to make a difference a little bit more seriously. And I really like it. So that's a useful construct. So thank you for that. FASKIANOS: OK. We have a few more minutes. Richard, is there anything you want to leave the group with that we haven't covered? HAASS: I know I'm always supposed to say yes at this point, but no. It's been a really wide-ranging conversation. No, and I think what I'm hoping is that people on a call such as this will think about how to promote—you know, particularly on campuses and schools—the teaching of civics. Both to create a mandate for it, and then we can debate the content. But the idea that—you know, one of the arguments often used that I encounter—I'm not in a position to judge its accuracy—is that too many of the constituencies on campus oppose this, particularly it's often said to me, you know, faculty, or whatever. And I think the faculty could make an important difference by basically saying: Actually, no. We don't oppose this. We think this is a swell idea. And we're prepared to work with administrators, students, and the rest, to make it happen. And I think that would be fantastic. So, again, you're the multipliers. And I think you're in a special position to do this. So, again, I think freshman year experience is a good place to get the kids going, the students going with this. But I do think, whether it's a course or a module at some point, it needs—but we need advocates for it. So I hope some of you on this call will be advocates, because I just think we're missing not just an opportunity but, if you'll pardon the expression, we're missing an obligation to see that—to make sure that our students are prepared to do their bit, to do their share, for upholding democracy in this country. And so I just think universities and colleges have, again, a special opportunity and obligation both. And you're all so instrumental to do that. So Godspeed in that effort. FASKIANOS: Well, with that, thank you very much, Richard. Thank you for writing, authoring, this book, The Bill of Obligations. Richard has also written teaching notes to go with the book that we will be posting on the website alter this week. If you're interested in an exam copy, either digital or print, we can—we can honor that request. And if you want to try to make—put his book on the common reading list or incorporate it into your first-year experience, we can also think about having Richard address the incoming class virtually or perhaps in person. We appreciate all that you have done, Richard. He has really transformed CFR into an educational institution. You should check out Model Diplomacy and World 101. You can follow Richard on Twitter at @richardhaass, subscribe to his Substack newsletter which he just launched, called Home and Away, by going to richardhaass.substack.com. We'll include those links in our follow-up note with the link to this video and transcript. We will include the teaching notes as well. And I also encourage you to follow @CFR_Academic, visit CFR.org, ForeignAffairs.com, and ThinkGlobalHealth.org for research and analysis on global issues. Again, thank you all for being with us today, for the work that you do on your college campuses. And, Richard Haass, again, thank you for being with us. HAASS: Thank you, Irina. Thank you, all. I appreciate it. (END)

Please watch and listen to the latest episode of The Lebanese Physicians' Podcast discussing the role of Artificial Intelligence in Medicine with Dr. Cyril Zakka. Dr. Zakka has a background in Computer Science at Boston College and has been interested in artificial intelligence since his childhood days. We discuss his role in the Artificial Intelligence Program at the American University of Beirut Medical Center, and his current work at Stanford. We also discuss ChatGPT and the future of AI in medicine and outside of the medical field. You can also listen to the episode on Apple, Spotify, Anghami, and iHeartRadio under The Lebanese Physicians Podcast.  You can also watch it on YouTube on: https://youtu.be/aqYMmabmy9g #artificialintelligence #medicaleducation

Kelly re-connects with American University professor Caty Borum whose new book, “The Revolution Will Be Hilarious,” looks at the intersection of social justice and comedy. “Creativity and culture are still too often relegated to the theoretical sidelines of serious advocacy work.”  “Comedy resides within a great tradition of artistic activism as a mechanism to push for […]

This week, Ben speaks with Melanie Teplinsky, Senior Fellow at American University's Washington College of Law to discuss cybersecurity for innovative small and medium sized enterprises (SMEs). Ben and Dave both share thoughts and discuss what happened at the much anticipated Supreme Court oral arguments for Gonzalez v. Google, a major Section 230 case.  While this show covers legal topics, and Ben is a lawyer, the views expressed do not constitute legal advice. For official legal advice on any of the topics we cover, please contact your attorney.  Have the Justices Gotten Cold Feet About ‘Breaking the Internet'? Got a question you'd like us to answer on our show? You can send your audio file to caveat@thecyberwire.com. Hope to hear from you.

Episode 60 of The Kreatures of Habit Podcast features Virginia native and Army veteran, Chase Chewning. Chase is a Virginia Commonwealth University alum, graduating from their Health, Physical Education and Exercise Science undergraduate program in 2013. Having completed his MS in Health Promotion from American University in Washington, DC he also holds the following credentials: ACE Certified Health Coach and TRX Certified Suspension Trainer. Living a life of wellness has always been a part of him - since growing up eating fresh food from his grandparents' garden, playing baseball throughout school and enjoying time in the mountains surrounding his family's southwest VA home. After six years of active duty, Chase was medically discharged from the military due a string of injuries that ultimately required him to have bilateral reconstructive hip surgeries. After learning how to walk again, twice, exercise as medicine and healthy lifestyle modifications became his passion. In this episode, Michael and Chase discuss how to truly prioritize your mental health, the importance of doing deep inner work, and the one thing everyone over 25 needs in their life.

Want to learn more? Go to: ennislp.comConnect with Joe: https://www.linkedin.com/in/josephdurnford/Check out JD Merit: https://jdmerit.com/============================================“We want you to help you build a business that is sellable and exit successfully on your own terms and conditions.” - Pat Ennis============================================

Colin's Bio:Colin is the founder of Zizzi Investments along with his brother Brennan. Investing and soccer have been two of his biggest passions for as long as he can remember.Colin studied finance and accounting at American University, where he was also a four year member of the NCAA Division 1 soccer team. After college, he moved to Spain for 16 months to pursue his dream of playing professional soccer. He returned home to play professional soccer in Central PA for the next three years.While still playing soccer, it was by completely by chance that he joined a local advisory firm where he spent the next 10 years. During this time, Colin earned his CFP®, AIF®, and CEPA® designations while helping to oversee more than $500 million of qualified retirement plan assets and $100 million of individual wealth management relationships.Colin resides in Mechanicsburg, PA with his wife Molly, his son's Carter, Julian, and Leo, and his dog Sage.Colin's Social:https://www.linkedin.com/in/colinzizzi/Twitter: @ColinZizziMusic in this episode was obtained from Bensound.

My guest today is Bechara Abi Assi.Bechara describes himself as a “humble student traveler on this journey of life.”Bechara is driven by a deep curiosity to understand how people make sense of their inner and outer worlds, and a wonder at the possibilities that opens up for them. He is committed to helping himself and others build close-knit groups and cultivate meaningful relationships with love, safety, empathy and honesty.Bechara works in the world of leadership development and loves helping his clients learn in an environment that is both safe and challenging, helping people find their growth edge. His approach to this work is rooted in deep self-awareness, and informed by complexity, adult development, centered leadership and positive psychology. In a past chapter of his journey, Bechara was a management consultant at McKinsey & Company, advising private and public sector clients across the Middle East and Europe on strategy, culture change, capability building and leadership development. Bechara also worked in McKinsey's internal learning function, focusing on developing programs for the Firm's most senior colleagues.Bechara holds an MBA from INSEAD and a BBA from the American University of Beirut in his native Lebanon. He lives between Amsterdam, Valencia and Dubai (where he grew up), and speaks Arabic and English, while also trying to improve his limited Dutch, Spanish and French. Outside of work, Bechara enjoys spending quality time with his ‘people' and discovering new places and cuisines, preferably via road trips.Bechara and I met in late 2022 at a work event.  I remember sitting and having dinner together, chatting and getting to know each other, and just a few minutes into the conversation I asked – do you want to be on my podcast??  It's fun to notice how different people respond when I ask that question.  Bechara's response, as I remember it, was a clear yes!  I knew we would have an amazing conversation and we did.  Bechara, thank you so much for this deep and meaningful conversation.  Thank you for sharing these pieces of your story.  Your courage in life to jump into the unknown on the journey of self-discovery, your both willingness and ability to articulate the challenges and the successes of handling suffering in life, developing your emotional immune system, and developing kindness and compassion for yourself… it's inspirational.  It's an absolute delight to host this conversation and share it here.Connect with Bechara here.Make Life Less Difficult

Dennis tells the “so what?” story that changed his life… A Christian girls high school basketball team refuses to play against a team that features a biological male. May a thousand such protests bloom… The Left creates crises. “Cultural appropriation” is a good example.  New Los Angeles Mayor, Karen Bass, plans to lower both mental and physical standards to build up police recruitment. Is there any way this ends up well?...  If the residents of San Francisco were presented with the Ten Commandments, would they accept it or reject it?  Dennis talks to Daniel Dreisbach, professor at American University in the School of Public Affairs. He has written extensively on the Bible and the nation's founding. Thanks for listening to the Daily Dennis Prager Podcast. To hear the entire three hours of my radio show as a podcast, commercial-free every single day, become a member of Pragertopia. You'll also get access to 15 years' worth of archives, as well as daily show prep. Subscribe today at Pragertopia dot com.See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Today on Scope Conditions, can we teach voters how to tell truth from lies?Around the world, governments and political parties wield misinformation as a powerful political weapon – a weapon that is massively amplified by social media. A large and growing literature has investigated how misinformation spreads and ways of combating it – from corrections and warning-labels to educational programs designed to inoculate citizens against untruths. Yet most of what we know about misinformation and its antidotes comes from the US and other Western contexts – places with notably high rates of formal education and internet exposure, where most of the misinformation is on public platforms like Facebook and Twitter. But these are contexts that, to put it simply, don't look like most of the world.Our guest today – Dr. Sumitra Badrinathan, an Assistant Professor of Political Science at American University's School of International Service – turns our attention to India – the world's largest democracy. As in much of the Global South, internet access in India is expanding in leaps and bounds, and misinformation travels more on encrypted chat services like WhatsApp than on Facebook. Over the last few years, Sumitra has been running innovative field experiments testing the effectiveness of misinformation antidotes tailored to the Indian context.We talk with Sumitra about one of these studies, recently published in the American Political Science Review. As Sumitra explains to us, citizens in India were awash in misinformation during the crucial 2019 election battle, a dynamic exacerbated by increased partisanship in the era of Modi's BJP and Hindu nationalism. Carried out during the election, Sumitra's study examines whether Indian citizens can get better at telling truth from lies if you teach them how to do their own online fact-checking.We find out whether the treatment actually worked – which turns out to be a complicated story. We also dig into Sumitra's research process – how she was able to get 95% uptake from participants (spoiler: it involved lots of tea) and how she had to change parts of the study on the fly when bringing tablets into the field turned out to be unsafe. And we talk with Sumitra about how her own identity made some parts of the fieldwork more challenging, brought down some barriers, and most of all was something that she had to constantly be aware of as she navigated the complex terrain of running a field experiment.By the way, this conversation is about just one of the many misinformation antidotes Sumitra has been investigating. If you want to learn about her work on the effects of religious messaging or of peer corrections in combating deception, check out the links to her other papers on the episode webpage.