New Film Exposes America's Forgotten History of Scientific Racism

Still from the trailer for "Human Zoos"

In the early 1900s, thousands of indigenous peoples were put on public display in America, according to a new film from Discovery Institute. Often touted as "missing links" between man and apes, these native peoples were demeaned, harassed, and used as props to promote Social Darwinism and scientific racism.

Now a new award-winning documentary tells their heartbreaking story. It is called Human Zoos.

"Too often people think that ideas don't matter," says Dr. John West, the director and writer of the film. "Human Zoos shows otherwise, investigating how false ideas about science can lead to false ideas about our fellow human beings. The impact of these false ideas on human lives can be devastating."

The Oregon Documentary Film Festival calls Human Zoos "a racially charged story that will mesmerize you... You have to see it to believe it, and then wonder why they didn't teach you this chapter in history class."

Human Zoos exposes the shocking history of scientific racism in America and reveals how some people today in the so-called "Alt-right" are still drawing on Social Darwinism in order to dehumanize others. 

⏩ The film also explores the sinister history of eugenics, the effort to breed humans based on Darwinian principles.

Still from the trailer for "Human Zoos"

The 55-minute documentary features Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Pamela Newkirk, author of Spectacle: The Astonishing Life of Ota Benga; California State University historian Richard Weikart; Catholic University of America philosopher Jay Richards; and Nigerian scholar Olufemi Oluniyi.

⏩ Human Zoos has already won four awards, including Best Editing from the Oregon Documentary Film Festival and Best in Show from the Cinema World Fest Awards in Toronto. In addition, the film was named an official selection of the Africa World Documentary Film Festival and the Anthem Film Festival.

Still from the trailer for "Human Zoos"

Synopsis:
(Via Human Zoos)

"In September 1906, nearly a quarter of a million people flocked to the Bronx Zoo in New York City. Many came for a startling new exhibit in the Zoo’s Monkey House. But it wasn’t a monkey they came to see. It was a man. His name was Ota Benga. A pygmy from the African Congo, Ota Benga was exhibited in a cage along with monkeys.

Benga was not alone. He was one of literally thousands of indigenous peoples who were put on public display throughout America in the early twentieth century. Often touted as “missing links” between man and apes and as examples of the “lower” stages of human evolution, these native peoples were harassed, demeaned, and jeered at. Their public display was arranged with the enthusiastic support of the most elite members of the scientific community, and it was promoted uncritically by America’s leading newspapers.

Human Zoos tells the horrifying story of this effort to dehumanize entire classes of people in the name of science. It will also tell the story of the courageous African-American ministers in New York City who tried to stop what was going on. Finally, the documentary will expose how some organizations are still trying to cover up their involvement in what happened and re-write the past.


The documentary features interviews with a number of experts, including Pulitzer Prize-winning writer Pamela Newkirk, author of Spectacle: The Astonishing Life of Ota Benga."

SOURCE: Discovery Institute

The Trailer:

TV's First Interracial Kiss Launched A Lifelong Career In Activism

Nervous about how southern television viewers would react, NBC executives closely monitored the filming of the kiss between Nichelle Nichols and William Shatner. (U.S. Air Force)

On Nov. 22, 1968, an episode of “Star Trek” titled “Plato’s Stepchildren” broadcast the first interracial kiss on American television.

The episode’s plot is bizarre: Aliens who worship the Greek philosopher Plato use telekinetic powers to force the Enterprise crew to sing, dance and kiss. At one point, the aliens compel Lieutenant Uhura (Nichelle Nichols) and Captain Kirk (William Shatner) to embrace. Each character tries to resist, but eventually Kirk tilts Uhura back and the two kiss as the aliens lasciviously look on.

The smooch is not a romantic one. But in 1968 to show a black woman kissing a white man was a daring move.

The episode aired just one year after the U.S. Supreme Court’s Loving v. Virginia decision struck down state laws against interracial marriage. At the time, Gallup polls showed that fewer than 20 percent of Americans approved of such relationships.

Hear Prof. Delmont discuss this topic on our Heat and Light podcast

As a historian of civil rights and media, I’ve been fascinated by the woman at the center of this landmark television moment. Casting Nichelle Nichols as Lieutenant Uhura created possibilities for more creative and socially relevant “Star Trek” storylines.

But just as significant is Nichols’s off-screen activism. She leveraged her role on “Star Trek” to become a recruiter for NASA, where she pushed for change in the space program. Her career arc shows how diverse casting on the screen can have a profound impact in the real world, too.

‘A triumph of modern-day TV’ 
In 1966, “Star Trek” creator Gene Rodenberry decided to cast Nichelle Nichols to play Lieutenant Uhura, a translator and communications officer from the United States of Africa. In doing so, he made Nichols the first African-American woman to have a continuing co-starring role on television.

The African-American press was quick to heap praise on Nichols’s pioneering role.

The Norfolk Journal and Guide hoped that it would “broaden her race’s foothold on the tube.”

The magazine Ebony featured Nichols on its January 1967 cover and described Uhura as “the first Negro astronaut, a triumph of modern-day TV over modern-day NASA.”

Yet the famous kiss between Uhura and Kirk almost never happened.

After the first season of “Star Trek” concluded in 1967, Nichols considered quitting after being offered a role on Broadway. She had started her career as a singer in New York and always dreamed of returning to the Big Apple.

But at a NAACP fundraiser in Los Angeles, she ran into Martin Luther King Jr.

Nichols would later recount their interaction.

“You must not leave,” King told her. “You have opened a door that must not be allowed to close…you changed the face of television forever…For the first time, the world sees us as we should be seen, as equals, as intelligent people.”

King went on to say that he and his family were fans of the show; she was a “hero” to his children.

With King’s encouragement, Nichols stayed on “Star Trek” for the original series’ full three-year run.

Nichols’ controversial kiss took place at the end of the third season. Nichols recalled that NBC executives closely monitored the filming because they were nervous about how Southern television stations and viewers would react.

Nichelle Nichols recounts the reaction to filming the first interracial kiss on television.

After the episode aired, the network did receive an outpouring of letters from viewers – and the majority were positive.

In 1982, Nichols would tell the Baltimore Afro-American that she was amused by the amount of attention the kiss generated, especially because her own heritage was “a blend of races that includes Egyptian, Ethiopian, Moor, Spanish, Welsh, Cherokee Indian and a ‘blond blue-eyed ancestor or two.’”

Space crusader 

But Nichols’s legacy would be defined by far more than a kiss.
After NBC canceled Star Trek in 1969, Nichols took minor acting roles on two television series, “Insight” and “The D.A.” She would also play a madame in the 1974 blaxploitation film “Truck Turner.”

She also started to dabble in activism and education. In 1975, Nichols established Women in Motion, Inc. and won several government contracts to produce educational programs related to space and science. By 1977, she had been appointed to the board of directors of the National Space Institute, a civil space advocacy organization.

That year she gave a speech at the institute’s annual meeting, “New Opportunities for the Humanization of Space, or Space: What’s in it for Me?” In it, she critiqued the lack of women and minorities in the astronaut corps, challenging NASA to “come down from your ivory tower of intellectual pursuit, because the next Einstein might have a Black face – and she’s female.”

Several of NASA’s top administrators were in the audience. They invited her to lead an astronaut recruitment program for the new space shuttle program. Soon, she packed her bags and began traveling the country, visiting high schools and colleges, speaking with professional organizations and legislators, and appearing on national television programs such as “Good Morning America.”

“The aim was to find qualified people among women and minorities, then to convince them that the opportunity was real and that it also was a duty, because this was historic,” Nichols told the Baltimore Afro-American in 1979. “I really had this sense of purpose about it myself.”

In her 1994 autobiography, “Beyond Uhura,” Nichols recalled that in the seven months before the recruitment program began, “NASA had received only 1,600 applications, including fewer than 100 from women and 35 from minority candidates.” But by the end of June 1977, “just four months after we assumed our task, 8,400 applications were in, including 1,649 from women (a 15-fold increase) and an astounding 1,000 from minorities.”

Nichols’s campaign recruited several trailblazing astronauts, including Sally Ride, the first American woman in space, Guion Bluford, the first African-American in space, and Mae Jemison, the first African-American woman in space.

Nichelle Nichols speaks after the Space Shuttle Endeavour landed at Los Angeles International Airport Friday in September 2012. (AP Photo/Reed Saxon)

Relentless advocacy for inclusion 

Her advocacy for inclusion and diversity wasn’t limited to the space program.
As one of the first black women in a major television role, Nichols understood the importance of opening doors for minorities and women in entertainment.

Nichols continued to push for African-Americans to have more power in film and television.

“Until we Blacks and minorities become not only the producers, writers and directors, but the buyers and distributors, we’re not going to change anything,” she told Ebony in 1985. “Until we become industry, until we control media or at least have enough say, we will always be the chauffeurs and tap dancers.”

It’s an issue that, unfortunately, remains relevant today. In February of this year, UCLA’s annual Hollywood Diversity Report found that women and people of color continue to be underrepresented as directors and in studio board rooms. It concluded that “Hollywood studios are leaving money on the table by not developing films and TV shows with more diverse casts.”

Fifty years ago, Nichols’s kiss may have broken an important cultural barrier. But as Nichols well knows, the quest to secure opportunities for women and minorities persists to this day – an effort that requires relentless pressure.


About Today's Contributor:
Matthew Delmont, Professor of History, Arizona State University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

SPYSCAPE Announces Launch Of Content Division At Toronto International Film Festival

Screengrab from the Spyscape's "Content Division" page

SPYSCAPE, the innovative consumer brand that's fast becoming the home of the secret intelligence genre, today announced the launch of its Content Division, and the appointment of former Miramax Films, Focus Features and FilmNation executive, Allison Silver, as Chief Content Officer.

SPYSCAPE's new division will have a unique focus on a single genre across multiple platforms including film, television and video-games. It will develop and produce its own content and partner on high quality productions with others.

In addition to providing finance and great secret intelligence stories, SPYSCAPE offers major added-value to its production and distribution partners through four unique advantages:

• A passionate, fast growing audience of 'superfans' of the spy genre
• An unrivaled expert network of spies, hackers and investigative journalists
• State of the art galleries and experiences to bring spy stories to life
• Glamorous spy-themed locations for premieres, parties and press events

With 75 staff across offices in Los Angeles, New York and London, SPYSCAPE's creative, commercial and technology teams have unrivaled knowledge of the spy genre, including special relationships across the secret intelligence world - from station chiefs and former heads of major international spy agencies, to top investigative journalists and renowned hackers and activists.

Additionally, SPYSCAPE will continue to build upon its existing investments in high-quality, spy-themed productions (including three John Le Carre stories: A Most Wanted Man; The Night Manager; and Our Kind of Traitor) through equity investments in Ink Factory Films and others.

SPYSCAPE announces the launch of its Content Division, and the appointment of former Miramax Films, Focus Features and FilmNation executive, Allison Silver, as Chief Content Officer.

Chief Content Officer, Allison Silver brings over 20 years experience on high-quality feature films including: Academy Award and Golden Globes winner "Brokeback Mountain", Cannes Grand Prix winner "Broken Flowers" and four Pedro Almodovar films including "Talk to Her" (winner of an Academy Award and a Golden Globe for Best Foreign Film) and "Volver". 

Most recently, Silver was EVP, Worldwide Production for FilmNation in New York City working on Academy Award winner "The King's Speech" and Academy Award nominees "The Imitation Game", "Nebraska", "The Bling Ring" and "Room" plus Pedro Almodovar's "The Skin I Live in", winner of the BAFTA for Best Foreign Language Film.

About SPYSCAPE:

SPYSCAPE is an innovative consumer brand which creates education, entertainment, products and experiences that help you see the world and yourself more clearly, through the lens of spying.

SPYSCAPE was created by top architects, authors, curators, designers, developers, gamers, hackers, imagineers, investigative journalists, psychologists, spies and storytellers.

SPYSCAPE's HQ in New York City is the world's most high-tech museum, described by the New York Times as the "headquarters of our cultural fascination with the art of deception".

SOURCE: SPYSCAPE

Related Video:

Related Pictures:

SPYSCAPE (Credit: Scott Frances) 

SPYSCAPE (Credit: Scott Frances) 

SPYSCAPE (Credit: Scott Frances) 

SPYSCAPE (Credit: Scott Frances)

Thousands Of Mental Health Professionals Agree With Woodward And The New York Times Op-ed Author: Trump Is Dangerous

President Donald Trump, August 30, 2018. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

Bob Woodward’s new book, “Fear,” describes a “nervous breakdown of Trump’s presidency.” Earlier this year, Michael Wolff’s “Fire and Fury” offered a similar portrayal.

Now, an op-ed in The New York Times by an anonymous “senior White House official” describes how deeply the troubles in this administration run and what effort is required to protect the nation.

None of this is a surprise to those of us who, 18 months ago, put together our own public service book, “The Dangerous Case of Donald Trump: 27 Psychiatrists and Mental Health Experts Assess a President.”

My focus as the volume’s editor was on Trump’s dangerousness because of my area of expertise in violence prevention. Approaching violence as a public health issue, I have consulted with governments and international organizations, in addition to 20 years of engaging in the individual assessment and treatment of violent offenders.

The book proceeded from an ethics conference I held at Yale, my home institution. At that meeting, my psychiatrist colleagues and I discussed balancing two essential duties of our profession. First is the duty to speak responsibly about public officials, especially as outlined in “the Goldwater rule,” which requires that we refrain from diagnosing without a personal examination and without authorization. Second is our responsibility to protect public health and safety, or our “duty to warn” in cases of danger, which usually supersedes other rules.

Our conclusion was overwhelmingly that our responsibility to society and its safety, as outlined in our ethical guidelines, overrode any etiquette owed to a public figure. That decision led to the collection of essays in the book, which includes some of the most prominent thinkers of the field including Robert J. Lifton, Judith Herman, Philip Zimbardo and two dozen others. That decision was controversial among some members of our field.

We already know a great deal about Trump’s mental state based on the voluminous information he has given through his tweets and his responses to real situations in real time. Now, this week’s credible reports support the concerns we articulated in the book beyond any doubt.

These reports are also consistent with the account I received from two White House staff members who called me in October 2017 because the president was behaving in a manner that “scared” them, and they believed he was “unraveling”. They were calling because of the book I edited.

Once I confirmed that they did not perceive the situation as an imminent danger, I referred them to the emergency room, in order not to be bound by confidentiality rules that would apply if I engaged with them as a treating physician. That would have compromised my role of educating the public.

Author Bob Woodward’s new book on Trump. (AP/Mark Lennihan)

The psychology behind the chaos 
The author of the New York Times op-ed makes clear that the conflict in the White House is not about Trump’s ideology.

The problem, the author sees, is the lack of “any discernible first principles that guide his decision making … his impulsiveness [that] results in half-baked, ill-informed and occasionally reckless decisions that have to be walked back, and there being literally no telling whether he might change his mind from one minute to the next.”

These are obviously psychological symptoms reflective of emotional compulsion, impulsivity, poor concentration, narcissism and recklessness. They are identical to those that Woodward describes in numerous examples, which he writes were met with the “stealthy machinations used by those in Trump’s inner sanctum to try to control his impulses and prevent disasters.”

They are also consistent with the course we foresaw early in Trump’s presidency, which concerned us enough to outline it in our book. We tried to warn that his condition was worse than it appeared, would grow worse over time and would eventually become uncontainable.
What we observed were signs of mental instability – signs that would eventually play out not only in the White House, as these accounts report, but in domestic situations and in the geopolitical sphere.

There is a strong connection between immediate dangerousness – the likelihood of waging a war or launching nuclear weapons – and extended societal dangerousness – policies that force separation of children from families or the restructuring of global relations in a way that would destabilize the world.

Getting worse 
My current concern is that we are already witnessing a further unraveling of the president’s mental state, especially as the frequency of his lying increases and the fervor of his rallies intensifies.

I am concerned that his mental challenges could cause him to take unpredictable and potentially extreme and dangerous measures to distract from his legal problems.

Mental health professionals have standard procedures for evaluating dangerousness. More than a personal interview, violence potential is best assessed through past history and a structured checklist of a person’s characteristics.

These characteristics include a history of cruelty to animals or other people, risk taking, behavior suggesting loss of control or impulsivity, narcissistic personality and current mental instability. Also of concern are noncompliance or unwillingness to undergo tests or treatment, access to weapons, poor relationship with significant other or spouse, seeing oneself as a victim, lack of compassion or empathy, and lack of concern over consequences of harmful acts.

The Woodward book and the New York Times op-ed confirm many of these characteristics. The rest have been evident in Trump’s behavior outside the White House and prior to his tenure.

That the president has met not just some but all these criteria should be reason for alarm.

Other ways in which a president could be dangerous are through cognitive symptoms or lapses, since functions such as reasoning, memory, attention, language and learning are critical to the duties of a president. He has exhibited signs of decline here, too.

Furthermore, when someone displays a propensity for large-scale violence, such as by advocating violence against protesters or immigrant families, calling perpetrators of violence such as white supremacists “very fine people” or showing oneself vulnerable to manipulation by hostile foreign powers, then these things can promote a much more widespread culture of violence.

The president has already shown an alarming escalation of irrational behavior during times of distress. Others have observed him to be “unstable,” “losing a step” and “unraveling.” He is likely to enter such a state again.

Violent acts are not random events. They are end products of a long process that follow recognizable patterns. As mental health experts, we make predictions in terms of unacceptable levels of probability rather than on the basis of what is certain to happen.

Trump’s impairment is a familiar pattern to a violence expert such as myself, but given his level of severity, one does not need to be a specialist to know that he is dangerous.

President Donald Trump holds a ‘Make America Great Again’ rally in Evansville, Indiana, Aug. 30, 2018. (Reuters/Kevin Lamarque)

What next? 

I believe Woodward’s book and the revelations in the New York Times op-ed have placed great pressure on the president. We are now entering a period when the stresses of the presidency could accelerate because of the advancing special counsel’s investigations.

The degree of Trump’s denial and resistance to the unfolding revelations, as expressed in a recent Fox interview, are telling of his fragility.

From my observations of the president over extended time via his public presentations, direct thoughts through tweets and accounts of his close associates, I believe that the question is not whether he will look for distractions, but how soon and to what degree.

At least several thousands of mental health professionals who are members of the National Coalition of Concerned Mental Health Experts share the view that the nuclear launch codes should not be in the hands of someone who exhibits such levels of mental instability.

Just as suspicion of crime should lead to an investigation, the severity of impairment that we see should lead to an evaluation, preferably with the president’s consent.

Mental impairment should be evaluated independently from criminal investigations, using medical criteria and standardized measures. A sitting president may be immune to indictments, but he is subject to the law, which is strict about public safety and the right to treatment when an individual poses a danger to the public because of mental instability. In the case of danger, the patient does not have the right to refuse, nor does the physician have the right not to take the person as a patient.

This evaluation may have been delayed, but it is still not too late. And mental health professionals have extensive experience assessing, restraining and treating individuals much like Trump – it is almost routine.

About Today's Contributor:
Bandy X. Lee, Assistant Clinical Professor, Yale School of Medicine, Yale University

This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. 

⏩ This is an updated version of an article originally published earlier on September 7, 2018; it reflects new information about the author’s contact with White House staff.

New Book By Islamophobia Expert Destroys The Myth That Muslims Equal Terrorism

New book by Internationally Known Islamophobia expert tackles tough issues and urges readers to assume the best of our Muslim neighbors

We live in a time when it is almost impossible to stay informed on every issue in the news. It takes willingness and effort to go beyond the surface and biased sound bites. Todd H. Green's new book, Presumed Guilty: Why We Shouldn't Ask Muslims to Condemn Terrorism (Fortress Press 2018), serves as both a primer and an invitation for self-reflection.

A 2001 to 2007 Gallup Poll revealed that 93 percent of the world's Muslim population believed the 9/11 attacks unjustified. Another study from the Muslim Public Affairs Council found that one in three al-Qaeda terrorist plots between 9/11 and 2011 were disrupted with the aid of Muslim Americans. 

Muslims speak out against terrorism all the time. Yet, a disheartening pattern has emerged in the West whenever acts of terror occur. Almost immediately, public figures ask the same question: "Why don't Muslims speak out against terrorism?" The implication—Muslims don't speak out—is obvious.

According to Green, it really isn't a question but a condemnation, because it "wrongly assumes Islam is the driving force behind terrorism." Moreover, he says this assumption diverts our attention from unjust Western violence, preventing us from confronting our own troubling history.

Green, a religious studies professor and former advisor to the US State Department under both the Trump and Obama administrations, debunks other myths, showing how ISIS actually targets Muslims more than any other group and why politics matter more than religion in driving terrorism.

Ultimately, Green argues, "It's time to end the distractions and to spend more energy on coming to terms with unjust Western violence." Only then can we honestly assess the causes of violence, stop relying on damaging stereotypes, and begin to ask better questions of our Muslim neighbors. 

More About "Presumed Guilty: Why We Shouldn't Ask Muslims to Condemn Terrorism":

(Via Fortress Press)

All of us should condemn terrorism–whether the perpetrators are Muslim extremists, white supremacists, Marxist revolutionaries, or our own government. But it's time for us to stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism under the assumption they are guilty of harboring terrorist sympathies or promoting violence until they prove otherwise. Renowned expert on Islamophobia Todd Green shows us how this line of questioning is riddled with false assumptions that say much more about "us" than "them."

Green offers three compelling reasons why we should stop asking Muslims to condemn terrorism:
1) The question wrongly assumes Islam is the driving force behind terrorism.
2) The question ignores the many ways Muslims already condemn terrorism.
3) The question diverts attention from unjust Western violence.

This book is an invitation for self-examination when it comes to the questions we ask of Muslims and ourselves about violence. It will open the door to asking better questions of our Muslim neighbors, questions based not on the presumption of guilt but on the promise of friendship.

⏩ Download the free Discussion Guide

About The Author:

Todd H. Green teaches at Luther College in Decorah, Iowa. 

He is a sought-after speaker, giving lectures on college campuses and to the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. Green's work has appeared in the Huffington Post, and his expertise has been cited by the Council on Foreign Relations, the Center for American Progress, the NAACP, and the Southern Poverty Law Center. He has been interviewed by CNN, NPR, and Al Jazeera. 

He is the author of The Fear of Islam.

SOURCE: Fortress Press

Donald Trump Anonymous Staffer Speaks Out – Treason Or A Public Service?

Somebody say something. (EPA/Shawn Thew)

One of Donald Trump’s senior White House staff has made a truly unprecedented move against their ultimate boss. The staffer anonymously published an opinion piece in the New York Times, in which the individual described a dilemma: should the White House’s employees stand by and watch a president who they see as “a threat to the health of our republic”, or should they quietly work to resist what they see as Trump’s “amoralism” and “misguided impulses”? Trump reacted to the piece in his usual style, accusing the author of “treason” and demanding the New York Times hand over their name.

It is easy to see the op-ed and ensuing furore as just one more indicator of the abject state of the Trump presidency. But the incident also poses a much more profound dilemma: when the elected politician they serve is a liability to the public, should staffers speak out and challenge them publicly, or remain loyal and do their boss’s bidding?

Among commentators, researchers and staffers themselves, there are two major schools of thought. On one side are the loyalists, who take the view that staffers should be unquestioning servants. According to loyalists, since politicians are elected officials with popular mandates, their orders must be carried out. A staffer’s role, then, is to find the most effective and efficient way to do that.

On the other side are the lifesavers, who hold that staffers are obliged to save a politician from their own stupidity, thereby protecting both institutions and the public from their bosses’ irrational whims. Modern states are highly complex entities, they say, and to run them effectively, you need a large body of specialists with deep experience who can sustain institutions while elected officials come and go.

So who’s right? Many politicians, and Trump especially, want their staffers to be loyalists. But this is a grave mistake. It’s the lifesavers who will actually help a politician to achieve their objectives, or can at the very least avert a costly or catastrophic onmishambles. There are at least three reasons why.

Fight or flight 
First, politicians are often far less knowledgeable than their staffers. Most have little to no understanding of the issues they are dealing with, and are routinely given portfolios they have zero experience in: energy ministers who have never set foot in a power plant, transport ministers who don’t use public transport, ministers of justice without the first idea of how the prison system works. It often takes politicians a year or two to get to grips with their portfolio, by which time they are liable to be shuffled on to an entirely unrelated job.

The role of the staffer is to guide these clueless politicians through complex policy domains they don’t understand. Doing that frequently requires a staffer to tell a politician they can’t do something.

One of the roles of any staffer worth their salt is to regularly rain on an enthusiastic politician’s parade. Elected officials often get worked up about pet projects and cherished ideas; staffers need to force them to think critically. Even if a staffer is wrong, this process of challenge is likely to lead to more robust decisions. By voicing their doubts, lifesaving staffers can cut through the dangerous groupthink that can set government policy on a course to disaster.

A house divided against itself. (EPA/Jim Lo Scalzo)

Finally, politicians should be pleased when their staffers speak up simply because it’s better than the alternative. Some time ago, the economist Albert Hirshmann pointed out there were three alternative courses of action an official could take when faced with a failing institution: remain loyal, leave, or speak out. Later researchers added a fourth option: to simply neglect their job and stop caring. So how should frustrated, demoralised or panicked employees decide what to do?

When faced with a failing policy, civil servants can remain loyal and get to work on the necessary turd polishing. That might make their masters feel good in the short term, but it can also drag everyone concerned deeper into a potentially disastrous course of action.

Leaving, meanwhile, might relieve the pressure on the individual staffer and make their political master happy, but simply pulling the pin is unlikely to fix the problem. Rather, some new staffer is likely to come along and make the same mistakes all over again. The upshot could be a revolving door of misfortune. And while staffers could also simply neglect their duties, the comfort that would offer them and their boss alike may well be offset by disastrous consequences for the public.

That only really leaves one option: to speak out.

Cooler heads prevail 
Staffers are likely to be punished for putting their heads above the parapet, and the politicians they serve are often disinclined to listen. But sadly, voice is one of the few ways that endemic problems get corrected before they terminate in disaster.

For any staffer looking to speak up, grave dangers lie ahead. But research suggests there are more or less effective ways of getting your point across. Studies conducted in large American corporates have found that the best way forward is to create underground resistance from the inside. The staff who do so have been described as “tempered radicals”.

Tempered radicals typically work by creating underground networks both inside and outside an organisation. These networks bring together people who care about an issue. They provide the platform for future action. Tempered radicals manage their heated emotions about the issue. They might be fuming, but they try to let rationality rather than passion lead them, using the values of their institution to push forward their claims.

If the people in charge value individual freedom, staffers trying to change course should use arguments about individual freedom to push their agenda forward. Finally, tempered radicals create behind the scenes actions which help to push their agenda forward. These are smaller actions which help to make people’s lives better. Over time, these modest interventions build up to bigger wins.

It’s true that in politics, loyalty is one of the most valued currencies. But being loyal doesn’t mean always saying yes to seniors; it also means staying committed to the values of an institution, even when that might mean questioning or challenging the person temporarily in charge. That can be hard. But it can also help save politicians from themselves.

About Today's Contributor:
Andre Spicer, Professor of Organisational Behaviour, Cass Business School, City, University of London

This article was originally published on The Conversation. 

"Downton Abbey: The Exhibition" Is Moving To Florida

Downton Abbey: The Exhibition features several beloved rooms from the TV series, including the Crawleys’ glamorous dining room.

Following its widely acclaimed New York City run, which came to a close yesterday, NBCUniversal International Studios today revealed that Downton Abbey: The Exhibition will open in South Florida on Saturday, November 10, the Cultural Council of Palm Beach County is pleased to announce.

Downton Abbey: The Exhibition offers a fully immersive experience inside the world of Carnival Films' multi-award-winning global television phenomenon and recently announced feature film. It concluded its New York City run over Labor Day weekend and will now move to CityPlace in the heart of downtown West Palm Beach.

The enhanced exhibition will offer never-before-seen elements connecting fans to their favorite characters, costumes, locations and historic events of the era, as well as showcase exclusive footage. It will provide a fascinating look at all aspects of the post-Edwardian period in which the popular TV series is set and offer in-depth insight into the remarkable events which shaped the world. 

"Downton Abbey: The Exhibition" (Image via DowntonExhibition.com)

⏩ From World War I to the Roaring Twenties, visitors will have the chance to learn about British society, culture and fashion.

Hailed by the New York Times as "a cleverly immersive experience mounted with the same exacting care as the show itself," Downton Abbey: The Exhibition received an overwhelming response, attracting vast crowds daily since opening its doors on November 18, 2017 in New York City.

"Our fantastic experience in New York City confirmed to us that the huge Downton Abbey audience love the opportunity to immerse themselves in the world created by Julian, Gareth and the Carnival team," said Sarah Cooper, COO, NBCUniversal International Studios. "With a movie in production and the Downton fan base more enthusiastic than ever, we're delighted to be moving to Florida and opening up our exhibition to an even wider audience."

"As we are about to start filming the Downton movie, it is an exciting time to announce that residents and visitors to Florida will soon be able to enjoy the amazing experience that is the Downton Abbey exhibition," said Gareth Neame, Producer of Downton Abbey and Executive Chairman of Carnival Films.

With an even larger footprint than its New York City counterpart, the South Florida exhibition will transport visitors on an incredible journey through the grand home of Downton Abbey and offer an inside look into the world of the Crawleys and those that served them below stairs. 

"Downton Abbey: The Exhibition" (Image via DowntonExhibition.com)

From Mrs. Patmore's hectic kitchen and the gossip-fueled servants' quarters, to the family's glamorous dining room and Lady Mary's bedroom, fans will get the chance to walk through some of the series' most recognizable and beloved sets. 

Visitors will also get an up-close look at over 50 of the show's official costumes, worn by their favorite actors including Michelle Dockery, Hugh Bonneville and Dame Maggie Smith.

"We are most excited to have Downton Abbey: The Exhibition come to West Palm Beach after its New York City run," said West Palm Beach Mayor, Jeri Muoio. "Our legacy as an arts and culture destination paired with the popularity of this exhibition is sure to make for an exciting season here in West Palm Beach. We're grateful to our local partners – Discover The Palm Beaches, the Cultural Council of Palm Beach County, and CityPlace – for their support in helping bring this extraordinary attraction to our city."

Downton Abbey: The Exhibition will be located at CityPlace, 575 S. Rosemary Ave, West Palm Beach, FL33401. It will open daily between 10 a.m. and 7 p.m., including Thanksgiving, Black Friday, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day and New Year's Day. Tickets will be priced at $35 and children under 14 will receive free admission. VIP packages and private hire options will also be available. Programming, promotions and hotel packages will be announced at a later date.

⏩ For more information on the exhibition, please visit downtonexhibition.com.

"Downton Abbey: The Exhibition" (Image via DowntonExhibition.com)

About Downton Abbey:

Downton Abbey aired for six seasons on MASTERPIECE on PBS in the US and reached more than 26 million viewers in its final season, making it the highest-rated PBS drama series of all time. 

A Carnival Films/MASTERPIECE co-production, the series was written and created by Julian Fellowes and executive produced by Gareth Neame, Julian Fellowes, Liz Trubridge and Nigel Marchant. The MASTERPIECE Executive Producers were Rebecca Eaton and Susanne Simpson. 

Downton Abbey is one of the largest UK drama exports of all time, seen in over 250 territories worldwide. With 15 wins and 69 nominations, it is the most nominated non-US show in the history of the Emmys. Also, the winner of three Golden Globes, a special BAFTA and four Screen Actors Guild Awards, the series has captured an extensive fan-base worldwide. 

Production on Downton Abbey the movie begins later this summer. The movie is a Carnival Films production, with Focus Features and Universal Pictures International distributing. 

SOURCE: Cultural Council of Palm Beach County