The Good Project’s Value Sort: Then and Now

by Danny Mucinskas

The Good Project is excited to announce that the Value Sort activity, which has for many years been our most popular reflection tool, has been revamped with the inclusion of a new values list, as well as new formatting that allows for easy sorting and event code creation on web and mobile. View and take the new Value Sort yourself here.

The Value Sort activity is an exercise that asks users to sort a set of unique values, such as “Honesty,” “Power,” and “Faith,” according to their relative importance to one another, similar to a q-sort methodology used in the social sciences. The user must make forced choices between the significance of the values to them personally by limiting the number of items that can be placed under five headings: Most Important (limited to four values), More Important (six values), Neutral, Less Important (six values), and Least Important (four values).

Then: A Research Tool

During The Good Project’s initial investigation of the meaning of “good work” across various professional and working domains, which began during the late 1990s, the Value Sort was developed by Dr. Jeanne Nakamura (Claremont Graduate University). She developed a comprehensive set of 30 value items that she found in a survey of the literature to be important to American employees and professionals in their working lives. The Value Sort was then provided as a reflection prompt to research interviewees, including doctors, lawyers, educators, actors, and journalists, as a way for them to identify the most significant guiding principles in their working lives. These interviews ultimately led to the creation of The Good Project’s framework of “good work” consisting of excellence (technical proficiency), ethics (social responsibility), and engagement (meaning, enjoyment, and purpose).

Interviewees in the original investigation of “good work” overwhelmingly reported that they appreciated the chance to pause and consider their personal values. In subsequent years, the Value Sort became an integral part of the educational and curricular materials created by The Good Project for use by teachers and adolescents. As the focus of The Good Project shifted from qualitative interviews with workers to pedagogical practices that could share the ideals of “good work” with an audience of diverse young people, preparing them for the complex decisions they would make in their work, the Value Sort remained a key exercise. Both the original GoodWork Toolkit (The Good Project’s first foray into the creation of educational materials) and the project’s more recent comprehensive lesson plans have included the Value Sort as a key way to prompt learners to consider their underlying guiding ideals, with over 125,000 individual completions of the older online Value Sort that was active from December 2019. People have also used the Value Sort comparatively to consider the values important to their colleagues and organizations, looking at areas of alignment and misalignment.

Review and Updates

Yet in 2022, as we embarked on a study of the impact of our lesson plans on teaching and student learning, particularly how ideas of “good work” might affect student character growth, we realized that the Value Sort was in need of an update. Our Community of Practice, made of around 100 international educators, remarked that the values list may not have been entirely representative of the full range of values important to their students. Wide cultural differences were apparent between the population that the Value Sort was originally intended to be used with (American professionals taking part in a research study at the turn of the millennium) and the learners that the tool was now being used with (adolescents in many countries over 20 years later). In particular, we observed that the list of 30 values included on the original value sort were individualistic, Western values, and primarily related to professional environments (e.g., “professional accomplishment”) as opposed to more general circumstances. We therefore decided to adapt the Value Sort to be more current to our needs and constituencies.

From 2023-2024, our team spent time reviewing a variety of values taxonomies and lists, with a particular focus on identifying possible values that had not been represented in the original items on the Value Sort. We compiled a set of 58 synthesized values from non-academic and academic sources, and using the list, we then performed a survey with an international population of nearly 300 respondents from 13 countries, with the largest groups coming from Argentina, Australia, India, Poland, South Africa, Thailand, United Arab Emirates, United Kingdom, and United States. Respondents were asked to complete the Value Sort exercise, to define each of their top and bottom values in their own words, and then to recommend values that should be added to or eliminated from the exercise in open-ended responses.

Our survey results showed that:

• The values most often chosen as among respondents’ four “Most Important” values were as follows (all of which have been preserved in the updated version of the Value Sort):

• Confidence

• Creativity

• Honesty

• Balance

• The values most often chosen as among respondents’ four “Least Important” values were as follows:

• Power

• Wealth

• Frugality

• Tradition

While Power remains on the value sort, Wealth, Frugality, and Tradition were subsumed by other new items (namely Security and Loyalty).

Based on our analyses of the survey results, we pared down further and edited the grouping and phrasing of each of the values in our list, ultimately landing on a set of 35 values for inclusion in the updated version of the Value Sort that has now been made public. The values within the new set are now more representative of collective or relational aspects (e.g., Love, Loyalty) that were absent from the original list, as well as values that may be more common to personal or non-work circumstances (e.g., Achievement, Fairness), which will help people consider how their values cross multiple aspects of their lives. Each value now also includes a brief explanation or connotation (which users can toggle on or off) to help users understand the meaning of each of the value items. We found that this would be particularly helpful for non-native English speakers or for translation of the Value Sort into other languages, since single English words may not have exact or similar translations into other (even closely-related) languages. 

The New Value Sort

The new set of values and their definitions is visible in the list below.

• Achievement: reaching goals, gaining recognition from peers, supervisors, or field

• Balance: in life, in work, between the two

• Collaboration: working with others in depth

• The Common Good: working towards the benefit of all

• Confidence: belief in oneself

• Creativity: thinking outside the box, beyond or transcending the “norm,” originality

• Curiosity: a strong desire to know or to learn

• Diligence: being hardworking, stick-to-itiveness, constant effort, persistence

• Diversity: difference or variety of opinions, of perspectives, of backgrounds

• Efficiency: accomplishment with minimal amount of effort or time

• Enjoyment: pleasure, satisfaction, engagement

• Fairness: freedom from bias, justness

• Faith: belief or trust in something, not based in proven fact

• Forgiveness: willingness to pardon someone or something

• Gratitude: being grateful or thankful

• Growth: not stagnant, the process of growing

• Health & Wellbeing: physical, emotional and mental well-being

• Helping Others: doing for other people

• Honesty: truthfulness, sincerity

• Hope: belief in positive possibilities

• Humility: modesty

• Independence: freedom to act, think, etc. on one’s own

• Introspection: looking inward, examining one’s own thoughts, beliefs, or emotions

• Kindness: goodness, benevolence, thoughtfulness towards others

• Knowledge: well-versed familiarity with a particular subject

• Love: presence of deep, affectionate relationships

• Loyalty: being faithful to someone or something

• Openness: receptive to new ideas, experiences

• Patience: meeting difficulties or obstacles with calm and resilience

• Peace: a state of harmony, tranquility, and absence of aggression, hostility

• Positive Relationships: healthy, sustaining relationships with friends, family, coworkers

• Power: strength, control, authority, ability to get things done

• Respect: to hold in high regard, esteem

• Security: freedom from anxiety, such as about finances, safety, etc.

• Trust: belief in reliability, truth, or abilities of someone or something

It is our hope that the current Value Sort will allow people of all ages to engage with an expanded set of value items that is more representative of the full set of possible life values across the world and that the tool remains a popular way of reflecting on what is important to each of us. In this way, the Value Sort continues to fulfill its original research purpose: to help people think about where we each derive meaning and how we understand the standards that drive our thoughts and actions.

Please visit our Value Sort landing page for more information and complementary materials that will guide you in using the Value Sort and reflecting upon your answers. We welcome our readers’ thoughts and reactions to the updated Value Sort.

Values in the Pandemic: Have They Shifted, and if so, How?

by Lynn Barendsen

What do we value, and how do we spend our time?  Both are key topics on the Good Project; it’s my hunch that responses to both questions have been considerably impacted by the pandemic.  In what follows, I review some research evidence and share my own reflections.

In my analysis, perhaps not surprisingly, values HAVE shifted. Perhaps more puzzling is the nature of the relationship between our values and how we occupy ourselves.  As we all know, the past two years have seen a remarkable change in our daily activities as we’ve adjusted (and readjusted, and then readjusted again) to the realities of life during a pandemic. So: have our values evolved because our activities have changed, or have we changed our activities because of what we value?

How we spend our time is clearly related to what we value.  Perhaps we do what we do because of what we value, or alternatively, perhaps we recognize our values—and whether or not they are being honored-- because of how we’ve been spending our time.  As this (link here) New York Times article points out, during the pandemic, individuals spent far more time alone, or only with close family members.  For some, this may mean a renewed appreciation of solitude (what they have); for others it may mean a recognition of the value of spending time with other family and friends (what they can’t have).

Two studies help to unpack these issues a bit more. A study (link here) of over 1000 Australians, ranging in age from 18-75, was conducted over several years (both pre and post pandemic);  the study revealed two sets of contact post pandemic (one at the beginning, and one 8-9 months later).    Using Shalom Schwartz’s (link here) categorization of values, the authors cite four sets of values: conservation values, openness to change values, self-transcendence values and self-enhancement values.  Three of the four categories (all but self-enhancement values) changed during the pandemic.  Conservation values (keeping safe, preserving order, stability and tradition) all became more important at the beginning of the pandemic, and as time passed, remained consistent at their new level.  Perhaps in this case, the actions related to “staying safe” and positive results reinforced the importance of the value of stability.

Openness to change values (independence, seeking adventure, creativity, change) decreased at the beginning of the pandemic, but later, increased.  At the beginning of the pandemic, individuals had less opportunity for adventure, certainly outside their homes; as time went on, perhaps adventure and creativity became increasingly important as individuals sought alternative modes of entertainment.  

Self-transcendence values (caring for others and for the world) were initially stable, but later decreased.  The authors suggest that perhaps as a result of being so focused on self-preservation, individuals had little capacity left for empathy. Importantly, many countries were more severely impacted by the pandemic than Australia, so it’s crucial to consider alternative, more extensive studies. 

Another study (link here) was conducted by the research agency Glocalities. Investigators interviewed 8,761 individuals in 24 countries, 9 months apart, at the beginning and end of 2020. The study sought to understand how the pandemic impacted individuals’ beliefs and values.

Not surprisingly, individuals increasingly value health and precautions, or taking care. As freedoms became more limited (i.e., as a result of lockdowns), they became more valued.  Additionally, a heightened awareness of economic disparities has led to increased calls for equity. The report concludes that although individuals are increasingly pessimistic and worried, they are simultaneously revisiting their values and thinking more about others besides themselves.  Interestingly, this contradicts the Australian study (which found a decrease in caring for others and the world). 

These are just a few examples of what will likely become an ongoing investigation into the impact of these past two years on individual values.  Clearly there are ambiguities that need to be resolved. Whether these initial trends are short or long term, whether they hold true across racial, cultural, socio-economic and other differences, is still to be determined.  But these are important questions, and we will continue to look for any emerging patterns.

Closer to home, over the course of the pandemic, our GP Team has had many conversations with colleagues (and ourselves) about values.  We consider ourselves fortunate. Although each of us have been impacted both personally and professionally by the pandemic, unlike many around the world, we have been able to keep working and able to do so from the safety of our homes. Of course there have been challenges (juggling parenting responsibilities with work responsibilities, for example), but for the most part, we have all appreciated supportive colleagues and work that feels important and timely. 

Additionally, we’ve remarked upon the fact that ethical dilemmas (a core component of Good Project resources) are in abundance these days. Constantly struggling with the best decision (as it’s not always clear that there’s one “right” answer) is important and exhausting. Often it comes down to values, and what we value most.  Or, as Michael Rozier explains, “our choices, individually and collectively, reveal who we are and who we want to be.”  In an article (link here) written relatively early during the pandemic (May 2020), this scholar asserts that the pandemic offers an opportunity to embrace previously undervalued virtues such as self-sacrifice and prudence.

Curious to consider whether – and, if so, how-- our own values have shifted over the past two years, four of us recently revisited the value sort (link here). Interestingly, three of us rated “creating balance in one’s life” and “rewarding and supportive relationships” in our top four values.  Three of us also had either “understanding, helping, serving others” or “social concerns, pursuing the common good” as one of our top 4.

I don’t want to speak for others, but for me the exercise brought about some useful realizations. I recognized that balance feels more important than it has before because the line between my personal and professional lives feels more blurred. For the bulk of the past few years, both my husband and I have been working from home, and for some of that time, our two college-aged sons were also working at home. We tried hard, for example, to make weekends feel different from the week and to establish boundaries.  Now that our sons have returned to college and it’s just the two of us, it’s easier to just keep working well into the evening, and balance becomes increasingly important. This was exacerbated during the lockdown when our usual exercise (regular martial arts practice at our dojo) was impossible. I recognize that I value balance more because I’ve missed it, and because I realize how essential it is to my peace of mind.

Additionally, both the pandemic and our current fraught political climate have made me more aware than ever of economic disparities. Financial status has had a major impact on how individuals experience the pandemic, and economic divides - previously substantial - have only increased. I feel more responsibility than I ever have before: to do work that’s important, to think about my neighbors, to be careful and responsible in my actions.  The impact of everything we do, of all our actions, feels real, and I’m constantly examining my decision making.  This is why “understanding and helping others” and “honesty and integrity” are in my top four. 

To return then to one of my initial questions: have my values shaped how I spend my time, or is it the other way around?  I’ll hedge and say it depends. There are core values that will always be a part of how I approach the world - “rewarding and supportive relationships” come to mind. No matter what the current climate, these will always be something I place high on my list of values. But other values may shift in and out of the top four depending on events. The momentary pause to reflect is helpful and serves as a check in the midst of an otherwise uncertain time. Am I still acting in ways that are true to me?  What IS important right now?

Have a look at the value sort (link here) and our video (link here) which asks you to consider how you spend your time.  We’d love to hear if you’ve noticed any changes in your own perspective, and if not, why you think your views have remained consistent over time.

Why not donate a kidney to a stranger?

by Courtney Bither

On June 1, 2021 I donated a kidney to a stranger. Most people want to know, immediately, “Why? Why donate a kidney to a stranger?”

 The screening process for kidney donation is thorough, and there are several psychological and social screenings for non-directed (or altruistic) donors. Throughout the process, and in speaking to others about my decision, I’ve come to realize that donating a kidney, while certainly a sacrifice and a very big decision, always felt within the realm of possibility for me.

In my experience, most people who aren’t confronted with organ donation have not spent much time thinking about it. I certainly did not consider myself a candidate for organ donation until a history professor of mine shared with our class that he would be donating a kidney and asked if we had any questions about the process. This conversation prompted me to think more about organ donation: the risks, the benefits, the requirements. And I decided to submit myself as a candidate not long after.  

We return to the why: Why donate a kidney to a stranger? The answer is simple: because I wanted to. Because it made sense to me. I decided if I made it through all of the screening, I would be at such little risk for the surgery, and able to contribute so much to someone. So why not?

“Why not?” gave me much more pause than, “why?” Why not give a kidney to a stranger? Because I cannot know anything about the intended recipient, and I cannot choose to whom my kidney is donated. My kidney could go to a child, or a loving parent, or a justice-seeking teacher. Or my kidney could go to a white supremacist—a person’s whose actions I find not only questionable, but evil—a detriment to the wellbeing of others. And my kidney would extend that person’s life. 

So how, nonetheless, did I choose to go through with it?

I looked at my options: donate, or not. And I talked through my reasoning with close friends and family—people who understand me and my values, who could help me talk through what felt right for me. Talking out my concerns with each option clarified for me what I was most concerned with: doing good and doing no harm.

I realized, in self-reflection, that I would rather take a chance on doing good, even if it meant harm might result from my decision. It’s uncomfortable to think about, but it’s important to consider. In general, I tend to think that those in need should be given priority over those might take advantage of systems for those in need. I’d rather take a chance on a “good” person receiving my kidney than a bad one. And, beyond this, I can only do what is within my control—the decision to donate is within my control, not the past or future decisions my recipient makes.

Understanding my values here—to do good, to prevent harm, to fulfill what I believe my moral and social obligations are—helped me decide, with confidence, to proceed with kidney donation.

Understanding the gravity of the situation for those waiting for a kidney also helped me decide to donate my kidney: 12 people die every day waiting for a kidney transplant. In 2020 in the U.S., about 100,000 people were waiting for a kidney transplant, and only 22,817 people in the U.S. received one. Not everyone can or should donate a kidney. However, considering the manifold aspects of the issue, more people can and perhaps should think about kidney donation—and other “big solutions”—and where and how they fit in the process.

 I am very fortunate to be in a situation where I can donate a kidney: I have very supportive colleagues at work who encouraged me throughout the process; I have enough paid time off for my recovery so I won’t have to struggle financially; I live with my partner and two very supportive roommates who help with recovery while I cannot drive or make food. And for me, kidney donation never felt impossible. But for some people, it does. And that’s alright—even good. Donating one kidney involves much more than one person—each person involved in my recovery made this donation possible. Each “big decision” and “big solution” requires a team—yes, only I donated a kidney, but I couldn’t have done it alone. And what’s more, it’s something that felt right for me, with my values, it was something I wanted to do.

I must admit, at times I feel uncomfortable with the shock I hear from people questioning my choice to donate a kidney. I know people mean well—and I don’t deny, donating a kidney to a stranger is an unusual thing to do—but because donating a kidney was something I wanted to do, I don’t always understand the shock. My favorite responses have come from folks who tell me that they have family on dialysis, so they understand the gravity of the situation, or from those who appreciate that this sort of decision is brave—it certainly required courage. But it isn’t an impossibility—it was a choice I made, and I made it happily.

Everyone can have a role in making the world a better place—in doing good work—and, in my opinion, it’s a good thing that people have different roles in the process. Rather than focus on how impractical another’s role would be for you, perhaps it would be more helpful to reflect on what it is you want to do and what it is that you can do.

You might start by asking yourself, “What do I want to do to make the world a better place? What makes sense to me? And what kind of team or community do I need with me to take action?”

Perhaps will you feel inspired to look into kidney donation (link here), or maybe you’ll sign up to donate blood (link here). Or, maybe you will challenge yourself and a friend to work with an organization like Food for Free (link) or Meals on Wheels (link), working to ensure everyone has access to adequate food in your community.  

There are many ways to do good work—to work for a kinder, more equitable world. Find what makes sense to you, what you want to do, and start there.   

---

• Not sure what you value or how to make a decision? In my own life, I have found both the Value Sort (link) and the 5 Ds of Good Work (link) useful in my own discernment process (including in my choice to donate a kidney). Be sure to check them out.

• Would you like to learn more about kidney donation? I recommend this video and article (link here) from Dylan Matthews at Vox.

The Debate Over “Free Speech”: What Role Do Values Play?

by Danny Mucinskas

On July 7, 2020, Harper’s Magazine published an online letter titled “A Letter on Open Justice and Debate,” which warned readers of a “censoriousness” and “intolerance of opposing views” that appears to be spreading in the culture of the United States, leading to “public shaming and ostracism” and “calls for swift and severe retribution.” The letter was signed by dozens of prominent academics, writers, and others from across the political spectrum, including Margaret Atwood, Noam Chomsky, Francis Fukuyama, Linda Greenwood, Wynton Marsalis, Salman Rushdie, and Gloria Steinem.

Overall, the signatories expressed concern that free speech is being restricted, warning that lack of open debate “invariably hurts those who lack power and makes everyone less capable of democratic participation.” They cite no specific cases but are ostensibly referring to several incidents that occurred in the wake of racial justice protests around the country, such as the firing of data analyst David Shor for posting research supporting non-violent protests and the resignation of James Bennet of The New York Times following the publication of a controversial op-ed from Sen. Tom Cotton of Arkansas calling for military intervention to quell unrest.

The letter immediately sparked controversy and criticism from detractors. Some felt that the letter was an attempt by those in positions of power to simply preserve ability to speak with impunity. Members of the transgender community spoke out, believing the letter to be problematic, especially as it had been endorsed by J.K. Rowling, who has recently come under fire for intolerance towards trans women. Others questioned why the letter was even published, at a time when the world is dealing with a global pandemic and the United States is facing a reckoning over racial violence and inequity. At least one signatory retracted her name, while another apologized for signing.

Others who signed have doubled down, though, saying that free speech and debate is a core tenet of liberalism, and that only by continuing to engage with and argue against opinions that we find uncomfortable will society make progress towards being more just and free.

One of The Good Project’s core principles is that personal views on contentious issues and dilemmas are influenced by the values that each of us believe are important, values such as those contained within our value sort activity. For example, an individual who values honesty above all else may choose not to cheat on a test; someone who values material well-being may choose to take a well-paying job they don’t enjoy simply to get a higher salary.

On a political level, Jonathan Haidt (who also signed the Harper’s letter), a social psychologist at New York University, has proposed moral foundations theory as a way to explain our policy preferences and reactions to social debates. Moral foundations theory proposes six core universal tensions that influence our views of ethical questions:

• Care vs. harm

• Fairness vs. cheating

• Loyalty vs. betrayal

• Authority vs. subversion

• Sanctity vs. degradation

• Liberty vs. oppression

Haidt’s research has shown that political preferences in the United States are tied to these foundations, with liberals prioritizing the care/harm and fairness/cheating dynamics above others and conservatives valuing all six foundations more equally. In the same way that differences in values cause people to make different individual decisions, the prioritization of moral foundations causes people to come to different political conclusions, aligning themselves with certain ideas, parties, or policies. The way that these foundations manifest in people’s opinions can also sometimes be confusing and vary or seem to conflict depending on the issue: someone who values the liberty of free speech may oppose abortion rights, an issue affecting women’s liberty, for reasons of sanctity; someone might support a free childcare policy for reasons of care, but oppose debt forgiveness for educational loans for reasons of fairness.

Perhaps the debate sparked by the Harper’s letter is a conflict between moral foundations of liberty and care playing out on the U.S. national stage. Should the liberty of free speech be valued at all costs, even if it causes harm to particular people or marginalized groups? Or should care be valued at all costs, even if it completely silences people from being able to express alternative viewpoints with liberty? Where is the line between these two extremes?

When I complete the value sort exercise, my most important values include “openness,” or being receptive to new ideas, and “pursuit of common good.” Perhaps this is why my opinions on this debate may feel frustratingly “in the middle” in an era of ever more polarized conversation on social media and a climate in which extreme views get the most attention in our media.

In my view, no person is entitled to have their opinions go unquestioned, and the panic surrounding “cancel culture,” which some of the signatories are likely reacting to, seems unfounded. Individuals with public platforms, including the letter’s endorsers, should always be prepared to defend their stances to others, such as those on social media who may disagree with their stances, sometimes in large numbers in a way that can be overwhelming. This is not “canceling,” but is a form of debate in itself. At the same time, we should not simply silence opinions we disagree with, or dole out extreme punishments for making mistakes. Changing other people’s values often takes engagement and convincing, not berating and silencing. As The Better Arguments Project (with which The Good Project recently collaborated) and their “Five Principles of a Better Argument” illustrate, debates require participants to listen passionately, embrace vulnerability, and make room to transform, even when we absolutely disagree and want to take a stand for our side.

However, I am only a single individual, and the majority view on these issues is likely to decide how care and liberty are to be prioritized and debates over free speech are to be resolved, if at all, since the fault lines represented by the moral foundations have existed in American society for centuries. Additionally, individual sectors, such as journalism, may develop new standards regarding speech that will set the norms for that field and the actors within it. For now, the answers to the questions I pose are difficult to discern, as we seem to be in the middle of a culture shift that will define the bounds of acceptability for years to come.

When does free speech “cross a line”? What consequences should an individual face for crossing that line? At what point could stifling free speech or shaming particular speech become dangerous? What values are most important to you in forming these opinions? If you are outside the United States, are there parallel or similar debates occurring in your country?

Recommended Reading: The “free speech debate” isn’t really about free speech

Black Lives Matter

At The Good Project, we seek to help people engage in important but difficult conversations, to enhance their self-awareness, and to reflect on our obligations to one another. For two decades, we have encouraged the idea that good work must be ethical, excellent, and engaging.

While we know that our words and tools are not adequate, we cannot be silent in response to the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and Ahmaud Arbery. We believe, without qualification, that Black lives matter. Systemic racism has been and continues to be a reality in the United States. For us to do good work, we must all engage in the hard work of reflecting on our relationships with systemic racism.

We know this work can be challenging; good work is often challenging. And we want to help.

First, we encourage you to use the tools we have developed to aid in these conversations. As examples, our ethics of roles and neighborly morality may provide a useful framing for thinking about the current situation; the value sort tool can prompt conversations about your own action or inaction during this time; and our ethical dilemmas can help you think through the ways racism shows up in our schools and local communities.

We have also put together a list of resources for talking about racism and resistance, found below.

Finally, we want to share a thought-provoking excerpt from a message released by Dean Bridget Terry Long of the Harvard Graduate School of Education in response to the recent events:

So much of the discussion related to these recent events is tied up in this notion of what America is.  Simply put, America—or any society or community—is what individuals make it.  Yes, this country was founded on the important ideals of liberty, but we know those rights were narrowly defined by our founders to include only a subset of human beings.  And though we have taken steps forward through laws and policies, it’s crucial to question whether we, as a country, have really interrogated what equality and respect for all means in practice. 

Resources (links in titles):

7 Virtual Mental Health Resources Supporting Black People Right Now

31 Children's books to support conversations on race, racism and resistance

Black Youth Project

A Parent’s Guide to Discussing Racism

What White Parents Must Teach Our Kids About George Floyd, Christian Cooper & Ongoing Racism In America

Do the work: an anti-racist reading list

How to Be an Antiracist Educator

Teaching for Black Lives

Reflecting on George Floyd’s Death and Police Violence Towards Black Americans

Beyond the Hashtag: How to Take Anti-Racist Action in Your Life