Yale Center for Civic Thought Hosts Constitution Day Forum
On the recent anniversary of the signing of the U.S. Constitution in 1787, scholars at the new Yale Center for Civic Thought discussed its place in American democracy today.
In a special Constitution Day event, Jeffrey Tulis, professor emeritus at the University of Texas at Austin, and Mariah Zeisberg, associate professor of political science at the University of Michigan, engaged with each other and a packed room of students and faculty members about what the Constitution means and how it functions in light of contemporary political challenges.
Bryan Garsten, the center’s faculty director and professor of political science and humanities, moderated the discussion, titled “Rediscovering the Civic Constitution: Beyond Veneration and Legalism to Citizenship.”
“We conceived of this event not to instill worship for the Constitution or any legal document but to bring people together in a way of thinking that helps us figure out what a constitutional democracy looks like in modern times,” Garsten said. “And what can make it work better.”
The center, housed within Yale’s Institution for Social and Policy Studies, aims to encourage thoughtful public discourse and civically responsible intellectual life in a rising generation of students, faculty, citizens, and leaders. Activities include seminars, discussion groups, the Citizens Thinkers Writers program for New Haven high school students, and a partnership with the Philosophy and Society Initiative of the Aspen Institute that helps students and faculty build relationships with national-level political leaders, journalists, and policy experts.
This year, the center’s events focus on three themes: constitutional democracy in America on the country’s 250th anniversary, the role of universities in civic life, and humanity in the age of artificial intelligence.
The Constitution Day guests argued that scholars and the public often misunderstand the Constitution as a purely legal document dominated by judicial interpretation. They proposed that officeholders, politicians, activists and ordinary citizens can all work in ways that uphold the constitutional culture — or that undermine it.
Tulis, the author of The Rhetorical Presidency, emphasized distinguishing between court interpretations and what he called “the civic Constitution” — an architectural plan for how the country should be organized. He argued that focusing on judges’ opinions has obscured the Constitution’s original purpose as a design for a way of life.
Zeisberg, the author of War Powers: The Politics of Constitutional Authority, advocated for recognizing activists and partisans as legitimate constitutional actors. She highlighted the abolitionist movement, especially the work of Frederick Douglass, as an example of “constitutional activism,” reimagining the Constitution to support emancipation rather than condemning it as inherently pro-slavery.
In addition, participants explored how citizens, not just politicians, can wield emergency powers in response to constitutional crises. They discussed the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 as a moment when ordinary lawmaking actually became a constitutional emergency, and they imagined a range of civic responses to such emergency moments.
Stephanie Almeida Nevin, executive director of the center and a lecturer in humanities, helped organize the forum, which allowed attendees to delve into the subject in small groups over dinner between the more formal panel conversations.
“We chose this format to promote a process of deepening conversation,” Almeida Nevin said. “A moderated panel discussion with the guest speakers puts fundamental questions on the table and answers initial questions from the audience. Over dinner, attendees can compare impressions and sharpen their questions in small groups. Finally, everyone reassembles for additional back and forth with the speakers, clarifying the stakes and sharpening any contrasts that have come up in earlier sessions.”
Spurred by questions from the audience, the speakers reflected on how to equip citizens to interpret the Constitution on their own, the role of state constitutions, the decline of Congress, the erosion of the perception of Supreme Court legitimacy, the dangers of hyper-partisanship, and whether a new constitutional convention would spark increased civic learning and responsibility or just produce a worse system.
And they asked whether the Constitution, as currently structured, proves adequate to address modern challenges such as climate change.
Alan Gerber, ISPS director and Sterling Professor of Political Science, attended the event and appreciated the value of rethinking institutional arrangements, even if the outcome is a reaffirmation of the current structure.
“I am so pleased that ISPS can provide a home for this new center, and I am excited to see how it develops,” Gerber said. “It was inspiring to witness the engagement of students and faculty in a vigorous discussion of issues of fundamental importance to our democracy.
Yale students, faculty, fellows, or staff interested in staying up to date with the center’s initiatives can subscribe to its newsletter.