poetsandnurses

The Convening Role of Universities

Building the Coalitions That Economic Leverage Requires

January 2026

Economic Forces Can Protect Democracy

The 2026 midterm elections are a decisive test for our constitutional democracy. The current administration has articulated its intentions to undermine the elections by pre-positioning election deniers in key roles, defunding election security infrastructure, and preparing for military intervention into the voting process. If the election is stolen and there are no consequences, constitutional democracy is over.

Research on how authoritarian consolidation is stopped points to sustained mass mobilization as the key mechanism. Erica Chenoweth’s analysis of 323 regime-change campaigns and Gene Sharp’s foundational work on nonviolent resistance show that autocracies fall when enough people withdraw cooperation: when bureaucrats, judges, military officers, and business leaders refuse to comply. But mobilization alone is not enough. Economic leverage, the credible threat that interference with democracy will impose unacceptable costs on the economy, may be the most powerful, yet least developed tool available.

The Coordination Problem

The main obstacle to economic leverage in defense of democracy is coordination. Individual businesses that resist federal overreach face retaliation; individual unions that strike alone absorb all the cost. The solution is collective commitment, but collective commitment requires someone to convene the conversation, build trust across sectors, and create the framework for binding agreements.

Universities are uniquely positioned to play this role. They have legitimacy across political divides, existing convening infrastructure, intellectual resources, and relative insulation from retaliation. But “universities should convene” is not a plan. This document tries to be more specific: which institutions, what format, who should be in the room, what outputs to aim for, and what different people can do based on their position.

Who Should Host

Not every university can or should host a democracy defense convening. The right hosts have: convening credibility, relevant expertise, institutional independence, and leadership willing to act.

Law schools with constitutional crisis expertise:

Harvard Law School — Has convened high-profile summits (including on AI safety). Constitutional law faculty. Convening credibility. Would need faculty champions to push this.
Yale Law School — Strong constitutional law program. Smaller, possibly more nimble.
Stanford Law School — Proximity to tech, though that cuts both ways.
Georgetown Law — D.C. location, connections to election law practitioners, the Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection.

Policy schools:

Harvard Kennedy School — Convening infrastructure, connections to government. The Ash Center focuses on democratic governance.
Stanford HAI — Tech-focused but has convened on societal implications. Would be natural for a tech-leadership-and-democracy convening specifically.
Berkeley Goldman School — Public policy focus, strong labor connections in the Bay Area.

Centers with specific democracy focus:

Stanford’s Center on Democracy, Development and the Rule of Law
MIT’s Election Data + Science Lab — Technical election security expertise.
Protect Democracy (not a university, but partners with them) — Already doing litigation and policy; could co-convene.

For regional convenings:

State flagship universities are often better positioned than elite privates for regional coalition-building. A University of Michigan convening brings together Michigan business, labor, and election officials more naturally than a Harvard convening would.

What a Convening Looks Like

Format options:

Summit (1-2 days, 50-100 people). Plenary sessions plus working groups. Aims to build relationships and frame shared commitments. Requires significant planning (3-6 months). Budget: $50K-150K depending on venue, travel support, and staffing.
Working session (half-day, 15-25 people). Smaller, more targeted. Can be organized in weeks. Aims for specific outputs: a statement, a commitment framework, a next step. Budget: $5K-20K.
Scenario exercise (1 day, 20-40 people). War-games a specific crisis scenario (e.g., “certification is refused in Pennsylvania — what do each of you do?”). Forces concrete thinking. Requires careful design. Budget: $20K-50K.
Dinner series (ongoing, 10-15 people per dinner). Lower stakes, relationship-building. Multiple dinners over months with overlapping but evolving guest lists. Budget: $2K-5K per dinner.

The right format depends on the goal. Early-stage relationship building → dinners or small working sessions. Generating public commitments → summit. Testing coordination mechanisms → scenario exercise.

Who should be in the room:

A democracy defense convening needs people who can actually make commitments, not just discuss ideas. The mix should include:

Election officials — Secretaries of state, county election directors. They know the mechanics and the threats.
Constitutional lawyers — People who’ve thought through crisis scenarios and legal options.
Business leaders — Executives with authority to make commitments, not just corporate affairs staff. Focus on regional businesses with community ties, not just national brands.
Labor leadership — Union presidents or political directors who can speak to strike capacity.
Tech executives — For tech-focused convenings. CTOs, policy leads, or founders with decision-making authority.
Organizers — People with mobilization infrastructure (Indivisible leaders, faith coalition coordinators).
A few academics — To provide analysis, but the room should not be mostly academics.

The hardest people to get are business executives and tech leaders. They’re busy, risk-averse, and wary of being seen as political. This is where the connector role matters (see below).

Outputs to aim for:

A convening without outputs is just a conference. Aim for:

A statement or framework — Something participants sign that articulates shared principles and potential commitments.
Specific commitments — “If X happens, we will do Y.” The more specific, the more valuable.
A coordination mechanism — A Signal group, a designated convener, a schedule of follow-up calls. Relationships decay without maintenance.
A next step — Another convening, a working group, a public event. Momentum matters.

Different Roles for Different People

Not everyone can or should host a summit. But many people can contribute:

Hosts/conveners — Institutions or individuals who organize the event, provide the venue, set the agenda. Requires: institutional position, staff support, convening credibility.

Funders — People who provide money for venue, travel, staffing. A working session might need $10K; a summit might need $100K. Funders can shape the agenda but should let conveners run it.

Connectors — People who bridge worlds that don’t normally interact. A tech executive who knows democracy lawyers. An academic who knows union leadership. Connectors make introductions, vouch for people, and get reluctant participants to show up.

Participants — People who attend, engage seriously, and make commitments. The most important role. Convenings fail when the room is full of people who can discuss but not decide.

Document authors — People who write the framing documents that give convenings their agenda. This document, and the others in this series, aim to be that.

If you’re reading this, ask: which role can I play?

If you have institutional position and staff, consider hosting.
If you have money but not time, fund someone else’s convening.
If you know people in different worlds, make introductions.
If you have decision-making authority in a business, union, or institution, attend and commit.
If you can write, help frame the questions.

A Realistic Roadmap

February–March 2026: Seed conversations

Small dinners and working sessions (10-20 people) at 2-3 institutions. Goals: test the conversation, identify who’s willing to engage, surface the key questions. Likely hosts: Harvard Law, Stanford, Georgetown. Budget need: $30K-50K total.

April–May 2026: Regional convenings

Working sessions in 3-5 key states (Michigan, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin, Arizona, Georgia). Bring together state-level business, labor, election officials, and organizers. Goal: build state-level coordination infrastructure. Likely hosts: state flagship universities or law schools. Budget need: $20K-40K per state.

June 2026: National summit

Larger convening (75-100 people) that brings together regional leaders, national organizations, and tech/business leadership. Goal: public commitments, shared framework, coordination mechanism for election period. Likely host: Harvard, Stanford, or a consortium. Budget need: $100K-150K.

July–October 2026: Activation

Ongoing coordination calls. Scenario exercises. Preparation for election period. Regional networks stay in contact. National coordinating body monitors for trigger conditions.

November 2026 and beyond: See The Winter 2027 Commitment.

For Tech Leadership Specifically

Tech companies have enormous economic leverage but no coordination mechanism for democratic defense. A tech-focused convening could be hosted by Stanford HAI, MIT, or a law school with tech connections.

Who should be in the room:

CTOs or senior executives (not just policy staff) from major platforms
Founders of mid-size companies with more decision-making freedom
Tech investors who sit on multiple boards
A few constitutional lawyers and election security experts
Organizers who can speak to what coordination would enable

The ask:

What are tech companies prepared to do if the election is stolen? Options range from:

Public statements (low cost, low impact)
Platform policies (content moderation in crisis conditions)
Service decisions (would AWS host election-denying state governments?)
Employee mobilization (supporting employees who want to act)
Economic coordination (the hardest and most impactful)

The goal is not to get commitments in the first meeting. The goal is to start the conversation, surface who’s willing to engage, and build toward commitments over subsequent meetings.

What You Can Do This Week

If you’re at a law school or policy school: Talk to faculty about hosting a working session. A half-day session in April is achievable with 6-8 weeks of planning.
If you have funding capacity: Identify a potential host institution and offer to fund a convening. $20K-50K unlocks a serious working session.
If you know people in different worlds: Make two introductions this month. Connect a democracy lawyer to a tech executive. Connect a union leader to an academic.
If you’re a business or tech leader: Say yes when invited. The scarcest resource is executives willing to be in the room.
If you’re a faculty member without institutional power: Write. Circulate these documents. Raise the question in faculty meetings. Pressure creates permission for administrators to act.

The Stakes

Universities are being targeted by this administration precisely because they are bulwarks of democracy. The response cannot be to retreat into institutional self-protection. As Michael Ignatieff observed from his experience leading Central European University under Orbán: early cooperation with authoritarian demands does not buy safety — it only delays and worsens the eventual confrontation.

The convening power that makes universities valuable to authoritarians who want to control them makes universities valuable to democratic defense. The question is whether university leaders will use that power before it is taken from them.

Contribute

This document needs to be more concrete and actionable. If you have specific suggestions for institutions that should convene, formats that work, or people who should be in the room, please contribute. Pull requests welcome on GitHub.

This document is part of Poets, Nurses, and Programmers. See also: The Winter 2027 Commitment.