Why does it sometimes feel like I’m wasting my own time—and my students’ time and money—by teaching theory they’ll forget by tomorrow?
I became a trainer because I wanted to make a real, lasting difference in people’s lives. I wanted my students to leave not just informed, but changed—more capable, more confident, better equipped to act. Yet too often, I catch myself wondering whether I’m delivering insight or just information. And that question can be unsettling.
Recently, I read an article in The New York Times about how to fight fascism effectively. While its focus is political, it offered a powerful lens for thinking about education and training more broadly. As I read, I tried a simple mental exercise: replace the word “organizers” with “trainers,” and “voters” with “students.” Suddenly, the article felt like it was speaking directly to my work.
The core idea is this: lasting change doesn’t come from dumping information on people. It comes from helping them make sense of their own experiences—connecting those experiences to ideas, values, and positions they can truly own.
That led me to a question I’m still wrestling with:
Is a trainer’s job to participate in the process by which students transform their experiences into well-formed positions?
If that’s true, then effective training isn’t about perfect slides, clever frameworks, or covering more content. It’s about dialogue, reflection, and creating space for meaning to emerge. It’s about helping students process, not just receive.
I’m curious what you think.
Do you agree with this definition of a trainer’s role?
And if so, how do you design your training to make that transformation possible?
I’d love to hear your perspective.
Find the whole article here: Opinion | A New Playbook for Saving Democracy, Defeating Fascism and Winning Elections – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
