Wednesday, November 13, 2013

Search for Common Ground Live-streams its awards ceremony
Thursday 14 November, 7:30pm


The 2013 Common Ground Awards Recipients
No Labels NO LABELS
A Congressional coalition committed to building trust and finding negotiated solutions;Senator Joe Manchin and Governor Jon Huntsman, Co-Chairs

Sweet Honey in the Rock SWEET HONEY IN THE ROCK
An internationally renowned all-women African American a capella ensemble

Johann Olav Koss JOHANN OLAV KOSS
Founder and CEO of Right to Play—using games to educate and empower children facing adversity

John Hunter JOHN HUNTER
Educator and creator of the World Peace Game—promoting the mission of peace and developing self awareness in children

Ambassador Livia Leu Agosti AMBASSADOR LIVIA LEU AND THE FEDERAL DEPARTMENT OF FOREIGN AFFAIRS OF SWITZERLAND
for diplomatic efforts as a mediating channel between the United States and the Islamic Republic of Iran, in the absence of official diplomatic relations during the past 34 years.

Performance by Sweet Honey in the Rock

Divider
“It isn’t enough to talk about peace, one must believe in it. It isn’t enough to believe in it, one must work at it.”
Eleanor Roosevelt

THE COMMON GROUND AWARDS are presented annually to honor outstanding accomplishments in conflict resolution, negotiation, community building, and peacebuilding. Recipients have made significant contributions toward bridging divides and finding solutions to seemingly intractable problems. We honor those who have dealt with conflict in new ways, and who met crises with creativity, wisdom, and courage, and have inspired and brought hope to others. Recipients of the Awards work in their local communities or internationally. They show us what can be achieved when we work with, and for, each other.

For more on the Common Ground Awards and their history, please click here.

Divider

We would like to thank our generous sponsors for their support:
AIG
Anonymous
Bill & Robin King
Clarke & Sampson, Inc.
Gelman, Rosenberg & Freedman
Georgetown University
Honest Tea
Jim Meier and Judith Edelstein
John Mullins & Greystone Financial Group
Eric Berman and his colleagues at Kekst & Co.
Michael and Marlana Kain
Monib and Jane Shaw Khademi
Paul Keats
Tom and Elizabeth Manley
Location: National Geographic Society, 1600 M Street NW, Washington, DC USA

Tuesday, November 12, 2013

Can you tell how excited we are??? It is our extreme pleasure to share time with Shantigarbha Warren, who will visit the PSU campus and community of Plymouth from November 15-24, 2013. Do join us for any or all of these activities! 

The Peace & Social Justice Studies Council is very proud to be co-sponsoring Shantigarbha's visit and activities this month, in partnership with the Center for Global Education at PSU, who annually produce an astounding array of activities as part of PSU's participation in International Education Week.  


Wednesday, October 23, 2013

Filiz Otucu, PhD
October, 2013
Interview with Plymouth Magazine
Excerpts

Plymouth Magazine (PM):  If you would want us to pay attention to one thing about our understanding of the Middle East, what would that be?
Filiz Otucu (FO):     We need to pay attention to our misperceptions, be open-minded and understand where the other person is coming from. A big part of understanding is becoming aware of our stereotypes—not to put them aside, which is very difficult—but to be aware of our biases and start questioning. A simple example: many of us think “jihad” means “holy war.” But for 99.9 percent of Muslims jihad is an inner struggle to be a good Muslim, to be a good person.
     We get most of what we know from the media, but for them it is about rating points. If they focus on what moderates are talking about and what Islam is about, how many people will listen?  But if the story is about a bombing, we watch. Media is a part of our culture, and we fall prey to that influence (this is what we demand from media though). 

PM: How can we deal with anti-American rhetoric?
FO: It is true, there is an anti-American rhetoric. However, we need to make this distinction: with the exception of a very small group of extremists, the big majority of Middle Easterners are not against Americans. They are only critical of American foreign policy decisions because they pay the price for them. When the West gets involved militarily, even if it is not intentional, civilians often die. Collateral damage happens, but the majority of these civilians are innocent people and somebody’s loved one. “Oops, I’m sorry” does not cut it.
            If you travel to these countries you will feel comfortable. You can talk to people and they will open their homes to you. I condemn any type of violence, I definitely condemn all forms of terrorism. But when your loved ones suffers or die because of sanctions or military attacks and your life becomes so desperate, you are more inclined to listen to the extremists and be manipulated. We have to be careful about what we are doing and how it affects people’s lives—the consequences of our actions. We should not give extremist leaders reason to get better at their propaganda and win people over.      

PM: How can the U.S. promote democracy in the Middle East?
FO: There is a debate about whether Islam is compatible with democracy. Increasingly, Muslims themselves are saying “yes” and Islamic political movements and parties are deciding to take part in elections whenever possible. Terminology matters. You cannot sell Western liberal democracy to many Muslims because Muslims associate it with Western colonialism. But some are embracing essentials like human rights, elections and the rule of law. Actually, these and citizens’ control over the executive are consistent with the Islamic concepts of ijma (consensus) and shura (consultation).
The Islamic democratic movement is a work in progress, slowly taking place. Indigenous calls for democratic reforms are being heard in almost every part of the Muslim world. Civil society leaders and human rights groups in these societies are challenging the autocratic status quo. Young Muslims, in particular, want to be in charge of their lives and see that democracy can shield the Islamic community from autocrats.
True, many of these countries have been ruled by dictators, and don’t have democratic histories. Unfortunately, pro-Western Arab and Muslim dictators, not necessarily Islamic activists, have been blocking any real democratic opening. Saying that, transition requires much more than just elections. There are no strong constitutions, no checks and balances, no freedom of speech, or assembly, so, how in these circumstances can the opposition get strong enough to challenge the leadership meaningfully? After the election, the government controls everything, and they don’t allow the opposition to flourish. We can help civil society to develop.  However, whatever type of democracy they are going to attain should come from the people.
     We also must look at the history. Middle Easterners are quite critical of us saying, “look, we didn’t transition to democracy partially because of you. You kept supporting our dictators so every time signs of the development of a civil society appeared, it was crushed.” The bottom line is, we protect our own national interests. When Islamists win an election, and we don’t like that, we end up supporting the existing regime. We can’t have it both ways. Let’s briefly look at the democratization experience in that region:
The first major steps towards democratization occurred in Iran in 1953 when Mosaddegh was elected. He started talking about the nationalization of oil, and the West got scared. The CIA got involved and Mosaddegh was kicked out and a brutal regime of Shah Reza Pahlavi came back and we supported his regime. Now, when we say, “we want democracy in the Middle East,” they respond, “We had it and you destroyed it. You took it away as soon as it got started because it didn’t work out for you.”
     The next happened in Algeria in the early 1990s.  They had a democratic election. There were supposed to be two rounds of elections. During the first round it became very clear that the Islamists were going to win, so they cancelled the second round and the military took control and the West was supportive of this. The result was civil war.
     In 2006 we wanted democracy in Palestine. They held fair democratic elections and Hamas won. We cut funding. The result was a humanitarian crisis in Gaza. Now we see it in Egypt. Morsi was elected democratically (what he did afterward is another story). If we accept/support regimes that suppress democratic Islamist movements, block these movements’ nonviolent participation in the system, I am very worried that they will see violence as the only option to be heard.
      Supporting democratization is not about elections, but rather how we can help liberalization of these societies. The West can play a role by not supporting dictatorships, and by pressuring authoritarian regimes when they attack their own people. We can exert pressure for gradual reforms. The Middle Eastern countries need a strong civil society to produce leaders and mobilize the public around democratic movement. Democratization should come from both above and below. We can help civil society organizations to gain strength, making it bottom up, people demanding those liberties. We can pressure the leadership to allow civil liberties, to include them in the constitution and to guard them very dearly. Then, real democracy can flourish in the Middle East. 
* * * 


Tuesday, October 1, 2013

Kristine Levan, PhD
September 2013

On Monday, September 16, 2013, Aaron Alexis opened fire at the Washington Navy Yard, killing twelve people and injuring many others. It has become an all too familiar scene for us: mass gun shootings, including incidents in the past several years at Newtown, CT, Minneapolis, MN, Oak Creek, WI, Tulsa, OK, Fort Hood, TX, and many others. Although these incidents comprise only a fraction of our total murder rate, the American public has become so inundated with the stories and images of these horrific crimes that we can’t help but feel scared and outraged.
    This post is not about gun control. Though many mass killings do involve firearms , that is not the point of discussion here. Like many, as the events have unfolded in this, and the other, mass murders, I received the media messages as updates occurred. They “speculate” on this or report that “authorities currently believe”. But, just as with the other tragedies, before the details of who committed the terrible acts, or how, or how many, I knew one thing for certain:
    Whoever did this was a terribly troubled person.
    Please don’t misread this as an “excuse”, as there is no excuse for taking innocent lives. What Alexis and others like him have done is, in fact, inexcusable. But, it seems that every time an incident such as this occurs, the policymakers, media, and public have the immediate reaction to discuss gun control legislation and whether we need more or less gun control.
    History tells us that many of our mass murderers suffer from some form of mental illness. Although some are killed or commit suicide at the scene, others are captured alive and sanctioned by the justice system. We often hear accounts from family and friends that they “knew something was wrong” (although these sometimes may be retrospective and skewed accounts). Sometimes, the offenders had actually been diagnosed with a mental illness, or exhibited symptoms of a mental illness prior to their crime.
    In the case of Aaron Alexis, news accounts indicate that he was having difficulty sleeping, seemed troubled, was hearing voices, and had reported to police that he was being followed by three people. His family, and the families of his victims, are left with many unanswered questions, and a sense of lives being taken too soon.
    As a society, we have to be more vigilant in providing mental health care to those who need it. As individuals, we have to have to be more caring for one another and try to recognize when someone we know is suffering so they can get the help they need in order to heal and be whole. We have to be willing to acknowledge that there are some major issues missing from our current discussions, and address these issues accordingly.

Saturday, August 31, 2013

Social Justice Advocacy: Issues of Rights, Responsibilities,
Collegiality and Civility In Higher Education
Scott Meyer, MSW, Ph.D.
August, 2013

Colleges and Universities are essential components for the creation of a global effort to assure that the U.N. Declaration of Human Rights is translated in the most effective fashion possible. To best promote these principles, campus faculty members must strive to serve as the finest possible role models for their students. This means, faculty must take a lead role in demonstrating how assuring basic human rights is vigilantly balanced with the notions of personal responsibility to others, respectful and civil forms of disagreement and especially careful attention to never eroding a cohesive campus community of caring scholars while passionately pursuing any one particular social justice issue.

Here are some thoughts on the easiest ways to move in such a direction:

  • Practice individual and group reflective practice to best assure that every action we take (i.e. names of social action efforts, statements made both publicly and privately, etc.)do not come across as offensive to others who may hold opposing views and those who have yet to take a position on the particular issue. A best way to do this is to be transparent. That is enlist assistance from a trusted colleague who may hold an opposing view and get their ideas on how to best move forward without offending others and eroding civility and collegiality.

  • If it becomes evident that a colleague or groups of colleagues have felt insulted, oppressed, marginalized, treated in a fashion that was less than straight forward and honest, etc., than consider offering a sincere apology to the colleague(s) and take action steps to correct the things that created the feelings, outcomes, etc.

  • Assure equality in any competitive actions to gain an outcome on the issue. Things like equal rights to organize around the issue, equal external supports (consultants, paid advocates, etc.), funding to assure no unfair resource and/or socio-economic advantages in pursuit of one’s position on the issue, etc. take place. Work collegially with representatives from both sides of the issue to best assure such inequalities do not take place.

  • Finally (while I suspect there exist many more creative ways to move towards a goal of fair, ethical and collegial actions on opposing sides of crucial social justice and rights issues, the key to assuring no erosion of collegiality is to have all faculty agree that such erosion prevention remains a priority above all.

If we are unable to model civility and collegiality for our students, we need to seriously consider the types of citizens we are creating. We should not undermine what we believe in. Specifically, a free democratic society in which all members have their rights upheld and protected while allowing others the right to dissent and disagreement in a collegial, research and factually based environment. At a moment in history where higher education is an endangered species, the most crucial thing more important than winning or losing mentality regarding most (and perhaps all) social justice related disagreements, is never eroding caring, kindness and empathy among a group of caring scholars. If civility, collegiality and kindness prevail, a more just world will unfold regardless of who “wins or loses” on pressing social justice issues passionately disagreed upon.

Thursday, February 28, 2013

"Marx in Soho" 
Howard Zinn's play
comes to Plymouth State University

Bob Weick (of Dorchester, NH) will present this one-man show to the University Community on Tuesday, 5 March, in Boyd Hall Room 144, at 6pm.  We think you should be there!

The play (see the synopsis and reviews, here: http://www.ironagetheatre.org/marx.html is a celebration and remembrance of Marx's positions on social justice -- from the perspectives of history, civil rights, political science, economics ... there's something for everyone!  Above all, it's written by Howard Zinn, a giant in the social justice movement, recently lost to us.

Karl Marx, 1818–1883... Howard Zinn, 1922-2010. 

This is quite a pairing, in that nearly 100 years separate the life spans of these two men (and then there's Bob Weick! ;-) ) . Marx has the reputation of being opaque, difficult to understand. Zinn's reputation of course is just the opposite; his appeal was that he made that opacity seem easily accessible to the masses.

We hope to see you there!

Tuesday, February 12, 2013

Fifth Annual Culture of Peace Conference 
to be held March 23, 2013 
at Rivier University!  

We are very glad to support the annual conference for a culture of peace, this year being hosted by our friends and colleagues at Rivier University in Nashua, NH.  They have published a webpage that is devoted to the conference where you can find information on the schedule, registration, workshops being held, directions to arrive at Rivier University, lodgings, and other information as it develops. 

New Hampshire Peace Action is a co-sponsor and co-host of the event, and is organizing a youth overnight conference in conjunction with the conference, and we are especially gratified to see this becoming a tradition of the conference.  The energy is electric!  Contact will@nhpeaceaction.org if you are interested in learning more about this angle. 

We hope to see you there!!!