Culture of Peace, but guns in our classrooms?

The Concord Monitor has recently reported on legislation in our state to allow the right to bear arms unimpeded entrance to our classrooms. Several discussions have occurred among our members, and we share them with you. Expect commentary on this blog entry to continue, and to develop.

Numerous concerns are involved with the move that bill co-sponsors claim is about the right to bear arms.  Is the right to bear arms also the right to demonstrate strength through arms?  One purpose of universities is to develop strength of character, the ability to meet challenges, greet conflict with negotiation, and open up respectful dialogue.  The colleagues we have so far discussed this proposed legislation with have expressed fear-- either directly, through their concerns about the mere presence of a gun as a silencing of debate; or indirectly, through barely masked jokes about loosening up grading standards to prevent one's own demise.  In no case have colleagues mentioned that they themselves would choose to bear arms in their classroom.  If they did, the response would be immediate, and couched in terms of an abuse of authority, the presence of threat, and a round of lawsuits from parents.  Why then, do we consider allowing the reverse? 

Professors are in a vulnerable position, and are, it should be mentioned, already facing a variety of very physical threats. In Central Michigan two weeks ago, for example, a journalism major was suspended for threatening to kill every faculty member of the journalism department . Even the well-known scholar of democracy, Frances Fox-Piven at CUNY is under threat, thanks to radio programs claiming that her decades of work on the poor and democratic social change have led to the sub-prime mortgage crisis; repeating this claim has developed into death threats on Fox-Piven, and the AAUP recently issued a statement of support.

In this climate-- the one that led to Gabrielle Giffords being shot by a non-supporter-- professors are motivated to do more than claim 'open debate' arguments in favor of the banning of guns on campus. Public universities can demonstrate open debate without bearing arms.  Indeed, the presence of arms on our campus or in our classrooms will forever mark us as under siege by a tyranny of the masses.   Democracy involves responsibility as well as rights; while government has the charge to protect rights, they also have the charge to promote safe havens for learning among diverse points of view.  This bill will erode and deter the potential for people of all personal and political values to speak their mind freely in a classroom.  It flies in the face of every thing that the people who are voting on this were elected to do-- they are elected to protect the public safety. 

As members of the Steering Committee for a Culture of Peace and Social Justice, we invite our colleagues to discuss ways of ensuring peaceful routes to classroom dialogue, a preference for academic challenge over personal threat, and the safety of our colleagues everywhere.

The end of the Iraq War... finally.

 Mohamed Bouaziz

So it has finally happened. After nine years of war, President Obama has announced the withdrawal of the remaining 39,000 U.S troops from Iraq. Is the realization of this 2008 promise a boosting move for re-election purposes? It sure looks like it. At the same time, the argument that the US withdrawal will be the first step towards a new wage of sectarian violence reveals less a concern about the well-being of the Iraqi people and more about the investment fears of some mercenary corporations. This argument also exemplifies the arrogant and racist rhetoric that has permeated US-foreign policy since the mid-19th century.

As we observe the closing of another sad chapter in the history of war, we wonder if the self-immolation of  Mohamed Bouazizi, the young Tunisian street vendor who sparked the Arab Spring, would have also ignited the demise of Saddam Hussein in Irak have not the US-UK coalition jumped on the chase of fictitious WMDs.   

Linking Social Justice to Peace

This past year a colleague and I searched for a definition of social justice. It was not as easy as one might suspect. However, the School of Social Work at the University of St. Thomas did develop Ten Principles of Social Justice. It is the tenth principle they listed “Promotion of Peace” which seemed to encapsulate the essence of what the interconnection between social justice and peace entails. “Peace is the fruit of justice and is dependent upon the respect and cooperation between peoples and nations”. It also mentions that social workers are called to promote peace and non-violence at all levels – within families, communities, society and globally.


We need to reflect upon how we promote the range of principles related to social justice to best promote peace. These include assuring human dignity and workers’ rights, assuring that our society supports individuals to fulfill their human potential, to protect people and resources on the planet, and to prioritize that the needs of people who are poor and vulnerable are met. It is crucial for us all to understand that peace, in the broadest sense, is integrally connected to the domains of social justice in our world.

Scott Meyer

Justice for The West Memphis Three?

On August 19, 2011, the three men known as "The West Memphis Three", Damien Echols, Jessie Misskelley, Jr., and Jason Baldwin, left their prison cells after eighteen years. Though this seems like a relatively unremarkable event to many who work with and in the criminal justice system, this case has sparked attention ever since the murders of three young boys in 1993.

The West Memphis Three case is one that I am particularly familiar with and have been following for years. In years past, when I have taught classes in criminal violence, or homicide and capital punishment, I often show the documentary "Paradise Lost". The film does an excellent job portraying the crime, the investigation and the trial. Essentially, there was no physical evidence that tied these men (the teenagers) to the crime. None of the suspects admitted to having any knowledge of the murders. Nobody could place them at the scene of the crime. But all three were found guilty; two were sentenced to life in prison and the third was given a capital punishment sentence.

So, with no evidence how were they able to be found guilty and given these harsh sentences? Simply put, they were guilty of one thing: being different. Worse yet, the community of West Memphis believed them to be satanists practicing their rituals on three innocent second graders at a time when the "moral panic" over ritualistic crimes was at an all time high.

So... what changed?

Recent DNA evidence could not link the three men to the murders. But, rather than giving them new trials, they negotiated a plea bargain known as an Alford Plea. This allows them to maintain their innocence while acknowledging that there may be enough evidence to show guilt. They are being credited for the eighteen years of time served, but can they ever shake their "guilty" status?

In no way can this be considered justice. These three men spent the last eighteen years of their lives behind bars. Worse yet, they were convicted of child murder, an act that often incites acts of vigilante justice from fellow prisoners. Imaging how difficult these last eighteen years were for them is gut-wrenching, especially for those of us who believe they were completely innocent. These men will receive no compensation for the many years and experiences that have been lost. As someone who studies corrections and community re-entry, I know that it will be nearly impossible for them to re-establish ties with their community and families, as well as to embark on educational or employment endeavors. They will indeed never be "whole" again.

There is also no justice for the three young boys who were murdered, nor for the families of all parties concerned. If these men did not commit these heinous crimes, then who did? Will there be any attempt made to further investigate these crimes? In the end the only "winner" here is the justice system, which does not have to admit to the grievous error made eighteen years ago, and can pretend like they were in the right by using freedom as a carrot for these men to not ask for a retrial.

Bloggers' list, for our Paparazzi

Greetings to all,

To celebrate the summer solstice, we thought we'd shed some light on who is blogging for us among our members listed at the right.  If they're "on deck" this calendar year, you'll find 'their' month next to their name.  If you'd like to be a member of our Peace Paparazzi, feel free to weigh in on the issues we're all raising, by using those handy comment lines! 

Be well. 

Global Peace Index

Global Peace Index