Surprisingly, after two weeks we had finally learned to be on time. We made Matt’s day who didn’t miss Galen though. Our first speaker of the day was Veronica Eady who spoke the American fellows’ mind. She talked about Environmental Justice with focus on NYC. It was the first time we mentioned important environmental issues. The Europeans learned that environmental justice is not just an international problem of multinationals shipping off their waste to India, but of building schools on toxic grounds in the impoverished areas of NYC. Environmental justice in the US focuses mainly around the discrimination of race. The movement started in the 1980s growing out of the Civil Rights Movement. But even today, the battle has not finished yet. The New York Layers for the Public Interest (NYLPI) support communities in fighting against waste facilities in poor neighborhoods and for cleaning up contaminated soil. Even though Veronica tries hard she has not managed yet to make the Americans aware of the threatening environmental problems and to stop them from consuming too much.
Veronica’s colleges Cynthia Soohoo and Marianne Engelman-Lado working on the Campaign to Restore Civil Rights talked about the recent development in American courts and the drawbacks for human rights. According to our guests, the Supreme Court has interpreted the definition of discrimination very narrowly, which makes it very hard to prove discrimination in court. Moreover, individual states cannot be held responsible for civil rights violations. Highly motivated, they explained how conservatives do not preserve anything but are a great force of change and therefore do not deserve the label. The right wing judges have created an enormous gap between domestic and international human rights law. The last hope for human rights advocates is to fill loose state definition by international interpretations. In addition to creative legal strategies, Cynthia and Marianne have dedicated themselves to explain 55% of the Americans about the three government branches.
Next we welcomed increasingly pregnant Elena Cabral who promised us that we would learn how to look straight into somebody’s eyes but still write down every word he says. Although we doubt our multitasking abilities we appreciated her journalistic expertise. We are now ready to go out there and after a short but polite introduction of 20 words get the most amazing quotes. So, we ask: “Who else can we talk to?”
Nobody is perfect but we don’t talk about our failures. Although we haven’t seen the movie “about Wings and Roots”, we believe that it is very impressive. We will confirm so on Wednesday.
Off we were to the greatest show in town: The finale at the international National Dance Institute, which we had visited to teach Jumpstyle last week. We were taken on an artistic journey from Bali, through Mexico to NYC’s street culture. Rolling eyes and vibrating hands enchanted the crowd but imitations failed. Yet, Balinese dance can’t go with ballet, nor with tap, but with Mary Kennedy’s hip hop as demonstrated by kicking and pulling movements. However, we were really impressed by the talents. As they enjoyed the dancing, we enjoyed the show.
Even though we still really love each other, that night we split and didn’t decide on a common activitiy. However, we are sure everyone enjoyed the free night.
Pawel, Shauna & Julia
Sunday, July 29, 2007
Evangelicals for HIA
We arrived bright in early at NYU on Monday, which trumped Packer with its comfortable chairs, air conditioning and free breakfast, not to mention its location right in the heart of the village (sorry Nick). The subject of the day was religiosity. We began with Randy Balmer, who defined evangelicalism for us:
1) The biblical text is taken literally and the text is seen as normative.
2) The concept of the conversion or experience in which one is “born again.”
3) The responsibility to evangelize or bring others into the fold.
We discussed how evangelism has become a force in politics, beginning (not, with Roe V. Wade) but with the election of Carter, a “born again Christian,” in the wake of the Nixon scandal. He also mentioned that as Churches grew that the three concepts of evangelism have been professionalized. Moreover, we discussed how evangelism has become a force for conservatism that has little basis in the three concepts. For example, we talked about how the movement that spearheaded some of the anti-slavery movements gained racist tendencies. We wondered to what extent the religious tenements really influenced the beliefs of the religious right. However, Balmer argued that the religious right is on the wane.
Next up was John Washburn. He spoke mostly about co-opting the support of evangelicals for the International Criminal Court.
Peter Skerry was next up, after a quick lunch break where most of got Indian food. He spoke about Muslims in the US, speaking mostly about how the situation of Muslims has completely changed since 9/11. We talked about Muslim American identity, and the prejudices of the American public.
Finally, we ended with Bill Eskridge, whose southern eloquence kept us all awake at 4:30 in the afternoon. Behind him he drew a detailed picture of the united states split into three regions (see below)
Region 1 was called the “benign” region, meaning that gays and lesbians are mostly accepted into society. In these states there are anti-discrimination laws, and in some cases same-sex marriage.
Region 2, are the “tolerable” states. They often tolerate gays and lesbians but they will not extend rights like marriage.
Finally, region 3 hold the opinion that gays and lesbians are “malignant,” they are the most likely to have statutes and regulations explicitly discriminating against gays and lesbians.
We talked about “no-promo-homo” laws, which are laws that discriminate against LGBT individuals. And we also talked about the historical progression that Eskridge sees.
Privacy Rights (such as sodomy laws) -> Anti-Discrimination laws -> Relations Laws
Since Lawrence V. Texas anti-sodomy laws have been struck down. The next step in Eskridge’s view is to push for anti-discrimination laws in the workplace. He feels that they are both achievable, important and palatable to the public. By allowing more gays and lesbians to feel comfortable in the workplace, they can pave the way for future rights.
Later that evening a few of us explored some of NYC’s best restaurants through restaurant week, yum.
(Kayla, Jendrek, Jason, Katharina)
Friday, July 27: We've got some questions?
On Friday morning, we returned to the debate over public education in New York City--a debate that is already controversial in this city, but might be even moreso within our group. Even the three of us find ourselves mired in debate over charter schools.
Here are some of the major questions that we have about charter schools: What policy reforms will Joel Klein, Chancellor of NYC Public Schools, and the City implement in public schools? Are charter schools permanant institutions in public education, or are they temporary stages in a broader, more equitable, public education reform? If competition and accountability are two of the most oft-spoken flashwords for charter school advocates, who is able to access information about charter schools and about public school performance? Does competition not always end in inequality? What are the implications of accepting inequality of educational opportunity, when we also speak about an equal right to equal education? Despite the differences in our opinions, we think that in general, we all share concern for the looming question, what is happening, and what will happen, to non-charter public schools? Similarly, most, if not all of us, have a strong concern for any for-profit charter schools because of the incontrovertible proof that private concerns inevitibly come into conflict with public goods and equality. Furthermore, every critic of public education has mentioned the teachers' union, but we have not had a chance to actually listen to anyone from the union. Critics of the union seem to have very legitimate concerns, but we just need to learn more about the union's own arguments.
We had the opportunity to listen to Mimi Corcoran (former executive director of the Beginning with Children Foundation, Inc.) and Ejim Dike (Right to Education Project) at the International Center for Tolerance Education. We joined high schools students who are also on fellowships at the Human Rights Summer Institute, hosted by the ICTE. HiA fellows will be mentoring the HRSI fellows on education topics over the next week, as the prepare for debate over school vouchers, charter schools, and No Child Left Behind.
In the afternoon, we had a visit from Shari Turitz from the Synergos Institute, about philanthropy along the Mexico-U.S. Border. Because of the fact that many of us had enormous double-bacon cheeseburgers from Five Guys in Brooklyn (especially Sean and Thomas), the post-lunch digestion lull really hit hard. But the role of the private sector in social change has been a repeated theme this summer, and our next speaker, Linda Rottenburg, raised this issue to the fore. Linda is the CEO and founder of Endeavor, a non-profit organization that provides business assistance to entrepreneurs in emerging economies.
Again, Linda's project raised some crucial questions for us, without many answers. For example, Linda told us about two Argentinian entrepreneurs who began an office supply company from scratch. Their company grew successfully--then, Staples bought it out, and one of the two founders is the regional manager of Staples in Latin America. Doesn't this simply allow U.S. corporations to save themselves from the risks of investing in emerging economies until people from these countries have grown their own successful businesses? Second, is this another "trickle-down" economic model of deveopment? That is, will producing another "crop" of successful business people in emerging economies actually benefit the poor? Alternatively, how can you help the poor without a strong economy? If Endeavor is really advancing progressive social goods, why does it happen that so many huge corporate CEOs are so interested in and excited about their work? Many progressives have a knee-jerk reaction to nearly anything from the private sector, but how can we engage in and with the private for progressive politics?
Again, many of us are undecided on the project of Endeavor. But we also see the good of, sometimes, "ending" with some questions. We are also asking questions about where our own perspectives and opinions come from. What historical, cultural, political, and economic conditions have given rise to our own perspectives? It is without a doubt that part of what has made our discussions so vibrant thus far is because of the wide range of diversity of our backgrounds.
At night, to ease our differences, we played a game of "Uno." (Thomas made the incredibly poor joke of a title, "Unoversal.") However, we quickly discovered that there are different ways of playing this game, which quickly devolved into disputes over the rules, and, ultimately, hilarity.
Love,
Soraya, Doreen, Thomas
Here are some of the major questions that we have about charter schools: What policy reforms will Joel Klein, Chancellor of NYC Public Schools, and the City implement in public schools? Are charter schools permanant institutions in public education, or are they temporary stages in a broader, more equitable, public education reform? If competition and accountability are two of the most oft-spoken flashwords for charter school advocates, who is able to access information about charter schools and about public school performance? Does competition not always end in inequality? What are the implications of accepting inequality of educational opportunity, when we also speak about an equal right to equal education? Despite the differences in our opinions, we think that in general, we all share concern for the looming question, what is happening, and what will happen, to non-charter public schools? Similarly, most, if not all of us, have a strong concern for any for-profit charter schools because of the incontrovertible proof that private concerns inevitibly come into conflict with public goods and equality. Furthermore, every critic of public education has mentioned the teachers' union, but we have not had a chance to actually listen to anyone from the union. Critics of the union seem to have very legitimate concerns, but we just need to learn more about the union's own arguments.
We had the opportunity to listen to Mimi Corcoran (former executive director of the Beginning with Children Foundation, Inc.) and Ejim Dike (Right to Education Project) at the International Center for Tolerance Education. We joined high schools students who are also on fellowships at the Human Rights Summer Institute, hosted by the ICTE. HiA fellows will be mentoring the HRSI fellows on education topics over the next week, as the prepare for debate over school vouchers, charter schools, and No Child Left Behind.
In the afternoon, we had a visit from Shari Turitz from the Synergos Institute, about philanthropy along the Mexico-U.S. Border. Because of the fact that many of us had enormous double-bacon cheeseburgers from Five Guys in Brooklyn (especially Sean and Thomas), the post-lunch digestion lull really hit hard. But the role of the private sector in social change has been a repeated theme this summer, and our next speaker, Linda Rottenburg, raised this issue to the fore. Linda is the CEO and founder of Endeavor, a non-profit organization that provides business assistance to entrepreneurs in emerging economies.
Again, Linda's project raised some crucial questions for us, without many answers. For example, Linda told us about two Argentinian entrepreneurs who began an office supply company from scratch. Their company grew successfully--then, Staples bought it out, and one of the two founders is the regional manager of Staples in Latin America. Doesn't this simply allow U.S. corporations to save themselves from the risks of investing in emerging economies until people from these countries have grown their own successful businesses? Second, is this another "trickle-down" economic model of deveopment? That is, will producing another "crop" of successful business people in emerging economies actually benefit the poor? Alternatively, how can you help the poor without a strong economy? If Endeavor is really advancing progressive social goods, why does it happen that so many huge corporate CEOs are so interested in and excited about their work? Many progressives have a knee-jerk reaction to nearly anything from the private sector, but how can we engage in and with the private for progressive politics?
Again, many of us are undecided on the project of Endeavor. But we also see the good of, sometimes, "ending" with some questions. We are also asking questions about where our own perspectives and opinions come from. What historical, cultural, political, and economic conditions have given rise to our own perspectives? It is without a doubt that part of what has made our discussions so vibrant thus far is because of the wide range of diversity of our backgrounds.
At night, to ease our differences, we played a game of "Uno." (Thomas made the incredibly poor joke of a title, "Unoversal.") However, we quickly discovered that there are different ways of playing this game, which quickly devolved into disputes over the rules, and, ultimately, hilarity.
Love,
Soraya, Doreen, Thomas
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)