Wallace Stevens’ idea of order

Posted on by
Reply 
Ramon Fernandez, tell me, if you know,   
Why, when the singing ended and we turned   
Toward the town, tell why the glassy lights,   
The lights in the fishing boats at anchor there,   
As the night descended, tilting in the air,   
Mastered the night and portioned out the sea,   
Fixing emblazoned zones and fiery poles,   
Arranging, deepening, enchanting night.
     from Wallace Stevens, "The Idea of Order at Key West."

Anchored fishing boats at night will send luminous streaks across the water to point directly at you, the viewer. They seem to partition the sea in an ordered way that gives you the central place. By doing so, they make the dark sea more attractive: organized, deepened, enchanted. Although you are not hallucinating or succumbing to egoism, your impression is misleading, for anyone else will see the streaks pointing at them. From the sky, the sea would not appear partitioned at all, although it must seem that way to you.

George Eliot uses a comparable metaphor:

Your pier-glass or extensive surface of polished steel made to be rubbed by a housemaid, will be minutely and multitudinously scratched in all directions; but place now against it a lighted candle as a centre of illumination, and lo! the scratches will seem to arrange themselves in a fine series of concentric circles round that little sun. It is demonstrable that the scratches are going everywhere impartially and it is only your candle which produces the flattering illusion of a concentric arrangement, its light falling with an exclusive optical selection. These things are a parable. The scratches are events, and the candle is the egoism of any person now absent …

Eliot, Middlemarch, part 3, chap. 27

Eliot is concerned about moral egoism. I think Stevens’ main interest is the subjectivity of any order that we impose on nature. If we push such skepticism far, nature vanishes entirely and all we have is our description. But the boats really are at anchor off Key West.

This image from the end of the poem might offer some hints about how to read the earlier portions. It seems that the narrator is by the sea with his friend, Ramon Fernandez, and they have heard a “she” singing. Stevens said he invented the name of his friend, but he later acknowledged that he might have suppressed the memory of the real literary critic, who was not actually his friend, and who might have been too keen to impose order. (The real Fernandez was a communist at the time Stevens wrote this poem, on his way to becoming a fascist collaborator.)

As for the “she,” this is a pronoun without any concrete noun. She has no name and is not called a woman or anything else specific. She has a complex relationship with the sea: she may be describing it, or communicating the sound it makes, or creating it with her song; or she may have been invented by the narrator as a metaphor for the experience.

The narrator explores each of those hypotheses:

  • [the ocean’s] mimic motion /  Made constant cry … [The sea is singing.]
  • Even if what she sang was what she heard … / it was she and not the sea we heard. / For she was the maker of the song she sang. [She is singing.]
  • If it was only the dark voice of the sea / That rose … / But it was more than that, /
    More even than her voice, and ours …     [It is more than she who is singing.]

Perhaps this section–about the moment of a subtropical sunset–offers a synthesis to follow the various theses and antitheses:

        It was her voice that made   
The sky acutest at its vanishing.   
She measured to the hour its solitude.   
She was the single artificer of the world
In which she sang. And when she sang, the sea,   
Whatever self it had, became the self
That was her song, for she was the maker. Then we,   
As we beheld her striding there alone,
Knew that there never was a world for her   
Except the one she sang and, singing, made.

One can read the poem very literally and imagine that Wallace Stevens, a man from the mainland, and his friend, a man with a Spanish surname, have seen a woman striding along the beach and singing about the sea. But her song has the very special power of making the whole world. Even though the narrator insists that “she was the maker of the song she sang,” her song is coterminous with the object of her singing–the sea–which suggests that she is not different from it but another way of naming it.

At this point, the literal reading collapses–much as a naive interpretation of the streaks of light collapses when you realize that they are not really pointing at you. The poem does not give us direct access to a real moment in the past when a woman, two men, and some boats were visible at Key West. The poem is the object that we see, and it has a writer and some readers.

Under the title of the poem is the name “Wallace Stevens,” which stands for an actual man, married to a woman, who became famous for writing words. It’s reasonable to begin with the assumption that the narrator who tells us, “She sang …” is this man, and that he either really heard her singing or made her up from scratch, thus functioning as her artistic creator.

It’s then reasonable to place the poem in a very long tradition of men writing about women who are their muses, objects of love, creatures of their art, and/or metaphors for abstractions, such as nature. The politics of this tradition is problematic, since the poet with the he-pronouns typically controls the “she” of his verse.* He certainly gets credit for the words that attach to his name. Stevens either maintains this tradition or possibly subverts it, depending on what you think of the phrases “mastered” and “maker’s rage for order” near the end.

I don’t disagree with using gender to analyze the poem, but I think it also asks us to question our metaphysics. Why are we so sure that the narrator is Wallace Stevens, the poet with the he-pronouns? Couldn’t she be speaking, or the ocean, or the reader?

In one recorded dialogue with a student, Basho instructed, “The problem with most poems is that they are either subjective or objective.” “Don’t you mean too subjective or too objective?” his student asked. Basho answered, simply, “No.” 

Jane Hirshfeld, The Heart of Haiku

The moment of sunset is neither day nor night. Stevens’ poem is neither objective nor subjective but right on that edge. Basho avoids tipping either way by means of imagism. His poems do not mean; they are. Stevens attempts it in a very different way–by arguing explicitly about the nature of his own verse in ways that skillfully undermine any fixed conclusion about who is saying what about what.

*For a good reading along these lines, see Brooke Baeten, “Whose Spirit Is This?”: Musings on the Woman Singer in ‘The Idea of Order at Key West.’ The Wallace Stevens Journal 24.1 (2000): 24-36. See also: nostalgia for now; homage to Basho; a poem should; and the tree and the rock.

Student Support with Dialogue in Time of National Crisis

Posted on by
Reply

Students spend most of their days in school. Naturally, when national events occur, this extends the teachers regular duties to the role of  “first responders”. This publication from Essential Partners was adapted for the classroom from their Reflective Structured Dialogue, and is offered as a tool for teachers to create a space of self- reflection, deep listening and open sharing in the classroom.  The prompts and guidelines to consider, proactively invite the students to process crisis in a healthy way.

Read about the structure and prompts offered below or find the original post here.

Holding Space in a Moment of Crisis

Along with their parents, teachers are often the “first responders” for students when a major national crisis takes place. It can be difficult or impossible to have a normal class in the wake of a traumatic or disruptive event.

Creating a space of self-reflection, deep listening, and open sharing in the classroom can proactively invite students to process and discuss crises in healthy ways. What could be a moment of trauma and division can become, instead, an opportunity for connection, empowerment, and mutual support.

Adapted for the classroom from EP’s Reflective Structured Dialogue approach, the tools below can be used to create a dialogic space in your classroom after a disruptive event.

Be transparent. Name the event, outline the process.

Whether it’s an event in the national news or a challenging paragraph in a text you are reading together, transparently name the disruption that you know the class is feeling. This offers permission for students to

acknowledge and begin to process their emotions. It may also relieve tension about whether you’ll pretend that nothing is amiss.

Depending on the circumstance, you might also acknowledge your own emotional response too, even if you don’t go into details about what those emotions are.

Many people dive into work or school to avoid the difficult feelings that a crisis can raise. Being transparent and naming the disruption hits the pause button on business-as-usual. It signals that this is going to be a different kind of space, at least for now.

You can further the work of creating a new kind of space by letting the class know the process of this structured, reflective exercise. You can use this time to preview what the students will be asked to do. This could be a general outline or include some specific examples. The purpose here is to provide some clarity, certainty, and security.

Give direction and time for reflection.

Reflection without purpose and direction can veer into a blank staring and long silences. An anchor for reflection provides focus.

Below are two sets of anchors that you can use to guide the students’ reflections. The first is a set of questions that can be used as either journal prompts or as the questions for a timed and structured go-around:

  • How have you been impacted by what happened? What feels most at stake? What would you like others to understand about what matters most to you about this event?
  • Where do you feel stuck or what dilemma does this moment bring up for you? What does this dilemma tell you about what you think is important or a value that you hold?

The second anchor is more abstract. Display a set of images for the students to look at (printed out or shared in a digital folder). Ask the students to respond to one of these question prompts:

  • Find an image that reflects how you are feeling right now after what happened.
  • Find an image that represents an alternative vision you have for what could be possible.

Reflection is also a process that can take time. Some students will have something to share immediately, but others might need a few minutes to collect their thoughts and explore their own feelings. Be sure to provide quiet time for individual reflection and for students to make notes before inviting them to share.

Structure the group sharing.

If you have time for the students to share some of their reflections, a structure can maintain the space you have worked to create. It underscores that this isn’t a usual class, and limits the dynamics of debate and argument. Some recommended structures are:

  • Allowing students are able to pass if they don’t feel ready or comfortable sharing
  • Making sure that everyone has an equal opportunity to share/speak (especially if you plan to have a less structured conversation afterwards)
  • Pausing briefly to let the group hear and process what someone has said before moving on to the next speaker
  • Letting students know the order they will be invited to share (especially online) by announcing a rolling “batting order”—first Jim, then Cassie, then Alejandra—which encourages students to be prepared to speak when it’s their turn

Set aside time to close in an intentional way.

As we encourage students to develop social-emotional skills, we also teach them how to bring closure to these difficult moments in order to re-enter day-to-day activities.

It can be tempting to follow the flow of a discussion at the expense of watching the clock—only to have the bell ring and class abruptly end. That can be disorienting for students, and hard for them to transition. Allow time at the end of your class or exercise for a closing activity. This should invite students to process and synthesize what they’ve heard from others and discovered about themselves. Here are several examples of closing prompts:

  • Thinking about what’s been said here today, what is one hope you have for us as a nation going into this new year
  • Write down on a post-it note (to post on the wall of the room) one theme from what you’ve heard shared here today that you want the community to remember.
  • Share one thing that you’ve heard shared here today that you want to take with you into this week.
  • Reflecting on everything you’ve thought about, shared about and heard today, what is one word or phrase that describes what you want to remember moving forward.

Creating a dialogic space for students to reflect and share lets them reconnect with their internal strengths and resources in crisis moments—skills that will serve them throughout their lives. It helps them make meaning from difficult and disruptive events. And it encourages reflection on the way students want to engage with the world around them.

As always, we are here to support you. If you need more help holding difficult classroom discussions, please reach out.

You can find the original version on The Essential Partners’ site at www.whatisessential.org/holding-space-moment-crisis

 

Joshua Miller’s Top Ten Things that Arendt Got Right About Political Theory

Posted on by
Reply

I wrote this little primer at the bottom of a long discussion of the Schocken Books editions of Arendt’s work, and then reposted it a while back on Facebook. It’s been popular, so I’m reposting it again here so I can easily link to it without feeding social media.

  1. Race-thinking precedes racism. Arendt’s analysis of the rise of totalitarianism is a mammoth book, but the basic argument is simple: you can’t hate Jews for their race until you think of the fundamental flaw with Judaism in racial terms. Thus, race-thinking comes before racism.  Before race-thinking, Europeans hated Jews for completely different reasons: religion! You don’t exterminate other religions, you convert them. But once you have race-thinking, you can create justifications not just for anti-Semitism but for colonialism, imperialism, and chattel slavery of Africans. You can see strands like this in William Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice, which is (supposed to be) a comedy! Jessica and Lorenzo get a happy ending. Miscegenation fears require a biological theory of social differences.
  2. The Holocaust happened because Europeans started treating each other the way they treated indigenous peoples in the rest of the world. Europeans learned to think racially in the colonization of Africa, and the European model for dealing with resistance involved murderous concentration camps. Thus, when race-thinking eventually returned as a form of governance in the European continent, so too did the concentration camps. (Arendt makes this claim in the second volume of The Origins of Totalitarianism, though it’s built into the structure of the book. It’s often called the “boomerang” thesis: that the men (like Lord Cromer and Cecil Rhodes) who practiced racial imperialism brought those techniques back to Europe to found “continental imperialism.”)
  3. Totalitarianism is largely caused by the growth of a class of “superfluous” people who no longer have a role in their economy. In an industrializing society, much traditional work can now be done with fewer workers. One possible solution to this oversupply of workers is to put some of that surplus labor force to work monitoring, policing, and murdering the rest.
  4. Ideologues ignore counter-evidence. A very good way to understand ideology is as a logical system for avoiding falsification. There are alternatives theories of ideology that aren’t immune to counter-evidence but instead merely exert constant pressure: for instance, there’s a difference between what Fox News does and what Vox does, and Arendt’s account is more useful for criticizing Fox’s constant spinning than Vox’s technocratic neoliberalism. But Arendt supplied us a useful account of ideology that is closest to our standard use and our current need.
  5. The language of human rights is noble and aspirationally powerful. However, statelessness renders most rights claims worthless in practical terms and in most judicial institutions. Someone who must depend on her rights as a “man” or a human is usually worse off in legal terms than an ordinary criminal.
  6. You don’t discover yourself through introspection. You discover yourself through action. The main set of claims she made in The Human Condition about the role of public and political life strikes me as pretty important, especially insofar as it denigrates economic and racial identity politics. Think of the cocktail party version of this: on meeting a new person, some people will ask, “Where do you work?” in order to get to know them, identifying them through their profession, their economic role. Others will ask: “What are you into?” as if to say that our recreation and consumption is what defines us. But for Arendt, the appropriate question is: “What have you done? What do you stand for?”
  7. If you take that seriously, “identity” politics is frustratingly restrictive. A person is not defined merely by the class or race they come from: they are defined by the principles upon which they act. While it is often necessary to step into the political sphere as a representative of Jews or women–and Arendt acknowledged that this becomes unavoidable when one is attacked as a woman or a Jew–the best kind of politics allows us to enter the political sphere as ourselves, not knowing what we will discover about those selves until we have acted. So the need for identity politics is an indication of larger injustices: we respond as members of our groups when systematic and institutional forces oppress us as members of these groups.
  8. Revolutions that aim for political goals are more likely to succeed than revolutions that aim for economic goals. Misery is infinite and thus insatiable; political equality is comparatively easy to achieve. Thus it’s important to connect economic complaints to a deprivation of political equality: the important problem with white supremacy, for instance, is not that whites “have” more than Blacks, but that we count for more, that it is uncontroversial that “White Lives Matter.” (Though an important indication of that “counting for more” is that white people have more than Blacks because we continually plunder Black people and are able to get away with it systematically.)
  9. Philosophy as a discipline is fundamentally at odds with politics. This is a problem for political philosophy, and it helps to explain why so much of political philosophy is hostile to politics and tries to subsume the agonistic nitty-gritty of the public sphere under rules of coherence and expert knowledge. This is because thinking as an activity is a withdrawal from active life, and especially politics: the fundamental conflict between the eternal and the ephemeral is not one that can be usefully bridged, and most often those encounters are pernicious for both thinkers and doers.
  10. Work and labor are different. Some activities are repetitive and exhausting, and only biological necessity forces us to continue them. Some activities make the world and our lives within it meaningful and fruitful. Many people have economic roles that mix the two activities, but still and all they are distinct. What’s more, there’s not shame in wishing and working for a world without labor, perhaps a world of automation. But a world without work would be fundamentally meaningless.
  11. Evil is not complicated, so don’t overthink it. (No kidding, either. Arendt’s view is the opposite of the Spaceballs version of evil: “Evil will always triumph over good because good is dumb.” She seemed to think that evil is dumb and that’s why it can be so powerful.)

two good books on Black Lives Matter

Posted on by
Reply
  • Lebron, Christopher J., The Making of Black Lives Matter: A Brief History of an Idea (Oxford University Press, 2017)
  • Ransby, Barbara. Making All Black Lives Matter: Reimagining Freedom in the Twenty-First century (Univ. of California Press, 2018).

These are two very different but complementary books.

Lebron offers a history of the idea that Black lives matter, describing thinkers who lived well before the current movement and developed its core principles. His book is an extended definition of the movement, a justification of it, and a contribution to it.

Lebron pairs Frederick Douglass and Ida B. Wells as pioneers of the idea that whites can be compelled to reckon with racial injustice through “shameful publicity.” He pairs Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston as influential proponents of the idea that actual Black lives are rich and variegated and diverse, not defined entirely by oppression. Both authors “counter-colonize[d] the white imagination” by portraying this richness. He pairs Anna Julia Cooper and Audre Lorde, who demonstrated that you can’t value Black lives unless you value all Black lives, which requires appreciation for gender, sexuality, and other forms of diversity. These writers “teach us the lesson of unconditional self-possession.” And he pairs James Baldwin and Martin Luther King, Jr. as proponents of forms of love which–while significantly different–both imply “unfragmented compassion.”

Lebron is a great source of relatively overlooked quotations as well as an original interpreter of texts as familiar as Douglass’ “What to the Slave is the Fourth of July?” His overall framework is illuminating.

Ransby is an historian and a participant/observer in the current movement. She offers a wealth of detail about who did what, when, where, and why (up to her publication date in 2018). Like Lebron’s, her book is sprinkled with quotations that amount to arguments for Black Lives Matter, but her timeframe is narrower. She mainly traces the intellectual history of the movement from the 1977 Combahee River Collective’s statement (which, of course, had its own influences).

Ransby is attentive to organized structures. Many Black Lives Matter activists are concerned about concentrated power and prefer flat hierarchies. One source of these ideas is Ella Baker: see Ransby’s own book, Ella Baker and the Black Freedom Movement: A Radical Democratic Vision (2003).

However, it would not be accurate to describe Black Lives Matter as unorganized or as resistant to formal structures of any kind. Ransby describes “an assemblage of dozens of organizations and individuals that are actively in one another’s orbit, having collectively employed an array of tactics together.” Many of these organizations are autonomous nonprofits; some are companies or programs within organizations that also have other purposes. Ransby emphasizes the importance of local chapters, of organizations whose main purpose is to “weave together” these local groups, and of significant conferences, such as a gathering of more than two thousand organizers in Cleveland in July 2015. Most dedicated activists in the movement have long resumes of roles in formal organizations.

My impression is that resistance to hierarchy is real and valid. It goes back to the New Left and has drawn additional impetus from feminism. However, the major change from the classic era of the Civil Rights Movement is not that leaders then believed in top-down authority, whereas activists today favor looser networks. It is the profound shift in the sociology of American civil society.

The NAACP, the Urban League, and the Brotherhood of Sleeping Car Porters exemplified a model that was influential in the United States during the first half of the 1900s. National organizations often had state units and local chapters; members paid dues that were shared by the three tiers; and leaders were elected at each level, often at face-to-face conventions. Individuals made whole careers within one of these organizations. One reason that the Sleeping Car Porters’ A. Philip Randolph, the National Urban League’s Whitney Young, Jr., and the NAACP’s Roy Wilkins emerged as nationally famous civil rights leaders was that they headed their respective organizations, and smaller groups like King’s Southern Christian Leadership Conference imitated the same structure.

However, this format shrank and weakened dramatically in the United States after the 1960s. Instead, US civil society is now dominated by autonomous nonprofits that rely on donations, grants or contracts. They usually have self-perpetuating boards and relate to each other in networks rather than hierarchies. Many are both led and staffed by their original founders. Individuals typically affiliate with several of these nonprofits and add and subtract affiliations frequently.

Many of the organizations that Ransby describes (and they are very numerous) fit this description. I am not sure that anyone knows how to build new organizations that function as the NAACP or a union did in 1960. I wouldn’t say that philosophical opposition to hierarchy is irrelevant or invalid, but I am not sure that movements have much of a choice today. For better or worse, the way we organize ourselves is to form networks of small nonprofits.

The Florida Council For The Social Studies Annual Conference is Soon!

Posted on by
Reply

And today we take a look at some more interesting sessions! Be sure to check out other previews here and here.

Session Title:  Founders and Finance: Teaching Hamilton, Jefferson, Franklin, Economics & Personal Finance

Participants learn about a series of videos teaching about banking through the eyes and words of 3 influential founders: Hamilton, Jefferson, and Franklin. New, original videos and lessons are included.

Session Title:  Why and How to Teach Religion in the Classroom

Teaching students about religion is essential for understanding history and for building understanding in our diverse society, but often teachers are reluctant. This session will provide teachers with the evidence and confidence to tackle this sometimes-controversial topic.

Session Title:  Civics in Real Life: Resources for Virtual Instruction

Some of the most difficult classroom topics for educators to address are current events. How do we approach this news in a way that connects to our content while also allowing opportunities for both discussion and engagement? Participants will have the opportunity to engage with conference sponsor The Lou Frey Institute/FJCC’s new Civics in Real Life resource.

We will highlight more sessions soon! Remember that our theme for this virtual conference is

Please be sure to register and join us, and be sure to check out this preview of our two fantastic keynote speakers as well!

Winner of the Leadership in Democracy Award Revealed!

Posted on by
Reply

Everyday Democracy is delighted to present the winners and runner ups of the prestigious Paul and Joyce Aicher Leadership in Democracy Award. This award honors the work that creates opportunity for meaningful participation for all people, by bridging all kinds of divides by making dialogue a regular part of how community operates.

The recipient of the award this year is Point Diversity for creating a more diverse community for the past seven years in Roanoke VA. The first runner up for the award is Lashon Amado, CEO of Mas Um Chance, an organization dedicated to increasing economic opportunity for people of the Cabo Verdean diaspora. The second runner up was awarded to Jenny Spencer for her remarkable involvement in Cleveland politics, where her efforts have been dedicated on increasing voter registration.

To get better acquainted with the recipients keep reading below and find the original announcement here.

Everyday Democracy is Excited to Announce the Winner and Runners-up of the 2020 Paul and Joyce Aicher Leadership in Democracy Award

This year’s winner is Points of Diversity in Roanoke, VA. Points of Diversity has worked in Roanoke for almost seven years to create a more diverse community by “connecting, engaging and [educating] in cross-cultural discussions and experiences.”

“We have to learn to understand each other,” Katie Zawacki, Executive Director of Points of Diversity, explains. “We don’t have to agree, but we still have to have respect for each other. It’s about respecting human dignity.”

While Points of Diversity was the clearest example of the principles Paul Aicher founded Everyday Democracy with in action, there were other deserving candidates as well.

The first runner up for the award is Lashon Amado, CEO of Mas Um Chance, an organization dedicated to increasing economic opportunity for people of the Cabo Verdean diaspora. Mr. Amado is passionate about working with young adults and empowering them to make positive change in their lives. His grassroots efforts

exemplify the approach that Everyday Democracy believes will lead to change.

Our second runner up is Jenny Spencer. She has been deeply involved in the local politics of her Cleveland home, and has dedicated herself to increasing voter registration and participation around her. Ms. Spencer’s dedication to democracy in action are at the heart of Everyday Democracy’s mission.

The Paul and Joyce Aicher Leadership in Democracy Award provides recognition and a $10,000 award to an individual or organization in the U.S. whose achievements inspire us and can be lifted up for many others to aspire to. This year, in addition to the main award, two runner ups will each receive $2,500.

Paul J. Aicher and his wife Joyce were known for their generosity and creative genius. A discussion course at Penn State helped Paul find his own voice in civic life early on, and sparked his lifelong interest in helping others find theirs.

Paul founded the Topsfield Foundation and the Study Circles Resource Center, now called Everyday Democracy, in 1989. The organization has now worked with more than 600 communities throughout the country, helping bring together diverse people to understand and make progress on difficult issues, incorporating lessons learned into discussion guides and other resources, and offering training and resources to help develop the field and practice of deliberative democracy.

The Paul and Joyce Aicher Leadership in Democracy Award honors work that creates opportunities for meaningful civic participation for all people, addresses racial inequities through dialogue and collective action, and shows the power of bridging all kinds of divides by making dialogue a regular part of how a community works.

You can find the original version of this post on the Everyday Democracy site at www.everydaydemocracy.org/news/everyday-democracy-excited-announce-winner-and-runners-2020-paul-and-joyce-aicher-leadership.

launch of Educating for American Democracy #EADRoadmap

Posted on by
Reply

Join us at the National Forum on March 2nd from 3-4:45pm ET for the official release of the Educating for American Democracy report.

Moderated by Judy Woodruff of PBS Newshour, the forum will feature leading scholars discussing the Roadmap’s guidance about what and how to teach in history and civics. This project is the result of 17 months of work by over 300 contributors.

I was one of the co-PIs, and this project has been my focus (outside of Tufts work) since 2019.

Please join us for the launch of the first truly national and cross-ideological conversation about civic learning and history at a time when our country needs it most.

All are welcome to attend the national forum. Please register and encourage others to register at forum.educatingforamericandemocracy.org.

All-Network Call: Where Will You Put Your Energy in 2021?

Posted on by
Reply

NCDD is excited to kick off our 2021 network programming with an all-network call Wednesday, February 17th at 1:00 PM Eastern/10:00 AM Pacific. Register today to secure your spot!

Unlike many of our past webinars and calls, this all-network call will put participants in the driver’s seat. As we all start 2021, there is so much work to be done with regards to engaging our communities, bringing people together across differences, and tackling the challenges of this moment. We know you are all thinking about how your work fits in, and where you want to put your energy in 2021.

Join us to share what you’re focusing on, and connect with others working in the same kinds of spaces or on the same kinds of issues. Our work is strengthened when we learn from one another, so let’s give us all a collective boost by joining together in this interactive session. Bring you passion and connect with others to support your work and the practices of dialogue and deliberation across the country and world!

This session is FREE and open to all interested in helping people and communities engage through dialogue and deliberation. Register today to join us!

The National Coalition for Dialogue & Deliberation (NCDD) is a network of innovators who bring people together across divides to discuss, decide, and take action together effectively on today’s toughest issues.  NCDD serves as a gathering place, a resource center, a news source, and a facilitative leader for this vital community of practice. Learn more about us here!

The COVID 19 Vaccine in the Global North & Global South: Ethics, Access & Resistance

Posted on by
Reply

This is the video from a recent event sponsored by Tufts Global Education and the Fletcher Global One Health Diplomacy Initiative. Susan Sánchez-Casal organized and introduced the event. I moderated and posed the questions. The experts were Karsten Noko, a lawyer & humanitarian aid practitioner originally from Zimbabwe, and Josep Lobera, a sociology professor at the Universidad Autónoma de Madrid & Tufts in Madrid.

In the Global South, billions of people are not going to be vaccinated any time soon because of a shortage of vaccines in their countries. A realistic timetable is 2024. Meanwhile, millions of people in the Global North are going to refuse to be vaccinated because of skepticism and distrust, which is partly caused by elites’ use of weaponized misinformation.

The speakers also explored nuances–including vaccine shortages in the North and hesitancy and misinformation in the South.

Antioch University Unveils Leadership Certificates

Posted on by
Reply

Antioch University’s Graduate School of Leadership and Change (GSLC) is announcing new exciting opportunities for professionals and executives with the launch of their Professional Certificate Series.  These two certification programs are timely with the presence of the many changes felt by our communities. Each course offers the convenience of being self-paced with a weekly average of 4-5 hours over the duration of three months.

Certificate 1: Leading for Inclusion and Racial Justice Certificate is designed for anyone with an interest in challenging racism at a structural or systemic level within their institutions, organizations or communities. You do not have to be in a formal leadership role in order to benefit from the material offered, as the Certificate is based in the belief that leadership for inclusion and racial justice occurs at all levels of any human community.

Certificate 2: Leading Transformative Change is for either emerging leaders or any leader who wants to “up” their ability by understanding the pros and cons of change leadership practices.

Read more below or find more information on the Professional Certificate series of your interest here.

Antioch University Unveils New Leadership Certification Courses

We are thrilled to announce the launch of the Professional Certificate Series by Antioch University’s Graduate School of Leadership and Change (GSLC). The purpose of the series is to offer cutting-edge and intellectually engaging courses on leadership and change for professionals and executives. Drawing upon Antioch’s 160-year legacy of human-centered innovative education, the participants will benefit from becoming familiar with novel, evidence-based frameworks, and practical approaches, which directly inform their practice as leaders and professionals in the chosen areas.

Participants can expect to experience a motivating and creative mix o f learning methods. They can also expect to have access to world-class instructors. Flexibility is built into these offerings and all the work may be completed asynchronously (at the participants’ own pace) requiring around 4 to 5 hours of work per week. However, unlike many other programs, we have created regular,

optional opportunities to engage with the course instructors on a real-time basis. This relational aspect is a hallmark of the GSLC.

Currently, the series includes the following two certificates, each comprised of three courses:

Certificate 1: Leading for Inclusion and Racial Justice
Courses: Developing ‘Identity Intelligence’; Leading for Inclusion; Challenging Social Systems

Certificate 2: Leading Transformative Change
Courses: Foundations of Transformative Change; Strategic Planning for Sustainable Futures; Leading and Implementing Successful Change

For additional information and for course start dates, please visit GLSC Professional Certificates.
For organizations sending three or more individuals, we will offer a 15% discount.

You can find the original version on the Antioch University’s Graduate School of Leadership and Change at www.antioch.edu/academics/leadership-management/certificates/.