We had a wonderful time. The administrators were field mice. They didn't show! But we made discourse happen. Our thanks to Dr. O.W. Wilson for his caring and intense interest all afternoon. I was grinning like a Cheshire Cat to hear each of you defend Buscaglia's position on the power of love. As Susan Young said, so many different viewpoints, yet we all listened to each other. Amazing how the concept of structural violence seems to help us do that.

Lisa Martin took notes for us. Many of you are writing. We'll get a full report, along with a picture of the public art piece we painted during the forum, up on the site.

Good meeting. Habermas should not despair of our public discourse skills.

jeanne, smiling

The following is a synopsis of our public discourse in which we discussed several different aspects of our displeasure with structural violence.

At 4:11 P.M., Jeanne Curran started the discourse by announcing that there was a painting table in the back of the room available to everyone during the meeting should the desire arise to express any feelings pertaining to the discussion. She started the ball rolling by announcing the topic of the meeting would address structural violence on campus.

Initially there was some general disorganization as to who was going to speak next. Jeanne made it clear that this was a round table discussion that was to be facilitated by the students. True to her word, Jeanne stayed out of the discussion, but grinned "like a Cheshire Cat" (to use her expression), and happily observed the discourse once it got started.

After a brief moment of confusion among participants, Jaime Shepherd unflinchingly dug his heels in and addressed the direction the meeting would be taking. He made reference to a poignant article (author was stated but is unknown to me) regarding the transformation of worms to butterflies. Jaime commented on the fact that we are saturated with violence in our society and he asked of the group, "What can we do to make a difference?" He noted that the forum was born of a need to change our current system through public discourse. At this point he introduced professor of political science, Dr. O.W. Wilson.

Dr. Wilson opened his discussion with pointing out that our society is founded on mores, folkways, traditional customs, norms, etc. He noted that we cannot get away from structure because it is the very nature of man. He stated that man is "basically evil," and that our nation started off with violent foundations. He notes, for example, that the foundation of our nation rests with the Revolutionary War. Our nation was born out of violence. He stated that Spinoza suggests we should define our alternatives. Dr. Wilson next went on to discuss: The U.S. Constitution, Myth vs. Reality, Due Process, Equal Protection and that everything is based on the "Rule of Law." He furthered his discussion by making biblical references such as, "Even Jesus Christ failed to grasp fully that you can't fight violence…with being kind."

Dr. Wilson next mentioned the "Eye for an eye" credo of the Old Testament of the Bible and the "Turn the other cheek" credo of the New Testament. At this point, I believe it was Saundra Davis who interrupted Dr. Wilson by noting that he was using two different dispensations (?) in his argument. He noted that with all structures, there needs to be a foundation, which is exactly what the credo of the Old Testament did for the credo of the New Testament. He concluded his opening remarks by stating that racism is in part the "sum and substance" in the heart of America.

Jaime commented at this point that the purpose of this discourse is that it is an opportunity for us to all speak and ask questions. He next introduced Cliff Parks and his presentation on downsizing.

Cliff began his presentation on downsizing by noting that we live in a fascist society of the "haves" and "have-nots," as someone from the crowd called out.

Jaime interrupted with a comment regarding the effect of love is in people mimicking the act itself.

Dr. Wilson used this to dovetail with his topic. He noted that man is in fact capable of loving. He made reference to Gandhi, Martin Luther King and the Kennedys. Next he stated, "There is no hope for mankind." A murmur of mixed responses pervaded the air.

Dr. Wilson next announced that we must all believe in God so that we will believe in ourselves. We must speak out whenever we see a wrong, and we must expose evildoers.

A gentleman whose name I did not know (he wasn't wearing a name tag - or it wasn't visible to me) stated that people are taught to hate. What should we do about that?? [It might have been Mel Brooks- jeannne]

Michael Planck said "We are doing it right now!" Public discourse is the model.

Dr. Wilson made reference to Germany and the high intelligence of its citizens.

Saundra stated emphatically that she wants to drink from the 'well of knowledge," and that she feels that we must all have hope. Also, there IS love in every man - we just have to be willing to look for it.

Dr. Wilson conceded somewhat but restated that we are dealing with harsh realities.

Jerry Gilmore brought up his piece on how to combat racism in the community. He feels that we should: 1) mentor a child, 2) educate, 3) engage in discourse.

Bernard interrupted by saying that we can all stand up and say this is wrong but students are passive to what is going on. His comments seemed to be the genesis of a great deal of cross talk:

Jaime made reference to a biblical story about David. [David thought it was his job to build the Temple; but he found that his son would have to carry on that work. Jaime suggested that the great tasks are often passed on from generation to generation, and that our elders must therefore not be discouraged. - jeanne]

Cliff stepped in to define discourse. Michael helped justify Bernard's cry of frustration. [assuring Bernard that he was hearing that cry in good faith. - jeanne]

Armond McDaaniels, Sr. stated that we need to begin by educating everyone. We need to spread the word, because it starts from the ground up.

Jaime said what we really need to do is to work on ourselves (this was a thought-provoking comment to which I wholeheartedly applauded, albeit alone!).

Cliff tried once again to discuss the downsizing issue. He said that basically it comes down to economics and everyone accepts their lot. People arbitrarily decide who gets what and how much.

Joe Harris noted that, from his perspective, the answer to the problem goes back to the basics: we need to embrace and encourage respect and discipline.

Dr. Wilson stated, "Culture is the basis of everything we see." Also, there is disintegration everywhere! Structure is equal to norm, and anomie is gone! [? - structure, norm, anomie - but I didn't catch how Dr. Wilson strung them together. - jeanne]

A girl in a pink sweater commented that as long as people are breathing, there is hope!! Thunderous applause was evidence that this piece was the general consensus of the crowd. At this point, rapid cross talk started once again. [I remember the sweater, but I can't remember who was wearing it. - jeanne]

[Much of this was in response to Dr. Wilson's remark that the football had been fumbled, and Armond's and Jaime's passionate pleas that one does not simply walk off the field because there's been a fumble. Armond passionately reminded us all that the young people present today had come to learn how not to further fumble the ball. And that we, their elders, must teach them, and guide them. - jeanne]

J.T. Speed noted that there is too much structural violence in the classroom.

Jaime asked, "What do you do when the football has been fumbled?" We have failed at what we are trying to do.

Armand disagreed by noting that we are failing [emphasis on the present gerund - jeanne], and that we need to stop the failing. This does not mean the game is over.

Michael, at this point, stepped in to give his piece on peacemaking. He stated that there is a spiritual axis, and that it is not a coincidence that we were all there to discuss the problem. We NEED to have peacemaking.

Allan brought up harassment on the job and how it happens daily. Again, rapid cross talk ensued and 3 or 4 individuals spoke up to question this topic.

Dr. Wilson pointed out that we weren't listening to one another. He noted that we have a corrupt culture. He mentioned that there are some mean-spirited people, and he made reference to the "Jelly Bean jar" theory. Again, more cross talk:

Saundra said we NEED to have hope.

Michael said he believes we will walk away having hope.

Joe brought up structural violence in the army and downsizing.

At this point, Dr. Wilson interrupted the entire meeting by saying that what we really needed to do was to go pound on the doors of the 5th floor personnel. A nervous excitement pulsed in the crowd as many tried to determine if Dr. Wilson was serious or not. A 2nd "Storming of the Bastille" probably would have occurred if it were not for Saundra's sane voice reminding us that the administration had left for the day!

Tina Juen professed that she would be willing to do her share but she wanted to be educated on what the 5th floor has specifically done wrong.

Allan switched back to the harassment issue.

Dr. Wilson presented Jeanne as an example of DH personnel that was a victim of harassment.

Jeanne talked about her harassment experience. She reminded us that, yes, there are mean people, but we still have to love one another.

Marlene talked about the administration who think that, in general, the students don't care about what goes on. Her advice to one and all was to take all complaints to the 5th floor.

Bernard discussed that the medical facility that all students are entitled to (because the fee is MANDATORY at registration time) is not used by everyone. We are all paying for something that we don't really use. This has got to stop.

I agreed with Bernard's statement. To further demonstrate how preposterous the "system" is, I noted that the financial aid office closes at a time when the people who need it the most can't get in!

It was never formally concluded but the meeting ended at roughly 6:00 PM.

On Friday, May 19, jeanne responded:

A Good Time was had by all. Another banner was painted. And messages have begun to roll in.

Thank you for the notes, Lisa. What a difference that makes! Now I can focus on remembering little bits and pieces that impressed me. I think you should all consider how much such notes might help us next year, if we had them from our discussions. Lisa typed them into the e-mail, so that I could just put them up.

I was pleased that Dr. Wilson noted that we weren't listening to each other. Actually, I think we were. But we have had little experience in academic discourse, and are not yet skilled at holding to the thread of the discussion. Michael Planck took great pains to hear what Bernard was saying, but then to bring us back to finding appropriate peacemaking approaches to the structural violence he readily admitted was there.

Next year we plan to have a half dozen Town Hall Meetings. That will give us a chance to practice these skills. Also, I would like to remind you that I tend to lecture in circles, picking up many threads and then bringing them back full circle in the end. That's much harder for a group than for an individual to do. And because our group is always changing, always open, we probably will stray a little. We think it will help to have a topic agenda with links to Pass? or Prepared? summaries. We hope it will also help to continue our discussion threads here on the site.

I believe I recall Jaime saying that we'd like to do the next Town Hall Forum with some of the administrators to discuss specific concerns here on campus. I'd like to suggest that we have the site and our courses to consider these issues. I think it's only fair to give the same agenda way ahead of time to the administrators. No fair being structurally violent by testing them on their ability to take these issues on cold. These are complex issues, shared across educational institutions the world over today.

---

---

Comments from Participants

On Thursday, May 18, 2000, Susan Young wrote:

Great experience!  No yelling or screaming; yet different viewpoints and different solutions.  I think it was a great first effort and I applaud all those that made it happened.

Interesting that the ideal of structural violence can open up dialogue in so many areas.  I see this issue going places and making changes.

On Friday, May 19, 2000, Michael Planck wrote:

Hi, Jeanne

The Town Hall Meeting was an experience that I didn't expect.  Yes, I was proud to be a part of a discussion having multiple viewpoints, yet I felt uncomfortable with some of the participation.  Warmaking, as I understand it, is making war on one's social insecurities, and is to identify one's enemies by establishing their blame and subduing their evil ways.  Dr. Wilson seemed to have created a status of professing the all knowing of insight in to the corrupted culture that we as students, apparently, according to his viewpoint, were ignorant of.  Pepinsky asserts that status or positions of authority contribute to the feeling of separation.  Good faith, as I understand it, suggests that we have an open mind, to listen rather than to compete by labeling and blaming.  I believe all who want to participate in an equal exchange first should prepare or at lease be informed with some principles of peacemaking.  To ask one's self the question, "What do I do that contributes to an attitude of peace among those causing others tremendous, concerted pain and fear".

On Friday, May 19, 2000, jeanne responded:

Yes, I can see how the exchange would have made you uncomfortable, Michael, because it was not undertaken within a peacemaking framework. But rarely will public discourse be undertaken, at this stage of our project, in a good faith peacemaking environment. That was Habermas' fear, that we have lost the communication skills for participating in good faith public discourse. Within the academy, academic discourse is even harder to place in the peacemaking framework because the academy as it has split into so many disciplines and sub-disciplines has ceased to see itself as an arbiter of such discourse, with an eye to supporting all viewpoints.

Perhaps that is what Dr. Wilson meant in part when he said "We have failed." But as I upload the many comments coming in, I think you will see that the majority of those participating in the discourse were trying to assimilate these dissident voices into the peacemaking mode. Saundra certainly tried, though she couldn't keep some violence out her discourse. When Dr. Wilson switched briefly to let us see a glimpse of his other "self," the one touched by the dilemmas of racism, of structural violence, Saundra pounced with almost an "aha" energy to a triumphant "You do care! You do hope!" You know, for a peacemaking group, you guys can be pretty ferocious. But so can we all.

I have never seen Bernard listen as intently as he did at the forum. And I have never known him to take a peacemaking approach. A kind, caring approach, but never peacemaking. Notice that Susan picked up on that when she said such differences, but no yelling or screaming. And Pepinsky reminds us that we must allow the anger and the frustration to surface before a peacemaking dialog can really begin.

Also, Dr. Wilson is a lawyer, trained in advocacy, which is not a peacemaking approach. It is adversarial. Playing the devil's advocate is one way to stimulate thought and response. I have never seen Armond so animated as he was when Dr. Wilson assured him we had failed, failed at school, at the family, at religion. Armond was passionate in his reply that the young need support and teaching so that they can carry on, and not fail. Armond actually speeded up to where he talked almost as fast as I do!

Perhaps this doesn't add up to the public discourse we hope one day to attain, but we certainly came closer to dialog than I've ever seen us before. We saw many sides of Dr. Wilson, many sides of Joe, and of Cliff. Keith found himself intrigued, and we saw the fierceness with which Saundra will defend love and hope.

I think you shared some of my frustration when you wished the participants would prepare themselves with some peacemaking theory. Now you know why I end up telling you of so much theory in class. If we limit our forums to those who come prepared with any theory, we will limit access to this free exchange. Access and inclusion are important, and our lives are too much in the fast track. We will learn together how to keep the discussion headed in a focussed way, and along the way, we will be able to let others see how much they need the theory of which we speak. You'll find they'll pick it up much faster when they see its use.

Also, academic discourse does not and probably should not mean consensus, for the different perspective is essential to finding creative solutions to our issues. It is structurally violent to program any given approach to free discussion. Dr. Wilson's provocations and Bernard's frustration led you to examine more deeply your commitment to peacemaking, and to reconsider how you get others to join in that process. I wouldn't want to give up that result.

---

---