In his posting, Tom Berg thoughtfully suggests that the mere fact that the approach to an issue is left to prudential judgment under Catholic Church teaching should not be understood to mean that the matter at hand is necessarily of lesser importance than would be even a subject on which Church teaching is unequivocal, requires a specific response, and thus is not as susceptible to prudential variation.
For example, Tom hypothesizes, suppose that a candidate for the presidency were (lamentably) pro-choice on abortion, but nonetheless was the only candidate who espoused an effective means of protecting the nation’s borders against the smuggling in of a nuclear weapon that would lead to millions of American deaths at the hands of a terrorist group. (As an aside, Rudy Guiliani appears to be adopting precisely this strategy to appeal to social conservatives who are dismayed by his position on abortion. Guiliani regularly contends that the other candidates, notably the pride of Democratic candidates, frequently downplay or even ignore the terrorist threat in their speeches and debates, whereas he offers himself as a more reliable protector of our national safety.)
In many respects, I do think that Tom Berg is quite right. The mere fact that Catholic teaching does not lead ineluctably to one solution for a particular problem – that is, the methods of economic, political, or social change are left to prudential judgment – is not a perfect measure of the issue’s place in the hierarchy of matters of public concern. Indeed, his point is the only reason that I couldn’t quite say last election that a vote for John Kerry was impossible for a faithful Catholic, although it was very difficult. I do think it unlikely that the contrasts offered on other issues could ever be so stark as to implicate Tom’s hypothetical. Nonetheless, I concede that one could imagine circumstances in which a candidate’s plainly unacceptable views on one issue of unequivocal Church teaching, perhaps even on the central human rights issue of our time (i.e., the continuing holocaust against the unborn), might be out-balanced by his or her commanding attention and brilliant solution to another matter of overriding national importance (at least if the other candidates were so woefully unqualified as to fail to appreciate the urgent need to address the crisis).
Still, I suggest that one ought to very, very hesitant before going down that road. That the means to the end of a problem are left to prudential judgment signifies that persons of good will, fully in communion with the Church, might disagree on an economic, social, or political solution. But those of different perspectives on methods would nonetheless be within the bounds of the community on the basic nature of the problem and the need to seek a proper solution. By contrast, when a matter involves an intrinsic evil, such as the ongoing and casual dealing of death to unborn children, a candidate’s deliberate adoption of a policy of formally cooperating with that evil is of a completely different nature. Here we are not addressing questions of procedure but rather of the greatest substance. Thus, the presumption surely would be strong against a candidate who, whether from mendacity, foolishness, or craven pandering, would knowingly embrace an intrinsic evil or would knowingly facilitate and cooperate with those who do.
Moreover, whenever we seek to balance a candidate’s strengths in addressing matters of public concern open to exercise of prudential judgment against the candidate’s manifest weakness on a subject of clear Church teaching and defined as an intrinsic evil, the temptation of subordination of conscience to convenience is always presented. By accommodating to, or explaining away, the candidate’s stance on the matter of intrinsic evil, even by reference to other qualities of great merit on other matters, we may find ourselves developing a moral blindness.
Those in the blogosphere will recognize “Godwin’s Law,” which says that as a conversation unfolds and continues on-line, the probability that someone will make a reference to Hitler or Nazis approaches 1.0. The “Corollary to Godwin’s Law” has been that the person who so transgresses against norms of courteous discussion is declared the loser of the argument. Nonetheless, sometimes and on some subjects, it is just impossible (or too tempting) to forgo a well-targeted reminder of this historical reality. So here I go, pleading guilty to violating Godwin’s Law.
Among a number of books I am reading simultaneously during my sojourn in Rome, I have been reading Albert Speer’s “Inside the Third Reich.” Unlike most of the street thugs or disoriented and displaced workers associated with the Nazis in their early period, Speer was from a wealthy and prominent family and was well-educated as an architect. Yet Speer joined the Nazi Party and rose to become the architect of public works, and eventually the leader of wartime production, for the Third Reich. In the beginning, Speer was so attracted to Hitler’s vision of a revitalized Germany, so convinced of the need for a new civil order and Hitler's unparalleled ability to achieve it, and so entranced by the opportunities to rebuild a vibrant public sector that he was willing to look away from those parts of the Nazi platform that were not so palatable. In particular, he regarded the anti-Semitic elements of the Nazi ideology as the unseemly, even strange, but temporary flaws of an immature political movement.
However, once having embraced the Nazi movement for other and arguably public-regarding (if unsound) reasons, Speer gradually came to be less and less troubled by the Nazi hostility to the Jews, even to the point of tolerating (although never enthusiastically endorsing) the race laws and forced relocation of Jews. By the time the war came to an end, Speer had submerged all but a residue of his conscience on the "Juden Frage," even accepting the use of Jewish slave labor in building the public works and means of production that promoted his architectural dreams. Although Speer was spared the death penalty at Nuremberg by reason of evidence that he had reasonably well-treated the slave labor, providing them with better food and conditions than others, no one could doubt that his conscience had been seared by his association with the Nazis. As he later confessed, he ultimately had become the worst of criminals, whose guilt could not be expurgated in a thousand years.
Hopefully, few of us will ever face the political choice that Speer encountered or fail to make a better and more conscientious choice if we are so confronted. Nor do I mean to suggest that the issues facing modern day Americans are of the same caliber and moral importance as those facing post-World War I Germany (although the abortion issue may qualify and may be so regarded by future generations). I mean only to say that a willingness to accommodate to a matter of intrinsic evil, however we may think that a greater good may be realized by looking the other way and going along, is a dangerous course for a person of conscience, even at the voting booth.
And on that solemn note, I must prepare to leave Rome for a hopefully uplifting and peaceful journey to Siena for the weekend. This also means that I'll have no internet access for the next two days, so my colleagues on the blog may freely identify my errors of analysis without fearing any prompt response.
Greg Sisk
As my summer teaching in Rome begins to wind down, and I begin to reflect on a wonderful summer and all the inestimable treasures of the Eternal City, I had to honestly weigh in the drawbacks and flaws of Rome as well. As I did so, it dawned on me that this city desperately needs a Mayor Giuliani.
While citizens of Roma cannot do anything about the summer heat wave oppressing southern Europe, the same cannot be said of the pervasive graffiti on every building in every part of the city, staining even the most beautiful and ancient of edifices; the ingrained culture of littering, under which every sidewalk, every piazza, every famous site is covered with discarded cigarettes, broken bottles, newspapers, and other trash; and the ubiquitous bands of pickpockets that swarm around most public places while the polizia stand by idly. Indeed, Rome is now seeing the rise of the squeegee men! If ever a city needed a mayor who accurately diagnosed the “broken-window syndrome” and who appreciated how giving attention to the supposed little things can dramatically change the culture of a city and make it more livable, that place is Rome.
Rudy, you’ve missed your calling. Based on your years as mayor of New York City and the resulting revival of Manhattan, you are uniquely well-qualified to bring about a rebirth of livability in Rome. I could never support your presidential candidacy, but you are the perfect candidate for Mayor of Rome. And in a city in which the communists and the fascists are both viable political participants, a little thing like not being a citizen of Italy shouldn’t stand in the way. You have the Italian heritage, and speak the language, so surely that's qualification enough.
Greg Sisk (blogging from Rome)
Thursday, July 12, 2007
During my adult life, I've lived in cities on both coasts and in suburbs, both inner ring and farther out. While I speak here only from my own personal experience (a dangerous detour into anecdotal musings from an empiricist), I don't recognize the descriptions of community and connection and responsiveness attributed to urban and suburban settings in some of the postings.
When I lived in cities (and I lived in a typical urban setting of apartments, not detached house neighborhoods), people generally lived as strangers right next to each other, rarely showing any concerns about their geographic area outside the door to their own apartment. Social connections were formed in non-geographic ways, by groups of friends from church or work or otherwise. By contrast, each suburban neighborhood in which I have lived has been a community of families in which everyone, to a greater or lesser extent, participated in the community, knew their neighbors, relied upon each other, etc. And, of course, for those who work in a metropolitan setting, the suburb provides the greatest opportunities for raising children with the kinds of opportunities that many of us experienced in an earlier generation: safe play areas, the ability to roam the neighborhood playing with all the kids in the area, bike riding on non-busy streets, open spaces of green lawns, etc.
Moreover, while my urban neighbors generally saw care for the unfortunate as the duty of their municipal and state governments (which were hardly worthy of that reliance), my suburban neighbors have been active community leaders, volunteers for public services, contributors, etc. Those in need not only have not been neglected, but have been more effectively served. In my current community of Eden Prairie outside Minneapolis, we have one of the largest gatherings of Somali immigrants in the country, who are becoming well integrated into the work force, the schools, etc. Indeed, I would guess that the Somali immigrant experience in the Eden Prairie suburb has been much more positive and progressive than it would have been in most urban settings.
While I am sure that others have had different experiences in both urban and suburban settings with respect to community in general, I feel more confident in saying that one of the signal differences between urban and suburban settings is the responsiveness and accountability of local government. When there recently was a matter of concern in my neighborhood, I not only felt comfortable contacting the chief of police but was able to spend a half an hour discussing with him the trends in the area and learning about the thoughtful policies the police were adopting to deal with certain impacts of commercial development nearby. I've had the same experience in other suburbs, actually knowing members of the city council, seeing that officials elected and appointed responsive to their constituents, etc. That definitely has not been my experience in urban settings, where officials most often are remote (partly by attitude, partly because of the large numbers of persons in the city which prevents creating relationships with very many), where governmental offices are bureaucratic and coldly unresponsive, etc.
From the standpoint of subsidiarity, I submit we are more likely to find it working well in rural and suburban communities than in the typical urban setting.
Greg Sisk (blogging from Rome)
Thursday, May 17, 2007
Tom Berg’s most recent posting on this thread (our prior exchange may be found here, here, and here) links to a thoughtful post by Morning’s Minion on the “Reasons and Opinions” blog. In that message, Morning’s Minion offers a balanced economic comparison of France and the United States. Without endorsing every element, I find this message to exemplify precisely the kind of critical analysis (even when directed at my own assertions as well as those of my interlocutors) that I intended to provoke by my original posting. Attention to economic analysis is too often neglected in Catholic Social Thought circles. (On the merits, I am intrigued by the suggestion by Morning’s Minion based upon his evaluation of the data that the most effective and socially just society may be found in a combination of low-regulation of the economy and employers together with a generous welfare system through government benefits. This design stands in contrast to the French approach which imprudently joins high levels of government spending with extensive regulations imposed on businesses and employers, thus strangling economic opportunity and proving unsustainable in the long term.)
Re-reading the exchange between Tom and I over the past week here on the Mirror of Justice, as well reflecting on hallway conversations we have had here at the University of St. Thomas, I believe that we’ve often been talking past each other, because our messages have differed both in emphasis and goal. As explained in his last post, Tom Berg saw my messages as overstated broadsides against France, of a style that he regards as unfortunately common and reflecting smug American biases against that nation. Thus, to counter that trend, he understandably wished to add nuance and balance to the discussion, describing the upsides as well as the downsides of another country for which he has affinity.
For me, by contrast, France was merely a timely illustration of Big Government excess, brought to mind by the recent presidential election there. The purpose of my message was to counter what I see as an unfortunate and even careless tendency among some to readily equate Catholic Social Thought with government-centric programs and top-down social engineering, while ignoring the collateral damage that governmental intervention may cause to economic progress, intermediary institutions, social development, healthy incentives, and liberty interests. Thus, Tom Berg’s messages were somewhat frustrating to me because I perceived them as assiduously dodging the central question that I had raised and displaying a continuing avoidance by those on the Catholic left of any acknowledgment of the dangers that may follow when state power is employed toward preferred ends by imposing taxes and controls on the citizenry. In retrospect, I realize that Tom was not so much avoiding the subject as identifying and pursuing a different topic or emphasis.
So where do we go from here? By e-mail, Morning’s Minion has noted Cardinal Dulles’s definition of prudential judgment as “the application of Catholic doctrine to changing concrete circumstances.” This should lead, he argues, to an empirical over an ideological approach, such as that so well exhibited on his “Reasons and Opinions” blog.
Now we probably cannot and should not set aside ideology altogether, if by ideology we mean a reasonable and coherent set of philosophical premises or basic suppositions by which we organize our understanding of the world. When the empirical evidence is uncertain (as it often will be) or when a choice involves factors that cannot be objectively compared (such as asking how much liberty we are willing to surrender to government in order to achieve economic security), we unavoidably will fall back on ideology or political philosophy in coming to a conclusion.
In this respect, those on the political left and right on the Mirror of Justice plainly sart from different points and evaluate proposed solutions to a social justice problem by conferring differing weights on the factors implicated. My friends on the Catholic left begin with a liberal (pun intended) receptivity to proposals for more government benefits and regulations, while remaining more or less open to being convinced that a particular exercise of government power is unwise due to the detrimental consequences to the economy, social development, and liberty. By contrast, I and others on the Catholic right view with immediate skepticism any proposal to employ the forces of government, because restricting the powers of the state and preserving liberty takes priority of place in our political philosophy. Thus, we will differ as to the burden of proof demanded of proposals for government intervention.
We may also differ on what we believe to be the root causes of social injustice, and particularly the tragedy of poverty. Those on the Catholic left tend to see poverty as primarily a result of unjust economic structures, with some acknowledgment that other factors may play a role. Thus, a preference for governmental intervention understandably follows. Those of us on the Catholic right believe that poverty in a dynamic, open-entry economy like that found in the United States is primarily the result of social, educational, behavioral, and even spiritual factors, while acknowledging that the imperfections of market economies justify some level of governmental attention to lessen the burdens and fill in the gaps. Thus, conservative Catholics prefer solutions that enhance educational opportunity (such as school choice), encourage changes in self-destructive behavior (or at least do not facilitate or create perverse incentives toward pathological behavior), and that facilitate private intermediary institutions that are better able to address social and spiritual needs that are neglected by governmental bureaucrats.
Nonetheless, our shared Catholic faith, our respect for human dignity, our energetic aspirations for a better society, and a commitment to critical analysis should offer some opportunities for us to find common ground and thus to transcend the lines of political ideology behind which our secular counterparts are trapped. In this respect, the emphasis on empirical study that Morning’s Minion advocates should be an essential part of our bag of tricks in Catholic Social Thought. Tom Berg and I are unlikely ever to come to complete closure about the appropriate role of governmental power in achieving a good and just society. Yet those interested in Catholic Social Thought may be able to better to engage productively in deliberation about these issues by ensuring that concrete proposals for programs and projects are critically examined in all elements. A rigorous and candid exploration should become an expected and demanded element of any proposed course of action to promote social justice. And we must always elevate the spiritual element, as essential to and more important than any political enterprise.
Greg Sisk
Friday, May 11, 2007
My friend and colleague Tom Berg dismisses my recent post as “simple France-bashing” (although my e-mail correspondents argue that, if anything, I have understated the level of deterioration experienced in the French economy and society). Yet Tom grudgingly acknowledges the accuracy of my litany of French economic woes, even as he defends (while denying that he is defending) the French Nanny State.
More pertinent to the thrust of my post — which used France as but an illustration of an impoverishment in much of what passes for Catholic Social Thought — Tom fails to seriously question, critically examine, or qualify the supposed advantages of government-centric solutions to social problems. Yes, Tom does refer generally to “imperfections of all social and economic systems,” and he also mentions vaguely “the inevitable trade-offs.” But with respect to the collectivist attractions of the left, he cannot quite bring himself to name those “imperfections” (statism, bureaucratic callousness, economic decline, etc.) or “trade-offs” (social enervation, decline in incentives, weakening of personal responsibility, loss of liberty, etc.) Nor does Tom acknowledge the unfortunate propensity of too many on the Catholic left to elide these counter-factors when they propose yet another government program or endorse a new set of regulations as supposedly compelled by Catholic Social Thought.
Tom also rather quickly passes over the spiritual emptiness that is modern France, saying “[l]et’s set aside the loss of Christian faith, which we can all agree is very bad in spiritual terms.” Well, and other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play? This loss of faith is hardly a tangential point when speaking about the French social welfare state. Is it not likely that the French deification of the state and submissive reliance on government as the answer to all problems has contributed to spiritual decay?
Still, Tom does make one powerful point that captures my attention and, pending further exploration, could win me over as well: that a social welfare system in France which more generously supports child-raising has produced lower abortion rates (and lower infant mortality rates) in that country. Assuming that abortion rates were to be empirically confirmed as significantly correlated with French social welfare benefits and regulations, and that alternative methods of regulating abortion would be neither practical nor superior, that enhancement of human life at its earliest stages would count as a strong mark in my book in favor of this particular set of benefits and regulations. Of course, that would make palatable only one small slice of the huge French pie of government benefits and rules.
And, in any event, acknowledging the potential force of Tom’s limited point about a single government project is not much of a rebuttal of my earlier post that was designed to challenge an unhealthy fixation on collectivism in some accounts of Catholic Social Thought. Contrary to Tom’s accusation that I have painted things in black-and-white terms, I have neither opposed all government programs nor proposed the libertarian ideal of the Night Watchman State as the preferred alternative. (When I do move occasionally in libertarian circles, I am inevitably and rightfully exposed as a heretic who contemplates a meaningful and robust — but still limited and carefully constrained — role for government in economic and social matters.) Rather, I mean to challenge the simplistic association of Catholic Social Thought with a government-centric agenda.
Tom speaks of a middle ground toward which those interested in a just society should strive. I’m not sure that a “middle ground” is a principled or inspirational goal, especially if it results in mediocre results from all standpoints. But I understand Tom’s point to be that we might find some common ground and through our engagement eventually develop a more refined approach to these questions.
Let me take a step in that direction: I have always acknowledged that government has a role to play, including provision of benefits to the disadvantaged and regulation of economic enterprises (at a level to be determined). I do not expect that discussions of social problems in the light of Catholic Social Thought will proceed stripped bare of any proposals for governmental activity.
At the same time, let us speak more deliberately and candidly about the unintended and negative consequences for economic vitality and opportunity, the risk of dependence and entitlement that enervates a society and diminishes individual flourishing, and the decline of freedom that may follow whenever government seizes private resources and imposes legal edicts on others.
Catholic Social Thought is neither a statist philosophy nor a form of laissez faire capitalism. It is so much more than either of these. The Mirror of Justice should be a venue for exploring the greater richness of Catholic Social Thought.
Greg Sisk
Thursday, May 10, 2007
If Catholic social thinkers continue to see the road toward a just society as paved with massive transfers of wealth and power to centralized government, with ever-more layers of regulations upon the private sector, and with ever-growing mandates to employers about benefits and arrangements that must be afforded employees, we may look up some day and find that we’ve arrived in . . . France.
This past weekend’s presidential election in France offers a good occasion for rethinking the nature of a healthy and just society and for challenging the too-easy ascription by many to Catholic Social Thought of government-centric political agendas. The nation of France exhibits exactly that kind of expansive social welfare system and all-encompassing set of employee-friendly mandates on business that many Catholics on the left—those who call themselves Social Justice Catholics—appear to envision as the ideal that should be sought in this country. Yet all is not so well in the Parisian Paradise. Even the French electorate has recognized that an adjustment is necessary. The new conservative president, Nicolas Sarkozy, won election by arguing that the French need to work harder, that business needs greater freedom and less regulation to be successful, and that social welfare benefits need to be reduced. To be sure, Sarkozy has promised and commentators anticipate a modest correction that leaves the French social welfare system largely intact (which I predict means that little will change and French decline will not be arrested).
My friend and St. Thomas colleague Rob Vischer may see this as another example of what he recently termed a “periodic stick in the eye of those who want to use the government to help the poor” by conservative Catholics. But I think it vitally important to regularly remind all of us that faithful recognition of our responsibility for the common good, a sincere and sacrificial endorsement of the preferential option for the poor, and a firm commitment to the central role of the family in society should not shade into uncritical support for the secular welfare state nor be confused with a political platform for new government programs, economic controls, and regulations or unfunded mandates to be imposed on employers. France serves well as that reminder.
In France, by government edict, employees certainly do receive comfortable wages, possess generous benefits, and enjoy liberal leave policies. Or at least this is true for those fortunate to find employment. Consider what has accompanied the French welfare state and government mandates:
* A stagnant economy (the American economy grows at three times the rate of France);
* High unemployment (about twice as high as in the United States and persisting at those high levels for more than a decade);
* An entitlement mindset so ingrained in an entire generation that university students riot over the prospect that they might have to undergo a one-year probationary period before receiving government-imposed life tenure in private employment;
* a precipitous decline in entrepreneurship (in the very country in which the word originated);
* a failure to contribute much of anything in the way of creative increases in wealth to the world economy; and
* a troubling tendency to keep the economy afloat by importing and exploiting foreign and immigrant workers (in whose segregated communities within France unemployment reaches 40 percent).
Nor we would want to hold up France as the case model for a just society under precepts of Catholic thought. Healthy and happy attitudes do not flourish across the sea. In its 2002 Global Attitudes Survey, the Pew Research Center found that the French were more unhappy than Americans and much less optimistic about the future. So much for the argument that Americans are more anxious and stressed, lacking the security and comfort of the European social welfare system.
And we could devote a week’s worth of posts and still not say all that can and should be said about the decline of faith and the pervasive spiritual emptiness in France (except perhaps for Muslims in the immigrant communities). A leading French religious publication says that France is no longer a Catholic country and, indeed, only half of those who still call themselves Catholics even believe in God.
I’m sure that my faithful interlocutors on the left side of political spectrum here on the Mirror of Justice would respond that we need not follow this road all the way to France. But I seldom hear words of caution about the growth of government and the decline of freedom being raised from that perspective. And I worry that the farther one travels down the golden-paved road of government benefits and employer mandates , the more difficult it becomes to step off. Indeed, I worry that the train has already left the station on a non-stop trip to France, unless someone pulls the emergency brake switch.
Even in the United States, government programs tend to become entrenched, benefit recipients of all kinds (including corporate welfare beneficiaries) become addicted to the flow of public money and develop an enervating sense of entitlement, and government employee unions grow exponentially with the attendant growth in bureaucracies, thus creating a special interest group that lobbies for still more government. Meanwhile, the poorest of the poor remain at the bottom; quality education—the greatest engine for economic opportunity for the poor—remains elusive as the teacher’s unions control the government-run schools; and social services become increasingly bureaucratic and coldly functional in nature.
Should not the Mirror of Justice devote more attention toward creative alternatives to developing a just society and enhancing opportunities for all, without careening toward the social and spiritual disaster that is modern France?
When Catholic Social Thought is introduced into a debate, too many demonstrate a tendency to leap quickly to the conclusion that the option for the poor and other forms of social justice are best achieved through governmental benefit programs, government regulations, government mandates for business, government taxation, etc. But Catholic Social Thought is bigger than and hardly reducible to any political agenda. As Professor David Hollenbach (who would never be accused of being conservative) has well written, social justice is not chiefly an exercise of distributing things or utilities, but rather of expanding participation in inherently valuable social activities.
A primary value of our exchanges on Mirror of Justice is that we have an opportunity to expand the parameters of analysis within the framework of Catholic Social Thought.
Greg Sisk
Wednesday, December 6, 2006
In the past, I've blogged about the situation in the Darfur region of the Sudan, mentioning the ongoing work of the Catholic Workers movement to draw attention to the genocide occurring there. About ten days ago, Susan Stabile posted a message from a Mirror of Justice reader wondering what we, as ordinary Americans, can do and expressing the frustration that many of us feel in seeking an effective response. The following message should provide some hope and a means of providing concrete assistance to those who are suffering and to restoration of security in the region.
Professor Ellen Kennedy of the University of St. Thomas in St. Paul sent this message to faculty colleagues, with the heading: "Genocide Intervention Network - A Christmas Story":
Colleagues,
I want to tell you a Christmas story that will warm your hearts – and perhaps motivate you to make a difference in the world.
As you probably know, we have a campus chapter of the Genocide Intervention Network. GI-Net is an organization that has over 600 chapters throughout the country and an international presence; its mission is to educate about genocide, advocate with elected officials and other leaders for a non-violent resolution to conflict, and raise funds to protect those whose lives are at risk. At present the focus is the genocide occurring in Darfur, Sudan. Over 400,000 people have been killed and more than 2.5 million people have been displaced from their homes and villages.
The Student Advisory Board of our chapter has launched a “Ten for Ten” campaign this holiday season. Instead of receiving gifts this year, they are all asking ten of their family and friends to donate $10 each to the national GI-Net office. The national office has raised over $250,000 to assist the limited African Union peacekeeping troops with non-weapons-based support in Darfur. And of those ten, our students also hope that at least one will ‘pay it forward’ to ask another ten to give their support.
These students have made a commitment to lend a hand, to raise their voices, and to take a stand for the people in Darfur who are dying at a rate of more than five hundred every single day. These students are ordinary Midwest kids – but they’ve realized that the words ‘never again,’ uttered after the Holocaust, have rung hollow. They are committed to making ‘never again’ mean ‘never.’
Will you join them in this effort? Your tax-deductible contribution to the Genocide Intervention Network (a registered 501-C3; tax ID number 20-2278405) will help African Union troops to protect women and children against gender-based violence in Darfur.
Please participate with our students in the spirit of giving with the most precious of gifts – the gift of safety. You can send your donation to the Genocide Intervention Network, 1333 H Street NW, Washington, DC 20005, and note that it’s part of the “Ten for Ten” campaign. If it’s more convenient, you can send it to me at Mail MCH 316 at UST and I’ll send it on to Washington.
With best wishes for the holidays,
Ellen
For more information about the national organization, please see
www.genocideintervention.net
