[Peace-discuss] Last night's meeting

Mon Sep 12 17:14:13 CDT 2005

Linda,

First of all, this has nothing to do with debating the issues.  I am 
all for that. And I am sure that we will never all agree. That is not 
the problem.

I want to work with people that I trust.  I want people to respect each 
other. We have agreed to meeting guidelines to address previous similar 
problems, and I want everyone in the group to be civil.  I am not going 
to sit there and have the person with the loudest voice pay no 
attention whatsoever to the facilitator, and continually interrupt and 
not let other people speak.  I know you missed that meeting, but that 
is what happened.  And this is not the first time, although it is the 
worst time.

I want people to understand that this work is serious, and that we 
should not be addressing our internal debates or what has turned into 
personal conflicts in the local newspaper.  I can't imagine why someone 
would do that because it plays right into the hands of the right wing.  
I can only hope that the whole group would feel the same way.  If I 
can't expect that much, I don't see why I should continue to come to 
these meetings.  We have to see each other in terms of solidarity.  We 
can't treat each other like we are enemies.

  I am pissed that my words and intentions have been so twisted, and I 
am not going to stand for it.  I don't understand why people see this 
is terms of conflict resolution.  This is not an equal-sided conflict.  
Several people were verbally attacked at that meeting.  I and I think 
most of the others were trying to stick to the issues around strategy 
and tactics.  Nobody that I know wanted to turn the meeting into a 
personal contest.  And to then go and publish the thing in the 
newspaper is just beyond my comprehension.

I have lost  sleep about this, and I have expended a lot of energy that 
I should have been using for more productive purposes.

The group needs to say that such behavior is out of bounds.  The group 
should demand an apology.  The group should get an assurance that this 
kind of behavior is not going to happen again. That is what I want.  
Thanks for asking.

On Sep 12, 2005, at 4:26 PM, Linda Evans wrote:

> Karen, thank you for you thoughtful email.  Al, I am
> so sorry that you don't see a need for conflict
> resolution in AWARE.  I was so upset (not for the same
> reasons) after last night's meeting myself that I
> drafted a "resignation" letter as Treasurer and
> thankfully did not send it.  Today, I am ready to work
> on things instead of throwing in the towel.
>
> I know many people (most whom I would call my friends)
> in AWARE who have been disruptive and rude from time
> to time...I include myself.    We are dealing with big
> issues and we all feel strongly.  In every activist
> group I've been involved in there have been problems
> like this from time to time.  We will disagree with
> how things should be worded, we will disagree with how
> things should be handled, we will disagree...this is
> unavoidable and I believe shouldn't be avoided.  I
> would be very worried if we all agreed 100% of the
> time.
>
> AWARE, as long as I've been involved, has always had
> working groups so if people disagreed with one project
> they don't work on it and focus their energy on
> something else.  It was hard to get used to "anarchy"
> for me at first, but now I feel very protective of it.
>  I don't think AWARE will be the organization I am
> happy to be a part of if we start to get bogged down
> in rules and etiquette.
>
> During the heated protests on N. Prospect when the
> anti-peace people were there I did not agree with
> every sign.  I felt some signs and some actions
> probably turned people away from AWARE and our
> message.  I was happy that we didn't censor anyone
> because people will listen to different things,
> different actions strike a cord with different
> people..what turns one person off will be the one
> thing that touches another's heart.
>
> I am not worried at all about AWARE being divided.  I
> would hope we are never all together on much besides
> being anti-war and anti-racism.   We won't grow if we
> all agree or never debate.
>
> The reason I'm calling for conflict resolution is
> because of the personal attacks.  Carl could be banned
> and we would still have conflict in AWARE.  I amazed
> by the people using him as a scape goat.  All along we
> should have been discussing how to handle situations
> like the Obama meeting in an more effective way next
> time instead of slapping individual members on the
> wrist.  Please!  Where does that get us?  Where we are
> now.  I was not at the Obama event or the meeting
> where people apparently jumped from their chairs and
> ran across the room in a menacing gesture or where
> people interrupted the facilitator who apparently felt
> very strongly about the discussion and was maybe not
> extremely neutral.  I wasn't there, but I respect and
> care about all the people involved in these actions.
> I think they are all important to AWARE and did the
> best they could at the time.  Am I disappointed that
> AWARE was mentioned in the N-G in such a way?  Sure.
> I'm pretty sure that AWARE's reputation will be okay
> and I hope yours will too.  I am more scared of AWARE
> censoring our members than what Carl might write next.
>
> Al, what do you want?  I am in no hurry to rehash
> personal attacks against Carl or against you.  I trust
> that we are all adults and can get past that and if we
> can't them I think we need mediation.  Do you want to
> discuss new ways we can address members of our
> government when they come to town?  I am all ears.  Do
> you want to discuss how we can be more sensitive to
> others in the anti-war community?  I am all ears.  Do
> you want to discuss how we can work on our anti-racism
> effort?  I am all ears.
>
> Linda
> --- Alfred Kagan <akagan at uiuc.edu> wrote:
>
>> I want to say that I was very disappointed and
>> frustrated at last
>> night’s meeting.  AWARE has now gone two weeks since
>> one of our
>> influential members not only disrupted our meeting,
>> but was
>> extraordinarily rude and disrespectful to the
>> facilitator, and
>> continually interrupted several members of the group
>> who voiced
>> critical opinions. He then went on to publish
>> divisive comments in the
>> N-G which misrepresented and distorted my views and
>> brought disrepute
>> on the group.  Since these kinds of interactions are
>> nothing new, and
>> have occurred every few months (with somewhat less
>> intensity), I am
>> mystified by this lack of action.
>>
>> It appears that some members of AWARE are not taking
>> this seriously
>> enough.  Some are calling for “conflict resolution”
>> rather than
>> addressing the need for respectful interactions and
>> personal
>> accountability.  Some are ready to put this in the
>> past, or put it off
>> as long as possible.  Some are afraid of “dividing”
>> the group.
>>
>> In case anyone is not aware, the group is already
>> divided.  A
>> principled discussion is not going to further divide
>> us.
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Al Kagan
>> African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of
>> Library Administration
>> University of Illinois Library
>> 1408 W. Gregory Drive
>> Urbana, IL 61801
>>
>> tel. 217-333-6519
>> fax 217-333-2214
>> akagan at uiuc.edu>
> _______________________________________________
>> Peace-discuss mailing list
>> Peace-discuss at lists.chambana.net
>>
> http://lists.chambana.net/cgi-bin/listinfo/peace-discuss
>>
>
>
>

Al Kagan
African Studies Bibliographer and Professor of Library Administration
University of Illinois Library
1408 W. Gregory Drive
Urbana, IL 61801

tel. 217-333-6519
fax 217-333-2214
akagan at uiuc.edu