[Peace-discuss] The last two weeks

[Susan Davis]

Folks,

I haven't been to an AWARE meeting in a few weeks because I've been 
downhearted about what's happening in the group.  I'm very concerned about 
the way we are acting as a group and also concerned about the way we are 
representing ourselves publicly.  I've learned a huge amount by working 
with AWARE, so before I throw in the towel I would like to give my thoughts.

--. the only way we get anything done at all, whether it is clarifying 
positions or organizing an event is when people can be polite and 
respectful to each other, even kind, when there are disagreements of 
principal, tactics or strategy.  This kind mutual respect and hard 
listening has broken down badly and the breakdown is extremely 
damaging.  It's not been a question of everyone talking at once, but a 
question of really hostile and nasty behavior, both in meetings and in 
Carl's article in the News Gazette.  it's not scapegoating Carl to point 
out that he was extremely mean and disrespectful to Carol when she 
facilitated the meeting two weeks ago.  I don't need to come to an AWARE 
meeting for this kind of hostile interaction -- I can go to a faculty 
meeting any day of the week and see people behaving badly.  If folks in the 
group don't understand why that would be a problem for the ongoing work of 
the group, then it is not an effective group that I can participate in.	

--I think it's elementary kindness and politeness not to quote people in 
publications without their permission.  So it struck me as very destructive 
to see Al quoted in the News Gazette in a way that makes aware look 
clueless and arrogant. not good for aware, because it aired a legitimate 
disagreement in a way that didn't represent the disagreement accurately, 
but also destructive because it was a personal slam. (to make matters 
worse, the legitimate disagreement on tactics never got adequately 
discussed because of shouting in the previous meeting.) But even if Al had 
been saying (or e-mailing) something that made us look like geniuses, it's 
only a courtesy to say "I'm writing an article, may I quote you?" again, if 
people in the group don't understand why this is a problem for the group's 
continuity, then this is not a group I can put my energy into

-- we really do need to be very thoughtful about how we present ourselves 
publicly.  That's not the same as self-censorship, but a protective 
mechanism for the continuity of the group and its ability to work 
locally.  Apparently this has been an impossible topic to reach consensus 
on, but especially if we're trying to make alliances locally across 
communities and across political differences we need to be thoughtful about 
it.  If we're not trying to make any such alliances or be a local 
grassroots group, but rather an agitation group with no enduring local 
ties, that should be decided in a spirit of mutuality.  Personally I think 
being a grassroots group that takes alliances seriously while examining 
them critically is a lot more interesting than being an agitation group. I 
also think it's a lot harder.

It is striking and a shame that this is happening now, of all times.  It 
seems to me we are in a very dangerous political moment when anti-war 
groups are very necessary and that the same time very threatening to the 
powers that be.  I think our work has been necessary in Champaign Urbana 
and as part of a national movement.

I'm not sure what conflict resolution would do for us.  We have a 
legitimate conflicts within the group about strategy, tactics and 
politics.  There's no need to resolve those conflicts -- as Ricky has 
written, they're good for us.  It sounds like we need to have serious 
discussions about whether to be an alliance-oriented group or an agitation 
group, but again, I'm not sure we need help with that discussion.  the 
interpersonal problems seem to be foremost -- they're hanging us up from 
getting to these other issues.  But it's not fair to tell people who've 
been trashed in public to just get over it.

Susan Davis