No Child Left Unharmed by Suzanne P. Starseed

On occasion, I invite someone whose writing and philosophy is in sync with unitive justice to post a blog on GenuineJustice.com. Suzanne is the author of the book, The Ecology of Learning: Re-Inventing Schools. I recommend her book for a well-researched, wholistic approach to education.

Suzanne was my guest on my Internet radio show, Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute on May 20, 2012. We discussed the law called No Child Left Behind, punitive high-stakes testing, and how you can help return sanity to the education of our children.  

We are engaged in a highly charged national debate about what’s wrong with our schools, who’s to blame for the problems in our schools, and how to fix them. We hear about bullying and violence, about failing schools, bad teachers, test scores and cheating scandals, school vouchers, and charter schools. What the politicians and pundits haven’t been telling us is that No Child Left Behind (NCLB), the federal government’s school reform initiative that began in the Bush administration and has continued in the Obama administration, has created more problems than it solved.

NCLB established the goal of having every child in the nation proficient in math and reading by the year 2014 and that progress toward that goal would be measured by statewide standardized high-stakes tests. This may seem like a reasonable goal, but NCLB has had serious unintended negative consequences for our children, our schools, and our communities. As Harvard historian Daniel Lord Smail tells us in his book On Deep History and the Brain, “It is the unintended outcomes that have great force in history.”

In late 2011, the Senate education committee headed by Tom Harkin, D-Iowa, and Michael Enzi, R-Wyoming, approved a bipartisan rewrite of NCLB that drops the goal of achieving 100 percent proficiency in math and reading and replaces it with the goal of “continuous improvement” for all students in every school.  Before another version of NCLB is passed, we need to have a transparent, informed, and broad based public dialogue about our goals for our children and how best to achieve them.

Richard Rothstein of the Economic Policy Institute assesses the situation this way. “If [NCLB] is re-authorized with a simple requirement that all students and schools show ‘continuous improvement’ we’ll be back for the next re-authorization in five years with new demands for whole sale waivers from Congressional expectations that had no basis in reality.” www.epi.org/publication/congress-improve-improve-improve/

Perhaps Congress should get out of the business of establishing a single specific educational goal for all schools across the nation. An article published in the Academy of Management Perspectives, Goals Gone Wild: How Goals Systematically Harm Individuals and Organizations, describes some of the possible unintended negative consequences of setting specific challenging goals, sometimes called stretch goals.

“The use of goal setting can degrade employee performance, shift focus away from important but non-specified goals, harm interpersonal relationships, corrode organizational culture, and motivate risky and unethical behaviors.”  The authors of Goals Gone Wild describe how the pursuit of stretch goals went wild and contributed to the collapse of the energy company Enron and the biggest corporate fraud in history. Enron executives were rewarded with large bonuses for meeting specific stretch goals, but Enron set and incentivized the wrong goals. It led to widespread fraud and the demise of the company.

It’s not the goals alone that are such compelling shapers of our behavior; the incentives attached to the goals are what give them power. If the goals established at Enron had no carrot and stick contingencies, no large bonuses at stake, the executives might have pursued their own goals guided by inner motivation and been less likely to commit fraud.

In their book Sway: The Irresistible Pull of Irrational Behavior, Ori and Rom Brafman explain how the anticipation of a monetary reward for achieving a specific goal activates the pleasure centers in our brains that are associated with addiction. As a result we may over focus on the goal and addictively “chase after the reward”. When this happens we are likely to alter our “standards, goals, and conduct in the process. …Because monetary incentives present such a strong allure to us, they distort our thinking”.

Ori and Rom Brafman go on to describe how this process worked in a Michigan high school that adopted a teacher incentive program to increase class attendance. In the program, teachers received salary bonuses based on whether or not 80% of the registered students were in attendance on a randomly selected day in the last week of each semester. The program did increase attendance, however, it also served to “shift focus away from important but non-specified goals” as the authors of Goals Gone Wild warn us.  “Educating students” was apparently the important but non-specified goal that teachers shifted their focus away from. The school’s overall grade-point average dropped from 2.71 to 2.18.

Some of the same changes in standards, goals, and conduct that occur when people are chasing a reward can occur when people are trying to avoid punishment, humiliation, or loss. That’s what happened when NCLB established the specific educational stretch goal of 100 percent proficiency in reading and math.

The accountability measures accompanying NCLB are quite punitive, including threats of restructuring schools if they don’t make “adequate yearly progress” toward the goal as measured by scores on high-stakes tests of math and English. Restructuring can run the gamut from firing the principal and staff to turning the school over to the state to run.

This educational stretch goal/reward/punishment policy has produced the same unintended negative consequences that were produced at Enron. Schools began over focusing on and chasing after the goal of achieving higher reading and math test scores. Schools with high rates of poverty are under pressure to raise their students’ test scores to avoid severe sanctions. And schools in more affluent neighborhoods are under pressure to maintain high test scores to keep property values up in their neighborhoods and to gain a competitive edge over other schools and districts.

When test scores are published like a sport’s score card, it naturally sets up competition among schools and school districts. The goal of high test scores has replaced the more important but non-specified goal of providing a well rounded, high quality education to all of our children.

With so much riding on them, schools have found ways to improve test scores without improving learning. Some states raised test scores by making the content of statewide standardized tests less challenging or they’ve simply lowered the passing cut-off score so they could claim an increase in the number of students passing. In Georgia, Ohio, Florida, Pennsylvania, Arizona, California, and in Washington, D.C. administrators and teachers have been caught changing student’s answers on tests or giving students the test questions in advance.

A state investigation of the Atlanta Public Schools found that 178 educators, 38 of them principals, erased and corrected mistakes on student answer sheets and that top administrators obstructed the investigation and tampered with evidence. The investigation concluded that the primary motivating factor for educators to cheat was pressure, in the data-driven environment, to meet the unrealistic test score “targets” established by the school district.

Some schools keep low performing students out of their classrooms or put them in less challenging classrooms. Students may be shuttled off to special education, retained in a grade, or expelled. It is also done in a less overt way through admission policies that favor students with parents who are willing and able to research the options for their children and fill out the required applications for admission.

The pressure on students, teachers, and administrators resulting from NCLB has coincided with an increase in zero tolerance policies and other harsh, punitive, and ineffective disciplinary practices. Out-of-school suspension is now common for minor infractions including truancy. Even kindergarteners may be suspended or expelled. Because so many parents work during the day, suspending or expelling children can force parents to take time off from work or put children into unsupervised home environments or out on the street.

Suspended children are more likely to fall behind in their school work, disengage from school, or drop out. As students leave or are pushed out of school, they too often engage in behaviors that can get them into trouble. This puts these children directly into the stream of what has come to be called the “school-to-prison pipeline”.

At the end of the pipeline, 1 in 100 Americans are behind bars. In 2008 the number of Americans in jail or prison was slightly larger than the populations of Atlanta, Boston, Kansas City (Missouri) and Seattle combined. The cost to tax payers is phenomenal with $44 billion spent on corrections in 2007. www.pewcenteronthestates.org

When schools suspend or expel students, they are externalizing the school’s social and economic costs by pushing those costs onto the community and other social institutions such as the courts and prisons. Pushing students out of our schools and into the school-to-prison-pipeline is a fool’s bargain. There are ways to improve a school’s test scores and improve class discipline without externalizing students. Do we want to spend our tax dollars educating our children or incarcerating them?

About the Author

Suzanne P. Starseed is author of The Ecology of Learning:Re-Inventing Schools and former professor and head of the Department of Occupational Therapy at Louisiana State University Medical Center. She served as a consultant to the Louisiana State Department of Education and received grant funding from the U.S. Department of Education. As a community organizer and activist, Suzanne Poulton Starseed contributed to video scripts for public broadcasting and numerous organizations that promote a more peaceful, just, and sustainable world.  suzannestarseed@aol.com (804) 869-5774

To sign the Petition for Healthy Homework Guidelines, please visit https://www.change.org/petitions/urge-the-national-pta-support-healthy-homework-guidelines

Listen to the radio interview of Suzanne Starseed on Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute.

Jesus, Justice and Political Campaigns

It is only April and the TV ads against one candidate for President or the other are as thick as molasses in snow. How is all of this negativity going to impact the nation? How many families will be torn apart by their differences on who should be elected and why? I feel this question personally, because this is playing out in my own family and painful it is.

When we attack others, as the candidates are doing, how do they justify doing so? Many would probably reply that the end justifies the means – this is what you have to do in the US system to get elected. I have heard candidates say, “Getting elected is what I have to do to implement my good policies, so doing whatever I have to do to get elected is justified – better than letting my opponent get elected, whatever the cost.”

But is it moral to attack others to serve yourself, or even to serve others? While many candidates may never ask this question or realize the trap they are in, they are actually applying a different moral standard to their opponents, not the moral standard they apply to themselves.

Hurting others while thinking it is moral is so common in our culture that it seems normal, accepted behavior. As a result, we often do it without questioning how we justify hurting others. This is how it works in this political campaign.

Those on the Obama team believe they are fighting for moral policies that will make the US better, while believing those on the Romney team are fighting for immoral policies that will make the US worse. At the same time, those on the Romney team believe they are fighting for moral policies that will make the US better, while believing those on the Obama team are fighting for immoral policies that will make the US worse.

Those who see themselves as fighting for the good candidate believe that their attacks on the bad candidate are moral because the bad candidate makes them do it. They project blame for the harm they are doing on the candidate they are attacking, thus relieving themselves of moral responsibility for their acts.

What’s the problem? Both sides are doing this same thing! They are mirror images of the other, leaving us with two less-than-desirable choices. Who loses? We all do. There are no winners on this battleground.

Since this blog is about Jesus, Justice and Political Campaigns, where does Jesus come into all of this? Both candidates for President want us to know that they are good Christians. Whether they are the right type of Christian, or whether they are even a Christian, is a frequent topic of dispute in this particular race. This bothers me a lot, because I am hard pressed to find the presence of Christ’s teachings, as I understand them, standing out in the 2012 election of the next President of the United States.

What does Jesus say about attacking others? We know the answer. He told us, in no uncertain terms, in his Sermon on the Mount. Let’s go to the source.

Don’t resist violence! If you are slapped on one cheek, turn the other too.

If you are ordered to court, and your shirt is taken from you, give your coat too.

If the military demand that you carry their gear for a mile, carry it two.

Give to those who ask, and don’t turn away from those who want to borrow.

There is a saying, “Love your friends and hate your enemies.”

But I say: Love your enemies! Pray for those who persecute you!

In that way you will be acting as true sons of your Father in heaven. For he gives his sunlight to both the evil and the good, and sends rain on the just and on the unjust too.

If you love only those who love you, what good is that? Even scoundrels do that much.

If you are friendly only to your friends, how are you different from anyone else? Even the heathen do that.

But you are to be perfect, even as your Father in heaven is perfect.

                                            Matthew 5:39–48 (Living Bible).

If the candidates took Jesus at his word, this campaign would be very different. To many, these are radical concepts, but absolutely necessary for consistency in the morality taught by Jesus.

What was he telling us? Didn’t Jesus say unequivocally that the old law is to be replaced with a new covenant that says: do not resist violence; love your enemies; pray for those who persecute you; when slapped on one cheek, turn the other cheek?

Didn’t he say that the real world exists in living in equal relationships with others, not in controlling them; in loving your neighbor as yourself, not in getting even; in doing unto others as you would have them do unto you, not as they have done? Jesus taught that there is another way of being in the world, that justice does not depend on separation, revenge and death.

Why must the Sermon on the Mount be ignored in a political campaign like the present one in the US? Simply put, Jesus forced into the open a comparison of lovingkindness and answering harm with harm. This means each time a conflict arises, there are two extrinsic norms at opposite ends of that spectrum by which to measure the morality of one’s response: the extent to which the response aligns with an eye for an eye or the Sermon on the Mount; with violence or nonviolence; with fear or with lovingkindness.

While we are discussing this in the context of the teachings of Jesus, this comparison of lovingkindness and revenge are present in all major religious traditions. This is not a discussion that applies only to those who claim to be Christians.

If you attend one of the many political gatherings during this campaign, consider asking the candidate this question: Why aren’t you applying the Golden Rule to your opponent? If they tout their “Christian credentials,” ask them how they are applying the Sermon on the Mount in their campaign. In truth, the Sermon on the Mount delegitimizes the way US political campaigns are nearly always conducted – one attack after another. It challenges the established order.

What happened? The teachings of Jesus have inspired millions over the centuries. But even as Christianity spread, punitive justice prevailed. Many who followed in the footsteps of Jesus saw his world of love through the eyes of fear and distorted or marginalized his teachings of nonviolence. They thought they had to preserve vengeful justice; it was what they knew, and their institutional structures depended on it.

There are moments in history when a fork in the road is encountered and a choice of monumental proportions presents itself. For the Western world, the teachings of Jesus presented an opportunity of this magnitude, and still do. Political campaigns are no exception.

We have a choice. We can continue to spiral downward in our political discourse, or we can also choose the path to dignity and civility that this nation deserves. Unitive justice provides the principles needed for this to occur.

More on this topic may be heard on Sylvia’s Internet radio show, Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute. More information on unitive justice is set out in Beyond Vengeance, Beyond Duality. 

Interviews Available for Listening

Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute

Every Sunday at 3 p.m. EDT I do an Internet radio show called Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute on BlogTalkRadio.com.  On this show, we explore many different aspects and applications of unitive justice

A popular Unitive Justice Show

Guests Mikhail Lyubansky and Elaine Shpungin discussed Using Restorative Practices in Your Life on the April 1, 2012 show, which has proven to be one of the most popular.  Mikhail and Elaine discuss how they use restorative practices in their family and professional life, and Elaine facilitates a Micro Circle between Mikhail and me. 

Elaine Shpungin, Ph.D. is the Director of the University of Illinois (Urbana-Champaign) Psychological Services Center, the training center for doctoral students in Clinical/Community Psychology. She is also a writer, parent, and practitioner of Non Violent Communication and Restorative Circles. Her essays have appeared in PsychologyToday.com, Tikkun Magazine, and edited books on pop culture themes (e.g.,The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, House M.D.). You can read more about her experiments with restorative practices, non-violence and mindfulness in her blog: www.ImproveCommunication.net

Mikhail Lyubansky, Ph.D., is a member of the teaching faculty in the Department of Psychology at the University of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign, where, among other courses, he teaches an undergraduate class about race and a graduate practicum in restorative justice. He is a regular contributor to edited volumes on popular books and films, such as Harry Potter, in which he discusses race dynamics and writes a blog about race for Psychology Today called Between the Lines. He has been studying and facilitating Restorative Circles, a restorative practice developed in Brazil, since 2009.

Mali Rowan Presents: Unitive Justice: Beyond Vengeance, Beyond Duality

Molly Rowan Leach is committed to healing and transformation, a woman who works tirelessly to create a better world. On her Internet radio show on March 27, 2012, Mali Rowan Presents, Molly and I discussed the topic, Unitive Justice: Beyond Vengeance, Beyond Duality. 

Molly is well-known as a virtual forum host, broadcaster and media and events producer, using her talents and energy to promote transformation, social healing and restorative justice. Social media is often her medium. If you are interested in how conflict can be transformed into a pearl of healing instead of being used as a reason to seek vengeance, you will enjoy this show.

For those who listen, I would like to clarify my comment regarding religion in schools. I should have added that all major religions have teachings that support both punitive justice and unitive justice (eg. an eye for an eye and the Golden Rule). At different times one is emphasized more than the other. Bringing teachings that support separation and judgment into any environment can have a divisive effect. However, I am confident that religion will provide important leadership in the shift to unitive justice by turning its emphasis toward teachings such as the Sermon on the Mount, forgiveness, and nonviolence, which tend to have no divisive effect. I see evidence that this shift is taking place. I discuss this at greater length in my book, Beyond Vengeance, Beyond Duality.

Other interviews in which I discuss the principles of unitive justice:

Interview on OBO Radio with Erik Lawyer.  Eric was formerly a fire fighter. After struggling with the how and why of 9-11, he set upon a spiritual journey that now has him sharing his healing wisdom with the world. OBO stands for One Becoming One.  

Visionary Culture interview:  Is A Mainstream Peace Movement Brewing? This is an interview by Laura Fox, another example of an amazing person bringing her wisdom and healing to the world.

What’s the Goal: Punishment, Hold the Offender Accountable, Compromise or Mutual Benefit?

In the realm of dispute resolution, one of four goals is generally sought: 1. punish the offender; 2. hold the offender accountable in a less punitive way, 3. a compromise or 4. a mutually beneficial resolution. The difference depends on the particular system being used. What are the differences among these four?

Punish the Offender

Our punitive system of justice is designed to achieve compliance with the law by punishing the offender, and by his example, to deter others from breaking the law out of fear of the consequences. This is an expensive and relatively ineffective way to achieve compliance, as over 60% of those who go through this system re-offend within three years.

Blended Restorative Justice Models

Many restorative justice programs, especially those associated with the criminal courts, are designed to hold the offender accountable in a less punitive way than the traditional punitive system. They do so by altering the punitive process in several significant ways, such as making the system more open, reducing the degree of hierarchy, giving the victim a voice, permitting the offender to have input in designing the remedy, and significantly relaxing the rules of evidence that otherwise exclude information about the context.

I call these programs a “blended model” of justice, because they achieve these structural changes by incorporating some elements of untive justice while retaining some of the punitive elements found in the criminal courts.  For example, holding the offender accountable retains judgment as the foundation of the system. Labels such as “offender” and “victim” is a dualistic divide that assumes separation and may assume the connotation of “good versus evil” that tends to underpins the punitive system.

These restorative justice models are less expensive and can be far more effective. Some programs produce a recidivism rate of only 10 or 20 percent.

Mediation

Mediation is a model for conflict resolution that promotes compromise; often the goal is for the parties to agree upon a compromise in which the parties each get some of what they want and give up some of what they want. This can be a significant improvement over the winner take all punitive system in that no one walks away a total “loser”. (In transformative mediation, the goal includes healing the breach in the underlying relationship.) Mediation  is generally used in civil disputes, not criminal cases. In theory, at least, a compromise does not seem to be suitable when a crime has been committed, although many plea agreements constitute a compromise.

Mutual Benefit

Mutual benefit is the goal sought in a system grounded on the principles of unitive justice. (See Unitive Justice as an Agent of Change at http://www.genuinejustice.com/2011/01/unitive-justice-as-agent-of-change.html.) This system is non-hierarchical, non-judgmental and non-punitive. It seeks to create a space in which the parties are able to comprehend why the other chose to act as he/she did, even while disagreeing with it. Judgment is replaced with mutual understanding, and the need for punishment is dissolved when a mutually beneficial outcome is created in which everyone wins without losing anything. When this possibility emerges, anything less seems unreasonable.

In this system, all members of the community are empowered to initiate the process of addressing conflict as early in the conflict as possible. By continually cleaning up conflict early, it does not escalate to the level of crime. It therefore becomes a parallel system of justice that may be chosen by the community, and a means of staying out of the criminal courts. It is inexpensive and does not require extensive technical education as the criminal law system does. Nearly any community that chooses to do so may create this means of conflict resolution.

How to create structures that support mutually beneficial outcomes is the pioneering work being done by many around the world. It is, at last, a way to achieve lasting peace. 

You may listen to my radio show on this subject at Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute at (http://www.blogtalkradio.com/mahloymedia/2012/03/25/unitive-justice-with-sylvia-clute).

Seeing Through the Fog of War

When a crime is committed, our criminal law system focuses on individual accountability by answering three questions: what law was broken, who broke it and how is that person(s) to be punished? The context in which the crime took place is considered irrelevant and that evidence is generally excluded.  This permits us to ignore the complex web of mutuality in which crime occurs. (See Inseparable Bedfellows: Crime and Its Context.)

Only recently did I realize how placing the emphasis on individual responsibility while discounting context is essential when judging others, but not wanting to be judged ourselves. If however, we want to justify our own acts as moral, we must emphasize context and minimize our individual accountability. This sleight of hand permits us to apply a double moral standard that gives moral legitimacy to our own harmful acts, while at the same time judging the harmful acts of others as immoral. 

Consider what is happening. When destructive state action is involved, context is always used to justify its actions, be it state executions, engaging in war, the killing of innocent civilians who are dismissed as “collateral damage,” water boarding, and a multitude of other harmful acts. In these instances, individual accountability for the acts is minimized, or even disregarded. But when the state sits in judgment, it restricts as much evidence relating to context as possible so it can focus on individual accountability.

This reflects yet another structural element in the blueprint of duality consciousness and the dual standard of morality upon which it depends. This may seem like an esoteric point, but its implications are enormous.

For one thing, if we let context be considered, those who cast the stones of judgment may be discovered to be no better, or perhaps even worse, than those who are being judged. The judge may have to be held accountable along with the “offender” who is being judged, and the judge wouldn’t want that. This sheds light on the New Testament teaching found in John 8:7 when Jesus was questioned regarding the stoning of a woman who had committed adultery, as the Old Testament commands:

When they kept on questioning him, he straightened up and said to them, "If any one of you is without sin, let him be the first to throw a stone at her."

There is an important underlying principle at play: When we are judging the acts of others, applying a standard of morality that condemns their acts requires that we focus solely on individual accountability and exclude consideration of context. However, when we want to apply a standard of morality that legitimizes our own destructive acts, context must be emphasized. This is an important element in arriving at opposite conclusions (i.e., our destructive acts are morally justified but theirs are not), even when the destructive acts of both sides are similar in nature.

Understanding this principle helps us see the fallacy in arguments that might otherwise seem reasonable, such as this one made by President Ronald Reagan:

We must reject the idea that every time a law’s broken, society is guilty rather than the lawbreaker. It is time to restore the American precept that each individual is accountable for his actions.’ Acts of monstrous criminality stand on their own. They begin and end with the criminals who commit them, not collectively with all the citizens of a state, not with those who listen to talk radio, not with maps of swing districts used by both sides of the aisle, not with law-abiding citizens who respectfully exercise their First Amendment rights at campaign rallies, not with those who proudly voted in the last election.

If this is the case, shouldn't a president who authorizes destructive acts be held accountable for his actions? Not when we use context to justify those acts and negate individual accountability.

Just as with presidents, permitting the introduction of evidence about the context in which a crime was committed can change the outcome. (See Considering Context Can Change the Results.) When the US Supreme Court allowed state executions to resume in 1976, states were required to permit juries to consider additional factors, both aggravating and mitigating.  This opened the door for context to be considered. As this opening was seized and the specialty of “mitigating specialist” grew, the number of state executions diminished.

While it is true that the acts we engage in are usually the result of individual choice, the social context within which our acts occur is often not a choice, and the context in which we make our choices matters.  Culture provides us with the options from which we choose, including how to be violent.  Changing the context changes the patterns of violence that show up. Context is relevant, both in judging our own acts and those of our “enemies”. Indeed, when we consider the context in which our enemies made their choices, the moral chasm between our acts and theirs is likely to disappear.

How can we make use of this information?  If we are to have peace on Earth, we must give up our dual standard of morality. We must measure the merit of our own actions by the same moral standard that we use to measure the merit of the actions of our “enemies”. We must weigh both individual accountability and context using one moral standard: harm to anyone by anyone for any reason is not acceptable.  

When harm occurs, we do not answer it with harm and then claim the context justified our doing so. Instead, we find ways to heal the underlying conflict dynamic that is contained in the context out of which the crime arose. We give due consideration to the context, for there we will find the root causes that must be addressed if our patterns of conduct are to change.

In this way, we can break the chains of punitive justice. (See The Sermon on the Mount and Unitive Justice.) Instead, we can see through the fog of war and at last find our way to genuine peace.

Sylvia's radio program on this topic is at Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute on BlogTalkRadio.com.

A Clear Moral Compass for Military Action

The United States was conceived out of the religious conviction of its European settlers and birthed in a war against its motherland, Great Britain. These two currents, religion and war, continue to define US culture, but they produce inconsistency between what Americans profess and what they practice. This has been especially evident in the actions of the US military.

The US military has often been a force for good. During WW II, US soldiers were on the front line of defending human rights and ending tyranny. The US military has also played a dark role, sometimes violating human rights. Many argue that the nuclear bombs dropped on Japan constitute such a violation. The assassination of the democratically elected leader of Iran in the 1950s, military support for various brutal dictators, torture and executions without due process are other examples. This inconsistency arises from the dual morality that underpins war. If the US is to consistently serve the higher good, a clear moral compass is essential.

This brings us back to the two threads woven deeply into the fabric of US culture: religion and war. The US being such a warring nation depends on the support of religious doctrines that provide war its moral legitimacy.

One way this is achieved is by dividing the world between “us” (the good people) versus “them” (the evil people), a dualistic construct commonly found in certain religious teaching. This divide permits us to claim that the harm we do to others is moral, but the harm others do to us is immoral, even when the harm done by both sides is essentially the same.

This double standard of morality permits us to blame those whom we harm for the harm we do to them by saying that “they make us do it.” We project responsibility for our harm onto those whom we harm. The fact all warring adversaries apply the same double standard to themselves and their enemies is what permits protracted wars to be fought, while all sides self-righteously claim their destruction is morally justified. Each adversary sees itself as the good fighting evil, unable to see the trap dual morality sets for them.

Another common religious teaching that supports war is the notion of proportional revenge, as in the doctrine, “an eye for an eye, a tooth for a tooth.” This doctrine teaches that we should answer the harm done to us by harming those who have harmed us. This is seen as just so long as the harm we do is equal in measure to the harm done to us. What constitutes “equal harm” is usually measured by those who are inflicting the harm, and thus is most often a measure that serves their self-interest.

Although it has often been pointed out that the “eye for an eye” measure of morality leads to a blind and toothless world, we often persist in order to serve other ends, such as imposing our control over those whom we fear, or having an excuse to take the property of others. More often it is because, so long as we see the world as dualistic (good versus evil), we are unable to see another way to deal with our hurt or quell our fear.

To escape the endless conflict that dual morality engenders, the US needs a new moral compass to guide its military action, one that is clear and consistent - one that applies equally to the US, its adversaries and its allies alike. How might this occur? Just as religion has been a moral force behind war, religion can provide a new, singular moral compass to end war. Many religious doctrines exist to support this transformation.

In the Sermon on the Mount, Jesus said that “an eye for an eye” is the old covenant, a teaching to be laid aside because he has given us a new covenant. The new covenant subjects friends and enemies alike to one moral standard: love your enemies, pray for those who persecute you, answer harm with love. When Christ was persecuted, he did not answer harm with harm; he extended love and forgiveness to his attackers, and he expects no less of his disciples. In other words, apply the Golden Rule consistently.

To be true to the teachings of Christ, Christians must apply the new covenant, but they are not alone. The Golden Rule is shared by the Abrahamic religions of Judaism, Christianity and Islam. It is taught in some form in all major religious traditions, and all have religious teachings that endorse peace, not war. But how can we go from a war-torn world to a world of peace?

For a time, we will necessarily have two parallel systems: the military answer guided by a consistent moral standard, and a healing and restorative system that is being created. For a time, we will have to use military force to intervene in the worst situations, but we can do so with an awareness of the limitations of this system, as history demonstrates time and again.

Dual morality is expensive and counterproductive. During the industrial age, the US war machine grew, taking it from a nation with marginal influence to a nation that could impose control in many corners of the globe. The US intervention in WWII played a major role in the defeat of Hitler, but it was a victory that reinforced the US militaristic mindset. We often fail to acknowledge that a cost the American people paid for that victory has been on-going insecurity. The nuclear technology that the US developed to use in WW II now constitutes a constant threat to the safety of Americans, and even the survival of humanity.

Not long after WWII, President Truman took the US to war in Korea. The Cold War between the US and the USSR consumed much of the mid 20th century. After the USSR collapsed, Presidents George H. W. Bush and Bill Clinton took the US military into Kuwait, Panama, Somalia, Haiti and Kosovo. Sept. 11, 2001 disclosed an enemy with roots in the Middle East that posed a direct threat to the American people. This threat was answered by President George W. Bush with US wars in Iraq and Afghanistan that were then continued by President Barack Obama. In the meantime, US infrastructure has fallen into disrepair due to a lack of investment in its maintenance - just one example of the unintended cost of war.

War with Iran now looms as a possibility, even as recent Department of Defense pronouncements indicate that the US wants out of the Middle East so it can turn its military might toward Asia, presumably in preparation for a new enemy, China. This would serve what has become US policy: continually developing its military might, despite the cost, as confronting China requires more sophisticated and expensive weaponry than does war with nations of the Middle East.

From the beginning, the identity of the US has been defined by its enemies. It policies are shaped by the threats of its enemies. It’s heroes are those who conquer its enemies. Without enemies, it is a nation without an over-arching mission. When peace emerges out of the embers of war, the fires of war are quickly reignited. That is what the system is designed to do.

Ironically, it is the commitment of Americans to be a peace-loving democracy, the land of the free where liberty and justice exist for all, that justifies its many wars. At this time in history, when the US is at war, it is always to defend the nation that it might be, if it were not such a warring nation.

If all religious denominations in the US collaborate in changing the nation’s moral story from “an eye for an eye” to “we do unto others as we would have them do unto us,” the US can then be true to its ideals of peace, liberty and justice for all. At the same time, the US military can consistently be a positive moral force in the world.

Listen to the Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute show on this topic at BlogTalkRadio.com.

Unitive Justice: Why Is It So Hard to Walk the Walk?

When people learn about a new system that provides an improvement over the status quo, it is easy to become committed to it. The next step for many is to study it and acquire enough knowledge to teach it to others. This is true of many people in the restorative justice movement and those who seek to build systems based on the principles of unitive justice.

Teaching others about a new system that can make the world a better place serves the community well. It can make a difference in the lives of many people. However, talking the talk is not the same as walking the walk. I know from personal experience that walking the walk can seem nearly impossible. When we experience conflict with those with whom we live or work, applying unitive justice principles to our own conflict can be a steep mountain to climb. The result is inconsistency between what we say and what we do. 

When we encounter conflict in our own lives, we can so quickly return to the old dualistic patterns of wanting to be right—at any price. We may want revenge, unwilling to extend any concession, much less forgiveness, to those whom we feel are wrong, those who have hurt us in some way. The difference between what we say and what we do may be pure hypocrisy.  

“Why is this?” is a question that I have struggled with for a number of years. Why is it that dualistic patterns of behavior have such a hold on us?

The best answer I have found to this question is one that is certainly not new, and yet it is often overlooked. I believe that our bodies exist in an energy field, and the underlying energy reflects either love or fear. When we experience fear over and over, the pattern of fear becomes embedded in our energy body, a pattern that is strengthened and eventually seems like it is chiseled stone. When a situation arises that triggers a particular fear, we react faster than we can think and reason is not our guide. On the other hand, when we release these fears and experience love, the energy field of our body flows, free from the blockages that fear causes.

Here is an image that might help us consider this phenomenon. Think of two matrices, a fear matrix and a love matrix. The fear matrix is thick; it is as though it is sticky, keeping us entangled in it. When we push with one hand to try to free ourselves from the fear matrix, the force we employ in doing so actually causes us to become more firmly stuck in its grip. It’s as though our efforts to free one hand causes the other hand to become more entangled, making our escape even more difficult.

A curious thing about the fear matrix is that you are unable to see the other side of things. When caught in its sticky web, we are unable to see that those whom we call our “enemies” often see things exactly the opposite—they are mirror images of ourselves. We think we are justified in hurting them because they are bad and we must control them. At the same time, they see us as their enemies, and their harm to us as moral.  Our hurting them is the very thing that justifies them hurting us, so the hurting becomes a way of life, seemingly inescapable. Both sides invest time, energy and resources in the armor needed to answer the harm done to them by those they seek to harm.

When we are not directly involved in the conflict it is easier to see how unproductive this endless cycle of harm actually is. So it is easy for some to create processes that help other people free themselves from the fear matrix, and instead find ways to solve their conflicts that are based on the matrix of love.

These means include helping them to see the underlying conflict in which they are caught and discovering how they are not as different from the people with whom they are having the conflict as they might think. Bringing this new information to the conflict helps those involved in the conflict see ways to resolve it that are mutually beneficial. A skilled facilitator can help support the participants in achieving a win/win outcome.

However, our dualistic minds are clever and controlling. In the very next instant, that facilitator may respond to his or her own conflict totally from the matrix of fear. For example, the facilitator might interpret his or her conflict as being one of those that is not appropriate for a circle process, and as a trained facilitator he or she knows which ones those are—right? Another excuse might be that the person with whom they are having the conflict is suffering from a mental illness, and that being the cause of the conflict, it cannot be resolved, so why try?

Perhaps a more common reason is that deep-seated need to be right, coupled with the need to see that the other person’s wrongdoing is revealed and punished. The desire for vindication can be a mighty motivator.

So far, I have found only one effective way to escape from the fear matrix, a way that seems counter intuitive. It is to surrender—the very thing the fear matrix least supports us in doing. How do we surrender when we are in the grips of the fear matrix? First, by just being present to its presence; conscious of the hold it has on us. Calm awareness is the first step. We must be willing to observe the trap we are in, approaching its entangled nature with a certain curiosity. We observe how it chains us in the very patterns that we want to escape, but without resisting its grasp.

Slowly, through this process of awareness and nonresistance, the control the fear matrix has over us begins to diminish. The glue that traps us in its web begins to lose its stickiness. As this occurs, the matrix of love becomes more accessible, solely through the freedom from fear that our consciousness gains through mere observation and non-resistance.    

I have not found this process to be easy; it is a journey that never ends. When a little ground is gained, it can easily be lost. With time, however, our consciousness is expanding.

That so many are willing to engage in reflection upon our condition and seek to do their part in healing it is heartening. The growing worldwide movement to find restorative and healing ways to address our conflicts, led by facilitators who are themselves learning how to walk the walk, gives me hope that the matrix of love is within our grasp. In time, we will walk the walk with far greater ease.

Listen to Unitive Justice with Sylvia Clute at BlogTalkRadio.com (the Feb. 26, 2012 program) for a more detailed discussion of this topic.