Page 1


The Next



dy Stu ives ng es l cki t sav raffi tha n T rch ma sea Hu Re









Journal of Pea Knowledge gcebuilding and Deve lo eneration is central to ou pment r agenda

Four faculty already hired


C F CjuPstice O nd ING ace a e D p f N o F OeUss as agent


09 08 chú

07 Kroc School op ens it Nation’s first stan s doors school of peace an d-alone d justice



LP R C Nob O N I Z E el P V L rize E A Win N E U R ner A E A Rig T obe K R T E S rta O Me C n

rst e fi ) th MA d at tion ( 3 e ra i ‘0 brat eleb y an ele s C am na c nor K n m o An l alu ni H y m Jud choo Alu S c Kro

First Kroc S Field Immechool rsion Peace learned sole building cannot be ly in the class room

comes to


nce ere t onf rgen m C y’s u ens mis anit red l xtre hum ende ng E ng to a g efyi ondi with J’s D Resp llenges c IP cha Kro

d ve cei

t re an Gr

OR MOIGINA RA L T LE H sha NG INK pin IN ER ga bet EER S ter wo S


2 Innovation for Peace and Justice: The Kroc School 2017-27 Patricia Márquez

20 Peace and Justice Through Non-Violent Conflict Austin Choi-Fitzpatrick

6 Joan B. Kroc’s Dream

22 The Gender Imperative

9 An Oasis of Peace

25 Learning With PeaceMakers to

Alice Hayes

Fr. William Headley

12 “Look for the Bright Spots”

Building Adaptive Capacity for (Predictably) Uncertain Times Ami C. Carpenter

14 Renewing the Struggle for Human Rights

Dustin Sharp

17 Saving Pluralism in an Antiglobalization Era Topher L. McDougal

Jennifer Freeman

End Violence and Build Peace Andrew Blum

38 Introspection for Real Change Cheryl Getz

41 Legal Remedies for Corporate Human Rights Abuse Richard E. Custin

43 Digital Media and Peacebuilding: The Role of Civic Agency in Challenging Populism Hans Peter Schmitz

28 Transcending the Border, Kroc Style

Everard Meade

31 Achieving the Sustainable

Development Goals – What Can a University Do? Amitkumar Kakkad

34 Kroc Alumni Seeking Equality and Equity for All Kajsa Hendrickson

46 Picturing Peace, Regarding Justice, Inspiring Change: Ten Years of Gallery Practice at the Kroc School of Peace Studies Derrick R. Cartwright

49 Peace Is the Name of God:

Religion and Peacebuilding Bahar Davary

52 Donor Stories

Wes Wasson & Justine Andreu Darling

54 The Peacebuilding Lens Necla Tschirgi



follow us @krocschool


1994 Trans-Border Institute established



Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice launched

» » 2007 Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies founded


2001 Kroc Facilities Opened



The Institute for Peace and Justice and Trans-Border Institute are integrated into the Kroc School

First USD Medal of Peace awarded IMAGE

2009 Center for Peace and Commerce  a partnership between the Kroc School and the School of Business  is created




In this age of rapid social change and unimaginable possibilities, we are inspired and energized to shape the future of the Kroc School as it enters its second decade. We see the Kroc School’s future in embracing innovation for

by Patricia Márquez, Dean

more peaceful and just communities through teaching, scholarship and practice. In thinking about the years ahead, I recall a speech given three years after the founding of the Kroc School by Johan Galtung, the “father” of peace studies. In front of a packed Kroc School theater, Galtung described his work breaking the cycles of violence in various countries, such as Ecuador, Peru and Afghanistan. This work required empathy and creativity to envision new possibilities, along with knowledge stemming from many disciplines, including the social sciences, law, philosophy and the arts. Galtung asked the audience where there was a school teaching all this as a cohesive field of study. He answered, “There is the Kroc School.” From our 2007 origin through 2017, the Kroc School’s curriculum integrated diverse disciplines to understand complex


systemic phenomena, combining practice in the field, academic scholarship and ongoing dialogue with peacebuilders. The Kroc School’s talented founding faculty came from diverse disciplines, such as law, economics, conflict studies, political science and sociology. In the span of a decade, the faculty published important books and articles and edited the Journal of Peacebuilding and Development. Kroc’s Master of Arts in Peace and Justice Studies pioneered a multidisciplinary approach to prepare students in interconnected areas of peacebuilding, conflict analysis and resolution, human rights, international systems, and economic development. The program sought to develop students’ capacities to identify and analyze the deeper roots of


violence and injustice, and trained them to shape strategies for addressing underlying causes. Meanwhile, program officers in the Kroc School’s Institute for Peace and Justice and the Trans-Border Institute traveled the world to work alongside local peacebuilders in countries such as Nepal, Kenya, Guatemala, Iraq and Mexico. The impact of this work included the expansion of conflict resolution capacity, the strengthening of local organizations and the inclusion of women and minorities in peacebuilding processes. Early on, the Kroc School recognized the role of business and entrepreneurship in positive social change and peacebuilding. In 2009 we partnered with the University of San Diego School of

follow us @krocschool

Our vision for the next decade at the Kroc School is to become a model within higher education that prepares our planet for systemic change.

Business to create the Center for Peace and Commerce. This Center went on to launch the widely recognized Social Innovation Challenge, which has provided human-centered design workshops, mentorship and seed funding to more than 2,000 students from USD as well as other institutions of higher learning in San Diego and Mexico. Ten years into our journey, more than 200 Kroc School graduates from the United States and 50 other countries work worldwide in diverse types of organizations — nonprofit, for-profit and government. Every day, Kroc alumni make a difference in areas ranging from violent conflict in South Sudan to environmental justice worldwide to maternal health among low-income citizens in San Ysidro, California. In his 2010 speech, Galtung noted that, beyond a multidisciplinary approach, “something new has to happen,” urging the audience to innovate to build real solutions to violent conflict. More than ever, we agree with Galtung: We cannot continue to frame and address the pressing issues that confront us by doing more of the same. A world of peace and justice is never a given, nor is it permanent. Entire regions, nations and communities can become enmeshed in great turmoil rapidly, altering geopolitics and changing lives forever. This is not something I only read about or study as an academic. As a Venezuelan, I know it firsthand when I see my country falling apart. Once the richest country in South America, Venezuela has spiraled into ever-greater human tragedy with ongoing violent confrontations, human rights abuses, hyperinflation, widespread hunger, lack of basic goods and an autocratic regime. Galtung’s statement could not be more apt: Something new does have to happen. In the coming decade, the Kroc School will move forward building on the important endeavors started at our founding, incorporating institutional knowledge to be even more effective and impactful. We will continue our focus on peace studies while

expanding the boundaries of the field by linking it with the emerging field of social innovation to address the urgent challenges we face as a global community. Drawing on our creativity and collective knowledge, our plan includes designing pedagogical and practical experiences that can prepare individuals and communities to see, to think and to act differently. Examples of this are our new programs such as the Master of Arts in Social Innovation and the Trans-Border Opportunities Certificate for those who want to explore, lead or invent different pathways to create change. In the next decade it is essential that we generate knowledge that matters to our communities. We are more committed than ever to focus our expertise, our gaze and our voices to uncover and understand the world’s most challenging phenomena and contribute to shaping solutions. We will seek answers to the many questions we are asked every day, such as: How are thousands of children and youth being recruited by ISIS or criminal gangs to be indoctrinated to become killers? What is being done to stop these global threats? What are effective approaches to prevent or address different forms of violence? We consider facts and informed opinions to be an urgent necessity in a world where disseminating untruthful information and

foster more powerful levels of creativity and engagement. We are imagining a reconfiguration of our facilities to welcome diverse learners and to expand our collaborations and co-creation with community members. “Becoming the change we want to see” is a collective endeavor. We move into the next decade with recognition of what has been accomplished and with deep gratitude to the university of which we are a part, as well as to our donors, alumni, supporters and partners. Without them, what we have achieved would not have been the same.

creating alternative realities have become easier and more widespread. It is imperative that we share truth and wisdom through fast and far-reaching networks and outlets supporting the rigor inherent in academic inquiry. Widespread connectivity is offering heretofore unknown (or simply unprecedented) possibilities for constructive social transformations at significant scale. We are energized to work at the forefront of learning that supports such opportunities. An example is our Califor-

nia Consensus Initiative, a marketplace of ideas that links scholars, practitioners and funders building peace and social change through technology. Reimagining learning in peace and justice extends far beyond ways to get more knowledge across or how to deliver it to more people. For us, it involves nurturing new ideas for achieving change, preparing for implementation and leadership, and the incubation of innovations that shape a better future. We envision new classroom layouts to

Our vision for the next decade at the Kroc School is to become a model within higher education that prepares our planet for systemic change. We want our graduates and partners to alter the root causes of inequity and injustice, working within communities and organizations that generate greater well-being, inclusion and prosperity. We see everyone associated with the Kroc School as changemakers who envision possibilities where others don’t and become emboldened by experimentation, solution design and implementation. They will be the innovators that help build peace and justice in a fast-changing and turbulent world. What could be a more important and worthy goal as we start our second decade?

PATRICIA MÁRQUEZ, PHD is the dean of the Kroc School of Peace Studies. She is an academic entrepreneur leading programs to develop next generations of changemakers. Since her arrival at the University of San Diego in 2007, she has founded the Center for Peace and Commerce, the Social Innovation Challenge and the Changemaker Hub. In 2015 she did a TEDx talk sharing her views on how universities can be central to world change.



follow us @krocschool


Joan B. Kroc’s

by Alice Hayes, former USD President

Like many good things that happened at the University of San Diego in the 1990s, my friendship with Joan Kroc began during the presidency of Dr. Author Hughes. When I became president in 1995, he offered to help me meet friends of the university, among them Joan Kroc. She had been a trustee, had received an honorary degree, and her granddaughter was a USD student. Joan attended events and was a faithful donor, although she had never made a major gift. In March 1996, Dr. Hughes set up a luncheon that marked the beginning of a valued friendship. For all her elegance and wealth, Joan lacked pretension. I often thought that she discussed world events like a friendly next-door neighbor chatting over the fence. We had many conversations about world events and leaders and how we could help bring peace to our troubled world. I often got late-night phone calls from Joan to discuss items of interest or concern. In 1996, USD was selected to host the presidential debate. This was a great opportunity for our students to observe and participate in a national event. I had hoped Mrs. Kroc would be interested and asked her for financial support. She declined this request but was willing to discuss other projects. I had a long list of needy initiatives in mind, such as a challenge grant to provide interest-free student loans. Joan asked how much was needed to meet the challenge. We had raised $4 million and were eligible to raise $3 million more. Although she would not donate $250,000 for the debate, she readily promised $3 million to help our students!

Joan seriously expected that we at USD would change the world with our vision for peace and justice programs. That was our goal, but it was her conviction.

We encouraged the students who received the interest-free loans to write notes to Mrs. Kroc. We then bundled them into an album and presented it to her. As she and I reviewed the album together, we observed the students were very diverse in terms of race, ethnicity, religion, etc. That led to a conversation on how a peace studies program could attract more international students; our admissions team was already trying to increase diversity. Joan and I agreed that John Cardinal Newman was right when he observed, “When a multitude of young people, keen, open-hearted, sympathetic, and observant, come together, they are sure to learn, one from another, even if there is no one to teach them. The conversation of all is a series of lectures to each, and they gain for themselves new ideas and views.” Students needed to learn how to build community and to benefit from and contribute to their relationships with classmates, teachers, future employers and colleagues who were culturally different from them. Joan replied, “That’s what the world needs! Let’s work on that!” And that was the beginning of the Institute for Peace and Justice and then the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies at USD. By the time of our discussion on peace studies, Joan had already sponsored the Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies at the University of Notre Dame, and she urged me to visit it and meet with Father Hesburgh, the president. Fr. Hesburgh knew our university well and recognized it would provide a good learning environment for peace studies. As our planning progressed, Joan discussed the possibility of



having a Kroc Institute on the West Coast (USD), one in the Midwest (Notre Dame) and eventually one on the East Coast. As we moved forward with the project, it became clear that peace studies could not be limited to one of our existing schools. All of the USD schools had a potential role in developing a multidisciplinary program. The academic component would be modest at first, but we recognized the potential of having several undergraduate and graduate degrees. When Joan and the faculty met to talk about this, she was delighted with the enthusiasm and impressed by the level of the ideas. Another thing we did was to examine existing international peace programs at other universities, considering their different approaches. For example, Notre Dame emphasized the need to build a more secure world. Fr. Hesburgh provided a model of international initiatives to control and reduce nuclear weapons. Another approach centered on building better understanding between peoples to result in peaceful relationships. Joan definitely favored that approach, working on building “cultural competence” and relationships. It was a good fit with our institution’s Catholic identity and Joan’s Christian orientation. She was committed to nonviolent methods of resolving conflicts and noted with interest the approach modeled by Mahatma Gandhi and Reverend Martin Luther King Jr. She suggested naming the institute after Gandhi but accepted our wish to recognize her role by naming the institute after her. The first director

follow us @krocschool

Students needed to learn how to build community and to benefit from and contribute to their relationships with classmates, teachers, future employers and colleagues who were culturally different from them. of the Institute for Peace and Justice was Dr. Joyce Neu, who came from the Carter Center where she had been an advisor to former President Jimmy Carter. Dr. Neu had practical experience in leading international peace initiatives. Joan seriously expected that we at USD would change the world with our vision for peace and justice programs. That was our goal, but it was her conviction. In later years, when we were receiving requests from other countries, the United Nations and the U.S. Department of State to assist them with their projects, I realized that her expectations were quite reasonable. Early on, we were able to attract students from all over the globe. Over the next few years, we worked with faculty, architects, students and many advisors to fulfill our mission and the vision Joan had for peace and justice at the university. She followed the discussions, calling to review the results with me. In addition to her gift of

The groundbreaking ceremony for the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice was held Oct. 6, 1999, featuring keynote speaker The Honorable Richard Riley, U.S. Secretary of Education.

$25 million to support the building, she made subsequent gifts to support lectures, events and international initiatives, as well as an estate gift of $50 million to endow the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies, the first stand-alone school of peace in the country. I know Joan would join me in remembering the words of the Roman orator Cicero, which she had had carved on a retirement gift to me. “All the world is one city in which the community of God and man exist.” Joan Kroc’s commitment to building a school for studying and working toward peace and justice is still bearing fruit today. How pleased she would be!

ALICE HAYES, PHD served as USD president from June 1995 until June 2003. Dr. Hayes guided USD toward greater academic excellence, including improving admission standards, getting recognized with chapters of Phi Beta Kappa, Mortar Board and the Order of the Coif, and leading the creation of the university’s first doctoral program. During her tenure, the university built the Joan B. Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice, the Donald P. Shiley Center for Science and Technology and the Jenny Craig Pavilion.

AN OASIS of PEACE by Fr. William Headley, Founding Dean

On 17 October 2007, I gave the inaugural talk as the founding dean of the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies. Ten years later, it is illuminating to look back and recall our aspirations for the new school and our vision for peace in that inaugural address — albeit in an abridged format. Remembering the saying, “Violence is known; peace is a mystery,” I started my talk by asking:

WHAT IS PEACE? Certainly, it is not only the cessation of conflict, war and violence. It has more to do with the fullness of life intended for all. Catholic Relief Services (CRS) with which I worked in different capacities for seven years, notes that peace will not happen without solidarity and “Solidarity will change the world.” Dorothy Day — called the most influential American Catholic of the last century — described peace but blended it with justice. She, also, challenged us to change the world: What we would like to do is change the world — make it a little simpler for people to feed, clothe and shelter themselves as God intended…And, by working for better conditions, by crying out unceasingly for the rights of the workers, of the poor, of the destitute…we can, to a certain extent, change the world. Day suggested that we “work for an oasis, a little cell of joy and peace in a harried world.” The Kroc School is our oasis here in Southern California. An oasis is not only a place: It is people who share a vision, herein a passion for peace.



follow us @krocschool

“Violence,” Bruno Bettleheim noted, “is the behavior of someone incapable of imagining solutions to the problem at hand.” “Imagination,” on the contrary, “is the art of bringing forth something that does not exist.” Applied to peacebuilding, imagination is “the capacity to imagine and generate constructive responses … that ultimately break the grips of destructive cycles.” Paul Tillich, a famous Protestant theologian, was once asked who he was. “A student,” he replied simply. So are we all … in this oasis, students of peace, laborers in this emerging discipline of peacebuilding:

They require those people who — confronted by what others see only as water and desert sand — envision a place and a way of living fuller, more peace-filled lives. This requires a moral imagination, to use the words of John Paul Lederach.

With its Master of Arts in Peace and Justice Studies including students from Nepal, Sierra Leone, Kenya, Latvia, South Africa the United States;

“Violence,” Bruno Bettleheim noted, “is the behavior of someone incapable of imagining solutions to the problem at hand.” “Imagination,” on the contrary, “is the art of bringing forth something that does not exist.” Applied to peacebuilding, imagination is “the capacity to imagine and generate constructive responses … that ultimately break the grips of destructive cycles.”

Our Trans-Border Institute and its intense preoccupation with right relations among and between the peoples of the U.S. and Mexico; And our Institute for Peace and Justice, reaching out to offer what we have learned to the world and bringing in peacebuilders that all here may continue to learn. I am asked to grow what is here. But how could I possibly add more? Then I remembered a lesson taken from a symphony orchestra leader. It is the talented players who make the music, herein a symphony of peace. I — with the baton of leadership — enable, encourage, harmonize and stir imaginations, making in the process as little noise as possible. But oases are even more than areas with water and people.

So what can we imagine for this Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies? Can you imagine students from this region, across the nation and all corners of the world coming here to learn and return home as peacebuilders? Afterward, they remain connected to the School, sharing with us in an ongoing way what they are learning in the field, creating in the process a new blending of theory and practice. Becoming themselves those who, with our modest help, turn deserts into oases of peace in far distant places and much different circumstances. Can you imagine rigorous research, which aids humanitarian organizations, to discover 1) new ways of integrating justice and peace, 2) balancing the rush of emergency work and the calmer relationship of peacebuilding, 3)

Why not imagine a nexus where the School facilitates a multidisciplinary team of skilled environmentalists: A chemist, lawyer, marine biologist, historian and entrepreneurs from off campus, such as gathered around a table here some days ago, fostering new understandings of humankind’s use and abuse of nature? Or a nexus between military and NGO communities where mutual concerns, fears and hesitancies about one another are dissolved and a new humanitarianism emerges? Can what we learn on our Mexican border — the busiest border crossing in the world — be shared at the Louvain University, Belgium, where they are fretting over the migration into Europe from Africa? Can we imagine that?

trauma healing that effectively serves masses of afflicted people as in Rwanda, 4) and evaluation that shows which peace activities really build peace? Can you imagine service to local gangs in Southern California, showing their members how to use negotiation, mediation or arbitration rather than guns and knives to settle disputes? Can our school of peace be an oasis where, in the spirit of a wider ecumenism, different religious traditions assemble to address issues of peace and justice?

Why cannot this school have a link with every major academic unit on campus, wherein peace expresses itself uniquely in law, arts and sciences, business, nursing and health sciences, engineering and leadership/education studies? Why not? If these imaginings seem unbelievably grand, remember that we would not be here today except for the imagination and generosity of a one-woman peacebuilder: Joan B. Kroc. A student searched the internet to answer the question, “How many schools of peace studies are there?” He discovered many, many centers, institutes and programs;

only one other school; and a U.N. University with “peace” prominent in the title. “School of Peace Studies” seems to be unique to us. If these moral imaginings cannot happen here, where? If not now, when? And you: I called you peacebuilders, and so you are - or should be! What do you take home? What are your imaginings? Peace is too important to be left to diplomats and presidents gathered around a mahogany peace table. Peace is not a spectator sport. As I look back on these words 10 years later, they conjure up memories of the rain that October noon and the rhythmic beat of the African drums greeting visitors. Each spoke to me of blessings. My private prayer that long-ago day was that the Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies would become an effective instrument of peace. Surely, it has, far beyond my expectations that day as I mounted the podium. Many are the names and faces of those who contributed to our decadelong advancement and have led us to this graced moment. To each of them, my humble yet sincere thanks. Over this decade, we faced our challenges and opportunities, failures and successes. I close with this advice. Embrace peace with vigor and courage as we have tried to do. Then peace, which is the mystery, will reveal itself.

WILLIAM HEADLEY, PHD is a professor at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. He has a joint appointment as professor of the practice at the University of Notre Dame’s Kroc Institute for International Peace Studies, where he serves with the Catholic Peacebuilding Network. A sociologist, counselor and theologian by training, Headley is an active Catholic priest and member of the Congregation of the Holy Spirit.



follow us @krocschool

I’m with “Prime Minister” Hugh Grant on this one. The state of the world is not as gloomy if you know where to look for bright spots, where negotiation, diplomacy and principled problem-solving operate. The Kroc School was established to teach, practice and learn about the bright spots of nonviolent, transformative social change that promote social justice. Conflict resolution is one pillar of this project. Its central praxis is conflict analysis, facilitated decision making and balancing power. After all, serious social conflict emerges in relationships where power and resources are skewed to benefit one party over another; it’s as true for family relations as for international relations.

look for the

BRIGHT SPOTS BUILDING ADAPTIVE CAPACITY FOR (PREDICTABLY) UNCERTAIN TIMES by Ami C. Carpenter Lately, the opening line of the movie “Love Actually” has been running through my head a lot. The movie begins with Prime Minister David (played by Hugh Grant) ruminating about the state of the world after the September 11 terrorist attacks: “General opinion’s starting to make out that we live in a world of hatred and greed, but I don’t see that. It seems to me that love is everywhere. Often, it’s not particularly dignified or newsworthy, but it’s always there — fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, husbands and wives, boyfriends, girlfriends, old friends.”

It’s easy to focus on the “serious social conflict” part. However, if you can make “looking for bright spots” a conscious lens, you will see that everywhere problems exist, there are people problem-solving, figuring out how to make a positive difference. Let’s start with a story close to home. Two street gangs have carved opposing territories out of the neighborhood adjacent to the University of San Diego. They have claimed for themselves the two nicest resources: the public park and the community recreation center. For the neighborhood kids, neither area is safe, especially if you’re not the right color. This is a big problem! The problem solvers here are a small group of community members — a pastor, two local police officers, a high school administrator and a local NGO — sitting around a table figuring out solutions. One solution often overlooked in cases like this is to orchestrate a conversation with the gang leaders and bring them into the problem-solving process — a strategy that has worked in neighborhoods and cities across the United States. Thanks to the diverse voices in that room, this idea is now on the table.

Let’s look at a problem that affects the whole planet. The United States recently pulled out of the Paris climate accord, the best effort to date to tackle climate change and an extraordinary feat of negotiation at the highest level of human governance. The problem solvers here are the 343 mayors, 61 cities (including our 10 largest) and 3 states that have themselves adopted the historic agreement. Megacities around the world have emerged as major players in global policy realms — especially U.S. cities because they have greater power over their budgets and assets and because mayors have greater autonomy here than in most other countries. Twelve U.S. cities belong to the C40 Cities Climate Leadership Group, which connects 90 cities worldwide, representing over 650 million people and one-quarter of the global economy.

If you can make “looking for bright spots” a conscious lens, you will see that everywhere problems exist, there are people problem-solving.

I recently returned from a trip to the Kurdish Region of Iraq where many Syrians and Iraqis displaced by ISIS have fled for sanctuary. The cities of the KRI have coordinated a humanitarian response that is unprecedented in the history of this region — particularly because a severe economic crisis hit the KRI at the same time that refugees started pouring in. “But you have to look for the bright spots,” one resident told me. “For every horrible act by ISIS, you will see 100 people helping to make things better.” She was right. Everywhere I looked, I saw people doing their best to welcome and tend to the vulnerable and to lay the groundwork for reconciliation once ISIS has been militarily defeated. Sometimes these efforts weren’t “particularly dignified or newsworthy,” but they represented familiar values: peacefulness, acceptance, diversity, equality and democratic governance.

ever before at living together peacefully, at governing in ways that respect and protect diverse people and ideas, and at institutionalizing equality before the law within democratic political systems. Yet until this story is a globally shared reality, we are all at risk. This is why the Kroc School has always sought a deliberate, holistic and symmetrical balance between conflict resolution, human rights advocacy and progressive development policies. We take seriously the chant heard around the world during social change movements: “No peace without justice.” Like other complex systems, society can only withstand so much inequality in relations before it undergoes a major transformation. The current milieu represents just such a series of challenges to “the way things are.” To my mind, this is a good thing. However, our goal should be to strengthen the best of ourselves and our societies in the face of these disruptions. The first step is to look for the bright spots where people are connecting themselves and their resources to solve a problem — and then see what we each can do to enhance the learning, adaptation and self-organization that resilience requires. That is conflict resolution at its best.

These values underpin the field of conflict resolution. The journey of human civilizations along the arc of history tells a good story — we are doing better than

AMI C. C ARPENTER, PHD is an associate professor of conflict resolution at the Kroc School of Peace Studies, where she teaches courses on peace and conflict analysis, and international negotiations. Her research focuses on community resilience to violence and the criminal dimensions of political conflicts.



follow us @krocschool


FOR HUMAN RIGHTS by Dustin Sharp

Taken together, human rights and democracy are increasingly treated as if they were a football — something to be kicked around as part of a contest of politics and power — rather than something precious that can be lost.

Recalling the ancient if apocryphal Chinese curse, we now live in truly “interesting times.” Only several short decades ago, there was a general faith that the global spread of liberal democracy and human rights was inevitable. It was not a question of “if,” but “when.” Today, democracy is in retreat in numerous countries around the world, and trust in democratic institutions is eroding even in consolidated liberal democracies. Alongside this assault on democratic norms, we bear collective witness to wavering commitments to the rule of law. Whether it is death squads in the Philippines, suppression of dissent in an increasingly autocratic Turkey or U.S. drone strikes around the world, powers small and large appear to act with total impunity when it comes to established international human rights law and the laws of war. Meanwhile, books are published predicting the “end times of human rights,” and there seems to be a more general loss of faith in the ability of human rights norms to shape a better world by civilizing the brutal scrum of politics.

carry human rights norms and activism around the globe, but those same currents have also unleashed dynamics that have undermined support for human rights. Addressing this paradox will not be easy, but it is possible. As legal scholar Philip Alston has noted, in far too many countries today, there is a (mis)perception that human rights exist only for the protection of persecuted minorities, prisoners and terrorists, etc. If this view is shared by many, it may be a partial consequence of the failure of the human rights movement to take both economic and social rights and the problem of rising inequality more seriously. Western human rights NGOs have been far quicker to denounce the jailing of a dissident or lack of bathroom access for transgendered children than a trade policy that creates massive economic dislocation or a tax policy that subsidizes Wall Street at the expense of the working and middle classes. And yet addressing these issues is essential not only to taming power in times of globalization, but also to convincing skeptical publics, including some of their more privileged members, that human rights are essential to the welfare of all.

Taken together, human rights and democracy are increasingly treated as if they were a football — something to be kicked around as part of a contest of politics and power — rather than something precious that can be lost. These developments present an increasing threat to peace in the 21st century, and one of the key challenges going forward will be restoring faith and commitment to protecting human rights around the world. It is no coincidence that these worrisome developments coincide with a global rise in authoritarian populism and radical inequality. Both of these trends represent the fruits of a poorly managed globalization that has accelerated the creation of a small if powerful clutch of winners, with too little thought given to policies needed to cushion the blow to globalization’s many losers who are facing unemployment, dislocation and fearful uncertainty. Paradoxically, the currents of globalization may have helped to



follow us @krocschool

If the West has started to lose faith in a progressive vision of history in which democracy and human rights are ascendant, it is in part because we have forgotten that such liberal goods can exist only as the product of perpetual struggle.

Reflecting a similar blind spot, human rights organizations have tended to focus too heavily on elite-driven strategies for social change. The targets of persuasion have too often been the press and the political elite, the methods of change too focused on top-down legal and institutional reforms. Human rights activists have relied more on dogmatically asserting moral and legal truths — that torture is prohibited or that freedom of speech must include the right to make offensive statements — than they have on actually persuading a variety of constituencies that adhering to human rights norms makes sense. Yet the evidence from history — ranging from antislavery abolitionist movements, to the progressive reforms of the early 20th century, to the civil rights movement — suggests

that human rights are best advanced when they are supported by genuine “people power,” and this requires significant constituency building outside of elite circles. While tales of the “end times of human rights” may be greatly exaggerated, neither can human rights survive without a broad base of support. Much work remains to be done if the human rights movement is to make the necessary pivots for changemaking in the new century. And yet even though the global war on terror and the rise in authoritarian populism have served as a sort of one-two punch to the cause of human rights, we can take some comfort in knowing that human rights have survived difficult times before, including the hypocrisy of Cold War politics.

Human rights may be down, but they are not out. If the West has started to lose faith in a progressive vision of history in which democracy and human rights are ascendant, it is in part because we have forgotten that such liberal goods can exist only as the product of perpetual struggle. It is perhaps only with the credible threat of loss that many will be convinced that it is worth re-engaging in the fight. In that sense, the current moment provides ample grounds for hope.

DUSTIN N. SHARP, JD, PHD is an associate professor at the Kroc School of Peace Studies and teaches classes in transitional justice and international human rights. He is currently working on a book entitled Beyond the End of History: Re-thinking Transitional Justice in the 21st Century. A lawyer by training, Dr. Sharp formerly worked for Human Rights Watch and the U.S. Department of State.


in an Anti-Globalization Era by Topher L. McDougal Economic globalization and the multiculturalism it has engendered are in retreat. Brexit, Trump and the “mainstreaming” of ethnic nationalism across the rich world are the ostensible calling cards of a new era. Xenophobia, racism and anti-immigrant sentiments appear ascendant. Adam Smith, the purported father of economics, famously observed that the size of the market limits the division of labor and technological advancement. So a retreat from global markets begs important questions about the future of economic development and — to the extent that economic development reinforces the capacity of governments to provide public goods like security, rule of law, education and health care — of peace itself. But maintaining peaceful, pluralistic societies, will require understanding and addressing the economic underpinnings of the contemporary backlash against pluralism in the first place.



follow us @krocschool

Economic globalization involves the international movement of any production factors: capital, goods and services, and people. For over a quarter-century starting in the 1980s, the doctrine of trade liberalization figured prominently in the conservative “Washington Consensus.” Propounded by the richest countries and the international financial institutions they created and funded, it facilitated the movement of capital and goods but left reciprocal movements of people relatively stymied. For instance, while constraints on capital flows were being systematically dismantled in places like Thailand (one of the reasons that the Southeast Asian “Tiger” economies collapsed so precipitously in 1997), that nation was able to refuse entry to huge numbers of ethnic minorities fleeing Myanmar, claiming that those in question were economic migrants, rather than refugees or asylum seekers. Migration was (and is) deemed a social issue, which therefore falls properly in the domain of “national sovereignty.” This policy largely had the effect of keeping would-be migrants from poorer countries out of richer ones, thereby maintaining high wages in the latter. Developing countries faced a conundrum. On the one hand, they were stripped of the ability to protect local industries and agriculture from the ravages of international competition. Haiti’s domestic rice production, for instance, was decimated in the mid-1990s upon the forcible elimination of domestic tariffs applied to foreign, mechanized rice producers in the United States. On the other hand, the logic of government austerity prevented them from making heavy investments in the education, health care and housing necessary for domestic workforces to rebound. When people are put out of work, they must retool for a line of work that is more internationally competitive or

naturally less vulnerable to competition. While back at school, people will need to have a place to live and study, food to eat, decent health care and perhaps child support. Hence economists’ longstanding recognition that increasing openness to trade requires corresponding increases in government spending as a percentage of GDP. Without such support, the predictable result in many countries was a rise in unemployment, falling local government tax revenues and, often, mounting levels of violence, including occurrences of civil war. Following the collapse of the rural rice industry, Haiti experienced accelerated rates of urbanization, exacerbating urban gang violence to the point of near civil war, and culminating in a coup in 2004.

There is nothing easy about pluralism. It involves concerted good-faith dialogue about which differences can be bridged, which cannot and how much each of those matters.

Now, however, the rich world physicians must heal themselves. The harsh medicine so often prescribed by the Global North is being rejected by its own constituents — often by the erstwhile proponents of free market policies. Rich countries facing stiff competition by the “rising rest” are rejecting globalization. In this situation, governments may perceive two basic options: increase public spending (whether funded via tax rises on the rich or borrowing) or reduce openness. But that dilemma is increasingly a false one for the postindustrial world. Eighty-five percent of the job losses in U.S. manufacturing are attributable to automation, not to trade. Nor to immigration. Immigrants are easily scapegoated because a human face can be put on the economic hardship experienced. Indeed, the only real solution would involve economic redistribution within countries so the gains of globalization can be shared. There is nothing easy about pluralism. It involves concerted good-faith dialogue about which differences can be bridged, which cannot and how much each of those matters. It challenges us to redefine our sense of self and of other. It requires a generosity of spirit (and of fiscal policy) that those feeling threatened may balk

at. Yet the rewards of pluralism are vast, spanning the economic, cultural and social realms. Immigrants are more likely than natural-born citizens to win major prizes in academic fields and file for patents. They are more likely to be business entrepreneurs and innovators and to have first-hand experience of pressing social problems. This makes them particularly promising “social innovators” — a field in which the Kroc School is pioneering pedagogy and which we believe is central to peacebuilding more generally. Looking ahead, there are important discussions that we as pluralistic societies need to have about what it means to be humane, respectful, open-minded, tolerant and life-affirming in the face of diversity. That conversation needs to extend not just to (im)migrants, but also to all those who need the tools and support to make the future something to look forward to, rather than fear. As Franklin Roosevelt, the champion of American government social programs, once remarked, “Peace, like charity, begins at home.”

TOPHER L. MCDOUGAL, PHD is an economist and associate professor at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. His recent book from Oxford University Press is The Political Economy of Rural-Urban Conflict: Predation, Production, and Peripheries.



follow us @krocschool



I’m relatively new at the Kroc School, joining after a period of time living in Budapest, Hungary. In 2014, the government, hopeful for new revenue, tried to pass a tax on the Internet. The tax fell on the rich and poor alike and quickly led to the largest protests the country had seen in decades. It was a high-water mark for human rights and advocacy groups that had been doing their best to hold an increasingly oligarchic government to account. Tens of thousands of citizens turned out on the street. The government tried to say protests were small and that the only people on the street were the same disgruntled hippies that showed up for every cause. I worked with independent journalists to document the protests, to show the government and the world that the people opposed the policy. In the end, the government caved, the law was shelved, and activists declared a victory.

So how do we get from the moment that we’re in to the world we desire? Recent work by Erika Chenoweth and Maria Stephan suggests that nonviolence is both ethical and effective. In an unparalleled study of large-scale protests, they found that nonviolence leads to movement success more often than violent tactics: the protestors get what they want.

What was going on here? As a social movement scholar, I’m deeply fascinated by the moment the powerful bow to the people — what kinds of demands get heard and what kinds of tactics change minds. I came to the Kroc School in the hope of better answering this question.

Strategic nonviolence is a social innovation — it’s a novel way of clearly demonstrating the will of the people, often as they raise awareness of injustice. Strategic nonviolence is a social innovation the world desperately needs. Across culture and custom, and over thousands of years, humans have generally hoped their children at least would live in a world in which the powerful defend what is just. As humans, we long for justice.

How do the powerless catch the attention of the powerful? Even more importantly, how do they get what they want? Violence? Nonviolence? Blessed are the peacemakers the prophet enjoins, in clear response to the tensions, terrors and injustices of the day. Large interstate wars are on the decline. So are civil wars. But humans continue to hurt and hate at an alarming rate.

In some cases, the unjust status quo might be the most peaceful game in town. Imagine a populace too cowed in fear to speak up. So long as physical violence or overt conflict is absent, the place is peaceful — at least if we measure it against the benchmark of negative peace (an absence of physical violence). Seen from the vantage point of positive peace, of human flourishing, the status quo often falls short.

Strategic nonviolence is a social innovation — it’s a novel way of clearly demonstrating the will of the people, often as they raise awareness of injustice. But how do we take steps to shape communities where there is an absence of violence at the same time as there is human flourishing? The path to positive peace lies through nonviolent but disruptive conflict. It is disruptive — yet nonviolent — conflict that raises the cost of the status quo, that raises the cost of injustice and that raises the cost of what the prophets of old called iniquity, beyond what the powerful unjust are able to bear. Imagine the disruptive scene caused by Civil Rights activists who engaged in sit-ins across the segregated South. Their actions were a fundamental challenge to the powerful and to their interests. That’s what was happening in Budapest, and that’s what happens around the world when people gather in passive but provocative demonstrations of solidarity.

How is a call for both peace and conflict justified? Strategic and disruptive conflict must be nonviolent, stripped of the kind of violence used by the powerful in their effort to maintain control. Human rights are often secured through the rowdy demands of those left out of political systems. Public and collective pursuits of justice — through sit-ins and die-ins and mass mobilization — are inherently disruptive.

It’s easy to forget that working for justice is radical. Such an approach is likely to invite a violent response from the individuals and institutions that benefit from injustice. It is in the contrast between the violence inherent in the system and the justice claims made by those working for peace through nonviolent means that a better world becomes possible.

Protests create tensions that reveal provocative truth — they allow the general public to better visualize the rights abuses that may make the absence of conflict impossible. Think, for example, of the heavily equipped police that faced down unarmed protestors during the Ferguson, Missouri unrest in August 2014. Disruptive protests invite the powerless to make visible the kind of violence that is often hidden from television cameras and the general public.

A wise man once said if you want peace, work for justice. Turns out, it works.

AUSTIN CHOI-FITZPATRICK , PHD is a writer and professor at the Kroc School of Peace Studies. He is the author of What Slaveholders Think: How Contemporary Perpetrators Rationalize What They Do (2017) and co-editor of From Human Trafficking to Human Rights (2012). His forthcoming book, Protest Tech: How Social Movements Use Disruptive Technology, explores the ways movements use tools and technologies to bring social change. Shorter works have appeared in Slate, Al Jazeera, Huffington Post and Aeon (as well as in academic journals most people have never heard of).



follow us @krocschool

Beyond equality, women’s meaningful participation simply makes peace more effective.

The Gender Imperative by Jennifer Freeman

If you ask people what they consider to be one of the greatest threats to peace and security today, gender inequality is not usually at the top of the list. It should be. Fundamental issues of gender drive conflicts and insecurity. At the same time, it has been empirically shown that gender equality increases societies’ potential for sustainable peace. Over the last 17 years, largely thanks to the work of civil society activists mobilizing around the Women, Peace and Security agenda following the passage of U.N. Security Council Resolution (UNSCR) 1325, the role of women in all stages of peace processes is now widely recognized. The agenda has resulted in increased attention to gender in peace and security policymaking, practice, research and scholarship. Academic programs on the topic are still in a nascent stage — making the Kroc School’s War, Gender and Peacebuilding course one of the first of its kind and its Women PeaceMakers program a unique and groundbreaking platform for change.

GENDER AS A DRIVER OF VIOLENCE When speaking of gender inequality as one of the greatest security threats of our time, people often assume that the issue is the global epidemic of gender-based violence. It has been cited by scholars as the most pervasive human rights violation on earth, with the World Health Organization estimating that 35 percent of women and girls have experienced sexual and/or physical violence by an intimate partner or sexual violence by a non-intimate partner in their lifetimes. KROC PEACE MAGAZINE

There is a wealth of data showing the ripple effects of such violence on societal health and economic outcomes. Additionally, the individual and collective horrors of practices such as human and sex trafficking, femicide, female genital mutilation, early childhood marriage, forced prostitution, and conflict-related sexual violence against women, girls, men and boys are further examples of the grotesque ways in which gendered violence manifests across the globe. Yet gender is a crucial and under-acknowledged dimension of other major security threats as well. As terrorism and violent extremism across multiple religions and ideologies continue to spread, the Kroc School’s Institute for Peace and Justice and other leading scholars and practitioners have highlighted the gendered dimensions driving individuals to join violent movements. Individuals spoke of the cultural expectations of masculine and feminine gender roles as influential factors in joining violent movements in all of the countries we traveled to as part of the institute’s Defying Extremism initiative. For men, groups such as ISIS/Daesh prey on various forms of vulnerability, offering them a figurative rebirth in a hyper-mas23

culine role of warrior/fighter and the spiritual promise to “cleanse their sins” through martyrdom. For many young women, promises of adventure outside of their cultures or homes, where their agency may be limited, proves to be an intoxicating draw. While gender norms and expectations are not the only factors influencing individuals to join violent movements, mainstream analyses too often miss their pervasive influence.

WHOSE SECURITY? With the historical predominance of men in leadership positions around the world, “security” has for centuries been dictated by their voices. Recent research reveals that how we judge our security is deeply gendered. For example, women surveyed in Afghanistan measure their security based on their degree of freedom of movement. Women in Cambodia conceive of it as relative to levels of domestic violence and their exposure to violence due to ebbs and flows in small arms. Women in northern Kenya cite heads of cattle as a security indicator — scarce numbers of cows might determine whether their sons will raid a rival tribe for more.

follow us @krocschool

This is relevant because, without a gendered analysis, our security prescriptions not only ignore the experiences and priorities of women; they can actually increase insecurity for women and girls, and men and boys. Women often view traditional markers of security — such as the presence of armed police — as a threat to their physical and communal security. A toxic cocktail of corruption, high levels of impunity, norms that favor male dominance and tacit condoning of abuse have led to numerous, well-documented cases of sexual violence carried out by the security sector, even including U.N. peacekeepers. This is relevant because, without a gendered analysis, our security prescriptions not only ignore the experiences and priorities of women; they can actually increase insecurity for women and girls, and men and boys.

GENDER AS AN UNTAPPED SOLUTION Gender equality also influences long-term peace outcomes. Since the 1990s, conflicts are four times as likely to end in a negotiated settlement than in a military victory. However, between one-third and one-half of those agreements fail within five years. One of the most compelling empirical findings on how a more lasting peace can be implemented is to include women at the negotiation table. Peace agreements are 20 percent more likely to last two years if women participate meaningfully in the negotiation teams and 35 percent more likely to last 15 years than if men negotiate alone. Yet women remain persistently and predominantly absent from peace processes. Nearly 18 years since the passage of UNSCR 1325, women continue to make up less than 10 percent of negotiation teams and only 3.7 percent of signatories to peace accords. The Kroc School’s Women PeaceMakers Program, which is celebrating its 15th year at the Institute for Peace and Justice, has been at the forefront of

advocating for women’s agency in peacebuilding. Our goal of selecting exceptional women peacebuilders to reside at the university each fall to share their work and then allow us to share those lessons with the rest of the world has countered the narrative that there is a dearth of qualified women to include in peace and security decision making. Studying these women leaders’ paths and strategies is an approach to understand gendered dynamics within conflict and peacebuilding and to advocate for women’s participation at all levels of peace processes. In addition to becoming the new home of the more than 1,000-member Women Waging Peace network in the fall of 2017, the Kroc School continues to position itself as a leading institution that actively seeks to advance gender analysis as a peace and security tool. Our students and partners in academia, practice, the military and policymaking are learning what we hope will be a self-evident truth before the close of the decade: that beyond equality, women’s meaningful participation simply makes peace more effective.

JENNIFER FREEMAN is associate director of the Kroc School’s Institute for Peace and Justice (Kroc IPJ), in charge of the PeaceMakers Programs. To date, her work has involved supporting human rights and peacebuilding programs in nearly a dozen countries. She teaches the course War Gender & Peacebuilding and is currently completing her doctorate at the University of San Diego.


No more “Us and Them”; no more “Here and Over There.” For those of us within the peacebuilding field in the United States, this has been a sobering year. My colleagues and I at the Kroc Institute for Peace and Justice have all spent years working with individuals and organizations around the world to support their efforts to end violence, strengthen relationships and build tolerant, inclusive societies. This year, these problems confronted us with a new urgency at home.



follow us @krocschool

While none of these problems are new, this year marked a qualitative shift that forces us to look at the U.S. through a peacebuilding lens.

In the United States, we saw the normalization of racist and xenophobic rhetoric within our politics. We saw continued efforts to disenfranchise a large number of voters. We saw a violent attack on Republican members of Congress and violence on several U.S. university campuses. And we saw an increase in violent attacks by white extremists against minorities. The Kroc School of Peace Studies’ building itself was defaced with swastikas — perhaps the single most powerful symbol of hate that exists. All of this is fraying our social fabric, increasing intolerance and making our society less open and inclusive. While none of these problems are new, this year marked a qualitative shift that forces us to look at the United States through a peacebuilding lens. The dynamics we see within the United States are the very dynamics we’ve seen drive violence in countries around the world. We now must honestly reckon with the fact that our society is at a significantly higher risk of wide-scale social violence. How does the dangerous political and social moment we are experiencing in the United States inform the approach of the Kroc School’s IPJ to peacebuilding? More than anything, it has solidified our commitment to a new mission and strategy. This year, we developed a mission statement for the Kroc IPJ that reads, “Together with peacemakers, we develop powerful new

approaches to end cycles of violence, while advancing that learning locally and globally.” The mission represents a commitment to co-create knowledge with peacemakers — knowledge that is grounded in the lived reality of peacemakers, that is made rigorous by all the resources of our university ecosystem, and that can be immediately applied by those working to end violence and build peace. We have put the co-creation of knowledge at the core of the Kroc IPJ’s mission because peacebuilding requires learning. Peacebuilding is fundamentally about shifting complex social systems away from a state where violence is the norm and toward a state where conflict can be managed nonviolently. Working on complex social systems means there are no set recipes for success. Instead, this work requires approaches that begin with deep expertise and the best knowledge available and then combines that knowledge with continuous learning and adaptation. Working on complex social systems also requires working in partnership with those on the inside of those systems. That means working with peacemakers to learn with them about how to shift societies away from violence and toward peace. To say that you will work in true partnership with peacemakers to create applied learning, that knowledge will be truly co-created,

is an easy thing to say but a hard thing to do in practice. There are myriad reasons why this is the case, but the one point I want to emphasize here is that what is happening now in the U.S. will make these partnerships easier. Although problems in the U.S. do not come close to the problems being experienced by those in Syria or Venezuela, we now know on a much more visceral level that

we have much to learn from those in other countries who have fought against polarization and demagoguery and have fought to prevent violence and build inclusive societies. In the past, those in the peacebuilding community, myself included, have often come to a partnership with “local” peacemakers in a true spirit of cooperation and

collaboration but without this genuine recognition that we also need to learn. This will no longer be the case. As we work in the coming years to co-create the rigorous, applied learning that is at the heart of our mission, that learning will not just be for them; it will be for us and those we serve here in the United States. It won’t just advance the cause of peace and justice over there, but everywhere.

ANDRE W BLUM, PHD is executive director of the Kroc School’s Institute for Peace and Justice. He leads the Institute’s efforts to collaborate with peacemakers around the world and in San Diego to develop powerful new approaches to end cycles of violence. Previously, he was the vice president for planning, learning and evaluation at the U.S. Institute of Peace.



follow us @krocschool

TRANSCENDING THE BORDER Kroc Style by Everard Meade Humanity’s greatest challenges do not respect borders. Over the last 10 years, the Kroc School’s Trans-Border Institute (Kroc TBI) has pursued research and outreach to better understand the U.S.-Mexico border and the escalating violence of the cross-border drug war. Over the next 10 years, we need to apply our knowledge to help those most affected by injustice on the border and violence in Mexico to develop meaningful solutions. Transcending the border will mean making the Kroc School into a hub for cross-border peacebuilding and social innovation, and the University of San Diego an anchor institution in a cross-border community.

TRANSCEND THE PHYSICAL SPACE The most basic principle of transcending the border is transcending the physical space, getting beyond walls and fences, security cordons and checkpoints, searing deserts, and rushing rivers. If we fetishize the physical border and everything it represents, even as fierce critics, we’ll end up strengthening perhaps the most pernicious reality of the

border — the border as a metaphor, an inescapable frame for organizing and segregating how we think about the world. We see the border as an opportunity, a future to be forged, not a fatal destiny. To realize this future, we need to engage with the social, cultural and economic processes that make the border a dynamic and creative space. And we need to leverage this dynamism to end exploitation, injustice and violence in sustainable ways.

We see the border as an opportunity, a future to be forged, not a fatal destiny. At Kroc TBI, this means offering nontraditional educational programs to introduce the opportunities of the border region to new audiences; using visual arts, spoken word and new media to inspire the next generation of cross-border changemakers; and engaging with local leaders in the places in Mexico most affected by violence and injustice.

ANCHORS NOT PARACHUTES This kind of engagement has to be long term. We can’t just parachute in as foreigners with prepackaged solutions and expect instant results. Students, of course, are always ephemeral — their programs, resources and service commitments are relatively short-lived. The challenge for universities is how to plug students into long-term and robust community partnerships, in ways that are mutually beneficial — to create programs that strengthen pedagogy and community resilience at the same time. Achieving and maintaining this kind of synergy is what it means to be an “anchor institution.” In our peacebuilding programs in Mexico, for example, our students engage directly with the leaders of local NGOs, government officials and academics — they discuss problems and design solutions together. And it’s not just an academic exercise. The seminars are designed to serve as incubators for new projects and networks. In our most recent program in Culiacán, Sinaloa, for example, we formed seven thematic working groups. Each group committed to a plan of action, a regular meeting schedule and evaluation metrics. Working with local partners, Kroc TBI secured space at a monthly public safety forum, a dedicated page in the local newspaper, and a series of



virtual office hours with Kroc TBI staff and local university faculty so that each working group can share its progress and problems and can receive the coaching and support necessary to succeed.

HOLD UP THE MIRROR There are well-established methods of active listening and accompaniment in places besieged by violence. But sometimes it’s just a question of holding up the right kind of mirror so that people can see themselves through someone else’s eyes. At our seminar in Culiacán, a local graduate student related an encounter with a group of presumed sicarios (killers) that had changed his life. He and two colleagues blew a tire on a remote stretch of road in northern Sinaloa. He’d walked to a gas station to borrow a wrench, only to realize that it wasn’t the right size when he got back to his truck. An SUV with three armed men inside rolled up behind him. Petrified, the student explained to them what had happened, and they got the correct-sized wrench out of their truck and helped him change the tire. Afterward, the student was sitting in the driver’s seat when the boss of the armed band came up to his window — he thought, “Now they’re going to rob us; I hope they just take the truck.” Instead, the tough guy offered his hand and left the student with a request: “Listen morros (guys), bring some schools up here to the rancho (rural areas). I know that we are ‘screwed,’ but I want the kids around here to learn some other way to support themselves.” They shook hands, and he left. It’s a powerful example of the importance of redemption and the beautiful but messy humanity that must inform successful peacebuilding efforts. Any credible

follow us @krocschool

Nurturing a positive cycle of peacebuilding in the border region with knowledge and infrastructure — that’s transcending the border, Kroc-style.

In Sinaloa, for example, at the worst moment of the drug war in 2012, thousands of ordinary citizens participated in reclaiming the beaches at Altata, a popular retreat an hour west of the capital that had become a haven for drug traffickers and the scene of several massacres. They arrived in huge caravans from Culiacán, occupied the beaches, drove out the criminals, and rebuilt local businesses with a mix of volunteerism, micro-credit and public-private partnerships.

solution will have to incorporate the tens of thousands of people who are complicit in the violence ravaging Mexico at the moment, many as both perpetrators and victims. The better we listen, the more we hear these stories and the more urgent it becomes to document and share them, to transform our narratives about Mexico and the border.

BE THE NERDS The growing literature on violence prevention across a variety of disciplines suggests that grassroots peacebuilding efforts that address the local social determinants of violence may be more effective than macro-policy changes, or at least necessary precursors. Unfortunately, by their very nature, grassroots peacebuilding projects are often poorly documented, seldom analyzed and largely invisible to each other and to policymakers.

Outside of a couple of newspaper articles and a PowerPoint presentation passed around like a folk artifact, however, the campaign has been totally invisible to the outside world and, indeed, even to the next generation in Sinaloa. That’s where Kroc TBI can help — we have developed a research project to document these efforts, identify best practices and share them so that we can strengthen the broader social innovation ecosystem. Along with our students, we’ll be the nerds — turning stories, documents and photographs into data and analysis that can be shared and compared. That data, in turn, will enrich the next round of our program and inspire the next generation of peacebuilders. Nurturing a positive cycle of peacebuilding in the border region with knowledge and infrastructure — that’s transcending the border Kroc style.

E VER ARD MEADE, PHD is director of the Kroc School’s Trans-Border Institute. For the last two decades, Meade has worked on immigration policy, developing human rights curricula, and documenting and preventing violence in Mexico and the borderlands.


The growing urgency of sustainable development for the entire world led the United Nations to expand its eight Millennium Development Goals into 17 Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. With a target date of 2030, U.N. member states have committed themselves to the SDGs “to transform our world.” Broadly, these goals focus on the so-called triple bottom-line approach to human well-being including socioeconomic development, environmental sustainability, and peace, justice and social inclusion. Global trends such as the worrying pace of climate change, accelerating urbanization, growing global economic interdependence, the rising divide between the haves and the have-nots and the increasing pace of technological changes have significant implications for the global demand for resources, humankind’s ability to survive in the long run and our planet’s ability to sustain life in any form. Fortunately, young citizens of today and tomorrow have unprecedented access to knowledge, are incredibly skilled, and have not only the creativity and the enthusiasm, but also the intelligence and the adaptability to solve today’s complex problems. They are our best



hopes of growing the sustainable development movement that is gaining traction around the world. Universities can play a critical role in achieving the SDGs by teaching and equipping this next generation of leaders, innovators and decision makers with the knowledge and skills to address the sustainable development challenges. Universities need to build understanding and awareness, and provide hands-on training to equip students to develop practical yet impactful solutions that can shift the behavior of complex societal systems. By supporting the goals through their own governance, operations and community engagement, universities can also set an example for other sectors. How does the University of San Diego (USD) go about doing this? Designated

follow us @krocschool

Universities can play a critical role in achieving the SDGs by teaching and equipping this next generation of leaders, innovators and decision makers with the knowledge and skills to address the sustainable development challenges.

as a Changemaker campus, USD does this by combining curricular offerings and extracurricular activities that provide our students with a solid understanding of the complexities of global challenges while giving them an opportunity to dive deeper into a specific challenge of their choice. At the Kroc School, curricular offerings include an undergraduate minor in Peacebuilding and Social Innovation, graduate degree programs in Master of Arts in Peace and Justice (MAPJ) and Master of Arts in Social Innovation (MASI), and various certificate programs for external participants. Extracurricular and cocurricular programs include various types of community engagement projects facilitated by USD’s Mulvaney Center for Community, Awareness and Social Action, the Changemaker Challenge hosted by the Changemaker Hub, and the Global Social Innovation Challenge hosted by the Center for Peace and Commerce (CPC) — a joint program of the Kroc School of Peace Studies and the School of Business. The community engagement opportunities sensitize the students to the plight of the marginalized sections of society and allow them to learn about the challenges facing these communities. The Changemaker Challenge allows them to get their feet wet by focusing on a specific issue affecting the campus community. The CPC’s Social Innovation Challenge (SIC) offers them a yearlong opportunity to tackle any social or environmental issue of their choice. The SIC motivates, guides and resources the participants to develop a nuanced understanding of the issue leading to a potential solution. The SIC recognizes teams that come up with solutions that have promising impact, financial sustainability, and scalability or replicability. It rewards and resources the teams that show the readiness and commitment needed to implement their proposed solution. While many of the winners (and non-winners) of the SIC go on to implement their social ventures with varying degrees of success, that is neither the primary purpose nor the

most beneficial outcome of their participation in the SIC. Its primary goal is to provide the participants opportunity, support and incentives to study a specific social or environmental issue in detail. Over the yearlong journey, they get a taste of what it takes to think beyond themselves and their immediate future, to understand a complex issue and to craft a solution whose benefits primarily accrue to the wider society. Participants also develop an understanding of the complexity and interconnectedness of various sustainable development goals, become aware of the social, economic and environmental implications of their future careers, and progressively become more conscious citizens. Over the years, the SIC has grown in terms of depth of content, the level of support provided to student teams and the number of universities taking part in the challenge. Starting with participation from only USD students in 2011, the SIC has grown to become a binational event in which 10 universities from both the United States and Mexico participated in 2017. The content and format of coaching and mentoring offered to the students has also benefited from the iterations we have learned from over the last seven years. In addition, we have made two specific changes this year to deepen and broaden the impact of SIC. The first change is the inclusion of a deeper and more systematic study of the existing problem and its current solution landscape as the formal first stage in the challenge. The second change focuses on

broadening the geographical reach of the SIC. We have also made the SIC a global initiative from 2017-2018 onward to provide an opportunity to the participating universities all over the world to jump-start or augment such a transformative and hands-on learning experience for their students. Social entrepreneurs and innovators around the world are already taking a lead in finding sustainable and scalable

solutions to the most pressing problems facing the world. We must engage students across academic disciplines to come together and become active contributors rather than stay as passive observers in achieving the SDGs. We must inspire, train, support and celebrate our students who demonstrate their commitment to shaping a better world. We must also create an environment that makes it easy for young people to partner with like-minded peers,

supporters, investors and institutions to realize their full potential. We must link interdisciplinary knowledge and professional practice and leverage the SDGs as an opportunity for students to build skills and gain experience that are beneficial to them as well as to the society at large. The positive impact of student social innovators and social entrepreneurs must be supported, incentivized, celebrated and showcased to create an even larger level of interest and dedication. Social venture challenges, including training, competition, prizes and publicity for the student innovators can go a long way in capitalizing on the social and environmental consciousness of young citizens of today and tomorrow. After all, as John Gardner (former president of the Carnegie Foundation and former U.S. Secretary of Health, Education and Welfare) would say, you cannot go wrong when you “bet on good people doing good things�!

AMITKUMAR K AKK AD, PHD is director of the USD’s Center for Peace and Commerce and a faculty member at the School of Business. Amit is devoted to establishing the Center for Peace and Commerce as an internationally recognized center of excellence that encourages, connects and resources organizations focused on the penta bottom line (planet, people, prosperity, peace and partnership).



follow us @krocschool


We entered the 21st century facing complex challenges in peace and justice. In the last two decades, terrorism, environmental degradation and population pressures have combined with rising inequality in countries across the globe, including the United States. The Ford Foundation has identified inequality as “the defining challenge of our time.” This emphasizes that “peace” must go beyond the absence of violence. Positive peace, the kind of peace on which livelihoods and human well-being are built, requires equity in access to resources, opportunities and decision making. Positive peace involves having the opportunity to thrive, instead of merely survive. To build positive peace, peacebuilders and changemakers must address the root causes of inequality.

THE FORD FOUNDATION HAS ESTABLISHED FIVE UNDERLYING DRIVERS OF INEQUALITY WORLDWIDE: • entrenched cultural narratives that undermine fairness, tolerance, and inclusion; • failure to invest in and protect vital public goods such as education and natural resources; • unfair rules of the economy that magnify unequal opportunity and outcomes; • unequal access to government decision making and resources; • persistent prejudice and discrimination against women, people with disabilities and racial, ethnic, and caste minorities.

The Foundation seeks to address these by promoting government engagement, creating inclusive economies, creating pathways to learning and dignity, and much more. The epidemic of poverty and inequality isn’t something that is happening to one group or one country. As an alumna of the Master of Arts in Peace and Justice (MAPJ) program, I am part of a larger cohort of changemakers, equipped with tools to understand and address the root causes of inequality in the United States and abroad. I had always assumed I would apply my master’s degree to addressing issues of peace and justice abroad. During my Kroc School summer internship, I had the opportunity to do just that while working at the U.S. Embassy in Laos. I applied my degree skills — mapping issues, analyzing actors and identifying approaches to local problems. I felt prepared to engage in projects as diverse as economic development, human trafficking, LGBT rights and natural resource exploitation. After returning to the United States, I saw comparisons between the U.S. and Laos through the universal challenges of inequality. Negative cultural narratives, unfair access to government or resources and discrimination are equally prevalent, albeit in different ways, in both countries. I realized that my future work wouldn’t just be focused on addressing peace and social justice abroad, but in my own country as well. Indeed, many Kroc School alumni are building equity and equality in the United States by creating opportunities, changing negative narratives, and supporting education and empowerment, as well as bridge-building and advocacy.

ACCESS TO OPPORTUNITY SHOULD BEGIN AT BIRTH The motto of “beating the odds” provides little comfort when the rules of the economy work against you. Systemic practices and policies in the U.S. prevent people from attaining success by any definition. Kroc School alumnus Lars Almquist ‘11 (MAPJ) is the Grant Writer at San Ysidro Health Center (SYHC). For Lars, the inequality he works to reduce often starts before birth. Many of the clients who come to the clinic lack medical, financial or other support when it comes to maternal health. Because of this, infants are born malnourished and into economic and


Positive peace involves having the opportunity to thrive, instead of merely survive. environmental poverty. Children with limited access to health services see their opportunities further reduced as they grow up. Reallocating resources can bridge some of this inequality. Lars finds and fights for the funds to provide basic medical services for the people of San Ysidro. SYHC runs on state funding and relies on grants to provide much-needed services to over 91,000 people, 97% of which are on Medi-Cal, California’s low-income medical assistance program. “I am the human switchboard for the Center — I connect programs, money and services so the medical professionals don’t have to worry about being defunded,” says Lars. He uses his deep understanding of the issues and his writing skills to secure the funding to provide basic services — services that can drastically change the future of people in that community of San Diego. Failing to invest time and resources into public goods like education and health care exacerbates inequality. Public goods like SYHC are critical for closing the inequality gap. SYHC serves “people who in their life are the most unequal” according to Lars. He helps reduce inequality by ensuring that organizations like SYHC continue to provide essential services.

CHANGING NARRATIVES, STOPPING PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION Yurika Tulen ‘15 (MAPJ) knows all too well the importance of increasing access to public goods. She is currently the programs and operations manager at Think Dignity, a nonprofit organization in San Diego focused on closing inequality gaps for homeless and at-risk youth by providing a variety of services that improve their lives and by influencing policy changes. Yurika impacts the lives of San Diego’s most vulnerable population through innovative access to vital public goods. Yurika sees reducing socioeconomic inequality as a fundamental target of her work. To succeed, she incorporates peacebuilding approaches — building coalitions, doing data-driven community outreach and engaging directly with opposition groups to change perceptions of homelessness. “I engage with the opposition [to funding homelessness projects] to learn their perspective, to analyze information and to find similarities instead of


follow us @krocschool

Not everyone has the chance to make themselves heard. Advocacy is a critical approach. differences,” says Yurika. In this way, she helps shift negative narratives about homelessness to more inclusive and empathetic ones. Her peacebuilding approach also contributes to reducing prejudice and discrimination against the populations that she works with.

EDUCATION AND EMPOWERMENT For Kroc alumni, education and empowerment are essential to diminishing prejudice and discrimination. Katherine Koebel ‘16 (MAPJ) works as the development associate at Arapahoe House in Denver, Colorado, to alter perceptions of drug addiction. Her approach centers on building deeper relationships, creating spaces and opportunities for people to reframe the ways they think about addiction. “We treat everyone, no matter their background,” says Katherine. “It is how we can build equality and stop discrimination, if people understand that this can happen to anyone. We remove the stigma associated with getting help.” Katherine sees her work as breaking down the walls of shame to foster tolerance. “Addiction largely affects the poorest populations, but it wrecks everyone regardless of their background,” says Katherine, and the organization focuses on building bridges to forge new understandings. Prejudice and discrimination are driven by misinformation and lack of education. Hayley Walczer ‘16 (MAPJ) is the

outreach specialist and volunteer coordinator for the Center for Sexual Assault Survivors in Newport News, Virginia, and fights inequality by changing how people perceive and react to sexual violence. Hayley works on public outreach, leads different types of trainings and develops community knowledge on sexual and domestic violence. In her words, “I focus on the equality of everyone involved in this [sexual/domestic violence]. No one is immune to trauma.” A key component of her daily work is advocating for victims, including their rights and livelihoods. Not everyone has the chance to make themselves heard. Advocacy is a critical approach to fight sexual assault. Many at-risk populations do not know how to access resources; they are vulnerable and susceptible to prejudice, which is where Hayley comes in.

ADVOCACY AND BRIDGE-BUILDING FOR IMPACT Afarin Dadkhah ‘13 (MAPJ), the human rights advocacy coordinator at MADRE in New York, N.Y., works to advocate on behalf of indigenous women around the world. She serves as the conduit between groups experiencing human rights violations and policymakers at the United Nations in New York. In advocating for human rights, including social and economic equality, Afarin says “it’s not big things all the time; it’s a variety — but these [actions] help achieve those bigger goals.” She continues by saying that “so many parallels can be drawn between international and domestic inequality; even things like translation services can keep indigenous women from engaging in government and impacting decisions made about their lives — that is inequality.”

PROMOTING EQUALITY AROUND THE GLOBE RIANA HARDIN '15 (MAPJ) Self-Advocacy Coordinator at State Council on Developmental Disabilities Sacramento, CA, USA MATHIEU BERE '15 (MAPJ) Project Development / Peace and Governance Specialist at USAID Burkina Faso HAYLEY UMAYAM '13 (MAPJ) Engagement Manager at Forcier Consulting Sub-Saharan Africa ELLEN DOUGHERTY '08 (MAPJ) Programme Associate at UNICEF New York, USA JEAN MENDIETA '14 (MAPJ) Peacebuilding and Development Consultant at Catholic Relief Services Acapulcode JuĂĄrez, Mexico JENY MILLS '11 (MAPJ) Africa Analyst at the United States Department of State Washington, D.C., USA

To promote conversations about inequality across the globe and compare solutions, Afarin and MADRE recently brought indigenous women from around the world, including representatives from the Sioux Tribe and the Blackfeet Nation, in addition to several foreign countries, to Washington, D.C., to participate in the People’s Climate March. The bridge-building facilitated the identification of universal elements of the inequality faced by different groups and the impact that global climate change has on furthering such inequality. But more important, it allowed different groups to connect in new ways to change their situations.

ALYSSA PATTERSON '13 (MAPJ) Partnership Development Coordinator at Wedu Global Bangkok, Thailand WIDA URVANY '11 (MAPJ) Foreign Service Officer at Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Republic of Indonesia Indonesia

As these examples demonstrate, Kroc alumni are working at the intersection of peace and social justice. They combine passion with knowledge and skills to reduce inequality and inequity in the United States and abroad.

K A JSA HENDRICKSON is the Kroc School coordinator of Career Development, Partnerships and Alumni Relations. Kajsa is an alumna of the Master of Arts in Peace and Justice program, class of 2016, having focused her studies on environmental conflict and peacebuilding in Southeast Asia. Kajsa has taught, volunteered and studied around the world and is now applying her skills to building the careers of peacebuilders and changemakers.



follow us @krocschool



for REAL CHANGE by Cheryl Getz

A look at history makes evident how the quality of society’s leadership is a crucial factor in the pursuit for peace and justice. Contrary to what many believe, leadership is not about a person in a position of authority. Leadership to create positive change is an activity with essential components that include introspection, tenacity, courage and wisdom. These components are necessary if we are to address ever-increasing local and global adaptive challenges, such as the current refugee crisis or global warming. These types of challenges are complex because they involve many different groups of people and divergent views. Working on such adaptive challenges often involves confronting others’ deeply held values and beliefs during trying times. Thus leadership requires persistence to overcome setbacks, different perspectives, imbalance of power and the pace of change itself. In creating positive change, leaders face moments of doubt, uncertainty and fear that require courage to go on. Lastly, without introspection and wise decision making to navigate the course, positive change turns negative quickly, and the results are disastrous.

Introspection shapes a conscious leader with a keen level of awareness and openness to creative solutions and possibilities. A conscious leader has the capacity for careful reflection and analysis of his or her actions and that of others. Both Mahatma Gandhi and Martin Luther King Jr. left testament of how their self-awareness and cultivation of an inner life enabled them to inspire and mobilize disempowered groups toward a positive shared vision with hope. Building a rich interior life strengthened their ability to lead for change by bringing communities together. Emergent thinking about leadership as an activity that requires consciousness of the self and the group originates from the wisdom of indigenous communities engaged in actions that create and maintain positive change. Connections between and among people and groups are a way of life, and the whole cannot benefit through the thinking or actions of a lone individual. The well-being of the community is far more important than the individual. This speaks of “power with” rather than “power over,”

An important strategy in peacebuilding, which is easier said than done, is moving beyond one’s own perspective having enough presence to accept that interpersonal conflicts stem from difficulties in accepting the perspectives of others.

where a peril is the presence of an individual who cares more about self-aggrandizement than the community he or she is purportedly leading. This is why changemakers worldwide must understand and value the activity of leading in which people can come together across divides with a necessary sense of consciousness about the self and the group. Sadly, there are numerous examples of men and women in high-level positions who are autocratic, ineffective and unable to build coalitions to create and sustain progress toward peaceful and effective resolutions of our greatest challenges. Autocratic leaders who are reactive rather than thoughtful and who seek swift, simplistic solutions to complex problems undermine efforts to build durable peace. While many view such responses as strong and decisive, in reality reactive and unreflective decisions — for example, the 2003 U.S. invasion of Iraq, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte’s war on drugs and the so-called Muslim ban in the United States — often bring catastrophic results. In times of great stress, conscious leaders possess the willingness and stamina to hold steady in the face of chaos and disorder. They are able to manage uncertainty and have an ability not to act, what Simpson and French (2006) describe as “negative capability.” Negative capability is being open to the possibility of not knowing, of sitting with the unknown, allowing solutions to emerge through the mobilization of the group’s resources. This is especially difficult for leaders who require praise and dangerously seek immediate gratification. Being present in these most challenging moments requires an understanding of larger systems and the recognition that our interconnectedness affords us an abundance of knowledge.

answers. An important strategy in peacebuilding — which is easier said than done, is moving beyond one’s own perspective having enough presence to accept that interpersonal conflicts stem from difficulties in accepting the perspectives of others. In the activity of leading, effective leaders can model behaviors that demonstrate presence and openness to groups and ideas that differ from their own. In conclusion, the effective activity of leading to address our most important challenges must involve individuals with innerawareness, the capacity for reflection and great empathy for others. These individuals seek a higher purpose that balances the need for sustainability with collaboration to realize their own and others’ highest potential. In our schools and universities, we can train men and women to be conscious leaders capable of the activity of leadership for real sustainable change. The lessons from indigenous communities and conscious leaders in history tell us the interdependent problems faced by the world, such as global warming or the refugee situation, will not be solved by a single nation or any small group of individuals. These will require new leadership where the world, and not an individual or small agenda, is truly our focus.

A current threat to peace is the escalation of violence between religious and cultural groups and those with differing ideological viewpoints. Now more then ever we have to prepare leaders who recognize and hold the tension between opposing viewpoints. This requires empathy and the recognition of others’ concerns together with the wisdom to acknowledge no one has all of the

CHERYL GETZ, PHD is an associate professor in the School of Leadership and Education Sciences at the University of San Diego. She collaborates with a variety of colleges and universities to develop and facilitate leadership programs that integrate a systems approach as well as ongoing action and introspection to strengthen the leadership capacity of individuals and groups.



follow us @krocschool


take the leap

Jump-start Your Career in Changemaking With a

Master of Arts in Social Innovation

MASI The only Master of Arts in Social Innovation offered by a Peace and Justice School in an Ashoka U Changemaker Campus. Learn about the issues you are passionate about and ways to become an effective leader in social change.

Both Programs Accepting Applications through JANUARY 15 for FALL 2018


Master of Arts in Peace and Justice


Turn passion into action.

Many people want to change the world. But drive alone is not enough. At the Kroc School, we merge theory and practice to give you conceptual insight and hands-on training so that passion for peace and justice transforms into visible change. Our Master of Arts in Peace and Justice prepares students from diverse backgrounds for careers ranging from conflict resolution and mediation to human rights, social entrepreneurship to education and development to advocacy. We're looking for creative problem solvers and leaders. Come join us.


In the era of globalization and corporate social responsibility, victims of human rights abuses must be heard, including access to American courts. When a corporation violates the law of nations, U.S. federal courts should stand ready to provide a remedy to victims of corporate abuse. Absent a remedy, victims cannot find peace or justice. Victims of human rights abuse often lack a remedy in their home countries. Perpetrators of abuse should not be able to hide behind a corporation to escape liability for wrongdoing. Corporate liability for tortious behavior is well-established in American jurisprudence. A threat to peace and justice exists when victims lack a viable remedy for human rights abuses by corporations. A myriad


of legal roadblocks to justice include limiting jurisdiction only to American citizens, disallowing corporate liability and limiting claims to acts in an official capacity of a foreign nation. Courts have required victims to exhaust all other remedies prior to proceeding in a U.S. court. One important law protecting victim rights is the Alien Tort Statute (ATS) of 1789, which remained seemingly “undiscovered” until the 1980s. This aged statute, dating back to the presidency of George Washington, provides that federal district courts have jurisdiction to hear “any civil action by an alien for a tort only, committed in violation of the law of nations or a treaty of the United States.” The ATS permits foreign citizens to bring claims in U.S. federal courts for acts in violation of human rights committed outside of the United States. The Supreme Court has found that the ATS is to be narrowly applied consistent with the intended purpose that existed when it was passed in 1789.


In Kiobel v. Royal Dutch Petroleum, Chief Justice Roberts penned the 2011 majority opinion. In this opinion, Roberts ruled against the plaintiffs who alleged that the defendant oil company aided in atrocities committed by the Nigerian military. Relatives of the victims alleged that the defendant oil company was complicit in the torture and killing of the activists who had campaigned against the environmental damage caused by activities in the Niger Delta. Roberts opined that the claims did not establish a sufficient nexus or connection with the United States. The so-called presumption against extraterritorial reach is based in part on a concern that jurisdiction under the ATS may interfere in the conduct of U.S. foreign policy. The Court concluded that there is no indication that the ATS was passed “to make the United States a uniquely hospitable forum for the enforcement of international norms.” Chief Justice Roberts held out the possibility that a claim that concerns the territory of the United States with “sufficient force” could

follow us @krocschool

A threat to peace and justice exists when victims lack a viable remedy against human rights abuses by corporations. be heard in federal court. The Court did not resolve the crucial question as to whether a corporation has liability under the ATS. The Supreme Court has another opportunity to get this right. In Jesner v. Arab Bank, PLC, the Second Circuit Court of Appeals found that the ATS did not apply to corporate defendants. Plaintiffs alleged that Arab Bank “served as Paymaster” for Hamas by paying the families of suicide bombers. It was further alleged that Arab Bank knowingly provided financial services to a terrorist organization. The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari in the case. The issue presented before the Supreme Court in Jesner is whether the ATS provides jurisdiction over a foreign corporation. While another statute, the Torture Victims Protection Act of 1991 has been held to apply only to individuals, the ATS does not contain this crucial limitation. It should also be noted that Arab Bank was found liable under the Anti-Terrorism Act (ATA), which provides that American citizens may sue in federal court as victims of terrorist attacks. An Amica Curiae Brief of International Law Scholars in Jesner aptly states that corporations must be held accountable for allowing terrorist organizations to conduct “campaigns of violence against innocent civilians.” This brief further establishes

that domestic and international law allow for corporate liability. The U.N. Human Rights Commission has confirmed that states have an affirmative obligation to address human rights abuses. Congress could amend the ATS to specifically include corporations. We expect that the Supreme Court in Jesner will finally answer the question of whether corporations are liable under the ATS. A finding by the Supreme Court that corporations are liable under the ATS will serve to hold financial institutions accountable for failing to detect unethical financial transactions. Eleanor Roosevelt’s wisdom that “we will be the sufferers if we let great wrongs occur without exerting ourselves to correct them” is as applicable today as it was for the “greatest generation” in World War II.

RICHARD E. CUSTIN, JD is an attorney, mediator and clinical professor of Business Law and Ethics at the University of San Diego School of Business. He also serves as an affiliate professor at the Kroc School of Peace Studies.

DIGITAL MEDIA and PEACEBUILDING: The Role of Civic Agency in Challenging Populism by Hans Peter Schmitz



follow us @krocschool

Anyone can buy exposure to content online, but selfpropelled sharing and engagement emerge from genuine belief in the message. Digital media create what some have called “personalized action frames” and can get individuals to engage politically, especially when prompted by someone they know. The rise of digital mobilizing is of fundamental importance for the future of democracy, social justice and peace. Some have hailed digital tools as solutions to persistent social problems. Others have asked “can democracy survive the Internet?” and fear that Facebook and Google as the new information providers have no inherent commitments to democratic values. Two particular trends — the twin rise of “fake news” and populism — have been blamed on social media and the way it allows individuals to limit their exposure to viewpoints they already agree with. Many populist leaders have used the digital realm to connect directly with supporters and cut out mainstream media. President Trump uses Twitter to get his “unfiltered message” out while also railing against CNN and the The New York Times. Rodrigo Duterte won the presidency in the Philippines in 2016 with little elite support, but his supporters stood out as being exceptionally active on social media. One could easily conclude that digital media are today a decisive factor in electoral campaigns and are fundamentally reorganizing everyday social interactions. However, things are a bit more complicated, and the ubiquitous presence of social media is not necessarily evidence of its power. What emerges instead is a complex interplay between top-down messaging and bottom-up activism reflected in the all-important — and largely autonomous — sharing of content. Significantly, President Duterte was less active on Facebook than his competitors, but his few posts gained greater attention and led to more meaningful and sustained engagement among supporters. Both Presidents Duterte and Trump gained attention based on their outra-

geous messages, while social media allowed a base of true believers to reach a greater audience than was possible before. What mattered was not the number of “likes,” but the voluntary sharing taking place among those most dedicated to the cause. In the United Kingdom, the Labour Party and Jeremy Corbyn ran a better social media campaign than the Tories during the June 2017 electoral contest, and this clearly mobilized a greater number of younger voters. But what ultimately mattered to Labour’s relative success was raising the right issues and building local coalitions. Anyone can buy exposure to content online, but self-propelled sharing and engagement emerge from genuine belief in the message. In the Internet era, there are many mobilizing platforms available. Petitions can now be more rapidly shared and signed, videos can go viral, and we can observe a U.S. president starting a “Twitter storm.”, Avaaz, 38 Degrees, Jhatkaa or GetUp! are examples of platforms competing with traditional ways of organizing for social and political change. Some still dismiss this as “slacktivism” or “clicktivism,” but doing so ignores that these platforms can be a key entry point in reaching younger generations. What then are some ways in which digital tools can enhance the prospects of advancing positive social and political change? First,

research about their needs and persistent outreach. “Deepen” involves creating supporter journeys that allow individuals to move beyond posting a petition and become empowered to do media interviews, build their own organizations or run for office. Organizations still matter, but their roles will shift to facilitating these journeys and collective actions rather than leading them. Digital media do not provide ready-made solutions to major social and political issues, such as poverty, gender violence or climate change. However, they are a part of organizing those solutions and convincing the public about the direction of public policy. The challenge here is how to move from empowering citizens to creating a common purpose and overcoming the deeply divisive role social media can play. Anyone focused on issues of social justice and peace has to take note of these tools, especially if we want citizens to be less vulnerable to “fake news” and populist appeals. no single individual can master the use of social media. Presidents Duterte and Trump had short-term goals of electoral victory and use social media to engage in one-way communication. Effective organizing online requires building robust two-way forms of communication, including making space for supporters to take ownership of a campaign and add their personal stories. This willingness to share ownership can foster enthusiasm and make it more

likely that an issue moves beyond mere awareness-raising and “likes.” Second, organizations still matter. Anyone who wants to succeed using social media has to acquire capacities that effectively broaden and deepen individual participation, or what scholars have called the civic agency of citizens. “Broaden” means being inclusive of disadvantaged populations that have given up on “business as usual” and are vulnerable to populist appeals. Reaching those groups requires

HANS PETER SCHMITZ, PHD is associate professor in the Department of Leadership Studies at the University of San Diego. He is the co-founder of the Transnational NGO Initiative at the Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs at Syracuse University. His research interests include international nongovernmental organizations, rights-based approaches to development and global health.



follow us @krocschool


Ten Years of Gallery Practice at the Kroc School of Peace Studies by Derrick R. Cartwright

Installation view of Rwanda: 1994-2014 Photograph by Katherine Powers Noland, 2014

When the Kroc School launched its curriculum in 2007, it was possible to overlook the pair of galleries located at the back of the building. Although these spaces were purpose-built to serve as display areas, the projects that took place within them were scheduled irregularly and dealt with a broad spectrum of media. This continued throughout the next half-decade. In 2012, the Fine Arts Galleries took on a new, more deliberately focused mission, one that has increased their visibility and enhanced their impact. Working closely with the Dean of the School, the galleries established a strategy for developing exhibitions based on photography that mirrors Kroc School priorities. Since that time, no fewer than seven photographic surveys have been mounted in these spaces. Thousands of San Diegans have benefited from these projects and their associated public programs, all of which are offered without charge. The 10th anniversary of the Kroc School thus


provides an opportunity to consider this vibrant exhibition program and sketch some future ambitions. Starting with Never Again: An Eyewitness Account of Post-election Violence in Kenya (Photography by Boniface Mwangi) and continuing with Shadow Lives USA (Photography by Jon Lowenstein) during the academic year 2012-13, the galleries became destinations for campus-wide discussion and debate. Of course, these themes already had high importance for the Institute for Peace and Justice and the Trans-Border Institute, as well as for Kroc School faculty. In 2014, the opportunity to reflect on 20 years since genocidal conflicts rocked Rwanda resulted in a loan exhibition of 60 photographs depicting that painful legacy (image above). In addition to mounting Rwanda: 1994-2014 Seven Photographers, Professor Dustin Sharp collaborated on an editorial essay, “The Shameful Legacy of the Rwandan Geno-


cide,” published in the San Diego Union Tribune. Dean Marquez played an inspirational role in urging another project in the same academic year: Selma, 1965: Bruce Davidson and the Photography of Civil Rights. Selma commemorated the 50th anniversary of the epic battles that led to the passage of the Voting Rights Act. Both projects were accompanied by publications that further served to document their scholarly contributions. While many universities boast of museum programs tailored to their curricular needs, few have been as willing as USD to regularly introduce undergraduates to curatorial practice through their activity. In fall 2016, Katelyn Allen, an undergraduate art history student, explored the differences between so-called “street photography” and “documentary” practices in a Kroc-based exhibition that she titled I Witness. That same academic year culminated in still another original

follow us @krocschool

Mills, or a panel devoted to the challenges faced by farmworkers in Southern California, the opportunity for our community to engage with historical representations by listening to individuals who have the deepest possible stake in their interpretation is becoming standard practice. It is our mission to reach out through programs marked by deep curiosity and real quality. Among future exhibitions, we envision a survey of photographs focused on Latin American markets, revealing opportunities as well as exploitation, and a retrospective titled Dorothy Day and the Catholic Worker Movement: Photos by Vivian Cherry.

Sebastião Salgado, Fireball, Greater Burhan Oil Field, Kuwait, 1991, gelatin silver print ©Sebastião Salgado/Amazonas images

undertaking, The Farmworkers Movement through the Lens of Carlos LeGerrette, an interdisciplinary collaboration between University Galleries’ staff, Director of the Frances G. Harpst Center for Catholic Thought and Culture Jeffrey Burns, and Professor of Ethnic Studies Alberto Pulido. The current exhibition, Duncan McCosker, 1944-2016: A Memorial Exhibition, pays tribute to an important faculty member’s career. Duncan McCosker founded the photography program at USD in the early 1980s, and taken together, this retrospective surveys

complex social circumstances, from the beaches of Southern California to the subterranean shopping malls of South Korea. The exhibition remains on view through the fall of 2017. More than just mounting temporary displays, the University Galleries convene meaningful dialogues around images of lasting significance. Whether this means having the chief curator of the Fine Arts Museums of San Francisco, Julian Cox, discuss his long term involvement with Civil Rights photography together with the chair of USD’s Department of Ethnic Studies, Jesse

Through bold experimentation — with our students and faculty — we strive to develop a unique reputation for these galleries, one that matches the innovative spirit of the School in which they are nested. First fruits of this ambition are already being realized: about 100 images linked to social justice themes have recently been acquired. Many students are excited about what it means to study important images by Sebastião Salgado (image above), Robert Lyons, Alfred Eisenstaedt, Gertrude Käsebier, Paige Stoyer and others, most of which have come to us as gifts. In time, we expect photography to develop as a defined strength of the University Galleries’ collections. Sharing this collection with partners at the Kroc School promises to be a privilege for years to come.

DERRICK R. C ART WRIGHT is the director of University Galleries, associate professor of Art History and faculty affiliate in the Kroc School for Peace Studies.



by Bahar Davary

(means peace in Hebrew)

Conversely, a review of major contemporary conflicts reveals that they are not instigated by religion but by much more concrete motives, such as access to power and resources. In other words, secular ideologies (e.g., nationalism, capitalism, racialism, militarism, Nazism) are just as likely to generate violence, if not more. World War I and World War II were initiated by modern secular states without religious rationale. Yet, religion is scapegoated as a source of violence, while secularism is often associated with peace. Paradoxically, what we call the peace process often lays the groundwork for another war. The Treaty of Versailles was a “peace” accord ending World War I while being the very first step toward World War II.

Within religious discourse, the principles of peace and justice are often inseparable. The “Roman Peace” that was idealized and later morphed into “peace and truce of God” (pax Dei and treuga Dei) was an imperial peace, a hegemonic centralization of power. It represented only a partial absence of war over a period of 200 years, but it did not represent justice. For that reason, it was broken by Jewish-Roman wars, repeatedly. In our times, religion is often viewed as a security threat and is implicated in cases of violence committed around the world. Based on this supposition, some suggest that eradicating religion is a way to peace, without realizing that this supposition implies that serious and committed religion is associated with, and characterized as, fundamentalism in its most radical and extreme form.

At the dawn of the 21st century, we find ourselves in a world more protected yet less secure. The daily news from Baghdad, Kabul and Aleppo is devastating. Terrorism is a reality of our time, a reality that must be dealt with. A military approach as a force for peace has proven to be mostly ineffective. It is also misguided as long as states allow short-term “strategic national interests” to dictate “which group is useful to arm and support.” Since 2001, the beginning of U.S.-led coalitions, the “war on terror” in Afghanistan has claimed over 100,000 lives, and the Iraqi death toll has surpassed 500,000. In the midst of the Gulf War (1990), sanctions — the allegedly peaceful method — imposed on the country took the lives of half a million children alone. The death toll is higher than the number of people killed in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Drone raids have claimed a few thousand innocent lives in Pakistan, Yemen and Somalia. Arms

Religious worldview, like any other, is always the domain of internal contestation. This contestation can take place within local and between international communities. Religious identity just as any other element of identity, such as ethnicity, language or nationality, can move people toward hostility and/or reconciliation. A sophisticated approach to religious understanding suggests that religion can be both a distinct source of violence as well as a source of peace. Peacebuilding is essentially local, meaning self-sustaining peace is best based on local norms, practices and traditions.


(means peace in Arabic and Persian) Shalom


follow us @krocschool

At the dawn of the 21st century, we find ourselves in a world more protected yet less secure. of water and the destruction of the ecosystem, leading to devastation of human communities. The prediction that the major wars of the future will be over the “blue gold” is already a reality in certain regions of the world. Our aspiration to end violence must include a holistic approach and a negation of “othering” of all sorts — including all living beings.

A sculpture of Saint Francis of Assisi at the Garden of the Sea, Kroc School

produced in the United States ultimately end up in the hands of terrorists who attack not only Beirut, Kabul, Istanbul and Tehran, but also New York, Paris, Manchester and London. According to Stockholm International Peace Research Institute (SIPRI), in 2016 world military spending totaled $1.69 trillion. The lion’s share of that is accounted for by our own country. The United States spends more in military than China, Russia, Japan, United Kingdom, France, India and Saudi Arabia combined. As peace advocates around the world repeatedly proclaim, “We cannot pray for peace and invest in violence.” Peace cannot be achieved without reimagining religion in public life. This reimagination includes awareness of the internal pluralism of each faith tradition. It requires not only challenging gender inequalities based on religion but also negating a political economy that is highly gendered. It demands attention toward our serious misuse of the natural world. Violent treatment of water, for example, has resulted in a serious decrease in bodies

In the Torah and the Qur’an, the name of God (salam/shalom) is peace and divine presence of God; sakina/shekinah is inner equilibrium. To act for/with peace requires inner equilibrium. “The true servants of the Compassionate are those who walk upon the earth lightly, with dignity, when the ignorant address them, they say: ‘salam; peace.’ ” (Qur’an, 25:63) This is the path of Christ who calls us to repress in ourselves the outbursts of pride, of avarice, of conceit, of arrogance. In the words of Archbishop Romero: “This is the only violence that must be done so that out of it a new person may rise, the only one who can build a new civilization: a civilization of love.” The mission of the Kroc School and USD, with heavy focus on social justice and compassionate service based on Catholic Social Teaching calls us to work toward a holistic approach to peace. Given the importance of religion in the pursuit of peace and justice, the Kroc School has introduced several courses on religion and conflict-transformation as well as a certificate program in inter-religious peacebuilding in collaboration with the Theology Department. May we walk on the path to peace.

BAHAR DAVARY, PHD is associate professor of Theology and Religious Studies at the University of San Diego and affiliate faculty of the Ethnic Studies Department and the Kroc School of Peace Studies for 2016-17. She received her doctorate from the Catholic University of America in Catholic theological tradition and Muslim-Christian dialogue. She has taught the following courses: Religion and Conflict Transformation; World Religions; Islamic Faith and Practice; Islam, Women and Literature. Her research interests and published work are focused on women in interpretations of the Qur’an, Muslim-Christian dialogue, and Islam and ecology.

ON THE COVER by Robert Valiente-Neighbours The cover image is a linocut monotype I created by carving into a sheet of linoleum, much like water carves the earth. This image goes beyond a visual metaphor of diverse approaches to build peace and justice. It is also a literal call to the importance of water within our world. With conflicts arising over control of watersheds, questions and clashes around the privatization of water resources and climate change impacting freshwater sources, there is an urgency to create innovative water projects throughout the world. I believe taking diverse approaches towards the common good is a reflexive process in which we shape our strand of the river, while at the same time being shaped by the pathways and the material contours of the land, the flow of the wind and the currents of the oceans.

In the summer of 2016, when I was still a student, I painted a large image of the Salt March for the School’s Ideation Station. The piece arose from a desire to move my work beyond depicting icons of peacebuilding to memorializing the impact of collective organizing and mass movements in peacemaking. The Salt March was a nonviolent direct action that challenged imperialism, stressing the importance of salt for Indians, as it was needed to replace minerals lost by the body in the humid climate. I selected this movement because it calls us to remember one of the historic roots of our field. In the painting I centered Gandhi in the composition, to note his role in organizing the march and his deep contributions to nonviolent organizing and peacemaking. Yet, his eyes remain hidden, just as our iconography of him often obscures his complex personhood including sexism and abuse. The composition intends to draw the viewer’s focus to Sarojini Naidu. Naidu, her eyes closed, was also a historic figure, yet a less often remembered poet, activist and political leader. For me her stance contains more openness and vulnerability than Gandhi’s. It is the anonymous figures, those deeply present in the movement, whose eyes are open. These individuals are anonymous in history, yet over 80,000 people risked imprisonment for the cause. I also included a number of women to highlight all those, often forgotten, who rose up in protest.


MAPJ Class of 2016

Alumnus. Artist. Changemaker.

Shortly after graduating in 2017, I was commissioned to create another image for the Academic Programs office. I formed a symbolic design of rich color that points to the vibrant work taking place at the Kroc School and at USD. This triptych monoprint highlights the energy students bring to their programs, and how their ideas and actions are lifted up by a community of faculty, scholars and staff at the school. KROC PEACE MAGAZINE


WES WASSON & The Wasson Social Innovation Lab by Kroc School Board Member and Donor Wes Wasson Impossible is a word you don’t hear often at the Kroc School. Dean Márquez and her team have created an amazing culture that isn’t afraid to challenge the status quo. Unlike many universities, Kroc School faculty have the courage to step outside the classroom, roll up their sleeves and face the complexities of the world head on. The difference this approach makes is palpable. You see it every day in the lives of students who view themselves as changemakers and leave equipped to tackle big, intractable problems in innovative new ways. The new Wasson Social Innovation Lab was designed to accelerate the Kroc School vision. Our goal was to create a dynamic classroom environment that inspires innovation, collaborative learning and design thinking. A space that encourages students to think outside the box and approach challenging social problems in innovative new ways. I’m proud to be a small part of this exciting project and can’t wait to see the impossible dreams that will be created here.

MAPJ Alumna

DONOR STORY by Justine Andreu Darling When we got married, my husband Christian and I wanted wedding gifts that were meaningful. We already had everything we needed, and we asked friends and family for wedding presents as meaningful as supporting a cause that we were both passionate about. I am an alumna of the Kroc School. Both Christian and I are committed to education and peace and justice in the world. That is why we decided to create a scholarship fund to ensure other well-deserving students could attend. When I was in the master’s program at the Kroc School, I felt very supported by my fellow students, professors and administrators. Now we want to make sure others have the same opportunity to participate in such a life-changing experience. I loved every minute of my time as a peace and justice student and only wish I could do it all over again. Our dream for the Darling Andreu Scholarship is that it contributes to the larger goal of providing financial support to every Peace and Justice student. Students who are committing their lives to building peace and justice should be fully supported by their communities. These students will go on to provide great services and to shape a better world. Creating the Darling Andreu Scholarship was a beautiful experience because our loved ones had a chance to learn about and contribute to an effort of great importance to us. At the same time, we have made it possible for a student to attend the program. It feels really good to know we are shaping a better world by supporting a person who is as passionate as we are about peace and justice in the world!

Justine and Christian


Wireless Reach & Ventures Giving amount: $307,531

Giving amount: $31,460

Giving amount: $60,000

Giving years: 2014, 2015, 2016

Giving years: 2016, 2017

Giving years: 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017

Area of support: Women PeaceMakers Program

Area of support: California Consensus for Peace Through Technology

Area of support: Funding for student-led social innovations in wireless technology through the Center for Peace and Commerce’s Social Innovation Challenge



follow us @krocschool


For those of us working in the field of Peace Studies, peace is not an abstraction, an aspiration or a distant utopia.

As the essays in this magazine demonstrate, for those of us working in the field of peace studies, peace is not an abstraction, an aspiration or a distant utopia. It is a daily commitment to address problems that, if unresolved, are highly likely to contribute to protracted conflict and violence. Long before peace studies became a distinct academic field, people have been practicing the art and science of peacebuilding in many different forms and contexts. Interpersonal communications, inter-group dialogue, negotiations, mediation, diplomacy, rule of law, sanctions and military power have been used throughout history to prevent, resolve and transform the sources of conflicts and to avert violence and war.

lacking or willfully violated, it is difficult to talk of a peaceful society. This means that peace is not a separate enterprise to be pursued by a small group of peace professionals but a collective endeavor to be cultivated by everyone who values a peaceful society. This expansive view of peace — as going beyond war and physical violence to eliminate the sources of systemic violence — was formulated by Norwegian scholar Johan Galtung during the Cold War; however, it only gained wider currency with the end of the Cold War when the grave threat of a nuclear war between the two superpowers dissipated and when it became possible to focus attention on a range of other threats to human security and well-being.

What distinguishes peace studies today is a profound understanding that peace is not simply the absence of war and violent conflict but the presence of justice, dignity, human rights, fairness, diversity, inclusion, ecological balance, human security and well-being. When these basic values and principles are

In the last 25 years, peace studies has flourished as an academic field, with a record 200 graduate programs in the United States and abroad. Perhaps more importantly, peacebuilding as a field of practice has grown exponentially. When wars between states were considered the primary threat to international peace and



security, matters of war and peace were left in the hands of states and their representatives. This is no longer the case. Non-state actors, such as nongovernmental organizations, women’s movements, business groups and even individuals, have become important players in diverse sectors that contribute to peace. The global Campaign to Ban Landmines was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize for its impressive success in banning antipersonnel landmines with the Ottawa Convention of 1997. Mohammad Yunus and the Grameen Bank won the Nobel Peace Prize in 2006 for their pathbreaking work in providing microfinance for the poorest of the poor who lacked collateral. Malala Yousef was recognized by the Nobel Peace Committee for her commitment to girl’s education. They are only a few of the millions of people who work day in and day out — without fanfare and often without recognition — as peacebuilders to address injustice, to defend human rights, to create jobs and opportunities, and to promote diversity and pluralism.

follow us @krocschool

What distinguishes Peace Studies today is a profound understanding that peace is not simply the absence of war and violent conflict but the presence of justice, dignity, human rights, fairness, diversity, inclusion, ecological balance, human security and well-being. Yet, without their commitment and their work, peace cannot be attained. From environmental destruction and refugee flows, from terrorism to organized crime, from discrimination against minorities to human rights violations, there are many problems that generate conflict and violence and threaten peace. In a globalized world, a deep understanding of the complex and interdependent nature of our common well-being is an essential ingredient for building peace. But understanding and analysis is not enough. Peacebuilding requires critical thinking, empathy, compassion, imagination and innovative solutions that lead to resolute action. At the Kroc School, we aspire to be “scholar-practitioners,” meaning that we seek to combine rigorous academic research and teaching with a commitment to peaceful social change in our respective areas of work, whether it is conflict analysis and resolution, economic development, human rights, social movements, corporate responsibility, leadership, gender, border issues, social entrepreneurship or inter-religious peacebuilding. Similarly, we urge our students to see their role as changemakers, innovators and peacebuilders in whatever fields they choose to pursue — whether in the public, nonprofit or private sector. We only ask that wherever they go they take their “peacebuilding lenses” with them — remembering that peace is not the absence of violence but the presence of justice.

In this enterprise, we are extremely lucky to be part of a university that has been selected as an Ashoka Changemaker Campus, which means that we are not alone in our daily quest for peace and justice in our classrooms, on our campus and beyond. We are in an environment that encourages interdisciplinarity, collaboration, innovation, creativity, community engagement and global outreach. As we enter our second decade, the Kroc School is well-placed to become an ever-expanding hub for peace and justice in our own campus, the San Diego-Tijuana region and far beyond. We are grateful to our accomplished alumni as well as our enthusiastic supporters and donors who continue to accompany us in this endeavor.

NECL A TSCHIRGI, PHD is professor of practice in human security and peacebuilding. A political scientist by training, she has gradually migrated to peace studies after having worked on development issues in different capacities and in many countries over the years. She sees her work at the Kroc School of Peace Studies as the ideal combination of her interest in social justice, poverty eradication, human rights and conflict prevention.

upcoming events FALL 2017


October 7 Cardinal Peter Turkson: Christian, Nonviolence and Just Peace

October 18 Women for Social Impact Experience With Women PeaceMakers

October 25 Peace Officers, PeaceMakers and the Power of Partnership: The 2017 Women PeaceMakers Panel

December 6

enroll now for

A Shared Struggle: A Celebration of Women Nobel Peace Prize Winners




Begins February 2 Seminar Series: Coping With Armed Conflict in San Diego

February 2018 Border Film Week

Date TBD Kroc Changemaking

Learn how to engage with the cross-border community and take advantage of the border’s unique

SUMMER 2018 June 23 and 24

possibilities for entrepreneurship, business and activism.

Global Social Innovation Challenge

Dates TBD The Border Beyond The Headlines: Trans-Border Opportunity Certificate

The Trans-Border Opportunities Certificate Seminars offered during the evenings and weekends.

To stay updated on the latest Kroc School happenings, visit our online calendar at:







shape it.

Our world needs changemakers who create new models and work within new paradigms of sustainable change.

Join and influence the first annual Global Social Innovation Challenge The Global SIC is a social venture pitch competition that recognizes, resources and rewards student-led social ventures focused on sustainable change. Students develop a nuanced understanding of a social or environmental issue and identify gaps in the existing approaches. Then, they identify a potential solution that has measurable impact and is feasible, sustainable, scalable and replicable. Finally, they pitch the proposal for a chance to win up to $50,000 in seed funding and other in-kind resources. IMPORTANT DATES

University Registration | Oct. 31, 2017 Global Finale | June 23 & 24, 2018

Kroc Peace Magazine 2017-2018  

Annual magazine for the University of San Diego's Joan B. Kroc School of Peace Studies