Wednesday, March 03, 2004

---

HIPJ Monday Meeting Minutes

Meeting Notes by Suvrat:

In attendance: Phil, Nura, Sara, Nicole, Shelby, Shannon, Toussaint,
Suvrat.

Haiti:
Phil + Suvrat + Tous will write an op-ed for the Crimson on behalf of
HIPJ explaining the US coup. They will also create an information flier.
We will table outside the SC and hand this flier out to people to raise
awareness on the issue:
Friday 12-1: Nicole/Suvrat
Monday - Tous
Tuesday - Phil

-----
March 20 + Occupation

Nura & Shelby will put together a visual display to remind people of the
human cost of the war in Iraq. We need to book the space outside(inside?)
the SC to put this display up.

Sara/Nicole will write an Op-Ed for the Crimson.

---------
Divestment:

The divestment campaign proceeds smoothly! We should do something on the
pre-frosh weekend.

--------
Ruth Hiller -- Co-sponsorship

The group decided to co-sponsor the talk by Ruth Hiller the Israeli peace
activist.

------

Wednesday, December 10, 2003

---

HIPJ Meeting Notes

HIPJ meeting Tuesday, December 9, 2003, 5-6 p.m.
Attending: Nura, Hank, Phil, Paul, Suvrat, Susie, Ted, Megan, Gustavo, Eric

FREE TIBET RALLY
Megan from Students for a Free Tibet briefed us on the plan to protest the visit by Wen Jiabao on Wednesday from 10 to noon at Burden Hall in the business school. Megan explained that SFT seeks independence for Tibet, not just autonomy. While HIPJ is not sponsoring the protest, members in attendance generally expressed support, though Suvrat raised concerns about certain claims made by the pro-Tibet camp, particularly regarding demographic history.

SUBSCRIBING TO ONLINE SERVICES/PUBLICATIONS
Phil suggested the group should look into acquiring subscriptions to access online content. Paul suggested access might be possible through existing Harvard arrangements. They will discuss further and report back.

UC ELECTIONS
Paul said he would find info on UC candidates if it's not too late to act on this.

WEBLOG
Phil informed the group that he had deleted an offensive post from the HIPJ weblog, and solicited views on an offensive post policy. No one disagreed on the removal of this particular post, and Susie suggested a disclaimer be posted to the weblog warning that HIPJ will remove posts at its discretion. Phil suggested a "preemptive policy" of informing groups who might be concerned about offensive posts, but it was generally agreed that that should not be necessary.

PRO-CHOICE RALLY
Susie asked about audio equipment for the pro-choice rally. Paul said he would reserve the equipment, though Abbie from the organizing group would need to pick it up. Nura voiced concern over HIPJ sponsoring the event. Paul suggested making sure that endorsements appear on the agenda before meetings take place so that people can make sure not to miss meetings where endorsements are discussed.

MISCELLANEA
Susie has not heard back about getting Emerson 105 after 5 p.m. for Chomsky's talk, will check back. Suvrat suggested contacting the Crimson regarding the lack of an anti-war op-ed so far this semester. Susie suggested coming up with a coherent plan for next semester, with regular event times determined in advance to facilitate room booking, etc., and informed the group that "the peace conference is on" and planning has begun. Suvrat suggested that we make an announcement about March 20 (anniversary of war) at Chomsky talk.

Friday, November 28, 2003

---

Tips on Writing News Summaries

As this blog ages (hopefully like a fine wine) the hope is to get more people involved in posting stuff and writing news summaries, so this stops just being a Suvrat and Phil Pow-Wow. Given that, I thought I would post an entry with some suggestions for how to do these news summaries which should make life easier. Click the "Link" button on the right hand side of the box below to see the list of tips and the rest of this entry.

Tuesday, November 25, 2003

---

Weekly HIPJ Meeting Today

The weekly HIPJ meeting will happen today at 5 pm in Loker Commons 028. On the agenda is (tentatively):

1. Organizational details.
2. Blog
• Authors
• News Summarizers
• Comments
3. CAN Speaking tour.
4. Movies.
5. Summary of violence talk.
6. Peace Conference.

Come one come all.

Monday, November 24, 2003

---

Summary of Violence Meeting

HIPJ had a meeting to discuss violence on Sunday November 23rd.

Present were myself (David), Suvrat, Phil, Katie, Hank
Suvrat and I were there the whole time; Phil left and Hank came in halfway through, and Katie was there for most of the beginning.

I came in with a suggested framework for a position statement on violence, which would have four sections:

1. A broad set of criteria for determining justifiability of violence. These would be axioms that could be interpreted in a multitude of ways, but that most people (not just peace activists) would generally identify as perfectly sensible. My suggestion:
a. violence must prevent other violence
b. violence must be directed at those who are making it necessary
c. violence must be no more than necessary
d. preparations for and acts of violence must be done in such a way as to minimize the need for and level of future violence

2. Generally speaking, people who argue to justify wars will appeal (implictly) to the above criteria – here you get the basic arguments about self-defense, lesser-of-two-evils, war-to-end-all-wars and the like. This section would explain why the wars we are protesting do not follow the above criteria. Should be a no-brainer.

3. The third section (or fourth) would be an argument from the pacifist “wing” of HIPJ arguing why the principles of pacifism proceed from the criteria set forth in section one. It would probably argue something along the lines of:
“In the real world, no acts of organized mass violence actually conform to that list of criteria; we have not come close to exhausting the search for peaceful change to the system; violent attempts to change the system cannot remove violence from the system; the means are the ends in the making etc.”

4. The fourth section (or third) would be an argument from the revolutionary socialist “wing” of HIPJ, arguing why the principles of revolutionary socialism proceed from the criteria in section one. It would define violence broadly to include impoverishment and denial of human rights, and make something like the following argument:
“The system is violent, and can only be challenged by violence; peaceful attempts to change it will be crushed; revolutionary violence is thus necessary, and acts to prevent systemic violence; peace through justice etc.”

The reaction:

Suvrat says he finds suspicious any attempts to making specific arguments based on general axioms outside the world of mathematics. I say that I have found this strategy the most effective way to convince people to change their views on things – by finding the flaws in the logic that bind their axiomatic beliefs to their specific ideological positions. Suvrat says that he finds the best way to convince people of things is to give them facts that they didn’t already know and let them come to their own conclusions; that people are more likely to change their mind based on their experience and position (and ability to empathize) than intellectual argument. Also, he suggests that our primary role in HIPJ is not to convince people, but to organize those already convinced.

There is general concern that the principle laid out in section one can be used to justify things we didn’t mean to justify. Phil says that he could come up with a bunch of specific situations that would require us to come up with exceptions. I suggest that the rest of the document is something we can use to come up with more specifics, and that specifically section two is meant to deal with this very problem.

Phil and Suvrat argue about a definition for violence; Suvrat wants a broad definition that includes impoverishment and denial of rights, while Phil insists on what he considers a more conventional narrow definition. Phil and Suvrat also disagree over property rights and some other stuff I forget about. 

Essentially people break down into the following camps:

Hank and Suvrat fall pretty much into a revolutionary socialist camp. They admit that violence is problematic, but argue that those are the rules of the game. They consider the system violent, and argue that it must be met with violence if you want to change it. Hank argues that pacifism as a political ideology is exclusive to the liberal intelligentsia. Suvrat disagrees, but argues that passive resistance movements in India and the US have failed in achieving their aims. He argues that socialist revolutions in China and the USSR have generally achieved their aims, though he admits they bring an entirely new set of problems.

I agree with most everything Suvrat says in terms of what the major problems are, including that the current world system is a violent one. I disagree regarding the use of violent means to change the system; I don’t think you can stop future violence by countering current violence with your own violence. I don’t know for sure that a peaceful solution is possible, but I do know that the violent road to peace has not proven successful thus far, and that we have not tried hard enough for peaceful solutions. I identify myself as a pragmatic pacifist and a social democrat.

Phil says he is not a pacifist; neither does he seem to be a socialist (correct me if I’m wrong here, Phil). He argues for a meritocracy, but does not believe we currently live in one. He believes in property rights, and thinks we should distinguish between active violence and what Suvrat would call systemic violence by using separate terminology. I can’t really speak with confidence about his general outlook. 

I’m not quite sure of Katie’s position either.

Obviously much more was said. Please other people who were there add stuff.

David

Saturday, November 22, 2003

---

Welcome to the HIPJ Blog

The members of the Harvard Initiative for Peace and Justice have decided to maintain a weblog. One purpose of this site is to offer news summaries from the both the mainstream and alternative media from around the world to keep the Harvard community (and anyone else who wants to look) informed about matters pertaining to peace and justice about the world. Another purpose is to foster constructive discussion about issues that are happening around the world, and what the Harvard community, being in a rather privileged position, can do about them.

To all the HIPJer’s who get a chance to read this entry please post your comments with suggestions for more news sources, links or improvements to the site. There will be a discussion at the meeting on Tuesday about setting up accounts for more authors and what do with this wonderful bit of webware. To the magnanimous authors of Movable Type at Six Apart software, you have our eternal gratitude. News summaries will start tomorrow.