What has changed in the way we do our work? What is still valid and needs to continue?

Click here to delve into this report for how CJP is working at answers to these questions and MORE:

• Highlights of the year: Recognizing disruption, launching new programs and revising others, CJP faculty and staff stayed connected to core commitments and values while responding the challenges of the pandemic. It wasn’t all easy, or pretty, or simple. And the work continues.
• Read about the MA in Transformational Leadership: “A New Degree for a New Time,” two new grads and their plans for the future.
• A network of CJP alumni and friends are working to change the criminal justice system of Virginia.
• CJP welcomes new faculty and staff.
• Meet lawyer and conflict transformation practitioner Jackie Font-Guzmán, 91����Ƶ’s new executive director of diversity, equity, and education.
• Read about our alumni and their new endeavors, nourishing connections and a bounty of new works.
• Special thanks to our donors, who help us to connect peacebuilders with education, skills, support, and mentorship.

The original “Beyond September 11th” reflections

A Call for Thoughtful Response
Finally, as the full magnitude of the horror of these events becomes apparent, the repercussions are going to be personal as well as political, social, and cultural. We will each experience this trauma in our own way and our responses will be shaped by our past experiences with war, violence, and terror. It is important that we each find places where we can process our personal horror. We also need to be particularly mindful of the impact of these events on our neighbors whose lives have already included violence and terror in the United States and around the world.
A letter to the editor of the Daily News-Record later shared on the Beyond September 11th page. by Jayne Seminare Docherty, Ron Kraybill, Howard Zehr, September 12, 2001

Four Reasons to Use the War Metaphor with Caution

The events of September 11 have raised legitimate concerns about justice and security. Many people are demanding some form of response to punish or otherwise mete out justice to the perpetrators. All of us want some reassurances that we will not have to live in constant fear of violence and terror. Given our reliance as a nation on a war metaphor for describing many difficult situations (e.g., war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime), it is natural that we would talk of our current situation as a state of war, even if we do not envision an immediate massive counter-attack. Nevertheless, this metaphor should be used with great caution.

by Jayne Seminare Docherty, September 12, 2001

Frameworks Other Than War

Originally written by Frank Blechman, modified and edited by Jayne Seminare Docherty. Blechman and Docherty have been exchanging metaphor analyses of significant events and responses to significant events for the past five years., September 14, 2001

The Challenge of Terror: A Traveling Essay
Though natural, the cry for revenge and the call for the unleashing of the first war of this century, prolonged or not, seems more connected to social and psychological processes of finding a way to release deep emotional anguish, a sense of powerlessness, and our collective loss than it does as a plan of action seeking to redress the injustice, promote change and prevent it from ever happening again.
by John Paul Lederach, September 16, 2001

Trauma Recovery and Justice: September 11 and its Aftermath
What form of justice will continue and sustain a recovery process for the families of those lost in this tragedy, and for all of us as we seek security in our world? Is it only the punitive kind that uses the rule of law and possibly violence to ‘right the wrong’ or is it justice that leads to transformation of unjust circumstances through the development of just relationships? 
by Barry Hart, September 16, 2001

Keeping Our Options Open: Waco or Apollo 13
Crises are marked by events that do not easily fit into existing organizational and conceptual categories. During a major crisis, we discover that:

• We cannot easily understand the meaning of the events.
• We struggle to define the problems exposed by the crisis.
• Even when we think we have some idea of the nature of the problem, we do not have the language for expressing our ideas.
• We have difficulty mobilizing resources to deal with the problems arising out of the crisis.
• We need to create new organizational structures and new organizational relationships in order to address the crisis effectively.

by Jayne Seminare Docherty, September 17, 2001

Communicating with the Terrorists and Their Supporters
To send a well-crafted message that can actually be heard as it was intended, we need to pay attention to all three elements: message, channel, and recipient.
by Jayne Seminare Docherty, September 19, 2001

What Motivates the Terrorist or Potential Terrorist? 
Our instinct is to assume that anyone who would fly a passenger jet into a building, killing himself, everyone on board, and thousands of other people in the building must be deranged. This judgment often finds expression in claims that such individuals are evil. If this is the case, then crafting any kind of preventive or cautionary message for individuals who might take similar actions is futile.
by Jayne Seminare Docherty, September 24, 2001

Revisiting the War Metaphor

By Jayne Seminare Docherty, September 25, 2001

Difficulties of Confronting Unconventional Warfare 
Strategists of unconventional warfare have for decades sought to turn the anger and might of a military giant against itself. Thus, the September 11 attackers stand in a tradition of unconventional warfare with a considerable track record of success. 
by Ron Kraybill, September 26, 2001

How Might Peacemakers Respond to Terrorism?
The events of September 11 may leave those of us committed to non-violent methods of conflict resolution puzzled about how to respond. As military and intelligence forces mobilize around the world, what is our responsibility? 
by David Brubaker, October 2, 2001

Strategy in Afghanistan
Initial responses to September 11 focused on the question of how to eliminate Osama bin Laden and the threat of terrorism. In recent days a broader set of related questions are emerging. First, how do we relate to the people of Afghanistan? This is a key question. Second, how do we gain support of Afghanis to apprehend bin Laden and take him to trial? This is an immediate question. A longer-term question, but nearly as important to the success of efforts to address terrorism and support the emergence of stability in the region is, third, how do we assist the creation of a credible government in Kabul?
by Ron Kraybill, October 5, 2001

At The Fork in the Road: Trauma Healing
As peacebuilders, we must learn to recognize and examine the trauma that often smolders beneath conflict. We might be able to provide a quick fix, but we can’t transform the presenting conflict without uncovering — or somehow attending to — the underlying trauma. The conflict can actually worsen. Victims are re-traumatized and, if the trauma goes unhealed, the victim may become the aggressor; the abused may become the abuser.
by Nancy Good, October 10, 2001

Creating a Big Circle for a Difficult Discussion 
Keynote address for the first teach-in at 91����Ƶ given by Jayne Docherty on October 15, 2001.
by Jayne Seminare Docherty, October 15, 2001

A Long-Term Strategy for American Security
by Jayne Seminare Docherty and Lisa Schirch, November 9, 2001

Is U.S. Policy Being Driven by the Pentagon’s Hardware? 
If this really is a new kind of war against a new kind of enemy, shouldn’t our leaders be taking the time to develop the necessary tools before “ramping up” a war effort to the point where the military hardware and tactical needs drive policy rather than the other way around?
by Jayne Seminare Docherty, November 9, 2001

Overview of the War on Iraq and Strategic Alternatives 
This overview details:

• Key concerns about Iraq
• Arguments for a war on Iraq
• Problems with using war to address Iraq
• Alternative strategies for addressing Iraq

by Lisa Schirch and William Goldberg, February 2003

10th anniversary reflections

Reflections on the 10th anniversary of 9/11 and beyond .

SIX THINGS TO GRIEVE ON 9/11 ANNIVERSARY
by Lisa Schirch

ASSESSING OUR EARLY RESPONSES TO 9/11
by Bonnie Price Lofton

SHARING AN ANNIVERSARY WITH 9/11
by Carolyn Yoder

TRANSFORMING ENMITY: THE LEGACY OF 9/11
by John Paul Lederach

In a paper written a day or two after the initial attack on New York and Washington (Four Reasons to Use the War Metaphor with Caution), I urged caution when using the metaphor of war to describe the crisis facing the United States.

Why do we use metaphors and what metaphors arose out of September 11?

During times of uncertainty – when no easy policy answer or response is apparent – we must resort to analogy to make sense of the new problem facing us. These analogies are expressed through metaphors. In the early hours of September 11, we heard a number of different metaphors. See: Frameworks Other Than War.

Some metaphors described the event itself:
• This is a crime.
• This is war.
• This is a natural disaster.

Other metaphors described the effects of the events:
• Biological metaphor – America has been injured.
• Educational metaphor – we have learned lessons.
• Chemistry metaphor – a chain reaction has been set off.

Some metaphors inspire action.

Generative metaphors tell us how to act and they guide our decisions about mobilizing resources to meet critical needs. The natural disaster metaphor allowed us to place all of our disaster relief services into full action mode very rapidly.

Longer-term responses to the events of September 11 were more difficult to identify. In the early hours and days, we saw the crime metaphor vying with the war metaphor, and it seemed the war metaphor was going to dominate our decision-making.

Generative metaphors should be used cautiously during any crisis.

Every metaphor is a way of seeing the world and every metaphor is also a way of not seeing the world. If we lock onto a single description of the problem and the appropriate response too early, we may not discover the most effective long-term responses to a crisis.

Metaphors also mutate and the war metaphor has been no exception.

No one metaphoric description of a new problem fits perfectly. Thus, even the most enthusiastic supporters of a war on terrorism are starting to hedge or soften the analogy. They remind us that:
• This is not a war against Islam, just against violent Islamic fundamentalists.
• There will be no clearly identifiable enemy.
• All of the battles will not be military in nature.
• There will be no territory to conquer and hold.
• There will be no discernable front line.

In fact, those using the war metaphor are not deriving their action plans directly from the military.

The war metaphor permeates public policy discussions, particularly discussions about law enforcement. We have declared war on poverty, drugs, and crime. Now, we have a war on terrorism. The war metaphor – having cycled through our domestic policy processes – is reentering the world stage in a mutated form: war as international law enforcement.

What will war as international law enforcement against terrorism look like?

First, we will identify the “bad guys” or criminals – terrorists (non-state actors) and rogue nations (state actors).
Second, we will name their crime – engaging in, plotting to engage in, or supporting acts of violence against innocent civilians or the governments that protect innocent civilians.
Third, we will use crime-fighting strategies such as intelligence gathering and the threat of force to coerce or convince them to cease their bad behaviors.

What does this metaphor keep us from seeing about the real problem?

It is critical that we understand the assumptions behind the metaphor of war as international law enforcement against terrorism. This approach assumes that our identified foes are like professional criminals. Specifically, we are presuming that:
• We can capture, imprison, or perhaps execute the criminals.
• If this fails, we can make the terrorists recalculate the “cost of doing
���ܲ����Ա����.”
• If the costs become too high, they will 1) transfer their activities to a different venue, 2) change their methods of operating, or 3) cease their criminal activities altogether.

In reality, many of the forces against which we are mobilizing are not like professional criminals. The terrorist cells identified as our “enemies” are much more akin to the Branch Davidians or MOVE in their motivational imperatives. We know from experience that mobilizing paramilitary law enforcement teams during confrontations with these groups resulted in disaster. It is true that the Branch Davidians and MOVE suffered the heaviest casualties in their confrontations with law enforcement agents.
On the other hand:
• The community in Philadelphia around the MOVE home was devastated.
• The federal government lost significant legitimacy after Waco.
• Waco led to the Oklahoma City bombing.
• And, similar groups (such as the Posse Comitatus organization) managed
to inflict significant destruction on law enforcement agents before they
were themselves destroyed.

In short, law enforcement requires a certain level of predictability and the predominant use of goal rationality on the part of the criminal, and this predictability and goal rationality may be absent in this case.

As we have listened to the TV commentators following the plane crashes at the World Trade Towers and the Pentagon, the metaphor of “war” has been used over and over again. When thousands of people die in a planned disaster, few commentators seem to have any other frame of reference.

Metaphors are powerful because they subtly define what we know, what we see, what we can’t see, and what we can imagine.

What metaphors have been used in the immediate aftermath of September 11, and what are their relative strengths and weaknesses for defining our current situation?

War

Wars have high levels of violence and destruction. This description fits the events of September 11. But, most of the media anchors noted uneasily that this isn’t exactly like the 1941 Japanese attack on the US Naval Forces at Pearl Harbor.

• The World Trade Center was not a military target.
• The attack vehicles were not military weapons.
• The attackers did not represent the policy of another sovereign nation.
• The attack was carried out entirely within this country.

On the other hand:

• The attack at the Pentagon was against a military target.
• The attacks were intended to challenge American “power” (economic and military).
• The attacks may have been planned and financed by interests outside of the US.
• The level of damage made the south end of New York City look like a “war zone.”

Strengths of War Metaphor
If this is a war, then we have a vocabulary to guide our thinking. We have an enemy. We attack. We defend. We strike. We have strategic objectives. We have tactics. We use all means necessary. We imagine that out there, however “shadowy,” there is a worthy adversary. If this is a war, our very survival is at stake. War has an exceptionally strong focusing quality. The war metaphor is exciting and it replaces inaction with action. If terrorism is war, then feeble citizens should get out of the way and let the professional warriors do their job. The able bodied should sign up now.
Weaknesses of War Metaphor
One of the weaknesses of the war model is that it is reactive. We are in a war because we have been attacked. We are in a war because others have declared war on us. We are allowing our actions to be determined by the actions of others. Morally, it threatens to risk everything a society builds by over-focusing resources on one thing, the war. The great challenge of this metaphor is that it carries an all-or-nothing element. “If you are not for war, you must be for doing nothing.” Without alternative models, critics of war do look weak and indecisive. Alternative metaphors are so badly needed.

Crime

Some commentators have used the language of crime and justice. Others have actively denounced U.S. policies of the past that supposedly treated terrorists as outlaws. They have complained that policy makers have confused war with crime, or worse, have hidden behind a criminal justice façade to avoid making the hard decisions that war requires.

Using the language of crime:

• Terrorism, like crime is an offense against all of us, not just the immediate victims.
• All civilizations (all civilized societies?) have a stake in suppressing this uncivilized behavior.
• Investigations should identify the real perpetrators.
• The perpetrators should be apprehended and brought to justice.
• They should be punished. Punishment should ensure that they would not hurt others.
• Punishment should act as a deterrent for others inclined toward the same misbehavior.
• People (groups, nations) harboring criminals should be treated as accessories to the crime.
• We could control terrorists more effectively if we didn’t handcuff the police by making them respect civil liberties and human rights.

Perhaps because U.S. law enforcement has become militarized with the proliferation of special tactics teams, the crime metaphor has often been mixed with the metaphor of war.

• We need a new strike force to enforce the law.
• We will ask for help from the forces (doesn’t sound like ‘police’ forces to me) of other nations.

Strengths of the Crime Metaphor
Citizens (civilized people, societies and nations) can assist law enforcement personnel by endorsing social sanctions, depriving criminals of their cover, and aiding officials when asked to do so. If the goal of a justice system is restoration, not punishment, then the criminal metaphor can be a platform for a restorative model of interaction with the “terrorists.”
Weaknesses of the Crime Metaphor
Criminal justice requires a system of courts, and universally recognized courts do not exist for handling this case. The international court systems that do exist are slow and cumbersome. Many citizens and political leaders in the U.S. have been suspicious of international legal systems in the past.

Medicine/Biology

Commentators have reported that the events of the last week have injured us. We need to grieve and to heal. This is the language of biology, but the implications of this metaphor are not clear.

• Are we infected?
• Do we need treatment?
• Can we disinfect the source?
• How long will it take to heal?
• Should we take it easy while the injury is healing, or should we be more active than usual?

Strengths of the Medical Metaphor

If terrorism is a disease, it can be studied, diagnosed and treated. If it is a medical problem, then we need to bring in people who know how to treat the disease with the least trauma to the patient. Ordinary folks should know when the situation is too serious for folk remedies. Patients may have to make some lifestyle choices to improve their chances of recovery and health. This metaphor is strong because it can be applied at

many levels. Not all diseases or injuries are terminal. Some will heal themselves. Not every medical decision is an urgent matter of life and death.

Weaknesses of the Medical Metaphor

The medical metaphor can also be merged with the war metaphor. Diseases must be attacked. Surgical strikes will remove the cancer. The metaphor is reassuring, if misleading, because it implies that if war is like medicine, then smart well-trained people will do good and not do harm.

The events of September 11 have raised legitimate concerns about justice and security. Many people are demanding some form of response to punish or otherwise mete out justice to the perpetrators. All of us want some reassurances that we will not have to live in constant fear of violence and terror. Given our reliance as a nation on a war metaphor for describing many difficult situations (e.g., war on poverty, war on drugs, war on crime), it is natural that we would talk of our current situation as a state of war, even if we do not envision an immediate massive counter-attack. Nevertheless, this metaphor should be used with great caution.

1. If we describe this as a war, we grant the perpetrators of these unspeakable acts a legitimacy they do not deserve.
   -These are criminal acts.
   -We have no evidence that those who perpetrated them are rulers of a state or nation.
   -And, they do not appear to fall into the category of revolutionaries – i.e., representatives of a
   disenfranchised identity group seeking representation within a state or nation.

2. If we describe this as a war, we imply that war can bring our enemies to their knees and keep them from ever harming us again.
-We have yet to fight successfully a “war to end all wars” and this will be no exception. —-The perpetrators of this horror are not clearly identifiable, cannot be located easily, and probably cannot be attacked successfully using military means.
-Military attacks on any nation that harbors the criminals responsible for these atrocities will create thousands of refugees; refugee camps have been the breeding ground for suicide bombers. Thus, we will only perpetuate the cycle of fear and terror for our children and grandchildren.

3. If we describe this as a war, we avoid examining the motives of those we consider to be enemies.
-We assume that we understand what motivates the “enemy others” and that we can predict their responses to our military actions.
-We fail to examine and address the conditions and policies that have given rise to the cycles of unrest, violence, and terror that have been escalating around the world and that on September 11, 2001, entered the previously “safe space” of our nation.

4. If we describe this as a war, we betray our own highest values of justice, due process, and fairness.
-If we bomb innocent people in retaliation, we commit the same atrocity that we saw on September 11.
-Criminals are granted rights that enemies in war are denied.
-If we fail to invoke the national and international laws that apply to criminal acts, we undercut the rule of
law and weaken the sources of our own long-term protection.

In 2020, the twin pandemics of COVID-19 and racial injustice pushed people into isolation and called them to the streets in solidarity. We are grappling with the consequences of deeply rooted divisions in our communities and the nation and the world. We are facing a reckoning with the forces of white supremacy and the long-tail of the consequences of colonialism, domination, and the violent extraction of wealth from people and the planet. The pandemic exposed the breadth and depth of the deadly inequality that humans have created in a world of abundance, where there is more than enough for every single person to be housed, fed, cared for, educated, and supported in their flourishing but we have chosen to invest in excessive military spending and policies that escalate inequality and suffering. 

CJP has responded to all of these events and challenges by practicing a values-driven adaptability. What we do (educate and accompany leaders for making the world more just and less violent) and why we do it (because to be fully human is to promote right relations among people and with the planet) does not change.  How we do it is subject to innovation and adaptation as we have leaned into opportunities while mitigating the negative impacts of change that is out of our control.

• In response to COVID, we moved all of our graduate programs online for one year, while simultaneously launching the new Master of Arts in Transformational Leadership (MATL). This new program is designed for working professionals who would attend one Summer Peacebuilding Institute session and complete the rest of their studies online. It was an adaptation to the changing patterns of higher education enrollment that was already in the works; we just launched it a year earlier than planned.��
• Demand for the MATL in addition to online offerings led to the enrollment of our largest incoming class in CJP’s�� history (all the more astounding is that this happened in the middle of a pandemic). However, most of the new enrollees are part-time students, a trend in graduate education that is here to stay.��
• The CJP learning community has long been known as nurturing and fostering, helping each student to prepare for their unique professional peacebuilding contexts with academic rigor and practice opportunities. With a different mix of students studying part-time and full-time, from on- or off-campus locations we are working to increase scholarship opportunities, provide flexible instructional formats and strengthen our student advising and support systems.��
• As we adapt to online and more part-time students, we have developed new ways of building and sustaining communities and relationships mediated by technology. We also discovered innovative ways to do field research, some of our students wowed local clients by inventing ways to conduct online facilitations, graduates have launched new businesses doing online facilitation, and we have successfully placed students in online practica.
• ��Dr. Katie Mansfield and a group of STAR affiliates redesigned the STAR curriculum for online delivery. They also took that opportunity to ensure that STAR addresses issues of trauma caused by racism and other forms of protracted injustice.��
• We continue to explore the opportunities presented by a recent whole-university realignment. The center’s graduate programs and professional education programs (SPI, STAR, and the Zehr Institute) are now located in the School for Social Sciences and Professions under the leadership of Dean David Brubaker. Consultant Lori Pyle is conducting a structural review to gain insight into adjusting some of the ways that CJP interfaces with the university. These adjustments will be largely managerial, although we hope that finding efficiencies in management will allow us more scope for programmatic innovation.
• Two unplanned changes were the departures of Dr. Carl Stauffer and Dr. Johonna Turner to the US Institute of Peace and to Conrad Grebel University College at the University of Waterloo in Ontario, Canada, respectively. At a time when many are experiencing post-pandemic stress, reflection and reprioritization, they joined the many people in our country who are rethinking what they want to be doing and where they want to be living. We were extraordinarily blessed that Dr. Lisa Schirch, former CJP faculty, and Dr. Tammy Krause MA ‘99 (recipient of our 2016 Outstanding Service Award) joined us to teach two courses this spring semester.
• Now, we are working on hiring two visiting professors. One will focus on restorative justice and will be located at CJP. The other will be shared by undergraduate social science and CJP. Next year, we will be coordinating across the school’s programs to fill multiple faculty positions with a focus on bringing in a team that will diversify our faculty and provide broad leadership.��

We invite you to join us for our CJP Anniversary Celebration June 4-6, and especially to attend a Sunday session where Executive Director Dr. Jayne Docherty will share reflections on the past, present, and future of peace and justice education, the role that CJP has played, and the opportunities that lie ahead. We will also invite you to share your ideas, dreams, and hopes for CJP.

Thank you for your messages of support as the United States grapples with a bitterly contested and confusing election. In Harrisonburg, we know that “when the United States catches a cold, the rest of the world catches pneumonia” (quoting a current student). This is the result of US participation in empire building and colonization — a part of our history and culture that we do not like to acknowledge. We also know that the United States has pushed democracy around the world even though we do not always practice it well. Now, we are facing a reckoning and an opportunity to live into the ideals that the United States has espoused but not always honored in practice. Please, share your wisdom and experiences in the comment box below.

Some of us have been preparing for what is currently happening — with President Trump calling for an end to vote counting before we know the full results. Last night’s press conference in which he accused multiple state election officials of conspiring to rob him of an election victory without presenting any evidence was anticipated. A number of groups prepared for this scenario, hoping to never use the materials and actions they planned. But here we are. 

Locally, we started using the guidance from Hold the Line a few weeks ago (). Since last Thursday, a nonpartisan vigil has been held at noon every day except Sunday with a message that an election is not over until the votes are counted. We are saddened that we need to be out there and we are hopeful that the power of citizens mobilizing nonviolently can keep the process of counting votes on track. by a local digital newspaper at the vigil on Thursday.

We made an early decision to close the office on November 3 to allow staff to play an active role in the election process. Polling locations have historically been staffed by retired individuals who are at increased risk for COVID-19. So, nationwide, younger people including our staff went through the rigorous training and became poll workers for the first time. The unforeseen positive outcome of this is that more people in our community can now attest to the security and rigor of the election process. It really is extremely difficult to perpetrate voter fraud on any large scale. It is, however, easy to suppress voter participation through establishing onerous and unreasonable requirements to vote, limiting polling locations and hours for voting, and purging voter rolls. One thing we can be very proud of this week is the perseverance of voters around the country. This is the highest voter turnout in more than a century! 

We celebrate that locally we are not aware of any intimidation or violence on election day. We pray this continues. The polls ran smoothly in Harrisonburg and the surrounding county. In the city of Harrisonburg, more than 50% of the registered voters had voted early and turnout on Tuesday was steady which put us on track for a record voter turnout. We celebrate that more people are participating in the process of democracy. 

Now, we are awaiting the full returns. It is important to remember that this longer process of finalizing the votes is normal. Every election year the final numbers change in the weeks after an election. The difference now, is that we are unable to reasonably project the winner prior to counting the ballots because the results are so close. There are many historical and structural reasons for this that need attention and repair. Our first priority is to make sure that the votes cast in this record-setting election are counted. 

After that, we will be able to begin thinking about what a peacebuilding process for the United States might look like and what role CJP can play. Because, if we have learned anything from the election results in 2016 and 2020 and the years in between, it is that the United States must address past harms and current injustices if we want to hand our children and grandchildren a viable society and a livable planet. 

In peace and hope,

Jayne and the CJP Team

Below is an excerpt from the manual that outlines the content and structure. You can download the manual and document containing important reflection questions for engaging the curriculum. 

Download STAR for Sexual Harms Manual
Guide for use of STAR for Sexual Harms Manual

STAR is currently seeking an organizational partner in implementing a pilot project with the materials. If you or your organization are interested, please review the reflection questions and ideal audiences and contact us at star@emu.edu.

Read more about STAR and the work with sexual harms.