As a school continually ranked by the Princeton Review as one of the most politically active in the nation, here at AU it’s worth positing the question: how do ya figure that?

Well, any minor search into the rankings goliath that is the Review will tell you that these results are shady at best. There is absolutely no quantitative analysis of what constitutes political activity. Furthermore, most of their findings come from questionnaires where students “fill in one of five boxes on a grid,” the aggregate of which then filed into a database.

Interestingly enough, a lot of what people take to mean political activity is directly prohibited under American University policy due to its status as a non-profit organization, meaning student groups can’t technically be politically active.

In the 2011-12 annual report, the AU Board of Trustees declared a total of over $15 million in revenue from federal grants and contracts. Coupled with its tax-exempt benefits, American has a significant interest in maintaining this status. But to do so, the gavel often falls upon unsuspecting heads—namely, student organizations.

“All students, staff, and faculty are strictly prohibited from engaging in lobbying or political activity on behalf of University,” according to university policy. The policy goes on to then define these activities within parameters like “participating or intervening” in political campaigns, “lobbying” any government official or his or her staff, and not surprisingly, “giving gifts” to these same elected personnel.

Even using money that comes from somewhere other than the University doesn’t fly when you’re talking about student groups.

“A recognized student organization is not permitted to hold outside bank accounts, or to privately raise funds for any purposes,” Director of Student Activities, Karen Gerlach, wrote in an email. “All transactions and activities of a recognized student organization must be conducted through Student Activities.”

So, what does this mean for a political group like College Democrats?

On these restrictions, AU College Democrats President, Kathryn Tinker, says, “We are greatly hindered on activities. We can’t campaign,” said Katrhyn Tinker, the president of AU College Democrats.

The Dems, who in the past four years have been dealt two strikes by the Office of Student Activities for infringing on lobbying policies, must now toe the line in order to avoid a third, which would be grounds for the club’s dismantlement. In one case, a group of AU Democrats travelled to the Human Rights Campaign office in Dupont Circle to phone bank for the repeal of the controversial military policy Don’t Ask Don’t Tell. But when photos of the students holding up signs were posted online, the university watchdogs caught the scent of foul play.

Tinker has kept the group strike-free since the start of her term in May and sees these episodes as cautionary tales to mind when planning future activities. To avoid future violations, the AU Democrats now have round-the-clock policy wonks to come up with legal quick guides on the dos and don’ts of non-profit organizations.

Tinker says they’re even mindful of the speakers they bring to campus. When they invited Virginia’s gubernatorial candidate Terry McAuliffe earlier this semester, Tinker remembers specifically warning McAuliffe’s aides to “not make this a campaign stop.”

In the worst of cases, Director Gerlach warns student organizations and individuals “could have charges filed” against them if they violate the Student Code of Conduct.

But the truth is that many other groups have felt less pressure from student activities when it comes to pursuing their political agendas. Valerie Kielba of the advocacy group Students for Justice in Palestine says that they have managed to avoid any sanctions stemming from policy infringements. But she admits that where the school draws the line can sometimes be pretty opaque.

“Most of the conflicts come from other groups on campus that oppose what we stand for,” she said. “When those groups go to AUCC and complain about political statements that were making, then AUCC comes to us.”

The example she’s referring to took place this past September when a group of SJP students went on a hunger strike on the Quad in solidarity with Palestinian political prisoners in Israel. Although not in the same vain as lobbying, the political nature of the strike was enough to disconcert the SJP’s student activities advisor, who then admonished the group to desist. Student activities refused to comment on any specific incident for this story.

Even situated in the nation’s political hearth, AU is still an institution greatly stifled in its political expression. Realistically, SJP’s hunger strike on the Quad didn’t pose any threat the the University’s nonprofit status. One would hope students would be encouraged to engage in the political activity within the limits of the law, especially at a school that prides itself as being rated one of the most politically active in the country; however, it makes sense for administrators to be cautious about maintaining the University’s tax-exempt status. Even so, it should be on administrators to understand the rules and communicate them to students; however, with the knowledge they will likely err on the side of caution, it doesn’t hurt for student groups to take the time to know their rights.

Illustration by Rebecca Bartola

Nothing much happens in Upper Dublin, Pennsylvania. It’s my hometown, a benign stretch of suburb where bored teenagers complain, grow up, and move out. On the outskirts of one of the deadliest cities in America, Upper Dublin feels like a protective bubble of affluence and sameness. Unlike Philadelphia, a city known to be dangerous, there is no danger in my town.

But, as the Sandy Hook Elementary School shooting reminds us, atrocity can affect anyone.

On December 14, while most of us at AU were finishing finals and going home, tragedy unraveled in Newtown, Connecticut. In the wake of Sandy Hook, there was speculation from all sides and the president gave a call to action on the gun crisis and the NRA’s proposed solution of enhanced school security. Upper Dublin’s reaction received less attention, but its skittish reflex mirrored the insecure tenor of the nation.

After hearing news of the shooting, I was deeply upset and my heart went out the victims and their families. But soon, I put the sickening story out of mind. Monday morning propelled Sandy Hook back to my attention.

The Monday following the Sandy Hook Elementary School Shootings, I returned to my summer job as a desk assistant at a local radio station. It was a slow, cold morning, until a reporter called in and said there was a potential armed suspect in Upper Dublin High School. “That’s my high school,” I thought. Quickly followed by: “My brother is in the building.”

As I imagined my brother Jack locked inside the school, I sympathized with everyone impacted by Sandy Hoook. When I told my mother that the high school was in lockdown, that the classrooms were sealed tight and police officers from every county were pouring into a den of frightened students, she wailed. My mom rushed to the school but I was immobile. I could do nothing but shake and wait for Jack to answer my pleading text messages.

He did answer, after twenty endless minutes. He was safe. The fog of panic and SWAT teams cleared. As it turned out, the school had never been in any danger. Officials had spotted an object that looked like a rifle on security cameras and had immediately acted to shut down the perceived threat. After searching student suspects, police officers discovered not a long weapon but a harmless umbrella. The contentious umbrella was part of a science project involving the immune system and though some parents chose to take their children home, classes proceeded.

In a district-wide email, Upper Dublin’s superintendent Michael Pladus insisted that the school’s reaction was unconnected to the events in Newtown. Even so, the hearts and minds of every Upper Dublin student must have been with those effected by Sandy Hook in those twenty uncertain minutes while armed officers flooded the locked-down halls.

Tragedies like the one in Newtown spark responses of all kinds: political, personal, heartfelt, and fearful. The fear and pain in Newtown spilled into my hometown. In my view, the lockdown would not have happened on an ordinary school day. Yet, in the aftermath of the Sandy Hook killings, on-edge officials displayed fierce (and justifiable) caution.

Like Upper Dublin, American University can feel like a secure (if more exciting) bubble. I’m sure Newtown felt just as safe until the day of the attack. We can, and should, talk of ways to make our country safer. Discussions surrounding gun control and mental illness need to take place at national and local levels: like AU. Although it can’t bring back the lives lost, we can take comfort in those willing to face danger head on, just as the Sandy Hook teachers tried to defend their students, and use tragedy as the impetus for conversation.

Photo by kawwsu29 via Flickr

As college students, sometimes it’s easy to focus on papers and parties and forget to pause and appreciate the people who provide the university with basic and often underappreciated services.

AU’s Student Worker Alliance gave university employees a forum to talk about their experiences last week in an event that emphasized the need to support campus workers as they fight for improved contracts with their employers.

Kevin Nelson, who has worked in the dining hall at AU for nearly four years while pursuing a nursing degree at UDC, served as one of the main speakers at the event.  Bon Appetit caused controversy on campus when they fired Nelson in October for allegedly stealing food after he was prevented from taking a break and given permission by a supervisor to wrap up leftovers for later.

“There was a lot of interest around Kevin getting fired, because everyone knows him,” said Sara Jacobs, a member of the Student Worker Alliance.

Members of the Student Worker Alliance started a campaign to get Nelson rehired and draw attention to Bon Appetit’s labor practices.  Within days of his firing, comment cards asking about Kevin plastered the bulletin board in the dining hall and over 500 students had signed the petition in support of employee they affectionately referred to as “TDR Kevin.”  The students’ hard work paid off and just over a week after he was fired, Bon Appetit rehired Nelson and gave him full back pay.

Nelson said he didn’t believe two of his friends when they let him know about the student campaign to get him rehired.

“I looked on Facebook and saw the petition online for “TDR Kevin”—and I almost burst into tears,” Nelson said.  “People really know when you take pride in your work, and they’ll want you around for it.”

Work in the dining hall doesn’t just start and end at the food service stations.  Much of the work needed to keep the TDR takes place out of sight and mind for many students.

“You all don’t see me too often, because I’m down in the basement so much handling the deliveries as they come in,” said Bruce Magbie, a receiving room employee for Bon Appetit.

“I take real pride in my work—like Kevin does—when I’m down working in the receiving area,” Magbie said.  “But I’m overworked.  They expect so much from just one man.”

Tarshea Smith, a cashier at Georgetown for 19 years, said a supervisor wrote her up after she was hospitalized for epilepsy and couldn’t make it to work.  Although the incident upset Smith, she said she didn’t think she could do anything about it until a student stepped forward and encouraged her to fight for fairer treatment.

“That’s when I began to help organize my coworkers,” said Smith, who now works as a campaign organizer for Unite Here.  Foodservice employees at Georgetown unionized with the Local 23 chapter of Unite Here just over one year ago.

Even though Kevin is back at TDR and workers at local university are experiencing success in unionizing, members of the Student Worker Alliance say that the fight for workplace fairness is far from over.

Ayssa Tufano, a Student Worker Alliance member, said she hopes that the workers will get more time to prepare food, more work hours, a living wage and whistleblowing protection included in their contracts.

“I think it’s very clear the amount of pride and dedication they have in their job,” Tufano said.  “But worker justice issues shouldn’t necessarily be revolved around students.  What matters is workers having enough time to do their job and enough wages to support their families.”

Jacobs agreed, and expressed similar optimism that students will start taking notice.

“We go to a school that likes to pride itself on social justice—but when you look closely at what goes on at our university, that’s not what happens,” Jacobs said.  “It’s hard to go here and not notice the labor abuses that go on right at our own school.”

Photo by PinkMoose via Flickr.

Rallying cries for a tuition freeze and for student bargaining rights filled AU’s campus on Friday afternoon as members of the Coalition of American University Students (CAUS) led a march that culminated in a rally outside of Butler Pavilion in an attempt to directly voice their concerns to Gail Hanson, the university’s vice president for campus life.

The students said they decided to hold the rally after university administration failed to respond to a list of demands and to a petition signed by over 25 percent of the student body. Members of CAUS hand-delivered the demands to President Kerwin during his kickoff speech for All-American Weekend on October 20.

“We want the administration to understand that students should have a say in the decision making at the university,” said Zachary Moore, an AU student and CAUS member. “Our petition isn’t just for a tuition freeze. It’s for collective bargaining rights for students. Both the tuition freeze and the collective bargaining were completely ignored by the administration—and we’re going to show them that we don’t like being ignored.”

Close to fifty students turned out to march—far fewer than the 1700 students who signed the organization’s petition, but plenty enough to draw the attention of anyone around campus during the time. An improvised band led the group as participants yelled, distributed flyers and motioned for onlookers to join in the rally. A handful of spectators joined in on the march, but most opted to stand by and snap photos with their smart phones or simply gape at the group as they marched by.

“Ideally we want to come up with a system where students—as the main bankrollers of the university—have a meaningful say in the policies that the administration makes,” CAUS member Paul Grobman said. Grobman pointed out that eighty percent of the university’s revenue comes from student tuition and fees, as shown clearly in the university’s publicly available budget for the 2012-2013 school year, but said he felt that students lacked meaningful representation in the school’s decision-making process.

“We want to let the administration know that we’re here and we’re serious about this,” Grobman said. “We are not just going to deliver a petition and go away. We are going to be here for the long haul to make sure that tuition hikes don’t happen.”

Both Grobman and Moore cited the student strikes and protest movement in Montreal, Quebec as one of the main inspirations for CAUS. The most recognizable symbol of CAUS, a red felt square fastened to a shirt or backpack with a safety pin, is a direct adoption of the red square symbol used by the Quebec students on strike from last February through this September.  Marches through Quebec drew up to 500,000 students at a time over a hike in university tuition from $2,168 to $3,793 between 2012 and 2017.

After winding around the quad and through the campus, a delegation of 17 students marched up to Hanson’s office as the rest waited outside the entrance to Butler Pavilion. Upon arriving at the office, Hanson’s assistant told the group that the campus life vice president was out of the office at an off-campus meeting. The group left a message with a list of their demands, including a two-year tuition freeze, access to an itemized budget and collective bargaining rights for students.

“Students came out and they were here rallying—that was the biggest success,” Sophia Miyosha said. “Even though she [Hanson] wasn’t there, we’re not going to stop.  This is just the beginning.”

“We’re going to keep up the pressure. We’re going to start contacting donors, alumni and faculty.  Anyone who can help us put pressure on the administration—we’re going to reach out to them,” CAUS member Chris Litchfield said. “It’s important to stress that we don’t want to have to do this.  The administration is pushing us into crushing poverty—and they’re okay with that.  And if they’re okay with that, we need to tell them we’re not okay with them living their lives in ease while we’re living in difficulty.”

CAUS is already planning a night march on October 30, where students will gather at the amphitheater and march around campus banging pots and pans while shouting their demands.  Even if the administration continually refuses to meaningfully acknowledge their demands, CAUS members don’t plan on being quiet anytime soon. While the Montreal protests included many more students, CAUS members are making up the difference with dedication to their cause and to sparking structural changes in the school’s decision-making process—and inspiring change in schools across the region.

“With student power, we can make a real difference,” Litchfield shouted through a megaphone as the rally drew to a close, “We can stop tuition hikes here and across the U.S.  It starts here—and it starts with us!”

Photos by Taylor Kenkel.

Adjunct professors at American University succeeded this semester in their nearly year-long effort to unionize as a collective group. Though organization efforts began in fall 2010, organizing stepped up in 2011, when Service Employees International Union dedicated support, publicity, and financial resources to the campaign. The aid was a much-needed springboard for the movement, as adjuncts’ schedules made large-scale organization difficult. Adjuncts often met in each other’s homes and connected via on-campus networks in order to spread the word.

With more than 1,600 eligible voters, many of whom no longer teach at the university, the vote came in 379-284, a victory for professors who have been struggling with low pay, no benefits, and no job security. Through the initiative, AU adjuncts became the third school in the DC area to join the Service Employees Local 500, in addition to George Washington University and Montgomery County Community College.

Several student groups and leaders rose in support for the unionization efforts. As part of the Student Worker Alliance, Ethan Miller, author of this article, produced a video where AUSG President Tim McBride endorsed adjunct unionization. The SWA on campus collected over 200 signatures from students and presented the petitions, together with a letter of support, to every department head, the deans of each school and University Provost Scott Bass. Students also held two flashmobs in the week leading up to the vote count, culminating in a demonstration in the provost’s office.

Questions arose whether an increase in adjunct salaries would result in tuition hikes. However, even if adjunct pay doubled, it would still make up less than three percent of the university budget. After the vote, AU administrators agreed to recognize the union and not challenge the election results, alleviating supporters’ concerns over AU’s potential reactions.

Other unionization efforts on campus have encountered far more obstacles. In 2007, the University contested shuttle bus drivers’ efforts to join Teamsters local 922 through extensive legal proceedings. Despite this, shuttle drivers unionized. But in 1996 the university successfully employed suspect tactics to prevent operating engineers from collectivizing. Other workers have unionized successfully, such as janitorial staff and food service staff, personnel employed through Aramark and Bon Appétit, respectively.

While many colleges, especially public institutions, find themselves in a financial bind, American does not. The budget for fiscal year 2012 projects a roughly fifteen percent growth in expenditures when compared to the budget for fiscal year 2011 of $479,200,000. And while the overall budget for adjunct salaries has also grown slightly in the last few years, the hiring of additional adjunct faculty has outpaced such improvements. Salaries for part-time faculty make up less than two percent of the total university budget, while salaries for the top five highest-paid administration figures have soared in the last five years to near $3 million combined. Full-time tenured professors make up to $156,100 a year.

According to The Chronicle of Higher Education, more than forty percent of the professors at AU are adjuncts. Many adjuncts at the university are paid as little as $2,000 per course, receive no health benefits, and retain little job security. However, motivations for collectivization were not simply financial. Many adjuncts feel isolated from the university community. Erik Cooke, an adjunct in the Philosophy and Religion Department, said adjuncts “often feel very marginal to the conversation.” Part-timers, until recently, had held no positions within the Faculty Senate or any other university governance structures.

Adjuncts across the country face difficulties similar to our adjunct professors. A 2010 study on the conditions faced by part-time faculty at two-year and four-year institutions, published by the American Federation of Teachers (AFT), reported that only 28 percent of adjuncts receive health benefits through their colleges and one-third receive less than $2,500 per course. Almost half say they make less than $15,000 annually from teaching.

These conditions have led many to challenge their status through organizations like the New Faculty Majority Foundation, the Coalition of Contingent Academic Labor and the Modern Language Association, all focusing on uniting contingent faculty.

Years ago, the majority of adjunct professors were professionals who taught on the side, a short-term arrangement where teaching was not their primary income. But with full-time, tenure-track positions at colleges and universities increasingly rare, many newly minted PhDs are going straight from graduate school to teaching as adjuncts. Because of this, adjuncts remain qualified, valuable faculty members who receive the short end of the financial stick. Hopefully, unionization will afford adjunct professors the compensation they are undoubtedly due.

Anne McLeer, Director of Research and Strategic Planning for SEIU Local 500, said that by voting to unionize, “American University adjuncts are now joining the many adjunct and contingent faculties across the country who are refusing to allow themselves to be treated as a second tier.”

Photo from USAS.org

More than 600 colleges in the United States ban smokers from lighting up on university grounds — and some administrators and members of the student body think AU should become a smoke-free campus as well.

The thorny issue of students smoking on campus is not unfamiliar territory for the administration.  The school banned lighting up in the Tavern way back in 1998 (wait, you mean people used to smoke inside?) and stomped out smoking in and around residence halls back in 2003.  The prospect of a campus sans cigarettes has faded in and out of debate since 2007.

AU came close to a smoking ban in 2008, when a bill to enact new guidelines on limiting smoking on campus made its way before Student Government; the bill passed the senate despite a veto from SG President Joe Vidulich.  At the same time as the kerfuffle over smoking shuffled through SG, the University President’s council began investigating the feasibility of a campus smoking ban. When confronted with the issue in 2008, University President Neil Kerwin expressed cautious disagreement with both the limits of the bill and the prospect of a ban, instead opting to begin a more passive courtesy campaign and implementing smoking cessation programs.

SOC Professor W. Joseph Campbell, PhD, served on the President’s Council when they considered the possibility of the ban four years ago, and said he was disappointed when the effort did not result in a smoke-free campus policy.

“It’s clear that it would take a concerted effort to get it done,” Professor Campbell said of the current effort to ban smoking on campus.  As a self-described “reformed smoker” who gave up the habit several years ago, Professor Campbell cited the health issues, financial expenses and the unsightly nature of smoking as the main reasons for his support of a campus-wide ban.  Campbell indicated that phasing the regulation in over the course of a few years might make a ban easier to swallow, and said he hopes the University decides to take a firmer stance on the issue as the debate picks back up again.

Dr. Gary Weaver, a professor in SIS, takes a different stance on the prospect of a smoking ban.  Although Weaver kicked the habit 20 years ago and is not a fan of smoking, he does not think an all-out ban is the best idea

“When I was a smoker, I always resented the self-righteous fanatics who believed it was their personal responsibility to stop me from smoking,” Weaver wrote when contacted, underscoring the main source of tension in the debate.

He also pointed out that AU attracts a number of individuals— including faculty, staff and students— from cultures where smoking is common, and questioned if the University should necessarily require them to “give it up” upon arrival.

Just to clarify: I don’t smoke, and don’t plan on picking up the habit any time soon.  I oppose smoking for health, environmental and animal rights reasons (cigarettes are still tested on animals, after all).  I become annoyed when I walk out of a building and into a cloud of smoke and disheartened by all the cigarette butts littering the sidewalks and garden areas around campus.  These irksome experiences, though, largely result from the irresponsibility of individual smokers—and warrant more of an emphasis on the personal responsibilities and courtesies associated with electing to smoke.

To be fair, making AU smoke-free does seem to mesh with campus sustainability and health goals, and banning smoking would certainly prevent piles of cigarettes from littering the quad—an especially offensive reality, considering the role the campus plays as an arboretum.  But a number of more realistic avenues for limiting the harmful impact of smoking and encouraging personal responsibility already exist and could easily be enforced.

Taking more of a middle road in promoting environmental stewardship and personal health —including stricter enforcement of existing smoking policies or relegating smoking to only select areas of the campus— could help alleviate the constant haze of secondhand smoke surrounding campus buildings and lessen the number of smoldering cigarettes on walkways without infringing on the choice to smoke.  Greater promotion of smoking cessation programs or provision of discounted nicotine patches, gum or other over-the-counter treatment to any student who voluntarily commits to a smoking cessation program could provide encouragement for students to quit smoking, and an education campaign on the health effects of smoking and of secondhand smoke could heighten awareness of the issue as well.

Of course, a middle-of-the-road approach is precisely what President Kerwin favored during the last round of smoking ban debates in order to limit the effects of smoking on campus—and neither the cigarette litter nor the disregard of smoke-free zones provide evidence that the current policy works.

Before lighting a blaze of controversy by hastily enacting a blanket ban, let’s hope a more serious discussion between smokers and nonsmokers about rights and responsibilities takes place and a reasonable solution emerges before the issue is left to smolder and fade in an unresolved haze.

Photo by Latente via Flickr.

A country with over 4 million internally displaced people (IDPs), a possible pending free trade agreement with the United States, and one of the most bio-diverse and resource rich nations on the planet, Colombia is both a gem of natural beauty and enigma of complex social problems.

An upcoming event at AU this Friday the 8^th at 2pm in the Battelle Atrium, sponsored by AU’s PorColombia club, AWOL, and CASJ discusses just this subject, along with the present opportunities and challenges for the United States and Colombia.

Not everyone is in agreement whether the free trade agreement will benefit Colombia. Proponents see the agreement as an opportunity to increase trade, cultural exchanges, and prosperity. Opponents concern themselves with the social impacts on small farmers and human rights, as well as who the trade and prosperity will truly benefit.

Some, such as the Latin America Trade Coalition, and several prominent Senators, have suggested passing the FTA would benefit the United States economically with jobs and export earnings.

Those opposed to the agreement have cited continued violence and human rights violations, despite a decrease in labor union assassinations. Indeed, the recent murder of three IDP leaders attempting to return to their lands, all within 24 hours, suggests problems persist.

Though the Obama administration has cut military and economic aid to a total of 467 million dollars, a 20% decrease on 2009 levels, Obama, other politicians, and a number of corporations have been lobbying for the passage of the US-Colombia Free Trade Agreement.

In a country where 1% of the population controls 45% of the territory, that has the 8^th highest GINI co-efficient (that’s income inequality) in the world, and the US embassy has estimated paramilitary groups control 10% of the country, the challenges faced in restoring land to its rightful owners are formidable.

The FTA, which would eliminate tariffs on imports US (government-subsidized) agricultural goods, would disproportionately impact Colombian small farmers, forcing many to sell their land, be forced off by large agro-businesses, or grow the only crop left profitable to them: coca.

Both Colombian President Juan Manuel Santos and President Obama are different from their predecessors in many ways, but the question whether they find a way to cooperate and benefit both countries and peoples.

The event will be this Friday the 8^th; the panel portion will last from 2-3, followed by a half hour for questions and answers. Confirmed speakers include Gimena Sanchez, WOLA’s Senior Andes Associate, and Charo Mina Rojas, an Afro-Colombian and Advocacy Advisor at Proceso de Comunidades Negras. Following the panel, there will be a reception with food and drinks, and will include representatives from many AU clubs and DC NGOs that focus on Colombia and Latin American issues.

The event is sponsored by AU’s own AU PorColombia, AWOL, the AU Fair Trade Student Association, and CASJ. For more information, please email me, Mike Lally, at ml0832a@american.edu.

“We can’t pick the facts of the world, but we can choose how we react to them.”

That was the message on Monday from Washington Hebrew Congregation’s Senior Rabbi Bruce Lustig. Here at American University, he and Akbar Ahmed—Pakistan’s former ambassador to the United Kingdom—discussed ways to help improve Jewish-Muslim relations.

So what does it mean to choose how we react to the facts of the world? We can’t make hatred go away—we have no control over that—but we have complete control over our response to it.

Ambassador Ahmed encouraged the crowd to act humbly, instead of speaking in terms of an “us” and a “you,” which creates tension by creating an “other.”

Rabbi Lustig and Ambassador Ahmed have worked closely together since the tragedies of September 11^th, 2001. They created the first Abrahamic Summit here in Washington, D.C.  The duo also collaborated together to start a 9/11 Unity Walk, which has become an annual interfaith walk down Massachusetts Avenue, incorporating all the city’s major religious denominations. It’s all about breaking down the walls of the “other.”

And it’s a unique time to start breaking down these walls. Islam is being demonized like never before, and anti-Semitism is as prevalent as ever. We need an army of peacemakers who can go out into the world and start an interfaith dialogue; Ahmed and Lustig are perfect prototypes for us to turn to. Perhaps the most eloquent moment of the entire evening was when Rabbi Lustig referenced the Qur’an, saying, “The pen and the ink are much stronger than the sword.”

This is a message to us. No matter what religion, race, or ethnicity, we all are members of the larger human race. To paraphrase an old Hasidic Jewish tale, the only difference between the east and west is one step. Take the step to turn around and face to the west if you’re leaning to the east, or vice versa, and you will have made the quintessential step in seeing the other side right in the eyes. Then reach out, shake hands, and create peace with your fellow brothers.

Photo by Jonathan Hayden. From left to right: Rabbi Lustig, ABC News correspondent John Donovan, and Ambassador Ahmed.

viagra price