Monthly Archives: March 2022

Assistant Professor of Clinical Law Vincent Southerland recalls that as a staff attorney with the Bronx Defenders early in his legal career, he often dealt with risk assessment instruments algorithm-based tools employed by the court to help determine whether his clients should be released pretrial. Southerland used the assessments to argue on behalf of his client when they were favorable, and when they werent, hed suggest potential problems with the assessment calculation. With all the other elements at work in the courtroom, he says, he didnt think deeply about the broader role that risk assessment instruments played.

But Southerland, who teaches the Criminal Defense and Reentry Clinic, has since come to recognize that the very use of those instruments has an outsize influence on criminal justice. What I also realized, he says, is that the tentacles of the algorithmic ecosystem reach into all these other stages of the criminal systemeverything from policing all the way through to sentencing, parole, probation, supervision, reentry, where youre classified when youre incarcerated.. These tools are ubiquitous across the system, and I feel like theyre just humming along without much of a challenge to them.

In his article The Intersection of Race and Algorithmic Tools in the Criminal Legal System, published last fall in the Maryland Law Review, Southerland takes a hard look at such tools and offers multiple reasons to question them. Arguing that the criminal legal system is plagued by racism and inequity, he writes that to transform the criminal legal system, advocates need to adopt a lens centered on racial justice to inform technology-based efforts rather than simply layering tools onto it in its current state. While algorithmic tools are often characterized as helping to eradicate bias in decision-making, Southerland asserts that they are infected by inevitable systemic bias.

The article begins with an overview of algorithmic tools across the criminal legal system, focusing on predictive tools. They are used by police to forecast where criminal activity is likely to occur; they are used by courts to determine risk of rearrest and failure to reappear when setting bail, and to render sentencing decisions.

The evidence, Southerland writes, casts doubt on the efficacy of this algorithmic approach. In a 2016 study, the Human Rights Data Analysis Group (HRDAG) examined the algorithm behind the predictive policing software PredPol. Inputting crime data from Oakland, California, to predict potential drug crime, HRDAG found that the algorithm suggested targeting low-income neighborhoods of color, despite concurrent evidence from public health data that drug use is more evenly dispersed throughout the city. HRDAG argued that when informed by discriminatory data, the algorithm will work to encourage similarly discriminatory police behavior.

Southerland points to existing scholarship indicating that this data is not merely something that police usethey create it as well, meaning that bias reflected in past police activity is embedded in the statistics that algorithmic tools utilize. Thus, writes Southerland, police decision-making plays an outsized role in shaping our perceptions of crime and criminal behavior. Data contain other flaws, too, he suggests. For example, arrest statistics do not indicate how the arrest is ultimately resolved, including dismissal of charges: What is reflected and read in the data is a community that appears to be dramatically more dangerous than it actually is, he writes.

Such initial distortions, he argues, can be self-perpetuating: increased law enforcement in a specific area based on previous patterns of policing can lead to more arrests, as does the mere presence of police, leading to even greater targeting by law enforcement.

Algorithmically based pretrial risk assessments used in bail decisions, such as those Southerland had encountered as a Bronx Defenders attorney, vary by jurisdiction and are created by a variety of different entities. Many use data about prior convictions and pending charges. The factors used to compute a risk score and how they are weighted are not always revealed, and most tools give a singular score encompassing the risk of both rearrest and failure to appear, even though the two risks are distinct from each other.

Southerland critiques also the algorithmic tools applied to sentencing decisions. The tools, which calculate recidivism risk, typically utilize four categories of risk factors: criminal history, antisocial attitude, demographics, and socioeconomic status. Such actuarial risk assessments operate as a form of digital profiling, prescribing the treatment of an individual based on their similarity to, or membership in, a group, he notes. He cites a recent study that found Virginias use of nonviolent risk assessment tools did not reduce incarceration, recidivism, or racial disparities; simultaneously, it disadvantaged young defendants.

The immediate abolition of algorithmic tools in the criminal legal system is unlikely, Southerland acknowledges, but he sees an opportunity to use them to shape the system for the better, using a racial justice lens. Algorithmic data sets could be adjusted to account for racially disparate impacts in policing and other areas. Applying a public health analysis, hot spots could attract support and investment rather than increased policing. Algorithmic tool vendors and users could be required to eliminate the discriminatory impact of their tools; algorithmic impact assessments, modeled on environmental impact assessments, could also be required; and algorithmic tools could be used to detect bias in decision-making in those who run the system.

Southerland stresses that it is not the tools themselves, but how they are crafted and used, that matters. These tools reflect back to us the world that we live in. If we are honest about it, what we see in that reflection is a criminal legal system riddled with racism and injustice, he writes. A racial justice lens helps us to understand that and demands that we adjust our responses to what we see to create the type of world that we want to inhabit.

Posted March 14, 2022

Read the original post:

Broken Tools: Vincent Southerland illuminates the problem of bias in the criminal legal system's use of algorithmic tools | NYU School of Law - NYU...

The full three-part documentary is currently screening in Austin, Texas as an official selection of the 2022 SXSW Film Festival. "Chapter 2: The Doomsday Machine" and "Chapter 3: Kuleana" premiered at SXSW on March 13. "Chapter 1: Take Cover" previously premiered at the 2022 Sundance Film Festival in January.

Through a 38-minute VR experience, On the Morning You Wake recreates the experiences of people in Hawai'i, who spent 38 excruciating minutes preparing for a possible nuclear attack when a false missile alert was sent on January 13th, 2018. The film takes audiences on a journey exploring the risks and consequences of a world held hostage by nuclear weapons, and reflecting on how the mere existence of these weapons impacts our concepts of home, safety and security.

The film's wide release on Meta Quest 2 amplifies the conversation about nuclear disarmament and abolition at a critical moment in the public's awareness of nuclear threat. "Right now, people all over the world are confronting the reality of the volatile world of systemic nuclear risk we live in," said Cynthia Lazaroff, a disarmament activist, impact fellow supporting On the Morning You Wake, and resident of Hawai'i whose experience is featured in the film. "Now is the time to educate, advocate, and take concrete action toward the abolition of nuclear weapons."

The film is at the center of a long-term impact campaign to inspire the global public to take action to shape the future of nuclear weapons policy. "One of the goals of On the Morning You Wake is to build additional support for the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (TPNW), which bans nuclear weapons," said Ray Acheson, an impact fellow, visiting researcher at Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, and part of the steering group of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN) that helped create the landmark treaty. "There are meaningful ways that we can all support the TPNW and work together to encourage all countries to join this treaty and eliminate nuclear weapons once and for all."

The impact campaign includes a number of public screenings and events, as well as educational resources that promote a deeper understanding of nuclear risk. Executive producer Games for Change is creating educational resources and curriculum in collaboration with N Square, which will support screenings at schools, universities and museums around the world.

The first museum and education activations will take place at the Nobel Peace Center in Oslo, Norway, which will host public screenings, conversations and field trips for high school students in June. Plans are also underway for a public event and activation in New York City in May, in collaboration with the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

"The Nobel Peace Center is proud to join the impact campaign surrounding On the Morning You Wake. The Nobel Peace Prize has a long tradition of honoring people and organizations working towards nuclear disarmament. Since 1959, twelve laureates have received the prize for their efforts regarding this issue," said Kjersti Flgstad, Executive Director of the Nobel Peace Center. "On the Morning You Wake presents a powerful opportunity to draw attention to the catastrophic humanitarian consequences of nuclear weapons."

The impact campaign is endorsed by a number of leading organizations and activists in the nuclear disarmament movement, including executive producer Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security, and impact campaign partners Global Zero, ICAN, Ploughshares Fund, N Square, Carnegie Corporation and the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists.

Impact Fellows leading On the Morning You Wake's public awareness campaign include Ray Acheson, director of disarmament at the Women's International League for Peace and Freedom and steering group member of the International Campaign to Abolish Nuclear Weapons (ICAN), which won the 2017 Nobel Peace Prize; Cynthia Lazaroff, a leader in U.S.-Russian exchange initiatives since the early 1980s and founder of Women Transforming Our Nuclear Legacy and NuclearWakeUpCall.Earth; and Lovely Umayam, founder of Bombshelltoe Policy and Arts Collective, a winner of the U.S. Department of State's Innovation in Arms Control Challenge.

The On the Morning You Wake creative team includes Mike Brett and Steve Jamison of Archer's Mark, Pierre Zandrowicz and Arnaud Colinart of Atlas V, producer Jo-Jo Ellison and co-producer Kurban Kassam, who collaborated with technology studio Novelab. The script was developed by Mike Brett and Steve Jamison in collaboration with Dr. Jamaica Heolimeleikalani Osorio, whose spoken word poem inspired the film's title and provides a lyrical framework for each chapter of the experience. Original music is composed by Bobby Krlic (The Haxan Cloak), the award-winning musician behind Ari Aster's Midsommar soundtrack.

Development, production and platform partners include the BFI (awarding funds from the National Lottery), ARTE France and Meta Quest's VR for Good program. Lizzie Francke executive produces for the BFI, with Marianne Lvy-Leblond and Lili Blumers executive producing for ARTE France. Executive producers for Meta Quest are Colum Slevin, Yelena Rachitsky and Amy Seidenwurm.

Executive producers Alexander Glaser and Tamara Patton from Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security advise on nuclear arms control and disarmament policy, drawing on extensive expertise in nuclear security issues. Executive producer Susanna Pollack at nonprofit Games for Change advances the project's social impact campaign through their XR for Change initiative. The project was developed with initial support from the MacArthur Foundation.

About Archer's Mark

Archer's Markis an award-winning full-service independent production studio based in London, UK. Founded by creative partners Mike Brett and Steve Jamison, the company's debut feature documentary NEXT GOAL WINS premiered at the Tribeca Film Festival and won the British Independent Film Award for Best Documentary, earning Mike and Steve recognition as Screen International Future Leaders and a place on BAFTA's Breakthrough programme.

Working alongside Archer's Mark Head of Film Jo-Jo Ellison, the pair later produced the Emmy Award-winning New York Times Op-Doc NOTES ON BLINDNESS (Directed by Peter Middleton & James Spinney) whilst developing a feature-length documentary of the same name. The feature premiered at Sundance, earned six BIFA nominations (winning Best Documentary) and was nominated for three BAFTAs. It was accompanied by the multi-award-winning VR experience of the same name, which won the Tribeca Storyscapes Award and Sheffield Doc/Fest's Alternate Realities Award. It is now considered a seminal work in the immersive space.

About Atlas V

Atlas Vis behind some of the most awarded pieces in the field of New Media, with projects shown at A-List festivals such as Venice Mostra (Gold Lion 2018), Sundance (5 selections), Peabody (Future of Media award 2019), Tribeca, SXSW (Storytelling Award 2019), Sheffield, Telluride, Cannes, Busan, and Sitges. In 2020, Atlas V launched a full capacity servicing company named Albyon, with a team of real time technology specialists, who operate at the frontier of video game and movie production, and a distribution and publishing company Astrea.

About Novelab

Since 2009, Novelab has developed immersive experiences and interactive installations for entertainment, education, advertising and industrial purposes. Between a technology start-up and a content studio, Novelab leverages high-end technology to tell engaging and memorable stories. Novelab is one of the most-awarded immersive studios in the world. The projects they develop have been featured in major film festivals such as Sundance (2016, 2018, 2019 and 2020), Tribeca Film Festival (2016, 2017, 2018 and 2020), the Venise Mostra (2017 et 2018), SXSW (2014, 2016, 2018 and 2019), Sheffield Doc/Fest (2016 and 2017) and VR Arles Festival (2017 and 2020).

About Games for Change

Since 2004, Games For Change (G4C) has empowered game creators and innovators to drive real-world change using games and immersive media to help people learn, improve their communities, and make the world a better place. G4C partners with technology and gaming companies, nonprofits, foundations, and government agencies to run world-class events, public arcades, design challenges, and youth programs. G4C supports a global community of game developers working on using games to tackle real-world challenges, from humanitarian conflicts to climate change and education.

About Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security

Princeton University's Program on Science and Global Security(SGS), based in the School of Public and International Affairs, conducts scientific, technical and policy research, analysis and outreach to advance national and international policies for a safer and more peaceful world.

About the BFI Film Fund

The BFI Film Fund invests around 25 million of National Lottery funding a year into developing and supporting filmmakers with diverse, bold and distinctive projects, that have a cultural relevance or progressive ideas, and which reflect people from different backgrounds, as well as a range of activities to increase the opportunities for audiences to enjoy them.

Feature films supported by the BFI Film Fund which screened at BFI London Film Festival (LFF) this year included world premieres of The Phantom of the Open directed by Craig Roberts and written by Simon Farnaby, ear for eye directed by debbie tucker green, and VR animation Laika directed by Asif Kapadia. UK premieres of BFI-backed films at LFF include: Mothering Sunday, directed by Eva Husson and written by Alice Birch, which world premiered at Cannes and was selected for the Toronto International Film Festival (TIFF); Joanna Hogg's The Souvenir: Part II, which world premiered in Directors' Fortnight at Cannes in 2021 and is in official selection at San Sebastian; Clio Barnard's Ali & Ava, which world premiered in Directors' Fortnight at Cannes and was selected for TIFF; Terence Davies' Benediction, which had its world premiere at TIFF and is selected for San Sebastian; True Things directed by Harry Wootliff, which world premiered at the Venice Film Festival; Earwig, directed by Lucile Hadihalilovi, which world premiered at TIFF and is also in official selection at San Sebastian; The Real Charlie Chaplin directed by Peter Middleton and James Spinney, which had its world premiere at Telluride; and The Feast (Gwledd) directed by Lee Haven Jones, produced through Ffilm Cymru Wales' Cinematic scheme supported by the BFI, which had its world premiere at SXSW and is in the First Feature Competition at LFF.

Other recent and forthcoming releases supported by the BFI include: Goliath: Playing with Reality directed by Barry Gene Murphy and May Abdalla, which won the Grand Jury Prize for Best VR Work at this year's Venice Film Festival; and debut features from Reggie Yates, Dionne Edwards and Aml Ameen for Pirates, Pretty Red Dress and Boxing Day respectively.

The BFI also supported multi BAFTA-winning Rocksdirected by Sarah Gavron and written by Theresa Ikoko and Claire Wilson, Ammonitedirected by Francis Lee starring Kate Winslet and Saoirse Ronan, and Saint Maud directed by Rose Glass featuring EE BAFTA Rising Star nominee Morfydd Clark. Recently released titles include Aleem Khan's debut feature After Love; Harry MacQueen's second feature Supernova; starring Colin Firth and Stanley Tucci; the BIFA-winning and BAFTA-nominated Limbo directed by Ben Sharrock; critically acclaimed horror Censor, directed by Prano Bailey-Bond and starring Niamh Algar; and Herself directed by Phyllida Lloyd and written by Malcolm Campbell and Clare Dunne.

About the BFI

We are a cultural charity, a National Lottery distributor, and the UK's lead organisation for film and the moving image. Our mission is:

Founded in 1933, the BFI is a registered charity governed by Royal Charter. The BFI Board of Governors is chaired by Tim Richards.

Arte France

ARTE is a Franco-German and European Adventure. Public service TV channel ARTE supports creativity and culture in all forms. Programs are broadcast 24/7 on all types of screens throughout Europe and beyond. The founding fathers of ARTE believed that a joint television channel should bring French and German citizens closer on a cultural level and promote cultural integration throughout Europe. ARTE is committed to issues that are important to European citizens: combating inequality, whether social, cultural, economic, geographical, gender- or disability-related, and promoting sustainable development.

About Meta Quest

The Meta Quest team at Reality Labs lets people defy distanceconnecting with each other and the worldthrough world-class VR hardware and software. The Meta Quest content team pursues the creation of best-in-class games, narrative experiences, and new VR use-cases like fitness, productivity, and travel. Meta Quest joins other teams at Reality Labs dedicated to cutting-edge research, computer vision, haptics, social interaction, and more. Reality Labs is committed to driving the state of the art forward through relentless innovation.

Press Contact:Susan McPherson McPherson Strategies(917) 859-2291[emailprotected]

SOURCE On the Morning You Wake

Excerpt from:

ON THE MORNING YOU WAKE (TO THE END OF THE WORLD), A NEW VR DOCUMENTARY AT THE CENTER OF A NUCLEAR DISARMAMENT CAMPAIGN, COMING TO QUEST 2 ON MARCH 24...

I spent six and a half years in prison. Much of that time, I was working on one fiction manuscript or another. I had to stumble around in the darkness to figure out how to do this. So do most writers in prison. Now theres a book to help change that.

PEN Americas The Sentences That Create Us (Haymarket Books, 2022), edited by Caits Meissner, is the dream of every incarcerated writer: a collection of how-to-write essays by those who can speak to that audience best other incarcerated writers plus people who have taught writing classes in prison. The book includes pieces by famous formerly incarcerated writers like Wilbert Rideau as well as people who have never published previously. It provides lessons on writing poetry, fiction, plays and autobiography. The Sentences That Create Us is a complete manual pitched perfectly for the target audience.

Meissners book will bring some welcome and profound relief to incarcerated people who struggle to tell their important stories. I had the pleasure of interviewing her for Truthout about the book. Frequent Truthout contributor Brian Dolinar a friend, writer and fellow abolitionist activist in Urbana, Illinois joined me for the conversation.

James Kilgore: Tell us about how you came to write the book and how you got to this space?

Caits Meissner: I taught in prison for five or six years before I came to my current job as director of Prison and Justice Writing at PEN America, an organization founded in 1922 bringing together a national and international network of writers and protecting free expression. I suddenly had all these resources, famous writers, and an incredible community of incarcerated writers. This over 40-year program that was started by PEN on the heels of the Attica uprising in 1971 fell into my lap. I had the chance to bring it into this new era where mass incarceration is actually something thats talked about. Abolition is a word thats being moved from the margins to the forefront.

For years we at PEN America had created in-house and distributed a slim handbook called The PEN America Handbook for Writers in Prison. It was essentially a craft book, teaching the basics of how to write. When I came on, the director said, I think you have a different pedagogy, I think you could do a new book.

What I thought it needed was the voices of justice-impacted people speaking to each other. And speaking with allies, because we need each other as we know, writers in prison need their allies on the outside. And vice versa, we need our people in prison to be reporting from the front lines and to be in community.

The task was then looking at all the mail that came in, the hundreds of letters we get from prison what are people asking for? It became clear to me that people are really asking about not just How do I write poetry? they were really asking, How do I be a writer?

I had access to all of these amazing incarcerated writers at PEN who had made incredible things happen through the walls, really on their own steam. I wanted them to write revealing essays to codify and put into motion what that journey looked like.

I remember ideating with Spoon Jackson about his piece. Spoon has done so many collaborations beyond the walls, hes become a famous writer in prison. He said, Well, Im just real, its organic. I said, Yes, Spoon, but let me ask you this. When your writing instructor came in and it was a white woman, how did you respond to her in order to develop that relationship?

I said, Did you ask your collaborators to do things for you outside of your artistic collaboration? He said, Never! It a gift culture between two artists and I kept it there. I said, People need to understand that. Theres a lot of need in prisons. Your essay is going to be pulling apart each of these collaborations and what it took in order for each to be successful. Thats how were going to teach other people, how to show up in collaboration as an equitable artist, how to be seen that way, and how to see yourself that way.

Kilgore: Im wondering about the difficult task of how you decided who was going to be in the book. And how did you manage that team? Did you have meetings? How did you communicate? Did you visit people face-to-face?

It came together in a couple different ways. First, I knew the money we made off this book was going to go right back into sending the book inside. There was no profit to be made off the book, but I wanted to pay contributors. We first got a $25,000 grant from the California Arts Council. That dictated that all the writers in the first section had to be California-based authors, not incarcerated. For the rest of the book the contributors are largely justice-involved people.

I went through my so-to-speak Rolodex of relationships. Sometimes I had a very clear idea of what I wanted people to write about. To Piper Kerman (author of Orange Is the New Black), for example, I said, I want you to write about how you write about people you know, ethically, given that your book turned into a major TV show. And she agreed.

I was thinking about the book as being inspirational, aspirational, instructional and then historical, when we got Wilbert Rideau on board, former editor of The Angolite. He never gives interviews and decided to give us an interview because of the theme of the book, and who it was for. He closes the interview with a truth he learned and believes deeply: Writing gets people out of prison.

Brian Dolinar: Youre sending copies of the book inside. How are you making that happen? How are you getting around the censorship issues? The authorities are always looking over peoples shoulders, reading their mail, listening in on phone calls. Did you worry about getting censored?

We were lucky enough to get a grant from the Mellon Foundation to send 75,000 copies inside. We called every prison and jail in the U.S. to find out where our allies live and where we can send the book. When the book came out, we also advertised with a form that were sending these copies inside and individuals and organizations can request the book. Weve had over 50,000 requests within the first month of the books life, which tells me there is a hunger for this project.

Theres a couple of things I did worry about. This book, while it appears to be a lovely book on writing if you look a little deeper, its a book on organizing in prison. As I think of it, it is a book full of life. And often prisons are very scared of the creative life force, because thats personal power.

What I was worried about more so even than the book getting inside was what happens to some of the contributors. For example, Thomas Bartlett Whitaker is in the book. When I got my copy of the bound book, and I read it again, I remembered how profound his essay is; its called, The Price of Remaining Human. He writes about watching 161 men on death row be executed and their stories going with them. His own story is that his sentence was commuted minutes before his execution date and he has run into a tremendous amount of pushback from the prison administration because he writes about death row and he publishes online. Through his allies on the outside, he has a blog called Minutes Before Six.

As I was reading the book, I started to think, wow, Thomas is already in segregation [solitary confinement]; this is what he takes on as a writer. It started to frighten me the world could double down on the punishment he gets for exactly what weve asked him to do. Of course, he took the project on knowing the risk, thats what hes writing about.

Ill get calls from our Writing for Justice fellows who are fighting things in the prisons. Recently, one told me, Im about to go into solitary confinement for two months, you wont hear from me, wish me luck. The sense of responsibility of what it takes to become a writer in prison is immense.

Dolinar: Have you been inside since COVID has lifted and visitations have resumed?

In December 2021 I went to San Quentin, and that was special on a personal level. I did a book tour in 2016 or 2017 for my poetry book, Let it Die Hungry, when I went to prisons. I had visited a writing group run by Zoe Mullery at San Quentin. I got to come back and visit this group in December after not seeing folks for almost five years.

It was jarring to be back in a prison; it was visceral remembering how oppressive it feels. I was also reminded of the vibrancy behind the walls. One of the writers said a wonderful quote, Imagination is a toy. I shared about our new book. The men were very excited. They kept saying, We want to see this and this. I was pleased to be able to say, Its in the book!

Ive visited over 25 prisons across the U.S., so Ive talked to a lot of people. One of them is Sterling Cunio, a writer I met when he won our PEN essay contest with this absolutely beautiful essay about discovering his purpose through doing hospice work in prison, and seeing a man through his death process. Sterling was sentenced to life without parole at 16, he was part of the Oregon Five. I later sat in on his parole hearing for six hours.

Sterling became a Writing for Justice Fellow in 2019. He received money and a mentor to stage a play in prison. I got to hear the performance via phone. I was blown away. When the book came around, I said, Sterling, can you write about how you staged this play? Sterling had to lay out how he worked with administration, how he had to navigate the system and get permission to do good work. An antagonistic stance isnt going to move projects forward.

Even though Sterling did not make parole at that hearing, a year later his sentence was commuted. Sterling is now home, in his 40s.

Kilgore: How do you see your book as a tool for helping support significant change to this horrible system of mass incarceration that has dominated the landscape for the last four decades?

In order to shift the system, we need justice-impacted voices forefronted. Were hoping to bring the voices of powerful, directly impacted people into major publications [and] start to shift the needle through narrative change.

Theres a sense that I come across from publishers that prison stories are a specialized niche topic. My response is, with 2.3 million people inside at any given moment, plus parole, plus probation, plus families and friends affected, plus communities affected, this is simply another take on the American story.

Read more:

Prisons Aim to Stifle Creativity. Heres a Book That Pushes Back. - Truthout

On Friday the Biden administration announced it will continue to carry forward the brutal immigration policies of the Trump administration, continuing the tight restrictions under Title 42 which force asylum seekers at the southern border to remain in Mexico. The only update announced was that it would continue to apply to all families and persons seeking asylum but would make exceptions for unaccompanied minors, allowing them to enter the US as they seek asylum through immigration courts.

The draconian anti-migrant measureimplemented under the guise of combatting the spread of COVID-19is being kept in place even as the Biden administration has spearheaded the lifting of every other pandemic-related public health measure, and the American population has been told they must learn to live with the virus and return to normal.

Title 42 was first seized upon in March of 2020 under then President Donald Trump at the outset of the coronavirus pandemic to place the harshest restrictions to date on who can cross the border in the interest of public health. The 1944 statute grants the president broad powers to block foreigners from entering the country in order to prevent the serious threat of a dangerous disease. Trumps fascistic immigration adviser Stephen Miller had attempted to invoke the law twice before, during a mumps outbreak in immigration jails and once again during the flu season.

According to White House officials, Miller had long viewed the special protections offered to minors as a major hurdle to carrying out full immigration bans and an obstacle for speedy deportations. The spread of COVID-19 was quickly seized upon to justify a halt to the international protections of asylum and has continued to be pursued just as vociferously by the Biden administration, which has deported over 1 million migrants and detained a record 1.7 million migrants along the US-Mexico border last year.

According to the Washington Office on Latin America (WOLA), last month the Biden administration hit a terrible milestone of deporting its 20,000th migrant sent back to Haiti aboard the 198th flight since the presidents inauguration on January 20, 2021. The large figures were the result of a massive deportation blitz carried out by the Biden administration that sent hundreds of flights full of Haitian refugees seeking asylum in the United States back to Haiti.

The announcement to maintain Title 42 continues the assault on the international right to asylum. Furthermore, it is yet another version of what the Trump administration did early on in the pandemicusing the threat of COVID-19 to coerce parents to separate from their children by telling parents they will allow only children to leave COVID-infested detention facilities, but not parents.

By refusing to process asylum applications for all, aside from unaccompanied youth, the stage is being set for tens of thousands of parents to make a devastating sacrifice and separate from their children in the hopes that at least their children will be able to reach the United States.

According to Department of Homeland Security data, the Biden administration carried out 1.8 times the number of Title 42 apprehensions and deportations of migrants at the southern border between February and August 2021 (690,209) as the Trump administration carried out during the same time frame in 2020.

Lip service to the plight of migrants has been paid by members of the Congressional Hispanic Caucus, including Chairman Raul Ruiz (Democrat, Calif.), who stated, It is long overdue to completely end the Trump-initiated Title 42 policy and stop using the pandemic as an excuse to keep it going. The false statements of sympathy by Democratic Party officials could not ring more hollow.

The reality is that even if the COVID-19 pandemic had never happened, the prisons, child detentions and separations, the heavily armed and surveilled walls and fences, fit with drones, barbed wire and attack dogsreal and roboticwould still be there to menace and abuse those seeking to cross the border. This brutal reality was in force even prior to the pandemic and has been a key part of Washingtons bipartisan anti-immigrant policy. The overcrowded detention prisons, heavily expanded under the Obama administration, were endorsed by Vice President Kamala Harris just a few months into Bidens presidency.

The Biden administration has made only cosmetic changes to Trumps immigration policies including the ending of the Remain in Mexico program that required tens of thousands of immigrants to wait in Mexico for their US immigration hearing, only to shuttle them directly onto deportation planes, carrying forward the attacks on asylum spearheaded by Obama and Trump. The Biden administration resumed the Remain in Mexico policy late last year under court order.

The inhumane conditions facing asylum seekers and migrants on the US-Mexico border have been ensured through a collaboration between the Biden administration and the Mexican government of President Andrs Manuel Lpez Obrador (AMLO) in a brutal campaign to suppress migration. The AMLO government has been tasked by Washington to stop migrants and ensure they do not reach the southern border of the United States.

The number of people applying for refugee or asylum status in Mexico almost doubled between 2019 and 2021 and reached a historic high of over 130,000 in January as the economic and political fallout from the COVID-19 pandemic pushed increasing waves of migrants to try to reach the US.

While endless barbarism is meted against the people of Latin America, the Middle East and North Africa seeking asylum as refugees from US imperialist interventions throughout the globe, a very different response has met Ukrainian refugees fleeing the US/NATO-provoked war by Russia against Ukraine.

On March 2 the European Union (EU) ordered its member states to prepare to receive a mass influx of refugees. According to the order, Ukrainian refugees should be allowed to stay for at least one year and be given the option of extending their stay up to three years without a visa. In contrast to those from the Middle East and Africa who meet the walls of Fortress Europe or the unknown thousands who have perished in the heavily patrolled waters of the Mediterranean, Ukrainian refugees are to be permitted to receive social benefits, housing, education and the right to work.

In recent days Russian and Ukrainian citizens fleeing the war have begun turning up at the San Diego-Tijuana, Mexico border crossing in Southern California having boarded flights to Tijuana by way of Moscow and Romanias Bucharest airport.

US authorities allowed a Ukrainian woman and her three children to seek asylum Thursday, a reversal from a day earlier when she was denied entry under the Biden administrations sweeping restrictions for seeking humanitarian protection. The 34-year-old woman named Sofia and her children, aged 6, 12 and 14, were initially blocked from entering the US due to Title 42.

With the arrival of Ukrainian refugees, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York and other Democrats are suddenly advocating the ending of Title 42. Schumer hypocritically made mention of the Ukrainian family when calling for an end to Title 42 on Friday, noting, They requested refuge in one of the ports of entry on our southern border but were turned away because of Title 42. ... This is not who we are as a country. Continuing this Trump-era policy has defied common sense and common decency.

Sofia and her family have dodged the nightmare that tens of thousands in makeshift encampments face along the US-Mexico border, where many migrants have reported kidnapping, extortion and assault from gangs while waiting for the processing of asylum applications in crime-ridden cities in Mexico.

If Title 42 should in fact be lifted, it will not be because the right to asylum under international law has been reinstated or has been strengthened. It will be for the purpose of public consumption and propaganda to justify the US/NATO-provoked war against Russia all while the tens of thousands of poor souls from Mexico, the Northern Triangle and Latin America will continue to confront the same brutality.

The working class in the United States must demand the right of all workers to live and work wherever they please, with full citizenship rights, and the abolition of the national barriers which have been erected to divide workers against each other and used to justify the exploitation of immigrants and refugees.

from Mehring Books

The New York Times 1619 Project and the Racialist Falsification of History

A left-wing, socialist critique of the 1619 Project with essays, lectures, and interviews with leading historians of American history. *Now available as an audio book from Audible!*

The rest is here:

Citing the pandemic, Biden administration continues to deny asylum to immigrant families and adults - WSWS

With the postwar global order facing its most profound set of challenges in almost 80 years, Prime Minister Scott Morrison has highlighted the importance of using all the elements of statecraft to shape the world we want to see. Labors Foreign Affairs spokesperson, Penny Wong, appears to agree, saying we need to deploy all aspects of state power strategic, diplomatic, social, economic.

Alongside defence and diplomacy, the upcoming federal election provides an opportunity to articulate the important role of aid and development in advancing Australias foreign policy goals. Recent polling shows that public support for foreign aid has increased significantly during the Covid-19 pandemic. But if the parties are to have a fulsome public debate on priorities for aid and development in the upcoming campaign, core issues of strategy, budget and capability need to be at the fore.

Just as defence and diplomatic responses to Australia's changed strategic circumstances will require decades-long investments, so too will its development engagement.

One of the first tasks of the next government will be to establish a process for long-term development policy that articulates Australias goals and priorities, how the program will work with its various partners, and accompanying performance measures. Just as defence and diplomatic responses to Australias changed strategic circumstances will require decades-long investments, so too will its development engagement.

It has been more than 10 years since there has been an independent review of the effectiveness of Australias development cooperation program, and more than four years since the publication the 2017 Foreign Policy White Paper. In December 2019, the Morrison Government committed to a new development policy and initiated an expert-led process to support this. Covid-19 put this on hold and an interim two-year strategy, Partnerships for Recovery, was announced in mid-2020 and is due to expire in mid-2022.

A future development policy should encompass all forms of finance grants, loans, as well as blended finance to ensure strategic coherence, reduce fragmentation and drive human development impact. The humanitarian funding commitment of $500 million set out in the 2017 White Paper and yet to be delivered will need to be revisited in light of contemporary assessments of Australias fair share of global efforts to tackle increased fragility and conflict, climate-related disasters, displacement and food insecurity. A new development policy should also address the role of civil society as a key pillar of effective, inclusive institutions and centre gender equality, disability inclusion and inter-generational voice.

A new development policy will also need to address questions of future geographic focus and priorities, including the implications of the bipartisan Indo-Pacific frame. For example, under any reasonable definition South and West Asia are clearly part of the Indo-Pacific. But Australias bilateral development assistance to countries such as Bangladesh, Pakistan and Sri Lanka has been in free fall for a decade. It should also provide a vision for strengthened Australian engagement in Southeast Asia, along the lines recently set out by experts through the Asia Pacific Development, Diplomacy and Defence Dialogue.

The Pacific Step Up should also be refreshed in a manner that puts development aspirations and ambitions of Australias neighbours at the forefront. For example, Australias development cooperation program represents the most practical tool for addressing both the causes and consequences of climate change with its neighbours, including ensuring the integrity of regional carbon markets.

Second, the political parties should set out their respective plans for the development budget. Several of the governments temporary and targeted measures to address the humanitarian, health and economic consequences of the pandemic will lapse in 2022 and 2023. This raises the prospect of decreased aid just as regional poverty is rising and as some of the worst health and economic impacts of long Covid in the Pacific and Southeast Asia become apparent.

While its national platform commits Labor to reaching a funding target of 0.5 per cent Official Development Assistance (ODA) as a proportion of Gross National Income (GNI), Labor has neither set a date for reaching this target, nor defined a process for getting there within the next decade. With ODA/GNI currently estimated at just 0.21 per cent, more than doubling the aid budget would presumably require a staged, stepped process linked to the objectives of a new long-term development policy.

Finally, an election debate needs to address how an incoming government would restore the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trades development and aid management capability. The abolition of DFATs Office of Development Effectiveness in 2020, the fragmentation of development strategy across multiple geographic and sectoral policy areas and the ongoing reduction in specialist development positions has reduced coherence and effectiveness and undermined clear accountabilities. This is despite the development program constituting the largest single component of DFATs expenditure. Transparency has also been patchy.

Development may not feature heavily in the 2022 election campaign. But the importance and urgency of an election debate that includes development has never been clearer. The issues of strategy, budget and capability raised will be critical to Australias ability to pursue its interests and work with its neighbours, partners and allies in a more uncertain and competitive world.

More:

An agenda for aid and development in the 2022 federal election - The Interpreter

Ed. note: You can find Part 1 of Ottos post on Resilience.org here.

As the reckless attacks and crimes against the Ukrainian people broadened and became more brutal, I found it difficult to concentrate and to continue writing this contemplation on our current moment. What we see unfolding is exactly the kind of massive amplification of absencing the social field of destruction that I wrote about in the first part of this essay. The only way out that I found was the way in (to borrow from a greatpodcastthat I will loop back to further down): by contemplating on my personal experience.

Image by Kelvy Bird

In thefirst partof this essay, I reflected on the current moment through the lens of absencing the lens of a social field shaped by the grammar of destruction. The upshot is a widely shared feeling of depression and despair. That feeling is supported by a massive amount of data. If you are not depressed, you are (probably) out of touch. In other words: if you are not in complete denial about what we are collectively doing to our planet, to each other, and to ourselves, then you can only be depressed. Or outraged. Or both.

In this part, I invite you to look at the current situation through the lens of emerging future possibility the lens of a social field shaped by the grammar of transformative co-creation (see figure 1).

Figure 1: Presencing and Absencing: Two Social Grammars, Two Social Fields (Source:Scharmer 2018)

Let me begin this part by connecting our current moment with felt senses in our own bodies. In my case, I connect with the dissonance through two different feelings: depression and possibility.

First, depression. In the first few days of the Russian invasion of Ukraine, like everyone else, I watched the unfolding news in agony. Part of my mind was struggling with accepting what my eyes and my intellect clearly saw. That experience triggered a kind of dj vu. My body remembered that I had had that felt sense before. I felt it at the beginning of COVID. I felt it when Trump was elected president (and to some degree throughout his entire presidency). I felt it on 9/11. Maybe you felt it too, on one of those occasions, or a different one? By now, all of us probably know that sinking feeling: you feel as if somebody has ripped the ground out from under your feet.

When we look at this wholesetof disruptive experiences the complete lineup of events that over the past couple of decades have ripped the ground out from under us what do we see? What does that experiencedoto our state of being? In my case, I become absorbed by and fixated on these events. I get pulled out of my own body; I feel helpless, and sometimes even paralyzed. In a word: I get depressed. I feel disconnected from my own agency. I believe thats exactly how many of us are feeling today.

A collectively depressed society is a widespread phenomenon that many people recognize, particularly the young and more sensitive among us. If you are 22 today, you have lived your entire life in a world that is being shaped by the amplification of absencing-infused disruptions. Your life experience started with 9/11, and from there, the frequency of disruption for most people went up, not down.

Thats the first feeling. There are massive amounts of data to confirm it. When I think about it more deeply, though, I realize thats not the whole story. Yes, people are depressed. But a diagnosis of physical or emotional depression does not take into account the agency of the human spirit, the agency of our better (our higher or capital S) Selves, a dormant awareness of the whole that we can activate. Just as Putin was blind to the shared awareness and agency of civil society and collective human action in Ukraine, in Russia, and around the world, in our widely shared sense of depression we are blind to our highest future possibility and agency.

Where does that second feeling come from? In my own body, I probably would locate it in my heart. But really it occupies the whole middle portion of my body and radiates out and up from there. Its a distinct feeling of real possibility that I have felt many times. I felt it one of the first times as a teenager when I marched with 100,000 others against nuclear power plants in Germany (back then we were arguing, among other things, against the scenario that is playing out now in Ukraine: nuclear waste that lasts1 million yearsand that makes your energy system vulnerable to terrorism and war). I felt it again in the late 1970s, when that same anti-nuclear movement led to the founding of the Green Party in Germany, which has been instrumental in turning Germany into the first major industrial powerhouse to phase out nuclear energy by 2022 and to phase out coal by 2030.

In the 1980s I was gripped by another strong sense of real future possibility when peace and civil rights activists across Europe seemed to collaborate spontaneously across geographies. In 1989 I was a student organizer co-leading a Peace Studies Around the World program with the renowned peace researcher Johan Galtung. We took 35 students from 12 countries on a nine-month global learning journey to learn from academics, change-makers, and grassroots activists. During the Eastern European part of the trip we met with some of these activists in East Berlin, Moscow, and Tartu, Estonia, just a few months before the Berlin Wall collapsed. As a student, I was struck that even the people on the frontlines of these movements seemed to be largely unaware of the collective impact they were about to have.

So far in my short life, I have seen tectonic shifts with my own eyes several times: the collapse of the Berlin Wall, which effectively ended the cold war; the peaceful dissolution of the Soviet Union; the end of apartheid in South Africa; the first African American US president. I have seen the beginnings of a tectonic shift in the youth-led climate action movement. And after the murders of George Floyd, Breonna Taylor, and countless others, the Black Lives Matter movement has finally brought systemic racism into the light of day.

We have participated in some of these tectonic shifts ourselves, taking to the streets to mobilize change. But even when we are merely witnesses to activism and change, we canfeelthe field of future possibility that inspires people to take action collectively. Still, I feel strongly that the most important tectonic shift of our lifetime is yet to come. It will be more fundamental than the earlier shifts, as dramatic and life-changing as they were. It will be a profound shift of paradigm and consciousness in how we relate to each other, to Mother Nature, and to ourselves and how we transform and rebuild our societal institutions in the face of our social and planetary emergencies.

My belief that massive transformational change is afoot is shared by many people around the planet. I can sense it every day as I work with senior leadership teams in business, in government, and in multilateral institutions like the UN, as well as with grassroots activists in their local communities.

According to arecent study, 74% of people in G20 countries (comprising 60% of the world population and 80% of the world GDP) support the transformation of our economic system to better address the various planetary and social emergencies of our time.Three out of four! Is that transformation already happening? Mostly not. Can it happen? Absolutely. We have the resources. We have the technologies. We have the aspirations. What dont we have yet? The movement and the collaborative leadership technologies that can actually make it happen now.

So, depression and a sense of possibility. These are the two conflicting feelings I have as I tune in to our current moment: the dj vu of repeated disruptions that amplify the noise of absencing, and simultaneously the acute sense of future possibility that many people feel, yet dont know what to do with. The first feeling is well known its amplified and retold millions of times every day. The second feeling is part of a more important and largely untold story of our time. It is usually crowded out by the noise of the first one. That second story is the golden thread that I will follow throughout the remainder of this blog.

If we zoom out from the current moment, if we focus not just on the past two decades but on the past two centuries, what do we see? We see profound progress in human development across at least five key areas:

War. Yes, wars still plague our planet and its people. But the truth is that we have made major progress toward ending the use of war as an acceptable means of conflict resolution between states. Yes, there have been setbacks and exceptions, like the painful events in Ukraine, Syria, and Afghanistan. And yes, there are new forms of armed conflict (more intrastate, less interstate, and more cyber-based). Nevertheless, the progress of peace around the planet since the end of World War II is undeniable (see figure 2).

Figure 2: Worldwide battle deaths per 100,000 people (Source)

Decolonization. The decolonization of Latin America, Asia, and Africa over the past two centuries is one of the most significant historical achievements in recorded history. Yes, a lot of work remains to be done. After political decolonization, the next problems to tackle are economic and cultural decolonization and the decolonization of the mind (Vandana Shiva), the decolonization of thought. But progress here is undeniable. Check out this animatedmapshowing a snapshot of the past 500 years.

Slavery and Civil Rights.The worldwide abolition of slavery and serfdom is another major accomplishment, though it took many more years to abolish the corresponding systems of apartheid and segregation. And yes, whenever we saw progress in some areas, a backlash was often not far behind. And even though structural violence, systemic racism, and slave-like conditions continue to exist, that progress has been made is undeniable.

Women. Womens rights, womens leadership, and freedoms for non-conforming gender identities are additional areas of stunning progress. Its common knowledge that investing in the education of women and girls is one of the most significant leverage points in addressing climate justice and most other development challenges of our time. During the COVID pandemic, some of this progress has slowed. According to the World Economic Forums2021 Global Gender Gap Report, it will take another 136 years to close the gender equality gap (up from 100 years). Yet the new movements of awareness-based systems change are disproportionately being co-shaped by women leaders and those who better embody the feminine, relational dimension of leadership.

Poverty. We have also made substantial progress on lifting people out of poverty particularly in Asia, and especially in China. Year on year, the UNsHuman Development Report captures the overall trend of remarkable progress in reducing extreme deprivations over the first two decades of the 21st century. Still, poverty remains a challenge in many places, and the world faces the new scourge of inequity which brings new challenges for both peace and stability, and human wellbeing.

The past two centuries have been witness to these five major stories of inspiring human progress. None of them happened without struggle and setbacks. We see ample evidence of that today. But we just cant accept the setbacks as evidence that the world is going down the drain. We have to put events in their historical context. We have to remember that only theories are contradiction-free. Reality isalwaysfull of contradictions. Historically, instances of absencing may have been a reaction to earlier progress. Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. reminded us to take the long-term view when he pointed out that the arc of the moral universe is long, but it bends toward justice.

If thats true, is it a natural law that we can all rely on? Definitely not. The social sciences dont have laws like the ones in the natural sciences. Instead, there areinvariancesthat only apply under certain conditions. But when these conditions change and most importantly, when the consciousness of the people involved changes then human behaviors and the rules that describe them, also change. In short: in social science, the rules tend to befluid. They are determined by thesocial fieldthat people operate in e.g., is it a field of creation or a field of destruction? Leadership, in this view, is the capacity of a system to move from one type of social field (or social grammar) to another, as required by the situation or challenge at hand. (For a more differentiated distinction among four generic social fields, see Scharmer 2018.)

Applying this view to the five stories above, what was it that propelled these episodes of transformation? What was theforce motrice?In each of these stories, I believe, we see the same force or mechanism. These changes were driven by a constellation of civic movements peace movements, liberation movements, abolition movements, civil rights movements, womens movements, and human development movements that inspired others to join the cause. All of these movements were started by small groups of committed citizens who in one way or another created a support structure for themselves and others that allowed them to cultivate an intentional social field (examples: theHighlander Folk School, theStudent Nonviolence Coordinating Committee, and theNAACPfor the American civil rights movement; churches for the Eastern European civil rights movements during the cold war). As activists were attracted, trained, and equipped with methods and tools, they gained traction and attracted former bystanders to their movements. Eventually, these movements helped societies to reimagine and reshape themselves for the better.

In other words, these movements operated from afelt connectionto a different field of real possibility, the field of presencing a future that hasnt manifested yet(see figure 1). Its what millions of us felt on the streets during the anti-nuke, green, peace, womens, Black Lives Matter, and climate action movements. These felt connections are nothing special. Theyre what makes us human. Human beings are the only species on earth that can reimagine and reshape their own future. We can reimagine and change the rules, goals, and paradigms that dictate our civilizational and societal patterns and forms. The cultivation and evolution of that capacity is essential for the future of this planet and for the future of humanity.

But what is it that makes other peoplewantto join, to step over the threshold into action?

Many years ago, I facilitated a workshop in Zambia with anti-AIDS activists. The group of 30 or so included some famous soccer stars and public figures and also regular folks. We asked each of them to tell the story of (a) when they first became aware of the AIDS epidemic, and (b) when they became activists committed to doing something about it. Without exception, they all told the same story: The shift to activism happened when they experienced a personal connection to the cause through family or a close friend. In other words: it happened when they had an experience that touched (and opened) their heart.

One standard module in the programs at MIT that I run with executive leaders from Asia and other parts of the world invites them to participate in aclimate change simulationgame in which they play the role of climate negotiators, using science and real data. In the game, when a country or stakeholder team makes a decision its input into a model that then tells the decision-makers how that decision will affect the planet by 2050 and 2100. None of the behavior is scripted. But here is the pattern that I have observed time and again: In round 1, the executives decisions are largely self-interested and usually lead to medium-term disaster (because they largely conduct business as usual i.e., the current path). In round 2 of the game, most teams make more radical decisions and cuts but the positive impact is still far from what the planet requires. Then the participants are shown what sea-level rise will do to the cities they happen to live in. As these visual images begin to sink in, and participants realize that many of their coastal cities will be underwater, they begin to address the issues with greater dedication and urgency. They also reach out to the other players to cooperate and make deals collectively. By round 3 or round 4, the collective impact of the players has moved toward the 1.5 degrees centigrade target for average temperature increase that climate scientists know is necessary to meet.

In other words, the evolution of the unscripted team behavior tends to follow the path mapped out in the upper half of figure 3: NOT SEEING the collective impact that their actions have on the planet (denial); NOT FEELING the impact despite seeing the data clearly in front of them (de-sensing); and NOT ACTING, despite knowing the facts and already feeling the impact (collective apathy).

The feedback of the simulation illuminates the players blind spots. Yet their behavior remains largely unchanged until the results become experiential or personal. Crossing the threshold from apathy to action requires letting go of the stakeholdersego-system awareness and developing a sharedecosystem awareness of the whole. Once that is in place, it leads to swift,decisive action.

Figure 3: Two Relational Structures: Architectures of Separation, and Architectures of Connection

The structural difference between the grammar (and field) of absencing and the grammar of presencing is that the former is based on a cognitivearchitecture of separation, while the latter is based on a cognitivearchitecture of connection(see figure 3).

Architectures of separationembody a disconnect from reality on three levels: (1) knowing (a disconnect between Self and World: denial), (2) relating (a disconnect between Self and Other: othering), (3) and agency (a disconnect between self and Self: depression).

Architectures of connectiontransform these conditions bybuilding containersthat hold the possibility of deeper reconnections on the level of knowing, relating, and agency. In other words, the transformative and healing architectures of connection are based on the principles thatmind and world are not separate, thatself and other are not separate,and thatself and Self are not separate.Cultivating these areas of awareness develops and deepens our scientific, aesthetic, and ethical-practical capacities and knowing.

So how do we transform social fields of destruction and absencing? By replacing cognitive and social architectures of separation with architectures of connection across all sectors of society.

Transforming the patterns of absencing will require us to strengthen and cultivate the capacity to connect and feel the resonance in all of our foundational relationships with each other, with our planet, and with ourselves and then to generate creative action from that shared connection and resonance.

Attending to these deeper fields of connection requires us to expand our normal habitual awareness (ego-systemawareness) to include the views of all the partners and beings in our ecosystem (ecosystemawareness).Christiana Figueres, the key architect, and leader behind the historic 2015 Paris Agreement on climate change makes a distinction between two types of self-interest: self-interest with a small s and Self-interest with a capital S. The former is organized around our ego. When people go through a moment of letting go and letting come, they then begin to act from a different quality of awareness an awareness of the whole. Thats what I callecosystem awareness and what Christiana Figueres calls stakeholders acting from their Self-interest: an interest that sees the Self as part of a deeper web of connections with each other, with planet earth, and with ourselves.

What I am describing is a circumstance in which form follows consciousness. Attention matters. All approaches to awareness-based systems change are based on the principle that the most consequential leverage point in any system is the transformation of consciousness. Its not I think, therefore I am. But rather I pay attention [this way], therefore it emerges [that way].

When I was young and drove past a car accident, I remember being relieved if emergency responders were already on the scene. I knew that if they werent there it would be my responsibility to help. But that sense of responsibility made me feel uneasy and powerless. I would not have known what to do. I later decided to change that. After refusing to join the mandatory military service in Germany, I was given the choice to perform social service instead. I chose the German Red Cross. For a year and a half, my job was to assist the emergency doctors. During that time, I saw a fair share of rather awful accidents. But to my surprise (and with some medical-response training), I learned to overcome my sense of helplessness and paralysis. In the face of life and death situations, I learned to slow down and focus on the tasks at hand. I learned to tune out all the distracting voices of bystanders and pay attention to what needed to be done. That experience changed almost everything for me. It taught me that when you face a problem you have a choice. You canturnawayfrom it, or you canturn towardit. That choice, that subtle inner gesture, activates either the field of absencing or the field of presencing. Absencing is afreezingof the mind, heart, and will. Presencing is the opposite: anopeningof the mind, heart, and will (figure 1).

Thats the lesson I learned from the Red Cross. My attention matters. When I started to focus onwhat was mine to do, the whole social-emotional field shifted.

Reflecting on the success of the Paris Agreement, Christiana Figueres hassaidthat the teachings and practices of Vietnamese Zen Master and peace activist Thich Nhat Hanh (19262022) helped her to weave together the collaborative diplomacy that produced the agreement.She cites in particular the practice ofdeep listeningand Nhat Hanhs teachings about theinterconnectednessof all beings.

When the antiwar, decolonization, civil rights, womens rights, and antipoverty movements activated their collective agency, they wereturning towardthose issues with minds and hearts wide open. As my colleague, Antoinette Klatzky has said: If you see with your mind wide open, that seeing holds the seeds for sensing. If you sense with your mind and heart wide open, that sensing holds the seeds for acting.

How can we build these deeper learning infrastructures that support the shift in consciousness from ego- to eco-awareness at the scale the challenges of this century and this decade of transformation are calling for?

All of the stories of change Ive discussed here show us what is possible. We are living in a moment of disruption when one civilization is dying and another is beginning to be born. This new civilization is based onbridgingthe three big divides of our time: the ecological, the social, and the spiritual.

Figure 4 is a graphical rendering of our current situation: in essence, we are looking into the abyss. The ecological abyss is a product of our climate and biodiversity-related planetary emergency. The social abyss is a product of our collapsing social systems: from inequality and polarization to the atrocities in Ukraine, Syria, Sudan, Myanmar, and many other places including the very real risk of an all-out nuclear war. The spiritual abyss reflects our increasing disconnect from our inner sources of creativity and agency and the resulting depression and anxiety, particularly among younger people.

Figure 4: Facing the Abyss Created by the Age of Disruption: The Path Across IsWithin(drawing by Kelvy Bird, Source:Scharmer 2018)

What do we see when we look into these three faces of the abyss? We see ourselves. We see that we, humankind, are the ones creating all of these forms of destruction. No one else. Thats the signature of our age the age of theAnthropocene. These are the results we create when we operate from the destructive field of absencing. We can recognize that the issues outside the abyss are a mirror of the issues inside.

So how can we make the unprecedented civilizational shift that this planetary emergency is calling for? Well, no one knows, of course. But here is a guess. Not through the actions of Big Money, Big Tech, or Big Government (even though we need all three of these things without the capital M, T, or G). And also not by scaring people (which the traditional environmental movement has been doing). Not by blaming and shaming people (which is what single-issue social movements tend to do). All of these groups and types of action need to be part of the mix, as elements of an overall strategy. But my point is this: doing more of the same will not take us to the next level. Whats necessary is something different. What we need to bring about profoundly new civilizational forms is apullfrom the future,not apush from the past.

Starting small. By starting small, I mean starting in small communities, both place-based and digitally linked, that are aligned around a shared awareness of the situation and a common intention for the future a future that is different from the past. Some of these initiatives and communities are grassroots-based. Some are nested in one or more institutions. But all of them share one core feature: a desire to transform the currently dominant social field of destruction by embodying and practicing different ways of operating. These future-oriented communities are enacting the social grammar and field ofcreation.

Bridging the Ecological, Social, and Spiritual Divides.If we have learned anything over the past century of confronting societal crises, it is this: no problem exists in isolation from all the others. You cannot address the planetary emergency without focusing on social justice. And vice versa. And you cannot do any of those things without grounding them in the bridging of the spiritual divide.

If we look at the big changes in society and culture throughout the past 60 years, what does the evolution of the environmental, social, and consciousness movements tell us? They tended to evolve separately. But whats historically new today and what gives me hope is that the integration of the ecological, social, and spiritual aspects of transformation is a widely shared intuition, particularly among young people.

Weaving the Movement.Why do I feel confident that we are at the early stage of a new planetary movement for bridging the divides? Because I have seen it. I have felt it. I have sensed it in countless places in recent years. One of these places isu.lab, an online action learning lab at MITx that has facilitated these kinds of journeys for more than 200,000 participants. We have also supported thousands of team initiatives with methods, tools, and spaces to help them connect and collaborate including the United Nations Country Teams, composed of the heads of all UN organizations, in 25 countries (SDG Leadership Labs). Its not just an idea, but an embodied web of co-creative relationships that keeps on growing. Its embodied in a planetary ecosystem with co-creative groups, teams, and initiatives.

So where will the transformative change that this century is calling for eventually come from? From a movement, that emerges, works, and collaborates fromeverywhere (as the environmentalist and entrepreneur Paul Hawken put itrecently).

It will be a movement that is inspired by the intuition that the ecological, social, and spiritual divides are not three problems; they are just three expressions of one and the same problem: the lack of a deeper social field and social grammar that all of us can access and operate from.

Shifting Consciousness. Where does the integration of the three divides ecological, social, spiritual take place? It happens in each and every one of us, in our personal as well as in our collective agency. In a recentGAIA session, Dr. Noel Nannup, an Aboriginal Noongar elder, pointed this out to us. He said:

All we need to do is to have a piece of the path to the future that is ours; and we polish that and we hone that, and we place that in the pathway that we are building; and of course, as we build that pathway it changes us as the builders of the path, and it also shapes the destination we are going to.

With thosewords, Dr. Nannup conveys a critical teaching: that each of us needs to align our attention and intention withwhat is ours, withwhat ismine to do. If we have learned anything from movement and change work of the past, it may be this: as long as we think about change as actions thatotherpeople need to take inotherplaces, we wont get anywhere. Whats needed is a framing that puts each of us at center stage as agents of our own futures, both individually and collectively.

While the second half of the 20th century was shaped by a conflict between two opposing socio-economic systems and their corresponding ideologies capitalism and socialism in the 21st century we see a different type of polarity. The fault line no longer runsbetweentwo opposing social systems. Today the fault line runs through the consciousness of each one of us. The most important fault line in 21st-century politics is the fault line betweenselfandsystem.

In the visual language of Figures 1 and 3: The most important fault line of our time runs across theverticaldimension of these figures, depicting the different qualities of relating to the world, to others, and to ourselves based on a frozen or an open mind, heart, and will. Thatvertical literacyis the most important developmental capacity today. Watch, for example, how skillfully Ukraines Volodymyr Zelensky leverages his personal experience to connect with his people, to inspire resistance, and to address the citizens of Russia, Europe, and the United States.

CASA: Activating the Real Superpower.If we have learned anything from our responses to disruptive challenges like the COVID pandemic, the murders of George Floyd and Breonna Taylor, and Putins invasion of Ukraine, it may be this: the real superpower of our time is not the one that sits in Washington; its also not the one that sits in Beijing; and its certainly not the one that is sitting in the Kremlin. The real superpower of our time is Collective Action that emerges from Shared Awareness of the whole (CASA).Casain Latin languages means house or home. We need to cultivate our capacity for CASA-type collective action in order to protect and regenerate our house and home: our land, our community, and our planetary eco-social-cultural ecosystems.

As depicted in Figure 5, CASA can be seen as a fourth type of governance mechanism, in addition to the three traditional ones (government, markets, stakeholder lobbying). I consider the emergence of CASA-type collective actions as a4.0 type of governanceas one of the most significant developments in society today. Examples of CASA already exist in many forms locally. For example, it shows up in CSAs (Community Supported Agriculture). It also tends to emerge in responses to natural or other disasters. It emerges when communities rise up in the face of profound disruption, as Ukraine is doing now. It also occasionally exists on the stage of global politics, most notably when the world came together around the Paris Agreement and the Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) in 2015. If you want to learn about the awareness- (and CASA-) related backstory of the Paris Agreement, click on the podcast link at the end of this blog.

Figure 5: Four Stages of Systems Evolution, Four Operating Systems (adapted fromScharmer 2018)

Figure 5 depicts four types of social grammars and modes of operating. While todays mainstream focus is shifting slowly from 2.0 to 3.0, the main transformation challenge is how to advance to 4.0 ways of operating. What we see time and again is that institutions and societies are responding to 4.0 challenges (our planetary and social emergencies) with 1.0, 2.0 (and occasionally 3.0) response mechanisms. But that does not work because, to paraphrase Einstein, we cant solve our challenges with the same mode of operating that created them.

Is there general public support in countries to move toward a society 4.0? I think that support is rapidly growing in many places today. A recent example is the landslide victory by Gabriel Boric on a platform based on bridging the ecological, social, and the cultural divides that neoliberalism and the Pinochet regime have inflicted on the country for almost 50 years. Below, two pictures of President Boric on the day he was sworn in as president, honoring and being blessed by the indigenous traditions in a ritual.

Pictures: President Gabriel Boric being blessed by the indigenous traditions on his day of inauguration, proposing diversity, inclusion and harmony with Nature for his government

Gabriel Boric is one example. But the 74% support in G20 countries for the transformation of our social and economic systems tell us that the potential for profound change that exists in the world today cannot be understated.

In part 1 of this essay, I started this inquiry by looking at what is happening in Ukraine and elsewhere through the lens of absencing the social grammar of destruction. In this second part, I explored it through the lens of presencing the social grammar of co-creation. How do these two views and social fields relate to each other?

They are dialectically intertwined in interesting ways. We often find ourselves stuck between them, personally, in our institutional systems, and as a society. Life, leadership, and societal change operate in this fragile in-between territory. Things can move in either direction at almost any moment. That fragility seems to be a key characteristic of our current moment.

I have not tried to paint an optimistic view here. I dont think thats whats needed today. No one needs an upbeat sugarcoating of something that is moving toward disaster. Whats needed today is a radical realism one that can embrace the realities of both presencing and absencing. Radical realism aims at connecting to reality at the current and root levels: at the level of whatis, and at the level of what wants toemerge. Radical realism says what most people already know: the journey forward is not going to be easy. Many more disruptions coming our way. But what matters most is that the future does not depend on these external disruptions. Instead, it depends on the inner place from that we operate when we respond.

Many of todays most pressing challenges boil down to how to engage and transform collective patterns of absencing. Illuminating the three blind spots not seeing, not feeling, not acting offers critical leverage points for intervention. But the main point is tonotsee the manifestation of absencing (or evil) as an enemy. Instead, we need to understand every act of absencing as creative energy gone wrong creative energy that failed and that therefore went the other way, onto the path of destruction. All destruction and acts of absencing are manifestations of energy that was unable to realize its creative potential. To engage and transform that energy, we need to first find that placewithinourselves.

From that view, its clear that in Ukraine there can be only one path forward: diplomacy. The sooner the better. The longer it takes, the more collective destruction, brutalization, and collective trauma will be inflicted on everyone. Intelligent, collaborative diplomacy needs to offer bridges to those who are stuck in the field of absencing and offer solutions that are beyond the binary logic that shapes the currently dominant thinking.

This brings me back to our agency and how each of us can be directly involved inbending the arc of historytoward social justice, planetary healing, and human flourishing. To do that we need new societal learning infrastructures for amplifying, growing, and connecting the countless seed initiatives of the future that already exist in the world today. We cant let them get crowded out by the super-amplified absencing machine that pumps noise into our minds and destruction into ecosystems. Where are you an activist in building containers that foster architectures of connection (rather than those of separation); where are you creating and co-holding these learning infrastructures for yourself, for your team, and for the initiatives you participate in?

To support such mission critical creation of societal learning infrastructures, the Presencing Institute is launching an initiative to prototype, and scale up the action learning spaces needed for transforming society and self. The goal is to create:

A free and replicable learning and innovation platformfor radical regeneration: methods, tools, and spaces

A vibrant ecosystem of living examplesand institutions that embody and build capacity for radical regeneration in food, learning, health, wellbeing, business, finance, technology, leadership, and governance

A living field of connectionsbetween millions of radical change-makers operating from the possibility of regenerative futures and inspiring others to activate their agency

Growing confidence,based on research evidence,that a regenerative future iswithin reach, andpossible now

If you want to join this effort, please add your name to the mailing listhere.

With that, we have reached the end i.e., the beginning. We began by attending to the conflicting feelings that we sense in our bodies at this moment. In this exploration of two different social grammars, we learned that the future does not just depend on whatotherpeople do. The future on this planet depends on each one of us alone and together and our capacity to realignattentionandintentionon the level of the whole. As Dr. Nannup reminded us: All we need to do is to have a piece of the path to the future that is ours; and we polish that and we hone that

Co-holding and co-creating that emerging path to the future puts each of us in a very personal relationship with our planet and with our shared future that stays in need of us. I think of that future as a set of seeds. These seeds already exist. But what does not exist is the soilthesocial soilwithout that no seed can grow. What generates that fertile soil? Its our collective capacity tobend the beam of attention back onto ourselves.Its our capacity to see and recognize our own shadows in the abyss that we face, andif we are able to hold the gaze steadytransform that shadow in order to connect to a different awareness sphere that allows us to function as a vehicle for the future wanting to emerge.

Part I of this blog

Podcast conversation withChristiana Figueres: The Way Out Is In

Examples of awareness-based systems change:Report

Check out other blogs by Otto:homepage

Thanks to my colleagues Kelvy Bird for the visual at the opening of this reflection and to Becky Buell, Antoinette Klatzky, Eva Pomeroy, Maria Daniel Bras, Priya Mahtani, and Rachel Hentsch for their helpful comments and edits on the draft.

Continue reading here:

Putin and the Power of Collective Action from Shared Awareness Part 2: The Social Grammar of Creation - Resilience

The Law Commission of England and Wales announced in November last year that it will be conducting an 18-month review of the English Arbitration Act. Ever since, there has been much speculation as to what changes the Law Commission might recommend.

The Law Commission has announced some broad areas of potential focus. Whilst some of these areas appear intended to clarify the existing position and put it on statutory footing, there are two particular areas that arguably have the potential to bring about the greatest substantive change. These are (i) the procedure for challenging a jurisdiction award and (ii) the availability of appeals on points of law. This blog post will explore why the Law Commission is considering these two areas and suggest some potential outcomes that could result from the review.

Background to the Review of the Arbitration Act

While the 18 month review is still in its infancy, the Law Commission has been very clear that there is no risk of a major overhaul. Instead, the aim is to ensure that the Act is as effective as possible so that the UK remains at the forefront of international dispute resolution. The Law Commission has announced that possible areas of review include (but are not limited to):

Of these potential areas, some appear to be intended to simply put the existing position on statutory footing. For example, most practitioners are agreed that English-seated tribunals already have the power to summarily dismiss claims and defences, but would welcome codification in order to reassure and encourage tribunals to exercise this power. Similarly, an implied duty of confidentiality already applies to English-seated arbitrations, even if the exact parameters of the duty are not set out in statute.

However, there is greater potential for substantive change with regard to the review of Sections 67 and 69, as explained below.

Procedure for Challenging an Award on Jurisdiction Section 67 and Beyond

There are currently multiple potential pathways available to a party who objects to the jurisdiction of the arbitral tribunal whether they participate in the arbitration or not. These include the ability to seek a ruling from the court at various stages of the arbitration (whether under section 32, 72 or 67, or at the enforcement stage). This position stems from the underlying principle of the Act that the court rather than the tribunal has the last word on jurisdiction. In practice, this means that a claimant party may be faced with a multitude of unwanted applications, both within the arbitration itself and also in court.

In particular, the English courts have been clear that a party who objects to jurisdiction but participates in an arbitration and subsequently brings a section 67 jurisdictional challenge is entitled to a complete rehearing of the jurisdictional question, rather than just a review of the tribunals decision on the issue (see for example Dallah Co v Ministry of Religious Affairs of Pakistan [2009] EWCA Civ 755, per Moore-Bick L.J. at [21]). Section 67 provides that a party may challenge an arbitral award on the basis that the tribunal did not have substantive jurisdiction. It is a mandatory provision and its application cannot be excluded. However, a party will only be able to avail itself of a section 67 challenge if it has also sought to raise any jurisdictional objections before the Tribunal. This means that where a section 67 challenge is made, the same battle will be fought twice, once before the Tribunal and once before the English courts. This process leads to significant duplication of work and additional costs.

There has been much criticism of this re-hearing approach, notably as submitted by the respondent in the case of GPF GP S..R.L. v The Republic of Poland [2018] EWHC 409 (Comm). In that case, the respondent to a section 67 challenge argued that the section must not be allowed to erode the efficacy of international arbitration, referring in particular to the stated purposes of the 1996 Act to avoid unnecessary delay and expense and that safeguards should only be as necessary in the public interest. In support of these submissions, the respondent relied on a passage in Arbitration Law (5th Edition) which stated that every challenge under section 67 involves cocking a snook at the very first principle set out in the Act (in section 1(a)) and that in every case, either the court or arbitration process will prove to have been a complete waste of time and money.

Presumably in light of these criticisms, the Law Commission has said that it will be considering whether this re-hearing approach should be replaced with a review. The Law Commission is also considering streamlining the jurisdictional challenge process more generally and whether the possible remedies under section 67 should mirror the remedies available under section 68 and 69 (which include the power to remit the award back to the tribunal).

The decision to look at this issue may also be influenced by the position in other jurisdictions. For example, as explained in Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act (6th Edition), the level of judicial scrutiny of a jurisdiction award in France and Switzerland appears to be much lighter touch. That book also explains that in the United States, the Supreme Court has drawn a distinction between cases where the parties have expressly referred the question of arbitrability to arbitration (in which case the court only does a review rather than a re-hearing) and cases where they have not. Although the Law Commission has not indicated exactly what it has in mind, it may be considering the proposals made in Merkin and Flannery on the Arbitration Act 1996. As well as encouraging the courts to apply a lighter touch to the decisions of tribunals, that text suggests that in some cases it might be appropriate for the tribunal to offer the applicant permission to apply to the courts for a determination on jurisdiction under section 32, with the consequence that if that party refuses to take up the offer, the section 67 application should be limited in some way (for example by denying the applicant the right to adduce evidence, or by applying cost sanctions).

However, given the rarity of section 67 challenges there were only 19 brought 2019 any significant change will only affect a very small proportion of cases. Indeed, the Commercial Court Guide already contains a number of provisions aimed at limiting the scope for section 67 challenges, including the ability for the Court to dismiss them on paper. Most recently, the Guide has also introduced further deterrents confirming that an application will only be appropriate in cases where there are serious grounds for a contention that the matters relied on do affect the substantive jurisdiction of the tribunalrather than being matter to be raised (if at all) under section 68 or 68 of the Act (see O8.4), and extending indemnity cost consequences to section 67 challenges where parties request a hearing and then their claim is dismissed.

Arguably though, the decision to streamline these provisions should not be judged by the number of affected cases. Rather, addressing such procedural efficiencies on an evolving basis will ensure that the Law Commission achieves its ultimate objective, which is to ensure that England continues to be perceived as an attractive place for arbitration.

Appeals on Points of Law under Section 69

The availability of appeals on a point of law under section 69 of the Act is fairly unique to England. As it is not a mandatory provision, it is routinely excluded by parties, particularly as many institutional rules exclude the possibility of any non-mandatory appeals (see for example Rule 26.8 of the LCIA Rules, and Article 35(6) of the ICC Rules).

This provision has always been fairly divisive amongst the UK arbitration community, especially because it differs from the approach of other jurisdictions, where such a right is either unavailable, or available only on an opt in rather than opt out basis (such as in Hong Kong see Schedule 2, sections 5 and 6 of the Hong Kong Arbitration Ordinance). Indeed, the Departmental Advisory Committee (DAC) mentioned in its 1996 Report on the Act that it received a number of responses calling for the abolition of any right to appeal altogether. It does not, therefore, come as a huge surprise that the Law Commission wants to look at the issue afresh.

The Law Commission has stated so far that the options include keeping the provision the same, deleting it, or limiting it to questions of general importance where there is a real prospect of successfully showing that the decision of the tribunal is wrong. This would therefore introduce a stricter test than the current one, which is either that the decision is obviously wrong, or for questions of public importance, that the decision is at least open to serious doubt.

As recorded in the DAC Report, those in favour of abolition argue that by agreeing to arbitrate their dispute, the parties have agreed to abide by the decision of their chosen tribunal, not by the decision of the court. Thus finality trumps all. However, the DAC ultimately concluded that a limited right of appeal would ensure that the law chosen by the parties will be properly applied where a tribunal fails to correctly apply English law, it will not be reaching the result contemplated by the arbitration agreement, and the court should therefore be able to step in unless excluded by the parties. Those in favour of the provision also argue that the ability to publish judgments in relation to points of law aids the development and public scrutiny of English law (as the provision does not apply to foreign law) which ensures the precedential value of arbitration decisions.

As with section 67 challenges, section 69 challenges are similarly rare there were only 22 applications in 2019. Nonetheless, any abolition of the right of appeal would be a significant move conceptually. It is also a particularly popular provision in certain types of disputes such as ad hoc disputes and in the shipping and commodities sectors. As it stands, parties who wish to retain the right of appeal can do so, and those who would prefer finality can continue to exclude the provision. As such, unless the Law Commission receives overwhelming feedback to abolish or vary the status quo, then it may be that the position is unlikely to change.

It is clear that the process of reviewing sections 67 and 69 of the Act will involve consideration of important principles of English arbitral procedure, and that any proposed change may be conceptually significant, even if only a minority of cases are affected. Even if the Law Commission ultimately decides not to recommend any changes however, the process of weighing up the various options and views will be an effective way of ensuring that the UK remains at the forefront of international dispute resolution.

This article was first published at Kluwer Arbitration Blog here.Authored by Elizabeth Kantorof Herbert Smith Freehills LLPfirm

Excerpt from:

Law Commission Review of the Arbitration Act: Substantive Changes to Appeals and Challenges? - Lexology