Good News, Finally! from the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center

At long last, some good news from the much-troubled, nearly-moribund Indianapolis Peace and Justice Center (IPJC): finally, IPJC’s President since April, the consistently and roundly inept David Scott, resigned, and in his stead as interim President steps IPJC’s Vice-president, the able Jennifer Cobb. I’ve known Ms. Cobb for nearly two decades, and it is at last comforting to see a relatively young person (under 40) stepping into a leadership position at IPJC, an organization presently dominated by retirees collecting Social Security, with nary a real youth (someone under 30) in sight. After nearly 30 years of existence, the IPJC, notably under Scott, but earlier as well, under the complacent helm of immediate past Presidents Jim Wolfe and Jane Haldeman, seemed determined to go out “not with a bang, but with a whimper.” Though Cobb will have a very difficult time ahead trying to breathe life back into the IPJC, she does have the ability and, hopefully, the assertiveness to do so, and I offer my full cooperation and support to her in this endeavor.

Because, at bottom, the only good thing I can say at this point about the accession of Jennifer Cobb to the head of IPJC and David Scott’s much-justified resignation is “It’s about time!”

This was made particularly evident by Scott’s last activity as IPJC President, putting out the pathetic Winter 2011 issue of The Movement, IPJC’s putative monthly newspaper that hadn’t published since September, ostensibly for lack of funds, even though the time for publication of the October issue and beyond would’ve coincided with the IPJC’s annual fund drive; but needless to say, no financial information on the success or failure of that drive was granted to IPJC members, or as far as I know, even to its Board of Directors. David Scott simply told the Board that funds were not available, publication of The Movement needed to be suspended indefinitely at the very least, and that was that. Finis. End of discussion. Given the Board’s long-standing tradition of being an acquiescent rubber-stamp for which asking pointed questions of the President would’ve been a serious breach of comfortable cronyism, the Board’s craven collapse on the issue of publishing The Movement—which effectively eliminated IPJC’S voice to the broader Indianapolis community completely—was not at all surprising, even if deplorable. And that’s putting it mildly indeed!

But a very limited edition of The Movement was put out very late in December (I received my copy via mail on the 22nd), a patchwork of articles that had been sitting around gathering dust for the last couple of months, and whose publication now clearly showed their datedness. Bob Baldwin’s article on the Occupy Indianapolis movement referred to the state of that movement as it existed not later than late October or perhaps very early November. Debbie Peddie’s article on the execution of Troy Davis on September 21 was clearly written at that time, and not in the least updated to make it more relevant. Other articles in this issue of The Movement were even less edifying, the quality of writing was so pedestrian it made the average AP or Indianapolis Star news story look like a literary paragon, and the political tenor of the issue (if it can be dignified by calling it that) was confused, disoriented and unfocused. Further, the dearth of content was even more emphasized by that long-standing ploy editors of IPJC newspapers traditionally use when short on content to adequately fill a newspaper—set the whole thing in larger-than-normal type, which makes the paucity of content stand out even more.

Scott, as both Publishing Editor and IPJC President, published in this issue a “Letter from the President” that directly referenced its being written in November 2011, and obviously not updated. It was noticeably silent on his upcoming resignation, although perhaps that was not in the offing when he penned his cliché-ridden “Letter,” filled with vacuous ruminations on celebration and time-of-year change. But one of the things that was in the “Letter” was that Earth House, a supposed “activist organization” housed in a downtown church, and which had rented the IPJC its office there for nearly four years, was now calling on the IPJC to leave. While Scott was noticeably opaque about the reasons why IPJC now had to leave, offering only possible “philosophical differences” and another organization being interested in renting the space as reasons, he’d touted Earth House as a model of activist commitment not long before, and bandied about the notion that 200 activists from Earth House could find a friendly berth in IPJC—if IPJC simply followed along with Scott’s usually grandiose, unfunded visions of what IPJC needed to become. And now this same model of activist commitment was very firmly insisting that the IPJC had to leave!

So IPJC enters 2012 looking for another place to move into, to set up yet another vastly underutilized office that never seems to be able to attract enough volunteers to adequately staff it, and where, to reliable reports, IPJC can barely afford a telephone for such an office, much less provide personnel to answer it. But Scott was always long on vague visions, very much short on implementation; which is why IPJC essentially did nothing during Scott’s tenure as President except listen to his grandiosely vague language. Which seemed to be just the way David Scott wanted it.

But enough grousing about David Scott, who will certainly not be sorely missed, if missed at all. IPJC has many other problems, many of which existed yet remained unaddressed even before Scott took office. David Scott merely compounded many festering problems that had long remained buried and hidden within the IPJC’s good ol’ boys network of tired churchgoing pacifists and their satraps, the vast majority of whom are well over 60, and anyone who is obviously under 35 a real rarity.

This, then, is the IPJC now dumped into Jennifer Cobb’s lap. As I mentioned above, I’ve known her for nearly two decades, and regard her as an able person. But she won’t be able to turn IPJC around on her own, and will find most of the Board members, as well as those precious few in the Indianapolis community who identify in any way with the IPJC, unwilling to commit or to act, preferring instead to just sit back and let Jennifer do it. But she will need to push, prod, cajole and otherwise agitate those persons despite this if she wishes to accomplish anything, if she wishes to be effective as the interim President and establish some sort of firm ground on which IPJC can stand when it elects a President at its annual April meeting. Although her e-mail address contains as first part “BlessedtheMeek,” she dare not be meek, but must be assertive and proactive, if IPJC is in fact to even have another year of existence other than as an empty shell. (Indianapolis has a way of generating do-nothing organizations that somehow manage to meet, even if accomplishing nothing; and, simply by meeting regularly, thus perpetuate themselves long beyond their useful lives.) As I also indicated above, I extend my offer of active cooperation to her, and as a first step, offer the following as strong suggestions on what must be done (obviously, not all at once):

• First, prod IPJC’s octogenarian Treasurer, Garnett Day, to provide a full, complete report on the state of IPJC’s current finances and fund-raising.

• Second, revitalize IPJC’s monthly newspaper, The Movement, as an ongoing publication committed to journalistic excellence as its mainstay in presenting itself to the broader community, complemented and supplemented by its organizational webpage and blogging site, both of which exist in sadly moribund states. Despite one of David Scott’s friends filling the post of web moderator, neither the webpage nor the blogging site have been kept up-to-date, let alone becoming sources of timely information and discussion that can actually generate interest in the IPJC. While the IPJC’s webpage has been partially updated, its blogging site has remained unchanged and unmoderated since October 31, 2011, and both are amateurish in content and layout. The interested reader can see for him/herself; the webpage address is www.indypeaceandjustice.org, and the blog site address is http://indypeaceandjustice.wordpress.com. On this latter I posted a “comment” that’s still “awaiting moderation” since December 1, 2011!

• Third, to revitalize The Movement will require making it both writer-friendly and under the editorship of high-quality editors and staff who will work with writers and guide them in constructive ways, not simply putting in articles because they arrived via e-mail close to the time of editorial preparation, and thus filled space, or because they fit in with the IPJC President’s predilections, regardless of merit. The Movement, and its predecessor, the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Journal, did have such a person involved who excelled on both counts, and I’m glad to say I had the honor of working under him: Managing Editor Jack Kaufman-McKivigan, who hopefully will become more involved in 2012 after stepping away from The Movement in late 2011.

• Fourth, the editor of The Movement must not be the IPJC President, or beholden to him/her for the position, but be staffed independently, and, while ultimately answerable to the President and the Board of Directors, needs to be regarded as an independent professional who makes editorial decisions on sound journalistic practice, and who must be given sufficient leeway to do so; all too often the editorial functions of IPJC publications have been undermined because of petty political gripes, or because someone who was an officer of the IPJC, or sat on the Board, or both, had an ax to grind. The same goes for the moderator of the webpage and the blog site.

• Fifth, editor and writers must work together in a constructive partnership; this is best assured by a proactive promotion of journalistic excellence on both sides. Both editors and writers for IPJC publications and webs must be committed to professionalism and professional standards, even though they will probably not serve as paid professionals. Further, while the editorial decisions of editors and moderators should be regarded as essentially final, there needs also be an effective ombudsman who can hear appeals and render fair decisions that will be regarded as such, even by the losing parties. IPJC publications and webs have been plagued by censorship in the past; in the interests of providing a true free speech forum, this must not be allowed to happen again.

• Sixth, the IPJC President must be accountable to the Board of Directors, the Board of Directors must be accountable to the President and officers, and ultimately, Board members and officers must be accountable to the membership. Recall and referendum on the part of the membership should be provided for; also, more extensive use of online and mail voting, so that decisions are made that reflect the membership as a whole, not simply those who show up at meetings.

• Seventh, the IPJC must declare itself a membership organization of individuals open to all who support its principles and commitments and who pay the annual dues, with one vote per member. It must stop the charade, long a dead letter, of somehow also having organizations as members, when none such have participated for as long as I’ve been involved in the IPJC, which goes back to just a few years after its founding in 1982.

• Eighth, the present Mission Statement and statement of editorial policy for The Movement must be scrapped; these pitiful inadequacies are the creatures of David Scott, and were passively accepted because no one had the spine to challenge Scott (except perhaps me, but I’ve always been regarded as “contentious,” even when my “contentiousness” has been proven both right and necessary!), but simply went along with him in “lazy-faire” fashion, as befits a good ol’ boys network of incestuous cronies that has been at the helm of IPJC far too long, and which has led to its present crisis.

• Ninth, while certainly IPJC should be inclusive and embracing to those in the Indianapolis area who are truly for peace with social justice, (both meaningfully defined) it simply cannot be all things to all persons, so “inclusive and open-minded” (as the statement of editorial policy for The Movement puts it) so that it includes both socialists and activists in the Indiana Tea Party, and where it opens its doors so wide that anybody who proclaims being for “peace and justice” can enter and be a part of IPJC, even Tea Party reactionaries, Blue Dog Democrats, and John Boehner/Eric Cantor Republicans! Such an all-embracing inclusiveness is absurd and unworkable for an organization that actually wishes to do something to achieve peace with justice.

• Tenth, while IPJC should continue to uphold its commitment to nonviolence, it should not conflate this, as it has done so many times in the past, with pacifism, or worse, become beholden to those approaches that have defined (and limited) the traditional “peace churches.” Quakerism especially has been far too uncritically embraced by the IPJC, with a chilling effect on peace with social justice activists who questioned the applicability of consensus in all situations; or who rejected the notion that some sort of “natural harmony” in human affairs existed, or could be brought into existence, despite the palpable conflicts of race, gender, sexual orientation and socio-economic class that have proven to be endemic, and stem more from oppression and inequality than from “disharmony.” Furthermore, IPJC has been far too beholden to theistic perspectives on peace and social justice, also with a chilling effect on those who support peace with social justice but who are atheists, agnostics, secular humanists, Marxists, consider themselves not religious, or who question certain religious beliefs and dogmas. What this all means is that IPJC needs to strive to become what its goals and principles actually tend toward, a secular organization of an inclusive center-left that is not just pro-peace and antiwar, but actually strives for, tries to put into societal practice, a vision of social justice that encompasses economic equality, respect for cultural and political differences, is democratic and participatory in decision-making, and is proactively supportive of the aims, aspirations and struggles of the 99% against the 1%, to express this last in Occupy movement terms.

As a useful guide to what this might entail, especially in regards to the ninth and tenth points, I refer the reader to my article, “Slandering Nonviolence,” which was originally published in the Indianapolis Peace and Justice Journal of October 2008, and was later revised and published on the New Politics website on September 15, 2011, accessed at http://newpol.org/node/510. I think it, and the ensuing discussion of the article posted below it, will be found not only interesting, but also highly valuable, relevant and appropriate in understanding why I make a crucial yet necessary distinction between nonviolence and pacifism, and why one can be nonviolent without necessarily being a pacifist.

This is a very good place to stop, and to wish Jennifer Cobb all the luck and pluck she will need in her job as IPJC interim President. She certainly has the ability to do excellent work, and I am glad to extend my hand to her in cooperation. I hope the rest of those who consider themselves a part of IPJC, or sympathetic to it, will do likewise.