The South Central Regional Conference for a U.S. Department of Peace chose SMU as its host this past weekend, with events taking place in Hughes-Trigg.
The conference has the goal in mind to create awareness and start a grassroots movement to install a cabinet-level position and department dealing with both domestic and international peace issues.
Many pro-peace organizations turned out in conjunction with the conference to set up booths for the pro-peace crowd. Organizations such as “Today Marks the Beginning” displayed their pro-peace art as well as their elementary school curriculum in the Dallas area.
The first event of the conference took place on Friday beginning with a classic debate focusing on the pros and cons of the development of the Department of Peace.
The debate consisted of both a professor and a student for the pro and con side of the argument. Professor David Frank of the University of Oregon and Rob Atkinson, a sophomore from Southwestern University marked the argument for the affirmative, and Professor Seyom Brown, a political science professor from SMU and John Elson from University of North Texas made up the negative side.
The argument coming from the pro-peace department sect focused on the notion that the violent international policy taken on by the U.S. is sending the wrong message to the members of the nation and the world.
“We see that widespread use of force as a means to resolve conflict is sending a violent message to the nation,” Atkinson said. “Punishment rehabilitation, gun violence, school violence, racial and ethnic violence, gangs, hate crimes and violence against women are all manifestations. We must shift our prominent mode to address domestic violence.”
Brown promptly rebutted with his notion that it wasn’t a solution to the problem but just a standard reaction by the nation to any problem.
“When we find a problem in this nation what do we do? We throw an organization at it. We seem to have a case of ‘organiz-itus’ where more bureaucracy is not the solution. I do agree that there is a problem and one solution should involve education in conflict resolution in some way, but more paper pushers are not the way to go,” Brown said.
According to Frank, the main argument for the Peace department is that a voice of peace needs to be in the president’s ear rather than the war hawk military generals all the time.
The dispute continued when Elson countered the fact the Iraq war was justified on the basis of bringing peace to the Middle East.
“The Iraq war was fought over bringing democracy and the foundation of peace to the Middle East, the idea of a Peace department would be hard pressed to argue against its very core purpose,” Elson said.
Both sides agreed that the formation of a peace academy would greatly benefit the furthering of the cause and help lay the groundwork for future generations of peace.
