From Messiah to Greece, Casey Daggett’s journey and reflections.

Who is the author?

Casey Daggett graduated in 2015 with a degree in Politics. She is
currently in her second year at University of Oregon Law where she is
Student Bar Association Vice President, an Associate Editor for the
Oregon Review of International Law and President of the Oregon chapter
of Global Women’s Narrative Project.

The Oxford Consortium for Human Right’s summer session began in Geneva with the theme of the Global Ethics of Human Migration. There, students from a variety of schools, int3.jpgcluding USC, University of Utah and University of Houston had the opportunity to network and learn alongside professionals in public policy, international law and human rights theory. We hosted speakers from the International Committee of the Red Cross,  the International Organization for Migration, UNHCR, and the Oxford Institute for Ethics, Law and Armed Conflict. We spent the week predominantly in the Graduate Institute listening tthessao lectures but also had the opportunity to tour the UN, only a few blocks away athessa2.jpgnd spent each evening exploring the city. Our time in Geneva finished off with each school connecting the session’s theme to a local issue; I presented on the complexities of the unhoused population and the public policy considerations surrounding it within Oregon.

We then traveled to Thessaloniki in Northern Greece where lectures from NGOs and refugee advocacy groups were intermingled with on the ground work. While there, we traveled to several different towns to visit and help local organizations working alongside the refugee population, including a community cmeteora.jpgultural center and an NGO helping refugees transition into apartments and long term residency in Greece. This offered us the opportunity to compare, contrast and integrate all the policy and law considerations we learned in Geneva with on the ground work in Greece, the country most directly affected by the surge of refugees and migrants within the past few years.

As a person of faith, this trip was profoundly impactful but also shifted the way I think about human rights and the act of “service” for others. One of the refugelpida.jpgees I was able to speak with said they felt demeaned when people said they  were “serving” them, that it implied an imbalance of power or inequality between us. I had never considered this, certainly with the frequency with which the term “service” is often used within the Christian community, but I quickly came to realize that I would rather replace “service” with “empower”. Our goal as people of faith should not be to simply help people, to serve them in the worst moments of their lives, but instead to consider the long term needs and hopes of those for whom we care. We should instead seek to empower them, to open up opportunities andOCC.jpg resources to transfer the vulnerable from places of struggle to independence and pride. The more we can do to ensure we, quite frankly, aren’t needed, the better.

We should also strive to recognize, but enable the dignity, of refugees and migrants as our fellows and peers. Far too much of our national conversation regarding refugees and immigration has been clouded in fear and ignorance. Refugees and migrants are not asking for anything particularly troublesome or burdensome, simply the opportunity to have a home and, so often, a nation they can proudly claim as their own as they flee the violence and war that has made their own impossible to live within. Is this too much to ask for? Is this a dream so truly unattainable that we so quickly turn our backs?

Mot5.jpgre than anything, however, I was struck by the power and resilience of the human spirit. Even amidst tremendous horror and overwhelming grief, we possess the capacity to create beauty and share joy. Though I certainly saw no shortage of chemical burns peeking from underneath the sleeves of children and failed to hold back tears as I listened to tale after tale of survival at tremendous cost, the most impactful thing I witnessed was laughter. Despite so much st4.jpgorrow, there was laughter and pride and determination. In that lies our humanity, our inherent dignity.

It is that we should seek to empower as followers of Christ, to remember and recognize that we are all truly, wonderfully made in His image.



2017 Humanities Symposium

This year’s Humanities Symposium was entitled “Slavery and Justice from Antiquity to the Present.” Dr. Kelly Brown Douglas, a prolific author and professor of Religion at Goucher College, gave the keynote lecture, “Stand Your Ground in the Legacy of Slavery.”  Later in the week, department members Ida Ehrhardt and Ryan Gephart participated. Ryan presented on how race intersects mass incarceration in America. His presentation was the result of several months of research. Ida spoke on a panel entitled “Stories of Justice and Injustice from the US-Mexican Border.” Commenting on her panel presentation, Ida described how immigration law and international forces can directly impact the lives of children:

Since 2014, there has been a surge of unaccompanied minors immigrating from Mexico, Honduras, Guatemala, and El Salvador seeking asylum in the US. The US has responded with a mixture of strategies aiming to prevent immigration, but also strategies to protect this vulnerable group. The Flores Agreement, the Homeland Security Act of 2002, and the Trafficking Victims Protection Act of 2008 are all aimed at standardizing the treatment of unaccompanied minors who are detained in the US. These policies take action to protect the children and ensure they receive humane treatment in the US. However, unaccompanied minors are often forced to navigate the asylum process without an attorney, which drastically increases their chances of being deported. We need to better understand the current systems that the US has in place to handle the immigration of unaccompanied minors so that we can strengthen the policy and adjust to current challenges.

For more details on the humanities scholars program, including eligibility and scholarship details, visit its page on Messiah’s website.

Democracy, a Competition of Ideas, and the Role of the College Campus

Written by politics students Satchel Johnsen and Alex Hamann

Russian hackers and rigged voting systems are not the biggest threat American
democracy faces. Rather, we must reflect on our own behaviors and attitudes as the American people. Preservation of the American Idea depends on educating future leaders on college campuses that support academic and political diversity as well as informed and rational political engagement. College students’ reactions and personal reflections on the U.S. presidential election results reveal that one of the greatest threats to democracy may be on college campuses.
For the past year, many of us couldn’t wait for Wednesday, November 9th to come and end one of the most dreadful and divisive presidential elections in U.S. history. Many of us were shocked by the results of a Trump victory, especially someone like me, a “Never Trump” Republican. Like many people, I was disgusted that the Republican Party put up such a flawed candidate who nearly derailed his campaign with sexually vulgar comments, racially charged rhetoric, and a lack of factually based arguments. Despite these factors, the American people selected Mr. Trump as our 45th president.
Now we see rioting in the streets and people challenging the election results. These responses are rooted in a misplaced belief that the president-elect does not deserve it. While I believe that Mr. Trump is unfit to be President, I am devoted to the idea of democracy, its ability to let the voice of the people to be heard, and its capacity to promote a free society through free and fair elections, even if I disagree with the results. Democracy is best form of government for promoting the unchallengeable idea that“government is made by the people, for the people.”It is one thing to point out a presidential candidate’s flaws, but another to target a
candidate’s supporters. Targeting and stereotyping a candidate’s supporters is hateful and ignorant. Groups which claim to be inclusive and open to all backgrounds act hypocritically when they generalize that Mr. Trump’s supporters are bigoted, racist, and xenophobic white males. Support for Mr. Trump is far more nuanced than whitenativism, sexism, or “whitelash.”

Who really supports Mr. Trump?

Yes, a number of Trump supporters behaved in reprehensible ways. But their behavior does not represent all Americans who voted for Mr. Trump. This election cycle Mr. Trump drew record numbers of voters, most of which came from working class white America. It is both impossible and unfair to conclude that racism or sexism was the primary motivator for Mr. Trump’s support. Many other factors motivated Americans to vote for Mr. Trump, including economic hardship and cronyism in Washington. Many of Mr. Trump’s supporters are angry and feel they have been forgotten due to policies that are viewed to seem to help an elite few flourish, not working class Americans. They feel that the political elite is out of touch with America’s working class. The elite has embraced the idea of globalization and free trade agreements that many Trump supporters feel dis-proportionality harms them.
Arthur Brooks, the president of the American Enterprise Institute, recently wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal explaining why Mr. Trump had such extraordinary support. He argues that work and dignity are strongly tied together. Brooks notes that since 1965 the percent of men outside of the workforce has risen from 10% to 22%;millions are underemployed and have given up looking for work. He further reports that, “the employment to population ratio for men aged 25 to 54 is 6.8 % lower than in 1930, in the teeth of the Great Depression”. This lack of work creates a lack of dignity, which in turn creates the perception that society is deteriorating. They feel vulnerable, but see a savior in Donald Trump, who promises a return to dignity by rebuilding the domestic economy.

How has the college reacted to Mr. Trump’s victory?

Some argue that Mr. Trump is undemocratic by pointing to his authoritarian statements, such as jailing Mrs. Clinton and his eagerness to work with Vladimir Putin. However, the response of Mr. Trump’s detractors, especially college students, has been to reject democracy. They refuse to acknowledge Mr. Trump as their future president, and reject the legitimacy of the election. This rejection is not limited to popular opinion among students: it also has roots in student organizations on college campuses. As a college student, I had my doubts in the beginning of the year with some of the initiatives that the student body wanted to pursue at Messiah. Support for the creation of safe spaces seemed to come at the cost of rational debate and discussion. These initiatives seemed to silence certain views, while elevating others. The results of the election have compounded this issue by aggrandizing student emotions. In the name of safe spaces and protecting student emotions, it is increasingly difficult for students to have meaningful discussions about Mr. Trump’s election victory.
College administration have condoned and promoted the creation of safe spaces for those hurt by results of the election. For example, recently the student body of Messiah College received an email informing them that a special worship service would be held in light of the election results. The administration’s email validated fears students may experience following the election of Mr. Trump. While the divisive, hostile, and discriminatory rhetoric of Mr. Trump’s campaign hurt many Americans, this response by the administration falls short in understanding the reasons why people support Mr. Trump. More importantly, election results must not consume our daily lives, our identity, or negatively impact how we interact with one another. Although healing and reconciliation must follow this painful election cycle, this is also a time to re-prioritize and contemplate how we can come together in unity and positively shape the future of our nation.

How does this concern democracy? Why must we reject such behavior?

In one of my classes, we talked about the state of Messiah’s campus post-election. I brought up my distaste for the “he is not my president campaign”, which many students support on campus. I believe that this movement is more than being anti-Trump, but antidemocratic because if the democratic process is going to work there must be a peaceful transition in power. I wasn’t far into my statement until a fellow student cut me off and said “how could you support a President like that, I bet you and all your friends were chanting that in 2008 and 2012 when Obama won.” Since I didn’t support the “he is not my president campaign,” I was categorized as not only a supporter of Mr. Trump, but as a hypocrite. Little does she know, I did not vote for Mr. Trump.

An essential element of democracy is reconciliation and unity. At the end of an election cycle, Americans must acknowledge their differences and work together for the success of our American system. Without this reconciliation, cooperation, and respect, democracy fails. It robs our system of its ability to address the problems that cannot be fixed by individuals. However, reconciliation only occurs when disagreements are met with openness, compassion, and the competition of ideas. When college campuses allow safe spaces and discourage students from sharing controversial views, they prevent reconciliation from occurring.
Emotions run high as the world processes the results of the U.S. presidential election. But student organizations and college administrations must be careful in the tone and purpose of conversations occurring on campuses across the country. Right now, many student organizations and college administrations are consumed by emotion in responding to the election results. My hope is that the college administration take a more active role in informing the students that this presidential election isn’t the end all of all things and addresses the importance of a free democratic society. Student groups at Messiah must ensure that they practice reconciliation by including all student perspectives and experiences. We live in a free society where we should be encouraged to share our beliefs, not threatened. While there are people who fear discrimination because of their sexual or racial identity, there are groups that have been unfairly labeled as oppressors. If college campuses are supposed to educate America’s next great leaders, true reconciliation and a competition of ideas to help promote a free society is a must.

i Arthur Brooks, “How Donald Trump Filled the Dignity Deficit.” Wall Street Journal. November 9, 2016. Accessed November 11, 2016.

A Lesson for Americans from Comparative Politics: Emotional Decision-Making May Endanger Democracy

By:  Dr. Robin Lauermann, Assistant Dean of General Education, Common Learning and Advising; Professor of Politics

A while ago and far away, a democracy shattered; on April 5 1992, the constitutionally-elected president, Alberto Fujimori, committed an auto-golpe (self-coup), washing away the footholds of democracy that had developed within Peru. Fujimori won office in 1990, convincing the Peruvian people that he was the best candidate to respond to domestic terrorism and economic woes. However, after facing increasing criticism, he shut down government, closing Congress and the courts, because of disagreement. What followed seems bizarre, but was the reality for Peru: using polling technology, Fujimori brought legitimacy to his actions by garnering the support of over 70% of the public. This support continued even in the face of his use of extreme repressive tactics, not only against the insurgents who physically threatened the Peruvian people, but also against those who were democratic critics. Moreover, Fujimori continued repressive tactics even after the return of democratic rule, until he was later removed from power when he attempted to run for an unconstitutional third term. This experience, which has occurred in similar forms elsewhere in Latin America and across the globe, serves as a historical lesson for humanity: populism should not be confused with adherence to democracy; the will of the people, should never be confused with citizens’ rights to articulate perspectives in the service of the common good.

In recent years – including this election – we have heard the term “populism” used in reference to American politics. Candidates, like Mr. Trump, have developed popularity because of their ability to identify and espouse concerns held by individuals who are frustrated with the political system and concerned about the problems that face our society. However, recognizing – and even voicing – those concerns does not equate to a candidate who has sound enough policy knowledge and background in order to successfully identify the actual roots of social, economic and political problems and, thus, solve them. Populists across history and globe have, at many times, created a false sense of democracy, as they have generated popular support by tapping into larger emotions and used evidence from polling to claim mandates for their campaigns and actions. This approach is sometimes called plebiscitary democracy, and is considered quite shallow, as compared with the greater expected level of deliberation in representative democracy. As a political scientist, I affirm that polls conducted with proper methods, can yield reliable information, at least much more reliable than impressions, gut instincts or wishful thinking. However, much more analysis and information is needed to know why people believe what they do, as well as which actions the governments should pursue to solve a problem, preferably without the creation of significant new ones, which may result from oversimplified responses.

For thousands of years, proponents of democracy, as well as its practical advocates – from the works of Aristotle to John Stuart Mill to my own – have focused on a concept of democracy that is not simply about majority rule, but rather one that involves deliberation to produce outcomes that have both legitimacy resulting from due process, as well as argument and evidence supporting them. In fact, our founders intentionally created a republican form of government, similar to the polity for which Aristotle advocated, in order to restrain the passions and impulses that might strike the public, because emotions are a natural part of humanity. James Madison best articulated this rationale in Federalist 10, indicating that the proposed (and adopted) government under the new constitution would “refine and enlarge the public views by passing them through the medium of a chosen body of citizens, whose wisdom may best discern the true interest of their country, and whose patriotism and love of justice will be least likely to sacrifice it to temporary or partial considerations.” In this way, emotional reactions would be hampered, limiting policies adopted as knee-jerk reactions. However, the founders also rightly recognized that leaders, as humans subject to the same weaknesses as the rest of us, also might abuse the public interest; for this reason, among others, we have the accountability mechanisms of elections.

However, as we evaluate and choose candidates for whom we cast our votes, we must remember our political reality: the problems that our society faces are, like most others, quite complex. Resolving them requires leaders who are willing to invest the time in understanding these problems in order to make decisions that realistically and feasibly can solve these problems – or, at the very least, improve conditions. Doing so requires moving beyond fear, anger and other emotional reactions as a means of “problem solving.” In our system, as in any other, citizens, qualified candidates and their larger parties will legitimately disagree on solutions. The underpinning pluralism supported by the First Amendment ensures that citizens, as well as leaders, can contest these ideas – both through elections, but also through the policy process. Deliberation, including the willingness to closely examine our own beliefs and preferred policies, accords the respect to these differing ideas and often, as noted by John Stuart Mill, may produce a result that is more effective than that which any one side might offer on its own.

Having a comparative perspective, by analyzing our nation’s political process and history in a larger context, allows us to see common human tendencies despite particulars of culture. It tells us that we should not confuse populism with democracy, simply because a candidate generates support within the public. Many current officials have not engaged in the sincere deliberation that the founders –or the people – have a right to expect. Looking at the experiences of gridlock, most particularly the government shut-down two years ago, but also many actions by leaders in both parties in recent decades, we see evidence of some leaders willing to obstruct, for self or party power. As a result, public support, particularly for Congress, hovers in the low double digits for very understandable reasons. Our response, as citizens, should be deliberative rather than reflexive, selecting new leaders who possess knowledge and expertise, as well as that spirit of deliberation. Otherwise we may find ourselves sanctioning non-democratic behavior by leaders. This behavior, and its resulting policies, not only often fails to actually solve pressing problems when enacted in the real world, but also potentially harms constitutional rights and deprives humanity of the respect that it deserves.

Study Abroad and Politics

  By:  Rebekah Glick (Politics and French, Class of 2016)

During the spring of 2015, as a sophomore, I studied abroad in Paris, France. I gained so much academically through the experience; more importantly, I grew as a person.

Study abroad taught me a lot. I mean, I learned the typical things, like how to master a public transit system, how to navigate foreign cuisine, how to assimilate to a new culture, etc. But there were also things that I learned about myself that I could only have learned through going on an experience that was so completely new, where I could only rely on myself.


Of everything I learned about myself, most important were the hidden independence and competence that studying abroad brought out in me. Things as simple as using public transport or as complex as trying to buy a phone and set up a plan all in French forced me to think on my feet and taught me the meaning of “fake it ’til you make it.” I grew up in Lancaster County, and before studying abroad, had ridden the subway a total of maybe five times in my life. The first week in Paris, I barely went near the metro unless someone was there to explain it:  a week later, I was cruising around the city armed with my pocket-metro map, trying to get lost so I could figure out my way back. When I went home, I confidently boarded the RER train out of Paris with my luggage and braved the public transport to get to the airport instead of nervously waiting for someone to help me. Going from being completely clueless about the crowded, hectic public transport system to blending in with the rest of the hurried Parisians gave me a lot of confidence and pride in myself as I saw myself transform from an intimidated small-town girl to a self-assured city-dweller who found out she could keep up just as well as the rest of them.


Studying abroad fro a semester also opened up my mind to things I never would have experienced otherwise. I loved the trip to Normandy that my program planned for us–one day, we got to visit Mont St. Michel, an ancient abbey off the Northern coast of France that becomes an island when the high tide comes in. The next day, we visited the American Cemetary, Omaha Beach, Pointe du Hoc, and the D-Day Museum. I knew my great-grandfather had fought in Normandy during World War II, so seeing the beaches was incredibly sobering. I also had the opportunity to visit Nuremburg, Germany, for a few days, wehere I got to visit the Nazi Rally Grounds where Hitler planned to base his new government. Contrasting the different remnants of World War II in both France and Germany with the relative ease and friendship that they enjoy today had a great impact on both a personal and an intellectual level. Because of these experiences, I decided to base my senior honors project off of the relationship between France and Germany, using them as an example to show the peace that political and economic integration can bring.

I am so thankful for the opportunity I had to study abroad. There were very challenging times as I adjusted to being alone and independent for the first time in my life. However, after having gone through it, I can say without a doubt that I am a much stronger and more confident person than before. I learned things that have brought out a lot of positive attributes in myself, and I was certainly shown how academic study can further my understanding of the world. At the risk of over-romanticizing a city that’s already been titled the “city of love,” Paris does have a certain je ne sais quoi that makes you fell like you’re in this great convergence of famous writers, thinkers, artists, and rulers from the past millennium. From the Romans to Charles de Gaulle, from the Napoleonic conquests to the German occupation, the things that these bridges and streets have seen are too big for me to imagine. It would be an understatement to call studying abroad in Paris as a Politics and French major the best decision of my undergrad years.


Summer and Fall Opportunities

Not sure what your plans are for this summer, but hoping they have something to do with politics? Interested in a DC internship program for the fall? The following opportunities may have something to offer you:

June 5th-10th, NEW Leadership Pennsylvania, hosted by the Pennsylvania Center for Women and Politics at Chatham University, is an intensive, non-partisan, six-day residential program to allow students to meet women leaders, learn about women in American politics, and develop and practice leadership skills through panel discussions, workshops, and hands-on projects. The application deadline has been extended until April 1st, so please contact for more details or for a copy of the application.

In the fall, please consider Leadership and the American Presidency, The Ronald Reagan Presidential Foundation’s new program in partnership with The Fund for American Studies. A 15-week program, it is designed for undergrad students studying political science, history, government and other related fields who are interested in serving their community and country as civic-minded leaders in a variety of fields including public and non-profit service. It combines experiential learning, lectures, readings, and guest speakers, and all courses are accredited by George Mason University (student may enroll in up to 12 credits in the fall). The application deadline for the fall program is April 15th, so, again, please contact for more details regarding the application process.

Some Months Later…

By:  Katie Gartner

This blog is a month late, but perhaps that has allowed the subject to mature. If I were writing to keep people informed on current events, I would be failing miserably at that job. Mercifully, I write instead as a response to global happenings, trying to lend coherence to a student’s tangled thoughts.

Since this blog was last updated, violence has broken out in Burundi, the Chinese economy has appeared increasingly shaky, President Obama gave his last State of the Union address, and the Iowa caucus continued to throw surprises at those campaigning for the Democratic and Republican candidacies. Rather than detailing the ramifications of any of these news items, however, I have decided to return to what will likely remain the central theme of my writings on this blog for this academic year:  the refugee crisis.

On New Year’s Eve, as Chancellor Angela Merkel gave her traditional address, asylum-seekers in Cologne, on the western border of Germany, were putting her much-vaunted Wilkommenskultur in peril. The chancellor’s speech was deemed nearly perfect—broadcast with subtitles in both Arabic and English, so that refugees and Germans alike would receive her message—reminding the 1.1million asylum-seekers to respect German rules and traditions while urging Germans not to be divided by “those who, with coldness or even hatred in their hearts, lay sole claim to be German and seek to exclude others” (The Economist, “Cologne’s Aftershocks”). Yet, as she spoke of tolerance and her hope for success in continuing to accept refugees, some one thousand men who were described as migrants of North African or Arab origin assembled between Cologne’s railway station and the Dom Cathedral. These men then broke into clusters, surrounding female revelers, “harassing and groping them, stripping them of clothing and valuables…one woman was raped” (The Economist, “Cologne’s Aftershocks”). More than 600 women have come forward, describing the experience as “running the gauntlet.” The local police did not comport themselves well after the fact, claiming that the night was relaxed, and the following media coverage did nothing to ameliorate the situation.

Since then, Chancellor Merkel’s previous optimism has proved damaging, to say the least. Reports of one of the Cologne offenders taunting police with “I am a Syrian, you have to treat me nicely–Mrs. Merkel invited me!” have led to a hardening of Mrs. Merkel’s governing coalition’s stance. These reports also play neatly into the fearful rhetoric of xenophobes. But what does this all mean for future asylum-seekers?

I hope that Chancellor Merkel continues her welcoming stance to migrants, but I support wholeheartedly her promise that the New Year’s Eve offenders will feel the full force of the law, and her suggestion that asylum seekers who break the law would be deported. Deportation of asylum-seekers is a daunting process legally, involving varied sentences for sexual offenses and complicated negotiations with home nations, but it is necessary in order to continue to accept refugees. If there is no governmental attempt to make right the events of New Year’s Eve, the German people will likely not accept a continued flow of migrants whose values differ from their own. Germany has borne the brunt of the burden of accepting asylum-seekers, which is putting serious political pressure on Angela Merkel. Unless the European Union gets its act together to present a unified response to the refugee crisis, the right-wing nationalism that has already taken hold of parts of eastern Europe will continue to feed on the xenophobia and political populism triggered by the migrant crisis. Asylum applicants are currently operating on a free-for-all system, which needs to be replaced by a screening system at Europe’s borders (or before the migrants cross the Mediterranean). Unacceptable migrants should be sent back immediately. Some suggestions from The Economist on how to create a better regulated system for asylum-seekers are as follows:

Creating a well-regulated system requires three steps. The first is to curb the “push factors” that encourage people to risk the crossing, by beefing up aid to refugees, particularly to the victims of the civil wars in Syria and Iraq, including the huge number who have fled to neighbouring  countries such as Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon. The second is to review asylum claims while refugees are still in centres in the Middle East or in the “hotspots” (mainly in Greece and Italy), where they go when they first arrive in the EU. The third element is to insist that asylum-seekers stay put until their applications are processed, rather than jumping on a train to Germany.

  • The Economist, “How to manage the migrant crisis”

Each of these steps is difficult in and of itself, but some measures must be taken to ensure that Cologne does not have an imitation. Similarly, Europe must work to prevent history from repeating itself by avoiding falling into the xenophobia that preceded the Holocaust. Germany remains ashamed of their history with Hitler’s Third Reich, and has worked to recognize and atone for their sins; I believe that Europe should remain wary of parallel dangerous ideologies, perpetuated by fundamentalists of all kinds. Europe is right to be appalled by the transgression of women’s rights by unrepentant offenders who are taking advantage of their hospitality, but they should also be appalled by the idea of rescinding the tolerance and generosity that Angela Merkel has worked to offer migrants.

Granted, this is just a blog post. This will not stand before the European Parliament, or plead with the Pegida movement or the AfD party to not have a spirit of fear but one of courage and grace. But as both The Economist and I have cheered Angela Merkel’s strength in standing by her liberal response to the crisis in Syria and the wider Middle East, and believed in the values that the European Union espouses as requiring a regulated hospitality to asylum-seekers, so I felt I must continue to write about the refugee crisis. I suppose I can only sit and watch, as friends minister to migrant camps in Germany, and as the continent I love remains shaken and divided by this crisis.



Reginald Oduor, Kenyan Scholar and Human Rights Activist

Messiah College is pleased to offer two opportunities for students to learn and engage with Dr. Reginald Oduor, a Kenyan scholar and human rights activist.

Co-sponsored by Diversity Affairs, the Intercultural Office, the Center for Public Humanities, and the Departments of Biblical and Religious Studies, Philosophy, and Politics and International Relations, Dr. Oduor’s sessions will have something for everyone. As a philosopher and activist, Dr. Oduor is internationally known for his scholarship in political philosophy, ethics, and philosophy of religion. Blind since he was a baby, he is also one of Kenya’s leading voices for the rights and inclusion of people with disabilities.

On Monday, November 16th, from 7-8pm, he will be speaking in Hostetter Chapel, describing and analyzing “How Africa Can Help America.”

The next day, Tuesday the 17th, he will discuss “African Philosophy: Thought and Practice” from 4:15 to 5:30pm in Boyer 336.

We sincerely hope you will be able to join us!


CultureConnect Lecture 2015

Please join the Department of Communication in welcoming Dr. Mark Sachleben for a lecture on International Broadcasting and National Identity on Monday, November 2nd at 7pm in Parmer Hall.

Dr. Sachleben’s political science expertise perfectly equips him for this discussion, which will weave together politics and media. Tickets are free, but are required, and can be picked up at the Ticket Office. This event is not to be missed!



A Second Look at the Migrant Crisis

Thinking Through the First Two Questions

by:  Katie Gartner

Unsurprisingly, the migrant crisis has not abated over the past few weeks. Approximately three weeks ago, a highly divisive EU vote passed, creating mandatory quotas by a qualified majority. Directly affecting national sovereignty, the vote received intense support from Germany, France, and Italy, while the UK and Denmark have opted out of the plan, voluntarily making their own resettlement plans. Two nations who previously objected to the idea of mandatory quotas, Latvia and Poland, voted with the majority. The discussions and negotiations continued yesterday, as European leaders met again in Brussels to consider questions of security around the borders of the European Union. Considering these developments, my previous questions deserve more attention.

  • Does Europe’s “culture of guilt” as described by Christopher Caldwell in his book Reflections on the Revolution in Europe influence the initial spirit of hospitality in many nations?
    • Yes, absolutely! Seventy years ago, Germany was synonymous with Nazism, hatred, and intolerable acts of unimaginable bigotry-fueled cruelty. During this crisis, while right-wing extremists may protest Germany’s acceptance of so many migrants, the overwhelming sentiment among Germans is one of welcome. I read an article a few weeks ago, an opinion piece, which discussed this change, using Munich as a case study. In World War II, the concentration camp at Dachau was a mere ten miles outside of Munich, and the Nazi leadership referred to the city as the “Capital of the Movement.” Now, Munich wants to be seen as the “city of protection and help.” A friend of mine is currently studying abroad in Munich, and has said that the German newspapers echo other Western media. Having declared themselves willing to accept 800,000 migrants, the consensus within Germany is that they must act decisively to ameliorate the situation. I have no doubt that Europe’s tragic history and Germany’s antagonistic role in the first half of the century have influence the German desire to set an example of welcome for the rest of the continent during this crisis.
  • How many of the limitations placed on migrant movement result from a nation’s lack of capacity to accept migrants, and how many result from a centuries-old European fear of Islamic culture?
    • I knew when I wrote this question that it was controversial, and I certainly hesitate to try to answer it now. In Samuel Huntington’s famous essay, The Clash of Civilizations, he discusses the origins of cultural (or civilizational) conflict. He outlines differences in history, language, culture, tradition, and religion as the key components of different civilizations, arguing that these varying perspectives will continue to create conflict well into the future. From the time of the Crusades to the Spanish expulsion of the Moors in the seventeenth century to the long struggle of European Christendom against the Ottoman Empire, the historically Christian Europe has been unable to come to terms with the increasing influence of Islam within its bounds. Today, while the continent-wide adherence to Christianity is much diminished, its effects are still felt. This struggle between two titanic religions has shaped European culture. With this in mind, I find myself divided in answering this question. I do believe that the limitations placed on migrant movement result from a lack of capacity to accept migrants, but I also believe that some of the reluctance to make sacrifices to accommodate the influx stems from historical discomfort with Islam.

These are not complete answers to these questions, nor do they amount to expert opinions. While I have other questions from my original post that I have yet to answer, I have been returning to these two questions the most frequently as I watch Europe’s evolving reaction to the migrant crisis. In the coming weeks, I will begin to organize my thoughts on the last few questions, hopefully providing some food for thought if not definitive answers.