Genocide

At times classroom discussion can seem almost heretical to some topics. How do you lead a serious and respectful conversation about an issue such as genocide? We began by reviewing the Genocide Convention and discussing what is and isn't considered genocide according to the Convention and, therefore, international law. In that sense, it seems legalistic and abstract. To put it into perspective, we watch the Frontline Special on Rwanda. The video opens with a distant, but still distinct beheading and mutilation.

For me, as a teacher, bringing such material into the classroom requires a certain level of decorum and respect for the real suffering of others. That is not the time to giggle, pass notes, and play the usual disruptive student games. I have no compunction about removing students who are not able to muster the ability to empathize during this topic. We can debate about the removal from reality of images on a screen or words in a Convention, but this is one time when I expect students to rise to the occasion or to excuse themselves from participating.

Most of the story of Rwanda is how all the hollow pledges of the years since 1945 to "never let it happen again" have continued to fail time and again. It is about people who should know better also showing little empathy for the suffering of others and instead debating the legalisms of the definitions of genocide. It is about students, just like mine, murdered. In the discussion afterward, most students were appalled and outraged at the international and US inaction during the Rwanda genocide. And the simple solution? We should have acted.

In reflection/reaction papers, students vented their outrage.

It would have been very surprising, but it wasn't the first time that I've heard about this. It was horrible, and to think people in our modern society still think and act this way really makes me mad.

This is disgusting/appalling/revolting. The blatant disregard of the right to life infuriates me, as does the fact that no one could be bothered to help.

Yet, a week later as part of a review assessment, many responses to the question,

"Read the following article on John Bolton and Darfur. Article Sound familiar? Assuming that we have a responsibility as individuals in the Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of Genocide: Article 4, and, assuming that the United Nations does have a responsibility to act under the UN Charter, propose: a) an action for you to take as an individual to help protect human rights and prevent or stop the genocide in Sudan; b) an action for the US to take, taking into consideration "lessons learned" from Rwanda."

reflected familiar helplessness and sense of remoteness from the problem. "For the most part I can't think of much more that I could do other than sit here and wish that someone would actually want to listen to what I might have to say about preventing/stopping genocide." "I, myself, don't have enough authority to be able to actually do something that is worth it."

One of the more positive and eloquent:

Since we as individuals have a responsibility, we simply have the responsibility not to remain complacent. That is, we must merely take action. This could be anything from writing a letter to a congressman, or representative, or the UN, or it could be a personal crusade, flying there, and personally upholding the Convention. There is, however, an unfortunate relationship between effectiveness and feasibility between these two options.

At the end of the day, I guess empathy means doing something. We are wearing Save Darfur bands, writing letters and e-mails, and donating. As the bracelet says, "Not on my watch." The lesson is to give meaning to "never let it happen again." Here is your opportunity. A place to start.

Darfur.