Rebecca White

Peace and Global Studies Alumna

June 8, 2006

THE CREATION OF PEACE STUDIES AT EARLHAM

BACKGROUND

In February of 1971, an Education Policy Subcommittee called the Peace Studies Committee was created to explore the possibilities of having a Peace Studies Program at Earlham. It was headed by Professor of Political Science Arthur J. Funston, and its members included professors Dick Davis, Dale Noyd, Wilmer Stratton, Lewis Hoskins, Hugh Barbour, Hank Maiden, Barbara Miller, and four students: Mariel Hess, Lynn Spray, Ed Kinchley, and Bob Coddington. This was hardly a bolt out of the blue for peace studies at Earlham. In fact, a month later in April, a proposal for the program structure submitted by college president Landrum Bolling to the committee revealed that “a special Earlham inter-disciplinary program in international affairs and the problems of peace” extended back into the previous ten years. Now, it was time to “carry the discussion further.”

Like all movements, the movement for Peace Studies at Earlham had a historical context. Six years previously, in 1965, the anti-war movement at Earlham began to gain momentum. According to Tom Hamm, the crest of the movement came in 1970. The creation of Peace Studies followed the swell in anti-war sentiment, and “institutionalized [the peace movement on campus].” (Hamm, 306). The war in Vietnam was not far from some of the minds of students and faculty involved in PACS during its first years. Dale Noyd, Professor of Psychology and later the convener for the subcommittee on Peace Studies had served in the Air Force during the Vietnam War, and had been court-martialed for his opposition to it. (Hamm, 307). A student at the time, Rachel MacNair, asserted that her interest in the Peace and Conflict Studies program derived in part from being active in the peace movement to resist the war in Vietnam. United States’ involvement in the war ended in 1975, a year after the first director, Howard Richards, was hired for the Peace Studies program, and when it was formally initiated. In the late 1970s, as the program was getting underway, the Vietnam war remained a recent memory, fueled by a continuation of high military expenditures and support for dictatorships. (MacNair, 11 May 2006)

An Earlham Post article written on March 2, 1971 further reveals that the college had a financial opportunity for the program in the form of a “possible private grant” intended for creating a discipline in peace studies. In the faculty minutes of February 29, 1972, it is that the proposal for the program “has as its immediate impetus the fruits of Landrum Bolling’s conversations with a friend who is prepared to support a program concerned with the non-violent resolution of international conflict.” (Faculty Minutes) According to Howard Richards in an e-mail, it is possible that this friend was George Cooley, one of the primary sources of funding to the Peace and Conflict Studies program at Earlham until at least 1978.

The timing of the grant was crucial, since the 1970s were a time of financial stress for the college (EC Post Feb. 22, 1972) According to Dick Davis, quoted in the Post article, “‘Money is a big issue…the program is contingent upon the grant.” In addition to the donations from Cooley, the College also received funds from the Voss World Peace Fund and the Peaslee Peace Fund. The program was sustained on these and other outside funds from 1972 until in 1977, when it was placed on the College Budget. This happened after the Peaslee Peace Fund closed. Interestingly, according to “D,” in an unidentified document to “Ray,” Peace Studies was placed on the regular budget after the budget was presented to Earlham’s board of directors in February of 1977 and before the final version was “put on the computer” in June of 1977. “D” notes the absence of a reaction to this, stating that

the addition of a $20,000 budget line (which turned out to be $18,401 expended) was noted to the Budget Committee in the fall of 1977, both verbally by me and in a handout which compared the actual budget to the one we took to the Board in February. But I do not recall that we spent any time on the issue (indeed it was not made an issue, which is one reason all this caught me by surprise).

In addition to financial feasibility of the program, the committee felt strongly that it was particularly appropriate for Earlham, with its “active Quaker tradition,” to “be in the forefront in establishing a truly significant Peace and Conflict Studies program.” (Proposal to faculty). References were also made to the fact that programs in Peace Studies were becoming more and more common in colleges and universities throughout the United States. Manchester College, for example, had established its peace studies program at the end of World War II, in 1948 (Manchester Website). There was the sentiment that, through constructing a program in peace studies, Earlham would become part of a broader movement for peace education among higher institutes of learning in the country. A 1971 report from Wilmer Stratton, upon his return from a meeting of the Consortium on Peace Research, Education, and Development (“COPRED”) states that

It was, frankly, a little startling to discover how many other colleges and universities have started Peace Studies programs, or are getting ready to do so. There is much that we can learn from these other programs, although in the long run we may have our own distinctive contributions to make.

Stratton preceded to list several other peace programs already up and running at Manchester College, Haverford College, Colgate University, St. Louis University, University of Wisconsin, and Kent State.

The efforts to form the peace studies program enjoyed the strong support and encouragement of Landrum Bolling, president of the college from 1958-1973. As previously concluded, Bolling had secured a private donor, probably George Cooley, to partially fund the program. According to Dick Davis in a March 2, 1971 edition of the Earlham Post, Bolling had “been hoping for a peace studies program for the last five years…the present work in developing the program comes as a result of Bolling’s ‘impetus and encouragement.” In a recent interview with Bolling, I asked him about this, and he said that he was an active member of the Educational Policy Committee, and that “everyone knew” that he was pushing for a peace studies program. In fact, before he had become president at Earlham he had been interested in having Peace and Conflict Studies at Earlham. Bolling pointed out that Peace Studies at Earlham was also part of a wider trend toward international studies at the school. The study program to Beirut, for example, had begun a couple years previously, and later developed into the Jerusalem program, which was one of two (the other being Northern Ireland) off campus studies specifically offered within PACS.

STRUCTURE

In his April 1971 memorandum to the Peace Studies Subcommittee, Landrum proposed a model for a peace program that he called “The Earlham School of International Service and Public Affairs.” This was imagined to encompass a center for interdisciplinary studies and research “concerned with the operation of a variety of domestic and international institutions and with the resolution of conflicts in a variety of social situations.” (Proposal, 2) Bolling envisioned a three-part program, composed of a curriculum, special project seminars and field experiences. Coursework would include courses on conflict resolution and administration, as well as seminars on topics such as “Conflict, Social Disintegration and Social Reconstruction in the Cities,” “The Middle East Conflict,” and “Soviet Union and the West.” Field experiences would function as a practical component to the program, providing students with practical knowledge about human cooperation and conflict and techniques for organizing and running social enterprises.

Later on, this general structure was whittled down. In the proposal to the faculty on Feb. 29 1972, the Peace Studies Committee presented an idea for that, while rejecting the idea of a “school” or separate program within the college, was structured to include a sequence of three entry courses, two or more intermediate-level courses, a substantial field component, and several advanced problem-oriented and integrative seminars. Subsequent discussions of the Peace Studies committee resulted in expanding the first three courses to four: Theory and Practice of Conflict (sociology/psychology), Violence and World Order (political science), Means, Ends, and the Problem of Justice (ethics/philosophy), and Equity and Efficiency (economics). The Peace Studies Program was conceived as an interdisciplinary program that drew from already established programs. It was not created with the intent of being a major, but rather as an area of studies in which a student could specialize, in addition to another major field. Tom Hamm discusses this fact, noting that

It was the hope of the participating faculty that ‘most students will have some contact with the application of several disciplines to problems of peace and war, and that they will then choose to make their own personal contribution to the building of peace through a major in one of the existing disciplines. (Hamm, 306)

In certain cases if a student desired, he/she could petition to form a major in the area of peace studies. At the completion of basic requirements in PACS a certificate was awarded; this was considered supplementary to the transcript. In fact, students had significant clout in the formation and evolution of Peace Studies at Earlham; PACS alumna Kim Christiansen remembers that in addition to being involved in the process of creating PACS, students also pushed for a number of courses to be taught in PACS. One such course was in Activism, which the school brought in an adjunct Peace Studies professor, Beverly Woodward, to teach. The Peace Studies program further complimented and supported student activism on campus surrounding the American Friends Service Committee, the Vietnam War, and the United Farmworkers Association to name a few. Finally, as a result of increasing student interest in designing majors in Peace and Conflict Studies, the program began offering a major in 1981.

Originally, it was envisioned that two full-time employees would staff the PACS program: a director for the program and an additional teaching faculty person. However, the funds secured for the program during 1972-73 did not match those needed for two employees. The formal implementation of the program was further impeded by the difficulty of finding a director for the program. An interview with Ernie Boyer, a student on the Student Faculty Affairs committee in the May 23 1972 Post reveals that while one promising candidate for the Director Position had been found, this candidate was ultimately rejected “because he lacked the stature necessary for such a job.” Kim Christiansen, then a student on the hiring committee, noted also that it was difficult to find candidates with a background balanced in activism and academia. She remembers that the committee found one person they liked as an activist, but ended up rejecting her because she was less adept in the classroom.

Peace and Conflict Studies at Earlham was formally begun in 1974 following the hiring of Howard Richards. Kim Christiansen, a student member of the hiring committee, remembers that Richard’s familiarity with peace and justice studies particularly resonated with her and the committee. In a telephone conversation she noted that it is useful to think of peace as a process bringing about justice, and that Richard’s writings on ethics relating to economic justice struck a chord with her. The committee was also excited about his and his wife Caroline Richards’ background in living and working in Chile during the Allende Administration, and with his experience as a legal representative of Cesar Chavez’s Farm Labor Organization. (Christiansen Interview, 31 May 2006) Paul Lacey, Provost and acting president at the time, then traveled to Chile to interview Richards. Lacey subsequently offered him the job, which Richards accepted (Lacey, personal e-mail, 9 May 2006). Richards brought an extensive background in philosophy, law and education to the college. He held an M.A. in both law and philosophy, as well as an advanced certificate in Educational Psychology from Oxford University and a PhD at the University of California in Santa Barbara. He arrived at Earlham ready to contribute to Peace Studies his “intense concern for world peace, and the education of people in the areas of solutions to peace problems.” (Earlham Post, 12 Nov. 1974)

AFTERWORD

In 1981 the Peace and Conflict Studies Committee submitted a memo to the Curriculum Planning committee asking for approval to change the name of Peace and Conflict Studies program to Peace and Global Studies. From the memo it is evident that the committee thought that changing the name would provide useful clarification in referring to the general content of the courses and their classification. The committee also argued that changing the name of the program better reflected “Earlham’s concern with international education as well as international studies, but recognizes that many issues are world-wide, not simply issues between nations.” No reference was made to restructuring the program or changing any content of the courses in the program. However, in a later memo to the CPC, Professor of Political Science George Lopez wrote, “the name will make no difference to what we do in our courses.” (Lopez, 13 April 2006)

Their request was rejected. Professor of Classics Steve Heiny, writing to the PACS Committee on behalf of CPC, noted that in the first place, at the inception of PACS, the faculty directed that “conflict” be both a part of the title and the content of the program. He also stated that CPC was unclear as to the exact reasons offered for the change, and suggested that the PACS committee resubmit a fuller explanation of reasons for recommending the change. A reply to this from George Lopez, entitled “What’s In a Name,” reasserted that the name change reflected a clarification of Earlham’s position within in the field of peace studies. It specifically referred to the international orientation of the program in its examination of conflict in the past and present, as well as “the environment in which national governments and their people interact.” According to Lopez, of the three areas[1] into which Peace Studies Programs in the United States could be broken down, Earlham’s Peace Studies Program was definitely positioned within the area of focusing on issues, particularly international, contributing to conflict and peace. Changing its name from “conflict” to “global” more accurately reflected this position with the added advantage of being “able to keep an acronym that makes sense.” (Lopez, 13 April 1981) Happily, CPC subsequently approved the name change of the Peace and Conflict Studies Program to the Peace and Global Studies Program, which continues to remain the program title today.

For future research:

--A GOOD THREAD TO EXPLORE: WHAT THEORIES/AUTHORS INFLUENCED HOW EARLHAM STRUCTURED ITS PEACE PROGRAM? NIGEL YOUNG’S ARTICLE (“Educating the Peace Educators”), WHICH WAS FOUND IN PAGS STUFF IN THE ARCHIVES IS POTENTIALLY ONE. ALSO GRAY COX?

--What aspects of Earlham’s peace studies program were derived from other peace studies programs in the US?

--Where are the notes for the Peace Studies subcommittee for 1971-1972?

--Interview Lonnie Valentine, Dortha Meredith, and Paul Lacey, plus PACS/PAGS alumni! : Tania Armstrong , Paul Tinker

--Specifics about the relationship between PACS/PAGS academic program and student activism on campus?

--Of personal interest: a memo to the curriculum planning committee from the Peace and Conflict Studies Committee stated that the reason that the Intro to Philosophy course taught in PAGS was changed to Food Ethics and Policy was that it “ reflects moral obligations felt to be implied in having accepted the grant from ALAP.” What is ALAP? And did the change in title also reflect a change in the content of the course?

________________________________________________________________________

Note: much of the material I used for this research I found in the Earlham College Archives, and much of it was loose-leaf, found in various folders dedicated to PAGS/PACS committees. The citable sources I have included below:

Bolling, Landrum. Personal Interview. 19 May 2006.

Christiansen, Kim. Personal Interview. 31 May 2006

Copeland, Janet. “PACS May Be Postponed.” The Earlham Post. 9 May 1972.

“Donor Funds Peace Study.” The Earlham Post. 11 Apr. 1972.

Hamm, Thomas D. Earlham College: A history: 1847-1997. Bloomington: Indiana University, 1997.

Lacey, Paul. Personal E-mail. 9 May 2006.

MacNair, Rachel. Personal Interview. 11 May 2006.

Pumroy, Eric. “Possible Grant to Start ‘Peace Studies.’” The Earlham Post. 2 Mar. 1971.

Richards, Howard. Personal E-mail. 13 May 2006.

Roberts, Margaret. “ ‘Peace and Conflict Studies’ Designed as Value Oriented.” The Earlham Post. 12 Nov. 1974.

Thanks to Julie Bruns, Doug Bennett, Tom Hamm, Jason Shenk, Sadie Forsythe, and Dominic Tarpey for their helpful suggestions and information that proved to be useful and wonderful resources for this project.

---

[1] These included: programs focusing on conflict regulation and techniques of non-violence social management and resolution; programs focusing on the restructuring of conflict or social domestic systems, and programs focusing on issues, particularly international, contributing to conflict and peace.