Society and History

“…man seems to be in a worse state even than the brutes…”
— Samuel von Pufendorf, “On the Duty of Man and Citizen,” Book 1, Chapter 3

mediaimage
Introduction

For so long,Appeal to American Workers Articles writers of all ages have made their appeals to kings, to queens, to archbishops, saints and popes. When trying to advance their own interests, men of letters would correspond with dukes and rulers of provinces. By contacting those in power, they were confident that their ideals would be expressed to the people in the most succinct and powerful way. Yet, it has been the trend of Anarchists, regardless of era, to make their appeal not to the rulers, but to the ruled — not to the presidents or the prime ministers to beg for their mercy, but to the workers of the world’s nations, and command them to action. Since we are advocates of a certain sense of justice, since we are the prophets of social doom and resurrection, we believe that the cause of the condition of the world is the ruling class and its minions, their state-sanctioned slavery of Capitalism. And, furthermore, we believe that to plead for mercy from those who casually mock the things that stir us, to plead for mercy would be to offer a begging hand to our executioner. For these reasons and more, Anarchists and Freethinkers make their appeals not to kings or queens, not to “sovereign entities” and their mechanized armies, but to the people themselves, that they might liberate themselves and others. It is in such an attitude that I present this piece… An Appeal to the American Workers.

Why Revolt?

First, when I am speaking to my fellow brethren, my comrade citizens in the United States of America, I want to say this. At first sight of the Communist and Socialist manifestos, their ideologies, the speeches made by their affiliated parties, when I heard these things for the first time, I was in complete disagreement. The language used by these demagogues of Communism was burdened by economic vocabulary. In some works that would be classified as liberal, I’ve seen the word “aggregate” used five times in a single sentence. Through these bizarre concepts, these overly technical definitions of a so-called sociological science, these “decline in the wage conditions of proletariat” and “bourgeoise distribution of wealth,” through all of these is where we hear the call for Communism. I first want to tell my readership that I am familiar with these speeches, these pamphlets, these books, and I am familiar with the awkward and almost inhuman way that they have dealt with the economic question. I have seen men of Socialism do nothing but reprint manifestos and sloganeer, as though their drone-like actions were about to bring about the greatest state of peace, justice, and equity for mankind ever known.

While these socio-economic appeals of Communist and Socialist parties are made to the public, they are often ignored; in a way, they are regarded solely as “preaching to the choir.” They use words and phrases that the people are generally unfamiliar with. Their politics are relatively dreary; whenever a new party pops up, its statement of faith seems to be followed a pattern completely uniform with the last party. This is not an attack on those who are unfamiliar with the phrases and vocabulary of Communist theory. Rather, it is an attack on those who are ridiculously stuck with such phrases. To other Communist and Socialist comrades, those who feel that society would be greatly benefited through collective property, I ask this: that these awkward and almost erroneous phrases are abandoned now. Not because they are no longer understood by the common people, but because they were never understood by the common people. People must not be intellectuals that they might be revolutionaries.

With that said, I want to say that I wholly and truly believe in the philosophy of Communism. I am an advocate of the words of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels, in matters of economics and sociology. In many ways, I divert from the philosophy that they preached. I am also a follower of the words of Mikhail Bakunin, Emma Goldman, and Alexander Berkman — the late, forgotten Anarchists of yesteryear, whom openly opposed the arguments of Marxian economics. Again, I diverge from their arguments in many ways. I am a follower of the words of Thomas Paine, when speaks of doing justice as man’s only duty; I am a follower of the words of Carl Sagan, when his words oppose the claims of religious fanatics; I am a follower of the words of Jean Jacques Rousseau when his words are of the corruptability and weakness of a Republican government — I am the humble follower of Mark Twain, Margaret Sanger, Voltaire, Charles Darwin, and Ralph Waldo Emerson. But, in so many cases, I find myself in disagreement. Perhaps it would help my Communist brethren to practice a higher degree of skepticism when reading the works of Marxian economists and other political philosophers.

A Revolution — But Against What?

If we are to take an objective and honest look at the situation in the United States today, we will find ourselves looking face to face with some very grim and ugly facts. Many people are losing their jobs to outsourcing. Corporate scandals are becoming a daily occurence. People have lost complete faith in this system that seems to perpetuate unemployment, poverty, and misery. This is not solely my view, but it is the view of the people. More than half of the country does not vote. There can be only one reason for this: people feel that both political parties and their candidates are incapable of redressing the ailments of this dying nation. Underneath the sloganeering of “rugged individualist” philosophers, underneath phrases like “quarterly corporate gains” and “official company accounting procedures,” underneath other phrases that serve to aleniate us from the subject, underneath it all, we become more and more dissatisfied with this country. We are a modern country living in a modern world! Yet, when we open our eyes, we still find so much poverty, so much misery, so much homelessness. We find ourselves face to face with an economic system that nobody has tried to improve upon — an economic system that is essentially the root of these social ills. In so many years, with such great strides in all studies, we feel that men have inherently left one field untouched, that is, the field that deals with how to create a social and economic infrastructure, so as to remove these undesirable elements. We are not moved by self-interest or snobby intellectualism; we are moved by the interest of all of mankind — it is our interest to eliminate the suffering of the innocent.

In a 1997 study by the U.S. Bureau of Statistics, for every dollar an employee earned, he made almost six dollars for his employer. [U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Comparative Statistics, Core Business Stastitics Series, EC97X-C52, issued June 2000.] One dollar of that six earned income goes towards the other expenses, such as replenishing the shelves and electricity. [Business Expenses, 1997 Economic Census, Company Statistic Series, 1997, Issued December 2000, EC97CS-8, US CENSUS BUREAU, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU.] That means, for every two dollars a Capitalist spends, he is given seven dollars back. The investor makes money because he has money, and for no other reason. He is maintained at a situation in life where more money will do him not much better. And while he is surrounded in elegance, lavishness, and wealth, there are millions of children starving to death in our nation. In 1980, the top 1% of the United States owned more than 25% of the nation’s wealth, while the bottom 20% do not even own 1% of all the wealth. [U.S. Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Quoted from Contemporary Macroeconomics, by Milton H. Spencer, Worth Publishers, Inc., Fourth Edition, page 45.] If these facts alone are not enough to disturb anyone of good conscience, then I do not think anything is capable of disturbing them.

I could continue to parade statistics around. I could delve deeper and deeper in to the archives of economic thinktanks, pulling out numbers and equations used to determine the unemployment rate’s fluctuation in response to the rate of interest of banks. I could pull up a historical timeline, showing the general decrease of wages in contrast to the general increase of profits. There are at least a million articles that discuss the economic question that I have yet to read; each of them from authors of their own particular background, whether Free-Market Capitalists or Marxian Communists. All of these writers have contributed what discoveries they’ve made to the intellectual community. They offer their words in defense of the trends or patterns they discover in economic behavior. Some of them are motivated by political causes, whether it’s the establishment of Statist Communism or the abolishment of Communist political parties in third world nations. Many of them are motivated by their desire for prestige, to be recognized by the community as men and women of thought — they figure, that if they can make their words more boring, dull, and formulaic than other authors, they will be recognized as men and women of genius by some university community. Some authors have no interest, except to explore the sociological field, and find out what it is that really moves the economy, to discover what gears and what cogs in society effect what other gears. Yes, I could pull out plenty of statistics and many arguments that these economists have utilized in demonstrating their opinions. But, in this appeal to American workers, I must say what I think: I believe that the average man and woman have enough sense and enough experience to make the decision that the status quo is unsatisfactory.

Consider a radical reorganization of the social structure. For this reorganization to have any merit to it, we must start with the problems we observe. So, then, let’s consider the most obvious problems. There are men and women whose job it is to hold signs on street corners, many times dressed in costumes, trying to entice people to purchase goods and services. They make very little money, but there are men and women in corporate firms whose task is essentially the same. Marketing and Sales executives are making six-digit salaries by devising new and different methods for convincing the public to want their goods. Their job basically is to convince people that they want and need things that their own wit and intellect wouldn’t ever tell them to purchase. On top of these executives, there are the people of the media, the makers of commercials, billboards, radio advertisements, newspaper advertisements, graphic design for corporate logos; some people spend years doing market analysis, so that they can uncover trends in the consumer choices of citizens and workers. At the top, there are executives and corporate officials, making millions of dollars a year, and at their disposal is an army of Walmart greeters, sales associates, clerks, manager assistants, and other professionals — all of them solely exist to entice people to buy things that they otherwise wouldn’t have wanted in the first place. From this point, we find that the purpose of their existence is to subvert, control, and manipulate the general will of the people. Their meaning to life is inimical to that of a free conscience.

IntroductionThe term “Socialism,” as well as “Communism,” has come to allow the meaning of a broad amount of societies and governments. Loosely, Socialism means government (or public) control of the economy and business to a certain extent. I have met members of various Socialist parties of all nations who have turned this loose definition into something more specific. Some go as far as to postulate that the end of government will be replaced with Democracy, while others devise “free societies” with abolishment of money and making everything free, while still others believe in Participatory Economics and not working if you desire not to (while still receiving the benefits of working, such as pay). Many of these Socialists, though, understand how broad a term “Socialism” is, and have more thoroughly described their idea of the mechanics of their Utopian societies.

mediaimage
Before addressing the question of rights,Socialism: A Broader Explanation Articles or of the benefits of industrial society, it would be essential that I describe the workings of how I view a good Socialist society and economy. I believe that the public deserves the right to own some capital. It is already true that the government owns and runs some transportation industries (roads), as well as being the greatest competitor of the education industry. Other industries such as sanitation, postal delivery, electricity, water, and other utilities are also regulated, owned, or operated by the government. However, I believe that other industries aso ought to be publicly owned, such as factories that produce electronics or other goods, a very small chain of retail outlets to help distribute goods, and — most importantly — farms to produce food for the starving population. By the public owning these industries, we can set prices, have fair working hours, have fair working conditions, and have decent quality of goods. By private industry owning capital and businesses, these desired economical conditions have rarely occured (as I shall demonstrate with evidence in the next section). As well as public ownership of industry, I believe that private ownership should not be prohibited (within Communism, private ownership of capital and means of production is prohibited). To help promote ethical business procedures within private industry, some Socialists have advocated business regulations: Minimum Wage Laws, Overtime and Minimum Working Hours Laws, Child Labor Laws, safe working conditions lows, among others, which allow private enterprise to act as it desires within certain principle guidelines. Though I do believe in regulation of private industries (with such laws as minimum wage and safe working conditions), I also believe that some industries should be publicly owned (I will delve into detail concerning Regulation versus Ownership later). Though regulation does provide an artificial standard for business to meet, the best standard is provided by companies owned by the public with the specific intention of serving the public — public industry will serve the worker by providing fair wages, good hours, and safe working conditions for honest work; public industry will serve the community and the consumer by providing high quality goods at a low, affordable price. Regulation and public ownership of some capital of most industries is my idea of Socialism, as well as having public businesses providing beyond the requirements of business regulation, and therefore providing natural competition to private enterprise. As to the question of how laws are passed and decisions are made, this is not something I can wholly answer here, though I would lean towards Direct Democracy (Anarchism).

The Plight of the Workers

Is Socialism possible? Is it needed? Is it desirable? These are questions that can only be answered with brute, hard facts. The following is a list of facts concerning the rich, the poor, and everyone concerned…

In 1974, the Capitalist class (per household) was making over $125,000 anually (in 1966 dollars); in 1987, the Capitalist class (per household) was making over $160,000 anually (in 1966 dollars); and in 1995, the Capitalist class (per household) was making over $200,000 anually (1966 dollars). However, from 1966 to 1995, the middle class have been making little over $25,000 anually (1966 dollars), and from 1966 to 1995, the poor class have been making little over $8,000 anually (1966 dollars) and that figure has remained virtually unchanged for that time period. From 1966 to 1995, the Capitalist class had an increase in over $75,000 (1966 dollars) yet the other classes have not been getting an increase of income at all. [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, historical income and poverty data.]

Roughly 20% of the children in the United States are living in below poverty conditions. [Source: Urban Institute.]

What we find in the United States, in 1980, is that top 1% of the United States of America owns more than 25% of all the wealth in the nation, while the poorest 20% of the nation do not even own 1% of the wealth. [Source: U.S. Treasury, Internal Revenue Service. Quoted from Contemporary Macroeconomics, by Milton H. Spencer, Worth Publishers, Inc., Fourth Edition, page 45.]

The mining industry made 174.5 billion in 1997 and paid its workers only 20.9 billion — each worker was paid 12% of the wealth they produced. The construction industry made 834.8 billion and paid its workers 171.0 billion — each worker was paid 20% of the wealth they produced. The manufacturing industry made 3,958.1 billion and paids its workers 595.7 billion — each worker was paid 15% of the wealth they produced. The transportation and public utilities industry made 1,143.9 billion and paid its workers 199.7 billion — each worker was paid 17% of the wealth they produced. The wholesale trade industry made 4,235.4 billion and paid its workers 234.5 billion — each worker was paid 5% of the wealth they produced. The retail trade industry made 2,545.9 billion and paids its workers 290.5 billion — each worker was paid 11% of the wealth they produced. The finance, insurance, and real estate industry made 2,474.9 billion and paid its workers 308.2 billion — each worker was paid 12% of the wealth they produced. The services (taxable firms only) industry made 1,843.8 billion and paid its workers 688.9 billion — each worker was paid 37% of the wealth they produced. [Source: U.S. Census Bureau, 1997 Economic Census, Comparative Statistics, Core Business Stastitics Series, EC97X-C52, issued June 2000.]

However, if it is true that these workers receive such a small percentage of the wealth they make, then the following must be true: Workers in the mining industry (who receive on average 12% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $40,820.31 per year, or $19.62 per hour. Workers in the construction industry (who receive an average of 20% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $30,716.72 per year, or $14.76 per hour. Workers in the manufacturing industry (who receive an average of 15% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $33,929.48 per year, or $16.31 per hour. Workers in the transportation and public utilities industry (who receive an average of 17% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $35,102.21 per year, or $16.87 per hour. Workers in the wholesale trade industry (who receive an average of 5% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $36,025.37 per year, or $17.31 per hour. Workers in the retail trade industry (who receive an average of 11% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $13,724.90 per year, or $6.59 per hour. Workers in the finance, insurance, and real estate industry (who receive an average of 12% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $42,136.63 per year, or $20.25 per hour. Workers in the services (taxable firms only) industry (who receive an average of 37% of the wealth they make for their employers) make an average of $27,252.51 per year, or $13.10 per hour.

The previous numbers seem inflated, because much of the money on the “payroll” still goes right back into the pocket of the Capitalist. Much of the expenditure on payroll goes to CEOs and other corporate executives, instead of the workers. Robert M. Delvin, for example, is Chairman, President, and CEO of American General Corporation. He is an employee, but in one year, he made $45,024,122. If he worked for the mining industry, where every worker is paid on average $40,820.31 per year, or $19.62 per hour, then that would mean that for him, there are 1,494 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the construction industry, where every worker is paid on average $30,716.72 per year, or $14.76 per hour for full time workers, then that would mean that for him, there are 2,249 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the manufacturing industry, then that would mean that for him, there are 1,940 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the transportation and public utilities industry, then that would mean that for him, there are 1,840 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the wholesale trade industry, then that would mean that for him, there are 1,775 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the retail trade industry, then that would mean that for him, there are 14,900 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the finance, insurance, and real estate industry, then that would mean that for him, there are 1,430 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. If Delvin worked for the services (taxable firms only) industry, then that would mean that for him, there are 2,720 full time workers that are being paid $5.15 per hour. This is, of course, all based on the average wage of workers and figuring in the wage of Delvin (or other high-paid executives).

Delvin is not the only highly paid executive in the United States. Michael D. Capellas, President And CEO of Compaq Computer Corp., made $36,873,239 in one year. Eugene M. Isenberg, Chairman and CEO of Nabors Industries, made $28,562,719 in one year. Archie W. Dunham, Chairman, President, and CEO of Conoco, made $24,960,366 in one year. Chuck Watson, Chairman and CEO of Dynegy, made $23,228,239 in one year. Kenneth Lay, Chairman and CEO of Enron Corp., made $21,189,762 in one year. A. Maurice Myers, Chairman and CEO of Waste Management, made $21,048,991 in one year. William Wise, President and CEO of El Paso Energy Corp., made $20,207,341 in one year. Jon P. Newton, Vice Chairman of American General Corp., made $18,020,000 in one year. Joseph Sutton, Vice Chairman of Enron Corp., made $17,864,387 in one year. Max Watson Jr., Chairman and CEO of BMC Software, made $16,868,901 in one year. Jeffrey Skilling, President and COO of Enron Corp., made $16,748,043 in one year. Charles E. Hurwitz, Chairman of the Board and CEO of Maxxam, made $15,645,237 in one year. Anthony G. Petrello, President and COO of Nabors Industries, made $14,760,659 in one year. Stephen Bergstrom, President and COO of Dynegy, made $14,635,884 in one year. R. L. Waltrip, Chairman and CEO of Service Corporation International, made $14,537,529 in one year. Michael J. Larson, SVP and Group GM – Consumer Group of Compaq Computer Corp., made $14,195,790 in one year. Robert J. Allison, Jr., Chairman and CEO of Anadarko Petroleum Corp., made $13,469,615 in one year. John Kelly, President and COO of Crown Castle International Corp., made $12,401,690 in one year. Ted Miller Jr., CEO and Chairman of Crown Castle International Corp., made $11,729,737 in one year. In fact, it is not unusual at all for the average salary of CEOs to be anywhere between $800,000 to $1,000,000 per year, accompanied with a range of options, perks, stock awards, incentives, salary bonus, cash bonus, extra paiments, among other things, it is quite easy to see how some Chief Executive Officers are capable of making millions and millions each year. [Source: The Houston Chronicle.]

Some may argue that the reason why workers receive such a small iota of the wealth and money that they make is because the Capitalist must spend a hefty chunk of money on other forms of non-human capital. However, this is not true. Paying the workers constitutes 45% of the expenditure for Merchant Wholesale industries, 46% of the expenditure for Retail Trade industries, 40% of the expenditure for Lodging industries, 51% of the expenditure for Business Services industries, 51% of the expenditure for Health Services industries, and 52% of the expenditure for Legal Services industries. [Source: Business Expenses, 1997 Economic Census, Company Statistic Series, 1997, Issued December 2000, EC97CS-8, US CENSUS BUREAU, U.S. Department of Commerce, Economics and Statistics Administration, U.S. CENSUS BUREAU.] Half of the expenditure of businesses goes to paying the workers, and the other half goes to other forms of capital (and, if indeed the workers are being paid lower than 10% of wealth they produce, then the non-human capital for these industries is not higher than 10%). The rest is profit, and it goes into the pockets of those who did no work.

The March 16 edition of the New York Times carried a story on union busting by Nike shoe contractors in Indonesia. One worker was “locked in a room at the plant and interrogated for seven days by the military, which demanded to know more about his labor activities.” The October 17 edition of the CBS program 48 Hours had a segment on Nike’s labor rights abuses in Vietnam, including: beatings, sexual harassment and forcing workers to kneel for extended periods with their arms held in the air. On November 3, an article by Australian labor scholar Anita Chan was published in the Washington Post. She described Chinese shoe factories — producing for Nike and other companies — where supervisors submit workers to a military boot camp style of control. On March 14 1997, Reuters had a report on a Nike factory, Pouchen in Dong Nai, forced 56 Vietnamese women workers to run around the factory’s premise, 12 fainted and were taken to the hospital emergency room. In the June ’96 issue of Life Magazine, Sydney Schanberg (author of The Killing Fields) documented child labor being used in Pakistan in the production of Nike soccer balls — for 60 cents a day.

A Theory of Rights

If a thinker is to ponder some social or moral dilemma with hopes of finding some solution (or, at least, making the problem a bit more understood), then the thinker is to rely on some principles to solve the dilemma. If an investigator were to look to find out if some supposed fact were true or not, he would use rules to help him discover the truth, such as demonstration, evidence, reason, observation, logic, among others. Similarly, to tackle social or moral issues (such as abortion, euthanasia, Animal Rights or — in our case — Capitalism versus Socialism), to tackle these problems, we need principles guiding us. It is not my intention here to lay down any new principles of justice, but to criticize the old recognition of the rights of the people.

The rights of the people under Capitalism have long been asserted long ago by the philosopher John Locke. Among the rights of men, he said we are entitled to life, liberty, and property. To quote Locke…

“The state of Nature has a law of Nature to govern it, which obliges every one, and reason, which is that law, teaches all mankind who will but consult it, that being all equal and independent, no one ought to harm another in his life, health, liberty or possessions;” [Essay Concerning Civil Government, Man in a State of Nature, by John Locke.]

The right to property, though, or at least the right to private property, is the right upheld by the Capitalist class. Since every man is entitled to these rights, business owners are entitled to offer starvation wages and poor working conditions, because they own the factories. Needless to say, with all the business owners and all the Capitalists doing the same thing, there is no opportunity for workers to advance. Therefore, the Capitalist class has the right to keep the workers in perpetual poverty. However, the question does arrise, by what what evidence did Locke base his rights on?

Previously to the rise of Free Enterprise and the recognition of rights, there was the widely practised system of Feudalism within Europe. Feudalism is easily compared to Capitalism in many ways: those who produce goods and services for the economy are paid the least, those who do not work (except exploitive work which produces nothing) are the richest, and the workers are bound in a hopeless situation where they have no opportunity to change their plight or a chance to advance. But most importantly, Feudalism and Capitalism both have identical evidence for their justification: nothing. Though Capitalism is justified by an intellectual philosopher, I don’t think it was Locke’s intention to justify a system that keeps workers in perpetual slavery. Rather, I think he devised his system to liberate the serfs from Feudalism. Unfortunately, he could not predict the inevitable creation of an industrial sosciety, or the recreation of the lords and vassals into the Capitalist class. The serfs of Feudalism were little more than the workers of Capitalism: slaves with no opportunity for freedom, except revolution. The fact that Feudalism and Capitalism are unfair in that both give all the wealth to the non-working class and crumbs to the working class, is understood. However, as the Feudalists believe just as the Capitalists believe, whether or not it is fair, they are justified. They feel they have a right to do what they did, as Locke’s ideology supported the Capitalists’ right to property, and therefore the right to exploit.

The question remains, though: how is the philosophy of Locke (or the philosophy of property) justified? There is no justification for the system of Capitalism, as there is no justification for the system of Feudalism. The only justification of any form of slavery is greed and self interest. The Capitalist philosopher Ayn Rand called selfishness a virtue! She may have justified Capitalism, but she also justified Feudalism equally, or any form of brutal and merciless slavery, no matter to what heartless extent it went, tormenting the minds and bodies of those who are producers of our world. Selfishness is not the justification of the people or the workers. It is the justification of the tyrant, of the overseer, of the slaver, of the vassal, of the lord,

This article explores how media education partnerships will help institutions in the MENA and the U.S. provide culturally-appropriate education to their students, and the positive impact of each partnerships’ faculty and students being exposed to media, journalism and communication students and practitioners from other cultures and nations.

mediaimage
Often the most fleeting contact with international visitors can have a far-reaching and unforeseen impact. Drawing from the authors’ media teaching,Building a Shared Vision: Developing and Sustaining Media Education Partnerships in the Middle East Articles research, and practice in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA), the article addresses the inspiring and enriching cultural impact of media education partnerships between the U.S. and the MENA. The article outlines keys to creating and sustaining successful media, journalism and communication university partnerships, reporting specifically on an international media education collaboration in progress between l’Institut de Presse et des Sciences de l’Information (IPSI), University of Manouba, Tunis and Bowling Green State University. The article also explores how media education partnerships will help institutions in the MENA and the U.S. provide culturally-appropriate education to their students, and the positive impact of each partnerships’ faculty and students being exposed to media, journalism and communication students and practitioners from other cultures and nations. It gives evidence as to how media education partnerships can not only develop professional standards in media, but also build capacity to strengthen democratic practices, build civil society, increase critical thinking and awareness, minimize and manage conflicts, fight negative stereotypes that often emerge as a reaction to governmental and corporate media discourses.

An increased attention to the growth of civil society in the Middle East and North Africa (see, for instance, Amin & Gher, 2000; Bellin, 1995; Borowiec, 1998; Brand, 1998; Darwish, 2003) reveals that civic discourse functions best where there is free access to information and where unhindered discussions allow citizens to examine all sides of civic issues. Because information and communication technology (ICT), media, and journalism are some of the most important sites for civic debate, they are essential partners in any nation’s efforts towards enhancing civil society. As nations in the Middle East and North Africa MENA continue to enhance civil society, it is imperative that their journalists and media and communication professionals have the professional training and dedication to maintain the highest codes of conduct and practice that will make them integral components in the process of building civil society.

At present, however, media critics have shown that the professional activity of journalists in MENA countries is still very vulnerable (Amin, 2002, p. 125). As an expected consequence, MENA education programs in the communication discipline, most notably in news media, journalism, telecommunications and media technologies, have tended to support powerful institutions and individuals, rather than civic discourse and the voices of students as citizens (Amin, 2002; Rugh, 2004; Lowstedt, 2004). For example, investigation on media systems in eighteen nations in the MENA (Rugh, 2004) revealed that radio and television in all these countries, excepting Lebanon, are still subordinated to powerful institutions. There have been several recent international summits acknowledging these concerns. For example, the 2004 conference of the Institute of Professional Journalists in Beirut on “Media Ethics and Journalism in the Arab World: Theory, Practice and Challenges Ahead”, had as one of its main themes the pressures on Arab media and journalists from local governments and other powerful players inside the Arab world. During the Arab International Media Forum held at Doha, in March 2005, workshop discussions underlined that the Arab media’s independence have yet to be established within countries where the media have been strictly controlled. And, perhaps the most important summit thus far this millennium, the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society (UN WSIS), held in Tunis, November 2005, addressed the immense challenges of the digital divide and other concerns in the MENA.

Investigating educational partnerships in the MENA

As evidenced by summits on Arab, MENA and related global media, there is an emergent body of research on MENA media (see, for instance, Amin, 2002; Cassara & Lengel, 2004; Darwish, 2003; George & Souvitz, 2003; Lowstedt, 2004) and of research on the potential for media technologies generally and, specifically, in efforts to democratize the region (see for instance, Alterman, 1998; Dunn, 2000; Hamada, 2003; Isis International, 2003; Lengel, 2002a; Lengel, 2002b; Lengel, 2004; Lengel, Ben Hamza, Cassara, & El Bour, 2005). However, there is very little research focusing on the benefits and challenges of media education partnerships between nations in the MENA and those outside it. A broad-scale evaluation of the current situation of MENA media education is needed to fully assess the financial, pedagogical and attitudinal constraints found across the region. Additionally, what is needed is an exploration of how cooperation and collaboration, partnerships between the MENA and other regions to develop educational partnerships which can enhance media education in the region, through shared online resources, shared experience, mutual commitment to MENA media students’ academic and professional development, and positive interaction between those within and outside the region.

This article addresses such research needs by investigating the potential for partnerships in the MENA. It presents key components for creating and sustaining successful university partnerships in media, journalism, and communication. It also explores how media education partnerships can help universities within and outside the MENA to provide culturally-appropriate education and training to their media, journalism, telecommunications, new media, and communication students, develop innovative online and distance learning initiatives, cultivate a community of practice, and foster a positive impact of each partnerships’ faculty and students being exposed to those media instructors, researchers, students, and practitioners from other cultures and nations. The article reports specifically on a media partnership in progress between l’Institut de Presse et des Sciences de l’Information (IPSI) at the University of Manouba in Tunis, Tunisia and Bowling Green State University in Bowling Green, Ohio, USA. It focuses on the experiences of the faculty co-directing the partnership in media, journalism and international communication, particularly the process of developing and sustaining the partnership. The article reflects on the future vision of media education in the MENA, particularly the challenges and the future of investment in the media education by governments, educational institutions, and civil society and media organizations within and outside the region. Finally, it analyzes how media education partnerships can not only develop professional standards in media, but also build capacity to strengthen democratic practices, build civil society, increase critical thinking and awareness, minimize and manage conflicts, fight negative stereotypes that emerge as a result of the often inattentive, insensitive and inaccurate nature of governmental and corporate media discourses.

Partnerships and civil society building

Citizens, scholars, practitioners and civil society organizations argue much needs to be done to democratize media, journalism and unrestricted access to information and communication technology in the MENA (see Camau & Geisser, 2003; Cassara & Lengel, 2004; Chouikha, 2002; Newsom & Lengel, 2003; Tetreault, 2000). An important place to begin this transformation is to foster educational collaboration within and outside the MENA that recognizes the role that a free and independent media plays in transition to building democracy and which understands that journalists can serve as models of participants in democratic processes.

As MENA nations engage in building civil society, it will be critical that journalists in the region have not only the skills they need to do their work well, but also the insights necessary to negotiate the challenges posed by democratization. These insights are enhanced by international exchange. The ever-growing presence of information and communication technology (ICT) and the additional resources and challenges that ICT offers journalists and citizens alike create even more opportunities for democratic dialogue and international exchange (Eickelman & Anderson, 1999).

Because democratic dialogue is a hallmark of civil societies, exchange and dialogue between two international partners is at the heart of the international collaborative program “Capacity Building for a Democratic Press: A Sustainable Partnership to Develop Media and Journalism Curricula in Tunisia.” The program, which was launched in 2004 with a two-year funding commitment from the Middle East Partnership Initiative (MEPI),1 highlights a hands-on practicum approach in which l’Institut de Presse et des Sciences de l’Information, University of Manouba, Tunis students benefit from practical professional journalism skills through internships with U.S. and MENA media organizations and engage in interactive and practical training in media and journalistic production and practice. This media educational partnership is creating sustainable core curriculum additions at the Tunisian partnership university including new program specializations in Women, Media and Democracy, as well as in Journalism and Human Rights. It is important to note that IPSI is the only press institute or program of study in Tunisia and, arguably, the only one in North Africa.

The partnership combines in-person and online contact between IPSI and BGSU faculty and the students with the cultural knowledge and both traditional university learning environments on the two campuses, and online through Blackboard, the BGSU online course delivery program. The project serves both undergraduate and graduate students at both partnership universities, enhances faculty instruction and online and face-to-face curriculum development, and creates sustainable and wide-reaching partnerships between academic institutions, civil society and NGOs, the private sector, and policy makers.

Developing a community of practice: Keys to successful media education partnerships

The most successful partnerships cooperate and collaborate as a community of practice. What brings members of a community of practice together is a shared vision and goals, and a passion for mutual dialogue (Preston & Lengel, 2004). Respect for human worth and dignity, individual voices, and wrestling with complex social issues are characteristics of democratic environments (Kubow & Fossum, 2003; Kubow & Kinney, 2000; Kubow, 1999).

Communities of practice are emerging as important bases for creating, sharing, and applying knowledge. These communities share ideas and innovations, collaborating across traditional hierarchical structures and geophysical boundaries. Part of the mission of the partnership discussed in this article is to maintain a sustainable community of practice in the area of media, journalism, communication and ICT. In this partnership a diverse and committed group of media, journalism, communication technology, comparative/international education and democratic education researchers, teachers, practitioners and students are engaging in the examination and creation of democratic media and online civic discourse. Through face-to-face meetings, online learning, several workshops in both the US and Tunisia, and participation in and reporting on the UN World Summit on the Information Society, the community of practice supports the concepts surrounding the development of a free and independent media and will internationalize and professionalize media institutions in the U.S. and Tunisia, and, more broadly across the MENA.

The partnership transcends traditional university course work and practice to become an actual community, sustainable beyond the 24-month schedule of grant-supported activities. Because of the commitment of the participating institutions, the community will sustain and grow through further curriculum development, research and related activities involving additional partners throughout the MENA. This will occur mainly due to the transformative nature of the interaction. Personal, direct contact with citizens from other culture and nations can break down stereotypical imagery and ideas, which often emerge the result of government and mainstream, corporate media discourses. The direct interaction, intensive collaboration and co-learning, and respectful dialogue of partnerships can create a level of compassionate interaction between the partnership participants who create the community of practice.

1) Commitment of institutions involved in the media partnership

Communities of practice cannot be created or sustained without commitment. Outlined hereafter are six keys to creating and sustaining successful online university education and training partnerships: 1) Commitment of partnership institutions; 2) Commitment and expertise of personnel; 3) Commitment to providing access to ICT and other facilities and resources to students and faculty at both partner institutions; 4) Commitment to engaging with professional media, journalism and civil society organizations; 5) Commitment to program development and enhancement; and 6) Commitment to sustainability.

First and foremost, partnerships can only be created and sustained if there is commitment on the parts of both participating institutions. In the case of the partnership described in this paper, several strong reasons attest to the importance of choice of university in a collaborative partnership. First, the Institut de Presse et des Sciences de l’Information (IPSI) at the University of Manouba, Tunisia is the only media and journalism university institute in the nation (MERST, 2002). Second, faculty and administration at IPSI are committed to the partnership at all levels. They have welcomed both face-to-face (F2F) and online participation between students and faculty and between students and students at both universities. Institutional commitment has also resulted in internal and external support for the program. While the Middle East Partnership Initiative, a U.S. State Department program, as provided a highly competitive grant of $100,000 US (See Appendix 2) A significant cost-share (220%, or $220,000) in support of the partnership program has been provided primarily by BGSU, with additional support from civil society and private sector partners. In adherence to the university’s commitment to international education and exchange, several BGSU units have articulated their support of the program. The University Provost, the Executive Vice President, and Deans of three different Colleges have expressed their commitment.

2) Commitment and expertise of personnel

Along with commitment at the institutional level, primarily by directors and key leadership of each institution, a second key to successful partnerships is the commitment and expertise of the faculty who will develop, implement, and sustain the partnership program. The IPSI-BGSU partnership, for example, emerged from the long-standing relationships originally developed by U.S. Partnership Co-Director when she was a Fulbright Researcher in women and media in Tunisia, 1993-1994.2 Ten years after her first in-country work in Tunisia, issues surrounding media, democracy and the information society remain a challenge for that nation and elsewhere in the MENA. Thus, the rationale for the partnership is that there is a great deal of mutual benefit of international educational exchange, of opportunities to learn first-hand about diverse practices in media and journalism from both partner institutions’ faculty and students, and to work together toward enhancing civil society in the MENA and abroad.

The partnership team members are widely published and nationally and internationally recognized. The partnership co-directors, coordinators and key administrators have each directed or co-directed international educational programs in China, Croatia, France, Great Britain, Austria, Sub-Saharan Africa, and the MENA. Finally, partnership co-directors’ expertise in women and the media, particularly in the MENA (see Azouz, 2005; Azouz, 1994; Lengel, 1998; Lengel, 2000; Lengel, 2002; Newsom & Lengel, 2003) was crucial to the success of the “Women, Media and Democracy” workshop, detailed below.

3. Commitment to providing access to resources

A third key to successful partnerships is the commitment to providing access to ICT and other facilities and resources to students and faculty at both partner institutions. IPSI students are exposed to the digital audiovisual equipment and the strong web development curriculum and tools available at the Institute. Of particular importance to the partnership, ISPI students have access to 150 computers with Internet access, which affords the opportunity to engage in the distance education component of the program with the U.S. Partner institution. BGSU faculty and students are benefitting by learning from the extensive international teaching, research, and media and journalism production experience of the IPSI faculty and administration. Also, there are several key strengths of the U.S. Partner for the MEPI exchange. The first strength is the cutting-edge journalism, multimedia, computing and production facilities housed in the BGSU School of Communication Studies, which houses the Departments of Journalism, Interpersonal Communication and Telecommunications. Further, as an Internet 2 campus, Bowling Green State University has an advanced technological infrastructure that fully supports all of the online and telecommunications activities cited within the programs of this grant. BGSU’s IDEAL unit (Interactive Distance Education for All Learners) oversees the development and implementation of distance (i.e., web-based) course work and communication on campus. Additionally, the University is part of the larger OhioLink library system, which allows MENA faculty and students participating in the partnership to access materials and holdings at all of the state universities and many of many of the private colleges and universities in Ohio, and also provides links to that other U.S. library systems. Finally, additional technology services are being provided by WBGU-TV PBS and the US Embassy in Tunis which are both providing digital videoconferencing services for the quarterly meetings between the two universities.

4) Commitment to engaging with professional media, journalism and civil society organizations

Because Tunisia is hosted the United Nations World Summit on the Information Society, November 16 – 18, 2005, all eyes of the media, communication and technology world have been focused on Tunisia, its government, and its media organizations to assess how the Arab nation is addressing the challenges of overcoming the digital divide, and of developing civic discourse and equitable communication flow in the nation (Lengel, 2004). In this sense, IPSI students have been best positioned to report on the UN WSIS and related events in Tunisia this past year. IPSI faculty developed a program to focus reporting curricula around the WSIS (IPSI, 2004). The online component of the university partnership has also enhanced IPSI students’ efforts to share first hand observations about the preparation leading up to the UN WSIS, and to report directly during the actual event to their counterpart students in the U.S.

In addition to participating in this important media and technology event, partnership students and faculty are also interacting with media, communication, and civil society organizations. Online and face-to-face work with civil society organizations, such as the Center for Arab Women Training and Research (CAWTAR) and le Centre d’Etudes Maghrébines à Tunis (CEMAT), provides important insights into the impact of media and communication on civic discourse in the MENA. Media organizations such as BBC North Africa; Tunis Afrique Press (TAP); Mosaique – a new private Tunisian radio station; newspapers including La Presse, Essahafa, Le Renouveau, El Horia, Le Temps, Essabah, Echourouk, and Essarih; Magazines including Réalités, and L’Observateur; and private sector partners provide important professional development opportunities for students’ professional development.

A final strength for enhancing interaction with civil society results from the location of BGSU, one of just a few major research universities within close proximity to the largest and oldest Arab-American communities in the United States. The Islamic Center of Greater Toledo, only 15 minutes from campus, is one of the largest mosques in the U.S. and houses one of the largest congregations. Interaction with the Arab-American community occurred while IPSI students and faculty were in residence at BGSU for a three-week workshop and internship program, through a welcome reception, a summit, and through interview opportunities for journalistic reporting assignments. Perhaps the most compelling interaction was with editors and journalists of Arab American media organizations, including the Arab American News, The Arab Gazette and, most notably, The Journal & Link, who engaged an outstanding, critical debates with the partnership students about the challenges of creating and sustaining free and independent media in both the MENA and the U.S.

5) Commitment to program development and enhancement

The mutual interests of BGSU and IPSI faculty and administration in the areas of international media and journalism; in the impact of ICT on journalistic practice; in the digital divide in the MENA; and shared interests in ethics and values, civil society and democracy through the media; and a common balance of media theory and practical skill-building stressed at both institutions create a solid foundation for the partnership’s program goals and serve to focus the broad goals of the partnership. These mutual goals and interests lay the groundwork for the fifth key to successful university partnerships: a shared commitment to similar program development and enhancement goals. Commitment to such program milestones such as new media, journalism, communication and ICT degree focus areas at IPSI include a Bachelor of Science in Journalism in International Media, and Masters of Science in International Media and in Environmental Journalism. During the academic year 2003-2004, IPSI has inaugurated the first Master’s degree in the entire MENA in specialty topics in the media. During the same year, specialty topic was sports reporting. The BGSU-IPSI partnership teams topics idea can be sustained in future years with such topics as “International Reporting on Technology Issues” and “International Reporting on Democracy”. The partnership faculty teams are also working to enhance the IPSI’s MSc (master’s of science) in new information and communication technologies (ICT) to include new online curricula through the Frontera program (see description of Frontera below). In addition, the partnership is developed and implemented an intensive U.S.-based workshop on “Women, Media, and Democracy”, internships for Tunisian students with area media organizations, and on-site professional development consultations with regional and national media executives. Below, several aspects and program milestones are discussed as evidence of successful implementation of the program.