From Jewish Week of NY - May 22, 2009

by Robert B.Goldmann

 The ritual of the “peacemakers” is about to resume in the wake of the visit of Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu in Washington. It has been going on for  a half-century, as prime minister after prime minister and U.S. president after president have given their best to the negotiations and  failed.

            To be sure, some principles have been agreed upon, such as the “road map”, of which nothing has been heard of lately, and the “two-state” solution, which makes neither the Palestinians, and especially Hamas, nor Israel’s current  government , happy, but was accepted as a basis of negotiation—last in Annapolis over a year ago. The year-long talks failed. Over the past half-century, three heads of  government were serious about making  peace: Anwar Sadat, Menachem Begin and Itzhak Rabin—and two  had to pay with their lives for it.

The problem is that outside powers, America in the lead, wanted to solve the problem more than the parties themselves. It was in the common interest of western Europe and America because they  see peace in the Middle East as a vital component of their global interests—chief among them the region’s oil Their eagerness to solve the Israeli-Palestinian conflict clashes with the reality that both Israel and the Palestinians want the same piece of land. A “two-state solution”  is at odds with Israel’s craving for security, which, all major political parties in the Knesset see it,  requires an Israeli presence on parts of land that would be the Palestinian state and is incompatible with even the most modest Palestinian aspirations.

Might it not be more realistic and achievable to aim at an internationally supervised armistice, without time limit, as on the Lebanese-Israeli border? It would avoid stirring up the disappointments and resentments of failed negotiations, and cut down, perhaps even end, bloodshed. Neither party would have to give up any claim, and negotiations would be postponed sine die.

Since the Arab world sees the United States as pro-Israel, and Israel has no confidence in the United Nations, the logical candidate for the supervision of the armistice would be the European Union, which enjoys the respect of  both parties.

An armistice along these lines would also give the main source of danger in the region – Iran—a less attractive target for interference. On this both the western world, the predominantly Sunni Arab countries of the region and Israel have a joint interest, and it is unlikely that Russia or China would object

But what about peace, would be the question and objection from Washington, Brussels, and moderate elements in the region The  answer is that another failed peace negotiation would be likely to strengthen extremist elements like Hamas and Hezbollah, might spark another Intifada and cost lives. Failure must be presumed in light of  past experience and the steady growth of extremist Arab movements and .Israeli objections, even among moderate elements,  to abandoning positions deemed essential to security in a hostile neighborhood. Even the peace with Egypt and Jordan remains cold and largely one-sided, with Israeli tourists visiting the sights in these two countries, but not vice versa.

A permanent armistice may not be acceptable to some on both sides, most importantly the Palestinian Authority, which has justifiable objections to the status quo. Yet the conflict centers on Palestinian claims of land and property within Israel, and Israel’s very existence is at stake. What Israel should do is  give more access to Gaza, to compete with the tunnel system that now lets supplies enter the Strip, and cease the expansion of settlements on the West Bank, as a new beginning in the relationship with Ramallah.

If the guns remain silent, if  negotiations that lead nowhere but merely strengthen the irreconcilables on both sides,  are postponed, and a new generation takes over,  new thinking may emerge that makes the pursuit ofpeace a realistic objective. At that time, discussions aiming at a solution should resume.

From PhilanTopic

(Michael Seltzer is a regular contributor to PhilanTopic. He reported on the Women’s Funding Network’s 15th Annual Meeting in his previous post.)

As a veteran of more than thirty Council on Foundations annual meetings, I must confess that each year I experience some trepidation in advance of another gathering.

Flying to Atlanta last Friday, I was concerned that the almost 30 percent drop in the value of foundation endowments would dampen the resolve of funders to tackle many of the seemingly intractable problems on our doorstep — problems that have been exacerbated by the global economic downturn. Or that many foundations would not seize this moment as an opportunity to break out of old ways of doing business.

But in session after session at this year’s conference, with speakers ranging from Secretary of Health and Human Services Kathleen Sebelius to Distinguished Grantmaker of the Year Award winner Robert Hohler, executive director of the Melville Charitable Trust, attendees were urged to think boldly, innovate, and step up to the plate in “audacious” ways.

Much to my relief, the foundation and corporate grantmakers in attendance here are not lacking in resolve or appetite for a challenge –- whether it’s the need for fundamental change in the nation’s healthcare system, accelerating our conversion to a more sustainable economy, addressing surging homelessness, speaking out against the erosion of human rights in other countries, or countering anti-immigrant sentiment at home.

Here’s a short list of some of the other noteworthy developments at this year’s meeting:

the strong presence and engagement of “Next Gen” leaders, propelled in part by the work of Emerging Practitioners In Philanthropy
the embrace and growing importance of blogs, Twitter, and other Web 2.0 tools
new issues on the table, including sex slavery/trafficking and class and inequality
the release of a number of valuable reports and tools, including Smarter Grantmaking in Challenging Economic Times (Grantmakers for Effective Organizations), Catalytic Change: Lessons Learned from the Racial Justice Grantmaking Assessment (Philanthropic Initiative for Racial Equity in partnership with the Applied Research Center), and Foundation Diversity Policies and Practices Toolkit (California Endowment)
renewed calls for more flexible, unrestricted, multiyear, and, yes, sustainable support from both grantees and grantmakers
more examples of groundbreaking public policy and advocacy work
greater evidence of funders working in concert with their peers rather than in isolation
When Gayle Williams, executive director of the Mary Reynolds Babcock Foundation, announces that her board has decided to keep giving at pre-recession levels for the next three years or the leader of a family foundation and a nonprofit partner huddle on how to effectively support key organizations in Zimbabwe, one can’t help but feel admiration and respect for the work of organized philanthropy. I, for one, am thankful to be a member of the choir.

– Michael Seltzer

PROGRAM OFFICER, WOMEN’S RIGHTS AND GENDER EQUITY
Source: The Ford Foundation 24/05/2009 12:49 pm
Related Articles
Regions - Topics - AWID Program - Type of content
The Ford Foundation. New York, NY, USA.

Closing date: June 15, 2009.

Description:
The Program Officer will develop and manage a portfolio of grants and other activities related to Women’s Rights and Gender Equity. Building on prior Foundation work, the portfolio will focus on advancing the human rights of low-income and minority women in the U.S. and on addressing the human rights of women worldwide, particularly in the Global South. The portfolio will also continue long-standing efforts to address gender discrimination. The Program Officer, working closely with the Director of Human Rights and the program Vice President, will have the opportunity to more precisely define and further develop the portfolio’s work within these broad parameters.

Along with expertise in women’s rights, the Program Officer will bring broad understanding of the challenges posed by globalization and income inequality; strategies to reach out to a diverse community of advocates for gender equity; efforts to secure women’s human rights and take
advantage of opportunities provided by international legal instruments; and strategies for ensuring that advances in the U.S. regarding women’s rights and gender equity are consolidated and preserved.

The Program Officer will review existing work; formulate grantmaking strategies and initiatives; solicit, review and respond to grant proposals; monitor grants and other developments in the field; and prepare recommendations for Foundation funding. Joining a dynamic staff working on
a range of human rights issues around the world, the Program Officer will work closely and in coordination with staff in multiple program areas of the Foundation in New York and overseas.

Qualifications:
The ideal candidate will have substantial professional experience working on women’s rights issues in the U.S. and/or internationally, preferably in the developing world; relevant non-governmental, governmental and/or academic experience; demonstrated experience working effectively as part of a team and with a diverse array of individuals; fluency in English; and excellent analytical, oral presentation, writing and interpersonal skills.
Also desirable are advanced training in law or public policy, or other relevant field; fluency in a second language; and familiarity with philanthropy and nonprofit sector issues in the U.S. and developing countries.
Minority and developing country applicants are encouraged to apply.
Salary is based on experience and on the Foundation’s commitment to internal equity. A generous benefits package is provided.

To Apply:
Please send inquiries, nominations, and applications (consisting of resume and cover letter) to Ms. Merle Pollak at mpollak@gumbspartners.com. The application deadline is June 15, 2009.

Equal employment opportunity and having a diverse staff are fundamental principles at The Ford Foundation, where employment and promotional opportunities are based upon individual capabilities and qualifications without regard to race, color, religion, gender, pregnancy, sexual orientation/affectional preference, age, national origin, marital status, citizenship, disability, veteran status or any other protected characteristic as established under law.

Website: http://www.fordfound.org

From the University of Denver’s DU Today - May 22, 2009

A researcher who has dedicated his career to improving the education system has been chosen to lead the University of Denver’s Morgridge College of Education. Chancellor Robert Coombe on May 20 announced the appointment of Gregory Anderson to the position of dean of the college, effective July 27.

Anderson is an associate professor of education at Columbia University. He is on leave from the school while serving as a program officer of higher education policy at the Ford Foundation in New York City.

“We are delighted that Greg Anderson will lead the Morgridge College as we seek to position it as a catalyst for positive change in education,” says Coombe. “He has the ability, the experience, the commitment and the passion needed to make a real difference for the college and for the people of the region.”

At the foundation, Anderson oversees one of the largest portfolios of international and domestic higher education grants. He is a member of executive committees of multi-foundation partnerships and foundation-wide initiatives involving the U.S., Africa, Central and Latin America and Asia. He also serves on the foundation’s Knowledge, Creativity and Freedom Program Division, leading a strategic planning team responsible for developing a new vision for U.S. and international higher education planning.

“It is a great honor to be named the dean of the Morgridge College of Education,” says Anderson. “I am eager to begin the exciting work of advancing the mission of the institution in partnership with communities, the faculty, and the provost and chancellor of the University of Denver to help address the pressing social issues of the day.”

Anderson has a BA and MA in sociology from the University of Toronto and a PhD in sociology from the City University of New York.

Since 2001, enrollment at the Morgridge College of Education has grown by 66 percent, going from 495 students in fall 2001 to 822 in fall 2008. It has long-standing relationships with local school districts, educational organizations, libraries, businesses and mental health agencies that serve to ground the instructional and research environments within the college. In 2008, it marked the 110th anniversary of its teacher education programs.

The college recently completed a $35 million fundraising campaign, which includes construction costs associated with a new building, three endowed faculty positions, and the creation of new institutes and scholarships.

Jerry Wartgow, former superintendent of Denver Public Schools, has been serving as interim dean of the college since September 2008.

From LifeSiteNews.com - May 21, 2009

By Susan Yoshihara, Ph.D.

NEW YORK, NY, May 21, 2009 (C-FAM) - The Dominican Republic has come under fire from some of the world’s most powerful abortion advocates, aiming to block a proposed constitutional amendment that would enshrine legal protection of the country’s unborn.

The International Women’s Health Coalition (IWHC), backed by European nations, major foundations and the UN Population Fund, has launched an aggressive campaign to thwart proposed Article 30, which would protect human life “from conception.” The country’s national assembly approved the amendment in a first reading by an overwhelming majority of 167-32 on April 21st, but it must go through a second reading before final promulgation by the President.

IWHC is seeking to draw Dominicans into street protests and letter writing campaigns to the legislature, claiming that Article 30 “violates international agreements signed and ratified by the Dominican Republic, such as the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights [ICCPR], the American Convention on Human Rights [ACHR] and the Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women [CEDAW].”

In fact, however, the ACHR states that, “Every person has the right to have his life respected. This right shall be protected by law and, in general, from the moment of conception.” The two UN treaties cited, ICCPR and CEDAW, do not mention abortion at all, and the committees that monitor them have come under increased scrutiny for reading a right to abortion into the treaties and pressuring States party to the treaties to liberalize abortion laws.

According to its latest annual report , IWHC’s largest backers for its $5.5 million annual contributions include the governments of Denmark, Britain, Netherlands, Norway, Sweden, the UN Population Fund (UNFPA), De Beers, and powerful foundations including Ford, the Open Society Institute, Hewlett, MacArthur, Packard, Rockefeller, Woodstock, and Bill & Melinda Gates. IWHC also holds $3 million in assets.

As its funding sources suggest, IWHC maintains strong ties to the population lobby from which it emerged. A recent history of population control details how the Population Crisis Committee (today’s Population Action International) founded IWHC to distribute abortion kits in the 1980s (see: http://www.c-fam.org/docLib/20080909_Fatal_Misconception_bk_rev..pdf). The Hewlett Foundation promoted IWHC to fund abortion that lost U.S. aid under the then newly-enacted “Mexico City Policy.” When “population control” fell out of favor in the midst of massive scandals, the major foundations and feminist organizations re-branded the movement as promoting women’s rights. Today, IWHC’s mission is promoting “sexual reproductive rights and health” for adolescent girls and women.

IWHC’s first president was Joan Dunlop, protégé of John D. Rockefeller, 3rd. Soon after the group’s founding Dunlop recruited Adrienne Germaine, IWHC’s current president from the Ford Foundation where she had successfully convinced Ford to include abortion services in its extensive population control programs. Germaine was a chief negotiator for the Clinton administration’s attempts to get abortion recognized as an international human right at the 1994 Cairo and 1995 Beijing UN conferences. When that effort failed, she joined an elite group of UN officials that launched the 1996 Glen Cove “Roundtable” Report. The report lays out a strategy, which IWHC is using in the Dominican case, to misuse UN human rights treaties to establish a right to abortion by claiming that it already exists.

From Democracy Now

(Larry Cox is a former Program Officer in the Peace and Social Justice Program.)

Events are being held across the country today to demand a new trial for the Georgia death row prisoner Troy Anthony Davis. Davis, an African American, was convicted for the 1989 killing of a white police officer. Since the trial, seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted their testimony. There is also no direct physical evidence tying Davis to the crime scene. A thirty-day stay of execution expired on Saturday, following last month’s decision by a federal appeals court to reject a new trial for Davis.

Larry Cox, Executive Director of Amnesty International USA.

Martina Correia, Troy Davis’s older sister and anti-death penalty activist. More information on today’s Global Day of Action for Troy Davis is available at www.globaldayfortroy.org

AMY GOODMAN: Events are being held around the country today to demand a new trial for the Georgia death row prisoner Troy Anthony Davis. Davis, African American, convicted for the 1989 killing of a white police officer. Since the trial, seven of the nine non-police witnesses have recanted their testimony. Three witnesses say another man later admitted to the killing. That man, Sylvester “Redd” Coles, was at the scene of the shooting and is one of the two witnesses who have not recanted their testimony against Davis. The other witness to stand by his testimony initially told police he could not identify the shooter except by his clothes. There is also no direct physical evidence tying Davis to the crime scene.
A thirty-day stay of execution expired Saturday, following last month’s decision by a federal appeals court to reject a new trial for Davis. Davis’s lawyers are filing last-ditch appeals today to the Supreme Court. The attorneys will ask that the case be sent back to a federal judge for an evidentiary hearing that would include witnesses whose testimony has never been heard in court.
Today’s Global Day of Action for Troy Davis is being marked with rallies in cities including Austin, Atlanta, Chicago, New York and Washington, DC. The day also coincides with Malcolm X’s birthday, born seventy-nine years ago today.
Well, I’m joined now by two guests. Larry Cox is executive director of Amnesty International USA, which has vocally been championing Davis’s case. Larry Cox joins me here in the firehouse studio. Via video stream, we’re joined by Troy Davis’s older sister, Martina Correia. She has led the campaign to save her brother’s life.
Larry Cox, start off by laying out this case very quickly for people who aren’t familiar with it and why you’re so involved, why Amnesty is so involved.
LARRY COX: Because for those of us who have been working on this for a long time, and I’ve been doing it for more than three decades, I don’t know of another case that screams out injustice like this case. This is someone where seven of the nine witnesses, as you said, have recanted their testimony. There’s no physical evidence linking him to the crime. There’s such a strong presumption or such a reasonable doubt about his—that to put him to death would be really a crime upon a crime. So, we have—are deeply concerned about this case.
And it’s not only people in this country; it’s people all around the world. There will be rallies in many different countries around the world. The European Union just issued an appeal. The Pope has issued an appeal. Anyone who looks at the evidence knows that this is an egregious injustice.
AMY GOODMAN: Yet, the federal appeals court had a two-to-one decision, although the dissenting judge in the case wrote, “To execute Davis in the face of a significant amount of proffered evidence that may establish his actual innocence is unconscionable and unconstitutional.”
LARRY COX: Yeah. What is most shameful about this is the way the courts have hid behind technicalities to not even look at the evidence. He has never had a chance to present this new evidence of innocence in a court of law. That’s all he’s asking. But they have hidden behind the technicalities, and that’s been easier to do because of the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, which makes it very, very difficult, even in cases where there’s strong evidence of innocence, to get it heard before a court.
AMY GOODMAN: Martina Correia, you have been fighting your own battle for life, as you fight breast cancer. You’re very well-known as a breast cancer survivor, fighter for people to get healthcare. You were honored along with Nancy Pelosi here in New York by the National Breast Cancer Coalition. President Jimmy Carter has issued an appeal on your brother’s behalf. Where does your hope lie right now, speaking to us from Savannah, Georgia?
MARTINA CORREIA: My hope lies with the people, because people are standing up all over the world in solidarity for Troy, in solidarity for justice. And that’s what it’s going to take. It’s going to take people to start demanding that these barbaric and archaic laws are repealed and never put on the books again. It’s going to take people fighting and saying that it should be an abomination that in the United States, one of the global powers of the world, that it’s not unconstitutional to execute an innocent person.
And so, we are standing, not only people from Amnesty International, but a coalition of organizations that have actually never come together, that are all saying we must stand against this, we must fight this injustice, and we need to end the death penalty, because we can’t afford to keep executing innocent people.
AMY GOODMAN: The case, with one person after another, the non-police witnesses, recanting their testimony, why did they give false testimony, to begin with? Let me put that to Martina.
MARTINA CORREIA: Well, you know, in the recantations, in the affidavits that these people put forth, you know, a lot of them had criminal background. Some of them were teenagers. Some of them were—they were interrogated for six and seven hours without lawyers, without parents, and they were, you know, threatened to be charged as accessory to murder of a police officer and to never come out of prison. And when you have those type of people that you can manipulate, and when you’re interrogating somebody for six and seven hours, like the witnesses said, they were so tired of being there that they just started repeating what the police wanted them to say. Some people—one person couldn’t even read and write the statement that he signed against my brother. He just wanted to leave. One witness had parole violations, and she was scared of losing her children and going back to prison. So these were people that were very easily manipulated.
They had really no case against Troy. They knew nothing about what was going on, until Sylvester “Redd” Coles, the only person that night that had a .38-caliber weapon, the same caliber weapon the police officer was killed with, that came forward with a lawyer and said, “Oh, Troy did it.” But he never told the police ’til some weeks later that he even was carrying a gun that night and that he got into an altercation.
So, the thing about it is that these people were easily manipulated. They built this case around Troy with no physical evidence, no DNA. And what they did is they ran on the excitement and the adrenaline that we have to get somebody for this police officer’s murder, we have to appease community. And, you know, it got to the point where they were attacking so many black men that it’s like any black man will do. And when Sylvester Coles came and pointed at Troy, everything dropped, and they just built a case around Troy.
AMY GOODMAN: Before we end this broadcast, I wanted to ask you, Larry Cox, about another case, about a man who is scheduled to die tomorrow.
LARRY COX: Yes.
AMY GOODMAN: His name is Dennis Skillicorn. Twelve current and former prison staffers at Potosi gave statements for his clemency petition. Their efforts were joined last week by the Missouri legislator Steven Tilley, the Majority Leader of the Missouri House, who has called for the commutation of Skillicorn’s sentence to life in prison. He doesn’t deny he’s been involved with crimes, though he wasn’t the shooter. Why are you pushing hard on this case? Why are these people all coming out?
LARRY COX: Well, there are two reasons. One is, it’s another example of the insanity of the system. Here’s another case where somebody made a statement that was never heard in the court, but if it had been heard, he probably would not have been given the death penalty. The man who did commit the murder said he had—Skillicorn had no idea that a murder was going to take place.
AMY GOODMAN: And that man is on death row, but he is not—he will not die before Skillicorn—
LARRY COX: No.
AMY GOODMAN: —if he’s killed tomorrow.
LARRY COX: That’s correct, and one of the other people that was given life imprisonment. So it just shows the arbitrariness of it.
But the other reason is that Skillicorn himself has, by all accounts, become an extraordinary human being. And this illustrates one of the central truths about the death penalty, that the person you kill is often not the same person who committed the crime. He has become a model prisoner. He has reached out to the victims of crime, to restorative justice. He’s worked in a hospice. He has helped young offenders. And that’s the reason why you have this incredible assembly of people from the Corrections Department, you have Republicans, you have Democrats, you have people of faith, all speaking out, saying, “What purpose could possibly be served by killing this man, who has become, by all accounts, a very good man?”
AMY GOODMAN: In Dennis Skillicorn’s case, he said, “If I had three lifetimes, I know I can’t repay society for the things I’ve done, but I think we have a responsibility to build up what we once tore down with our criminal behavior.”
I want to thank you both for being with us. We just have ten seconds, but, Martina, what is Troy Davis saying today on this global day of action, your brother, on death row?
MARTINA CORREIA: Well, I actually just talked to Troy maybe like thirty minutes ago, and he said that he wants everybody to know that even though this is the hardest thing he’s had to face in his life, that he knows, with all of us, a change is coming and that that change is more powerful because people are standing up for human rights. And that’s what it’s all about. And he wants them know that continue to fight, that this is bigger than Troy Davis. This is about human rights for all.
AMY GOODMAN: I want to thank you for being with us, Martina Correia, from Savannah, Georgia. Her T-shirt, for our radio listeners, says, “I Am Troy Davis.” And Larry Cox, executive director of Amnesty International USA. You can go to our website at democracynow.org for all of our coverage of the Troy Davis case.

From PhilanTopic (The PND Blog)

Philanthropy, Morality, and Politics
Posted: 19 May 2009 11:01 AM PDT
(Bradford Smith is president of the Foundation Center. In his last post, he wrote about the shape of philanthropy to come.)

Consider two propositions: “philanthropy is the moral voice of society” and “philanthropy should hold government accountable.” Both propositions arose during a recent a meeting on global philanthropy co-sponsored by the European Foundation Centre (EFC), the Council on Foundations (COF), and the Worldwide Initiative for Grantmaker Support (WINGS). Though the goal of the meeting was relatively straightforward — to initiate a process that could lead to reducing the legal and fiscal barriers to global philanthropy — this being an encounter of forty-two professionals from twenty countries, it wasn’t long before morality and politics forced their way into the discussion.

At dinner afterward, a groups of us, all Americans, were reflecting on these two propositions. “Morality” is a word seldom heard in American philanthropic discourse. We can talk for hours about initiatives, lines of work, strategy, effectiveness, assessment, and impact, with nary a mention of morality. Yet virtually all of philanthropy is driven by a moral sense of what is right, fair, or just; indeed the very act of philanthropy is a moral expression of solidarity and a desire to help others. The more we talked, the more it became apparent that it was the notion that philanthropy should somehow be the moral voice of society that was troubling. A foundation that supports access to safe abortion does so out of a profound moral conviction that a woman should have the right to decide while one that opposes abortion on moral grounds will back right-to-life groups. Philanthropy may be a moral voice, but it is not a single moral voice which dictates that there is only one kind of philanthropy and one set of causes that are “right” while all others are “wrong.”

The notion that philanthropy should hold government accountable was only slightly less troubling. American philanthropy spends a fair amount time (though arguably not enough) trying to figure out how it can be more accountable so as to avoid overly zealous regulation by Congress. Indeed, the desire today in much of philanthropy is to collaborate with the Obama administration, many of whose officials have foundation experience and are actively courting foundations to join the “all hands on deck” effort to confront the economic crisis. Nevertheless, there are foundations that invest heavily in organizations that track campaign contributions, monitor federal and state budgets, and do community organizing — all for the purpose of reminding elected officials that their role is to serve the public good and that the public is watching. Again, the real discomfort at the table seemed to be with the idea that this was being posited as the only legitimate role for philanthropy as opposed to one of many.

At the meeting, both propositions were put forth — not by Americans, but by those whose countries had only recently emerged from long periods of totalitarian rule, armed conflict, or what political scientists call “weak states.” Where human life often seems to have little value, avenues to political participation are blocked, and “leaders” sometimes behave more like predators, philanthropy can become an outlet for activists seeking deep and lasting change. In such cases, they are challenged with the Herculean task of righting past wrongs, creating a culture of philanthropy, and building accountable, democratic governments, all at once. Their mission is both moral and political. We can afford to make the finer distinctions because our task, though not easy, is far less daunting, living as we do in a (still) prosperous America with strong democratic institutions and guided by the rule of law.

But something else happened in that (still) prosperous Europe that surprised. Meeting in Italy, a country that had narrowly defeated legislation calling for civil servants to be fired if they failed to report individuals suspected of being undocumented and where a local politician had proposed segregating buses, the EFC passed a resolution. It reads, in part:

it is with great regret that we witness the emergence of a climate in Italy, which is symptomatic of a general trend throughout Europe, which leads to measures relating to undocumented migrants that undermine people’s basic human rights….As members of Foundations, we are committed to a Europe which is inclusive and tolerant; we work for this alongside citizens and civil society organisations, as well as with governmental bodies. We strongly encourage the governments of all member states to work individually, together and with the institutions of the European Union to build a framework for addressing migration in ways that truly respect the dignity of all human beings as defined in the European Convention on Human Rights….

The EFC hardly qualifies as a fringe group. Its 236 members manage more than €140 billion in assets and range from liberal, Quaker-inspired, UK foundations in the north to wealthy, sometimes conservative Italian banking foundations in the south. Alarmed by growing xenophobia in Europe, they chose to take a stand that was both moral and political, rather than be voiceless spectators to a march toward the past.

Philanthropy everywhere gets its energy and drive from moral values. And there are places and moments where those values impel us to tread the risky and challenging terrain of politics.

– Brad Smith

From the China Development Brief
CHINA EDUCATIOIN INITIATIVE
YUNNAN PROGRAM
JOB DESCRIPTION – FIELD DIRECTOR

Title: Field Director
Location: China Education Initiative – CHINA, Yunnan�
Reports to: Chief Operation Officer
Hours of duty: Monday – Friday – 0900-1800 hrs.
(Must be prepared to accept that there could be occasions when a task is requested to perform his/her duties outside of normal working hours or on weekends for extraordinary reasons)

Regarding the China Education Initiative (CEI):

Brief intro:�
Established with Ford Foundation support, the China Education Initiative (CEI) is an innovative non-profit organization taking a unique approach to eliminating educational inequity in China.  We address the pressing need for human resources in China’s low-income rural schools while laying a foundation for systemic change. 

CEI is the first and only organization to pair outstanding graduates from top universities in the US and China in a long-term service initiative.

Responsible for:�
• Program implementation and hands-on management
• Representation of CEI

Essential duties: include the following. Other duties may be assigned:

General Management

• Coordinates teaching fellows as they work together; facilitate and promote communications between the different parties, including but not limited to: teaching fellows and schools, CEI and local government parties, CEI and teaching fellows;
• Makes propositions concerning the objectives of the program and means to achieve them and discusses them with the fellows;
• Performs periodic assessments of teaching fellows’ in-class performance and teaching fellows’ students improvement;
• Supports teaching fellows continued training through – feedback on lesson planning and delivery, classroom management, etc;
• Defines the priorities in terms of activities according to general context, needs of local schools and communities, and means available;
• Prepare the monthly report;
• Liaises with CEI management team and maintains regular correspondence with other teams;
• Keep records of project history and decision making;
• Provides support and supervision of each fellow, organizing regular individual and team meetings with updates on changes, discusses issues/problems;
• Carries our fellows end of service evaluations, with inputs from local partners;
• Coordinates the visits of other teams and CEI partners;

Representation of program and organization

• Forges excellent partner relations in support of program with local and regional authorities and schools;
• Develop and maintain relationships with community leaders;
• Maintain and develop contacts and partnership with NGOs on the ground and UN agencies;
• Represents CEI whenever needed (official events, meetings, workshops) or delegates fellows when relevant;
• Manages fellows and oversees teaching effectiveness;

Qualifications Required:
Work Experience
• Hands-on field program management and implementation experience in China of at least 5 years • Prerequisite
• Management experience of teams of more than 6 peoples and/or partners • Prerequisite
• Experience with education and development programs in China • Prerequisite
• China government relations experience • Strong Advantage
• University Degree or above in education, social development, administration or other related fields • Prerequisite
Other skills and knowledge
• Excellent command of English and Chinese (fluent oral and written) • Prerequisite
• Computer skills: Word, PowerPoint, Excel; keen internet user • Prerequisite
• Experience or academic background in education systems or policy • Strong Advantage

Job Challenges:�
• Ability to handle a complex network of sites;
• Ability to work as a leader and a member of a team;
• Flexible enough to take on new tasks as they arise;
• Possesses initiative and the ability to propose ideas for input while being willing to take direction;
• Ability to multi-task.

Contact information:alex.wang@chinaeducationinitiative.org