Home » Topics

Topics

Topics
Wangsheng Li - “One of the most distinct assets of philanthropic institutions is its people”
Wangsheng Li speaking at the Salzburg Global Seminar session Driving Change: Global Talent Management for Effective Philanthropy
Wangsheng Li - “One of the most distinct assets of philanthropic institutions is its people”
Mirva Villa 

The constantly evolving world of philanthropy offers exciting opportunities for open-minded workers globally. A rising player in this field is China, where the modern philanthropic movement is still taking shape.

As the philanthropic sector develops, talent management becomes increasingly important, emphasizes Wangsheng Li, a participant of the recent Salzburg Global Seminar session Driving the Change: Global Talent Management for Effective Philanthropy. His diverse background, working in charitable organizations in Asia and the US, has given him a unique viewpoint to the developments in the philanthropic sector globally.

Li is currently the president of ZeShan Foundation, which supported the latest Salzburg Global session on philanthropy. The advancement of global philanthropy and supporting diverse participation is important to the family foundation.

“One of the most distinct assets of philanthropic institutions is its people. Talent management fits well with that line of thinking,” Li says, “Personally, it’s always a very inspiring and a worthwhile effort in terms of learning from your peers and an opportunity to have some time to reflect and think, and hopefully to be inspired – even challenged – in a sense.”

Philanthropy in China

Philanthropy and charitable giving in China has always existed in one form or another – from tightly-knit communities helping each other in their daily lives to leaders of the past preparing for the tough times by stocking up food supplies, like grain, and medicine.

“In classic Chinese literature, you can find how local governments and local philanthropists would prepare themselves a year or longer ahead in anticipation of, say, floods, famine, etc.

“Local doctors would be asked to stock up herbal medicine in case of an epidemic or digestive diseases caused by unclear water. That tradition has always been, and not only in China,” Li explains.

However, the modern, institutionalized form of philanthropy is still taking its shape. 

“Institutionalized philanthropy is a relative new phenomenon in comparison with the US,” Li explains, “Donors want to take their work to the next level, and there is an increasing recognition that institutionalized giving is the future of philanthropy. Institutionalization also means bringing on board professionals, so that gave rise to this kind of professionalization of grant-making. Now where do you get people? It was – and still is – a relatively new phenomenon, so where is your pipeline?”

Currently a large portion of the people working in the field of philanthropy in China come from a background of social work training, instead of having experience in public policymaking or public administration. This is the case in many other countries in Asia and Latin America, Li says:

“They’re trained as social workers, but they have a pretty sound understanding of the social issues and the community’s needs, and policy issues.”

The challenge now facing the Chinese philanthropy sector is how to diversify their workforce, and more importantly, prepare them for their work in this evolving industry.

“One [challenge] is how to encourage more young people or professionals of diverse backgrounds to go into the philanthropy field, and two is really looking at how to prepare them to go into this field. So it’s a pipeline issue.”

The future of philanthropy

So what lies in the future for philanthropy in China? Li expects to see the philanthropic sector move away from the traditional ways, and become more of a hybrid: “Social entrepreneurship has already become a very important part of contemporary philanthropy. The donors are younger, and have become increasingly hands-on. That poses also a challenge, even a conflict of interest.”.

He also expects to see charitable giving no longer be perceived as the privilege of the “super rich.”

“It also has become part of the social movement, you could say, of the development of civil society. Ordinary citizens can also be donors.”


Wangsheng Li was a participant at Session 581 - Driving the Change: Global Talent Management for Effective Philanthropy, which is part of Salzburg Global's multi-year initiative on philanthropy and social investment. Read more about the session here.

READ MORE...
Judge Nancy Gertner - "Lawyers should effect social change"
Judge Nancy Gertner in conversation at the 15th symposium of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA)
Judge Nancy Gertner - "Lawyers should effect social change"
Mirva Villa 

Known for her work in advancing civil rights, civil liberties, and human rights in the United States (U.S), Judge Nancy Gertner remains a trailblazer for women working in the legal profession. Her work, first as a criminal defense lawyer and later a federal judge, received many acknowledgements from her peers, not least the American Bar Association who awarded her the Thurgood Marshall Award in 2008.

Her appearance at the 15th symposium of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association was a perfect fit for the program’s topic – Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration. Alongside others, the now retired Judge Gertner spent five days discussing issues of justice, discrimination, criminal law and legal rights. For Gertner, now a senior lecturer at Harvard Law School, the experience was “remarkable.”

“When I came, I had only read the biographies of the people who were invited – both the other participants and the seminar leaders – and I don’t think I fully understood how accomplished, cosmopolitan and interesting they were,” said Gertner. “So, the ability to talk to people and get a sense of the depth of their background was wonderful.”

Gertner has had an extensive career in the legal profession and has written widely about employment, criminal justice and procedural issues. But what was the original spark that inspired Gertner to enter the profession in the first place?

“Well, I think I wanted to run for president of the United States. Then I figured that you had to be a lawyer in order to get to be a senator first. I got stuck at the first stage!” Gertner laughed. “But you know, I love public policy issues. I went to law school at the time that the civil rights movement was at its height, and women's movement, and anti-war movement –  and lawyers were the vehicle for social change. So that's how I became interested in it.”

Mass incarceration was one of the issues that was discussed at this year’s SSASA symposium. Toward the end of 2010, the American Civil Liberties Union reported more than 2.2 million people in the U.S. were behind bars. Gertner spoke to participants about mass incarceration and the structures in the justice system that had exacerbated it.

“For a 100 years, the principal purpose of sentencing was rehabilitation. Rehabilitation was essentially using a medical model to deal with crime. Other kinds of professions also went through this. The judge was looking for a cure. The belief was that everyone could be cured, and the idea was that he would come up with ways of solving the crime in a way: not just finding the perpetrator but solving the criminal - and that judges had virtually unlimited discretion to figure out what the appropriate sentence would be.”

Things changed in the 1980s, due to a whole host of factors. There was a spike in the crime statistics and the implications of the Vietnam War stayed in the American people’s minds. The public were concerned about discrimination in sentencing and the discretion of judges to cast sentences. The media became increasingly focused on covering crime. Toward the end of the decade, the phrase “If it bleeds, it leads” appeared in the lexicon and became a mantra for many.

“Suddenly, we essentially rejected rehabilitation as a rationale for sentencing, and moved to retribution,” said Gertner. “So, rehabilitation asks, ‘What will help the offender not offend anymore?’ Retribution asks, ‘What does the crime deserve?’ So, it was a very different question and it led to different answers, and the answer is that retribution led to mass incarceration.”

The concern over the discretion of judges and inconsistencies between sentences issued across the U.S. led to the creation of a set of guidelines that provided objective standards for sentencing. “That essentially is to wish there was no judgment, no discretion.  So, you focused on the nature of the crime, and you focused on the nature of someone's criminal record,” said Gertner.

That would, for example, lead to drug-related cases being judged on the basis of the quantity of the substance and past convictions alone, with no regard to the individual’s situation and the judge’s discretion on whether they thought the accused was likely to re-offend.

Gertner said, “You focused on objective factors that [some] believed could be objectively enforced. Of course that wasn't true. Those objective factors were often the product of decisions made by others down the line, which we're not so objective.”

In 2011, Gertner published her memoirs, fittingly entitled In Defense of Women: Memoirs of an Unrepentant Advocate. Now, she’s working on another book about judging –  not an aspirational one but one on the "hard work of judging." More specifically, she will be reflecting on her own experiences as a judge, working in a system that she didn’t always deem to be fair.

For her book, Gertner reached out to some of the people she had sentenced to find out what happened to them. “I found it easiest to write about the people I had sentenced because that was a situation in which I was most acutely aware of the difference between my beliefs and what the law required,” Gertner said. “I was obliged to impose mandatory minimum sentences. I was obliged to use mandatory guidelines. And I felt the difference between what I was obliged to do and what I believed in all the time. So, this book is about the men that I sentenced.”

The book paints the portraits of several men, who they were, what Gertner learned about them and the legal framework she had to use to evaluate them. Moreover, the book discusses how they should have been sentenced in a “humane system”, according to Gertner. “These are portraits that will help us understand how punitive and inhumane the system became.”

Gertner was appointed to the federal bench in 1994 by President Bill Clinton. Since retiring in 2011, she has continued to teach subjects including criminal law, criminal procedure, forensic science and sentencing, and has written about women’s issues around the world. Whether she’s in the court room, the lecture hall or writing her book, her work continues to be a source of inspiration for Gertner.

“I believe that lawyers should effect social change. That's what animates me as a lawyer, as a judge, as a professor. These are remarkable tools and a remarkable education that should be used to serve the public good.”


Judge Nancy Gertner was a participant of the Salzburg Global program Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration, which is part of Salzburg Global’s multi-year series Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA). More information on the session can be found here. You can follow all of the discussions on Twitter by following the hashtag #SSASA.

READ MORE...
Michael Oreskes – “It’s a war on the press and a war on the judiciary”
Michael Oreskes speaking at the 15th symposium of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA)
Michael Oreskes – “It’s a war on the press and a war on the judiciary”
Mirva Villa 

Ten years ago, Michael Oreskes co-wrote a book called The Genius of America. In this book, Oreskes and his co-author Eric Lane explored the significance of the U.S. Constitution, its relevance to the crisis at the time, and the significance of the document throughout the country’s history. For Oreskes, the “simple” principles presented in the Constitution remain the driving force behind America’s success. The Constitution is a document on how to run a country without a monarch, one that requires a commitment from its people for the country to work. This includes a commitment to compromise, to open dialogue, and debate.

A decade later, Oreskes, senior vice president of news and editorial director at National Public Radio (NPR), found himself reaffirming some of these arguments at the 15th symposium of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association. Midway through the symposium – Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration – Oreskes sat down with Salzburg Global to discuss his thoughts of the symposium, the challenges presented by President Donald Trump’s administration, and the need for new revenue models in journalism.

Read a transcript of the conversation below.

Salzburg Global: What have you thought of the symposium so far?

MO: It's fabulous. I love the formal panels, but it's also great just to be in the hallway, [or at] the coffees and the dinners, talking about all these issues… I love talking with people from all corners of the world because, you know, the world is not flat. People really see things differently from different places - even people who share a lot of common values. I'm learning a lot about the United States from talking to people from outside the United States. Maybe they're learning a little bit from me as well.

SG: What are the main challenges that the new U.S. administration poses for the U.S. media?

MO: The first challenge is that the administration has intentionally set out on a campaign to paint journalists as an opposition party. That's a phrase they've used. It's very important that we not let that happen. It requires patience and a lot of discipline not to let them bait us into arguments because that's exactly what they want.

They want us to be combatants in this war that they declared. It's a war on the press and a war on the judiciary. It's basically a war on any independent authority that might challenge their point of view. Our independence depends a lot on maintaining our credibility as independent. The minute we get into a fight with them, they win.

SG: Have you seen this happen before? Has any other president treated the media like this?

MO: There have been many other presidents who criticized the press. Harry Truman famously threatened to punch a reporter because he didn't like the review that this reporter had done of Harry Truman's daughter's musical performance. Richard Nixon didn't like the press. Even Ronald Reagan had criticisms of the press. But none of them have resorted to the kind of orchestrated effort to de-legitimize the whole of journalism, and that's disturbing and wrongheaded. It's just not an accurate view of the way the country was designed to work.

SG: You’ve said previously that you’re against the idea of the world living in the post-truth era. Why?

MO: It's clear that facts and truth matter very much. You go around the world right now and there are journalists in jail, there are journalists in hospitals and there are journalists in cemeteries. All of whom are in those places because they tried to distribute the facts and some government or corrupt organization didn't want those facts to be distributed. So if we lived in a post-truth era, who would care whether somebody was distributing those facts?

We live in a period where it has become acceptable to attack legitimate independent journalists and other independent groups that are trying to assess and report honestly with the truth of situations. It's become acceptable to attack them, either in language or in physical attacks.

SG: What are the main challenges for the future of journalism globally?

MO: I think the first challenge is to find some new models to raise the revenue to support journalism. Journalism costs money: it costs money to hire the journalists, it costs money to send them places.

There was a famous quote from a writer years ago that the freedom of the press belongs to those who own one. The good thing is now you don't actually have to own a press anymore. That part of the expense is gone, so it's a lot easier for a lot of people to distribute their journalism. But it's a challenge to have a way to support the people doing the journalism itself.

Now, we have one [model] in public radio in the United States that's kind of a mix of support from individuals who give us money, some support from the government, and some support from what we call corporate sponsors – and we mix that all together. It's working pretty well. It's very important to resolve those problems, because financial stability is the first precept.

SG: What inspires you to do the work you do?

MO: It goes back a long way. I just believe very profoundly that journalists do an important service for people. It's not so much that we make the world better, but we give people the material to make their own choices in the world. And that makes the world better. I'm very happy with that role and I'm proud to do it.


Michael Oreskes was a participant of the Salzburg Global program Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration, which is part of Salzburg Global’s multi-year series Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA). More information on the session can be found here. You can follow all of the discussions on Twitter by following the hashtag #SSASA.

READ MORE...
Dreamscape – Exploring race and justice in America
Rickerby Hinds at the Salzburg Seminar for American Studies Association
Dreamscape – Exploring race and justice in America
Mirva Villa 

Ahead of the 15th symposium of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA), participants were warned to expect a “highly participatory” five-day program. Daily thematic presentations, plenary discussions, and panels on topical issues were all designed for participants to debate life and justice in the U.S. at a theoretical and analytical level. A special performance of Rickerby Hinds’ Dreamscape in Schloss Leopoldskron’s Great Hall midway through the program helped bring these issues further to life.

The play depicts the final moments of a young African-American woman shot by the police while sleeping in her car. Mixing the elements of beat-boxing, hip hop, dance and poetry, the award-winning performance tells the life story of Myiesha Mills, who dreams through the impact of the 12 bullets that kill her. The play is a meditation and reimagining of the shooting of Tyisha Miller in 1998 in Riverside, California.

Hinds, the writer and director behind Dreamscape, revealed the incident inspired him to tell a wider story. “In 2004, I decided to write a play that would address that issue of the relationship between the African-American community and the police,” Hinds said.

“I went back to the Tyisha Miller incident and decided that this will be a good vehicle for exploring this issue, for a couple of reasons. One, because she was a young woman, and two, because there was enough information for there to be a dramatic exploration of the relationship, so it wasn’t so black and white. There were gray areas to allow the conversation to be a little more nuanced.”

 

Prior to the performance, participants at this year’s SSASA symposium had already begun to reflect on legal rights, justice, and racial issues in the U.S. The fact Dreamscape was performed at a symposium discussing the very issues his play was addressing made Hinds a “little bit more nervous than usual.”

Hinds said, “As the director, you’re always thinking about how the play would land on your audience who have studied these issues, who are scholars and experts on the field. Plus, we had met our audience, so we knew them! It’s very unusual!”

Dreamscape’s current cast includes Natali Micciche and John “Faahz” Merchant. Both have been performing the show for about five years, performing both in the U.S. and abroad.

Discussing her performance as Myiesha, Micciche said: “It was absolutely beautiful. It was a great interlude, sitting in at the presentations, talking about this subject and the topics, and then go and perform, because the energy is heightened around the subject and everybody is fully invested.

“The reception was great. It’s more than I could ask for. It’s always moving. In a space where I can see the audience it’s super effective because you watch people and their emotions. Afterwards it was just great to hear feedback on my movement and my artistry.”

Merchant, who played the role of a police officer and a dispassionate coroner, incorporated his beat-boxing talents to help create the play’s unique soundscape.

“It was probably one of the most exciting and exhilarating feelings”, Merchant said. He added it was great to see their work transcend across different audiences - even 6,000 miles away from home. “It’s a great feeling because it means that our work over the past years has been doing what it’s supposed to do.”


The Salzburg Global program Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration is part of Salzburg Global’s multi-year series Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA). More information on the session can be found here. You can follow all of the discussions on Twitter by following the hashtag #SSASA.

READ MORE...
Bruce Chernof - When the time comes to tell our story, what will we see?
Bruce Chernof - When the time comes to tell our story, what will we see?
Bruce Chernof 

This article first appeared on the EAPC blog, which will continue to publish more posts on the Salzburg Question series. It refers to the seventh Salzburg Question: Doctors, nurses; do you want to die the way your patients die?

Today, on International Right to Know Day (28 September) Dr Bruce Chernof, President and Chief Executive Officer of The SCAN Foundation, California, USA, explores the seventh question in the Salzburg Questions that asks: Doctors, nurses; do you want to die the way your patients die?

Around the world, healthcare providers are trained to be objective, rational, and clinical at the bedside. Long white coat, white dress, white smock, maybe a white hat – they are just signifiers, tropes, costumes in a performance, where we are the ‘good guys’ here to right wrongs and cure the sick. And of course, following the Hippocratic Oath: ‘First, do no harm.’ So this is what we do, day in, day out, with dedication and compassion, but always through that dispassionate clinical lens. Until . . .

When the tables are turned, and the provider is the patient, what seemed like an uplifting virtuous drama reads much more like a comedy, or worse, a tragedy. It is time for all healthcare providers to take a deep, introspective look at our practice. Are we caring for the whole person or simply going about the business of treating patients? Despite all of our progress to transform healthcare delivery to make it more holistic, it remains utterly biased toward the antiseptic and technical aspects of treating patients. Healthcare prioritizes safety and cure above all else, yet in our own lives we are far more likely to prioritize autonomy, dignity, and happiness. We have an enormous number of technical measures to track the quality of medical services, yet almost no measures for quality of compassion or respect. All healthcare providers secretly pray for quality of life for ourselves, balanced with technical quality of care. So here is the little secret I have learned over three decades: all our patients want the exact same thing.

We need to break the bonds both of incrementalism and lofty strategic planning that seem to be the brick walls and iron bars that serve as our stage’s proscenium and backdrop. Endless, minute Plan-Do-Study-Act cycles, policy reforms for one more new payment code, or dramatic 10-year global targets may be part of the solution, but these are not the answer.

We need to commit to delivering care to every person and every family exactly as we would want to be treated. For as we all know, autonomy and dignity are not delivered through the sharp prick of an IV catheter or a light blue gown that doesn’t quite close completely at the back. When the time comes to tell our story, what will we see? Virtuous drama with an uplifting ending? Comedy of errors? Or simple tragedy? The choice is ours.

READ MORE...
Seventh Salzburg Question looks at whether health care professionals deliver care they would want
Seventh Salzburg Question looks at whether health care professionals deliver care they would want
Salzburg Global Seminar 

Health care professionals have been asked whether they would like to die in a similar fashion to their patients.

The question has been asked as part of the
Salzburg Questions series, an online conversation about palliative care.

The series launched earlier this year on February 20 and has since connected respondents from all around the world.

People participating in conversations on Twitter have been using the #allmylifeQs hashtag. Between the launch of the series and mid-August, the hashtag received 8.96 million impressions on Twitter.

Earlier this morning, the seventh question in the series was released to coincide with International Right to Know Day. September's question is: "Doctors [and] nurses, do you want to die the way your patients die?"

Bruce Chernof, president and chief executive officer of The SCAN Foundation, will help lead the discussion.

The question provokes health care professionals to consider what end of life care they would expect and how this could be made available for the many, not the few.

The Salzburg Questions series has nine questions on matters involving palliative care. Each month, different individuals and institutions at the heart of the debate have shared a different question coinciding with an international day.

These individuals and institutions were involved in Session 562 - Rethinking Care: Toward the End of Life. Other Salzburg Global Fellows who have led discussions so far include: Agnes Binagwaho, Lynna Chandra, Suresh Kumar, Sheila Payne, Emmanuel Luyirika, and Richard Harding.

Salzburg Global Fellows are encouraged to take part in the conversation on Twitter on the day and afterward. They can also take part by sharing blog posts around each question.

Blog platforms could include ehospice, the EAPC blog, Palliverse, and the IAHPC Newsletter.

Participants on Twitter have already linked to research, podcasts and papers during their discussions.

If you hold a debate, workshop or Q&A event on a Salzburg Question, please film it so it can be uploaded to a dedicated YouTube channel. Send your video to katie.witcombe@kcl.ac.uk.

A Twitter list of Salzburg Global Health Fellows has been created. If you would like to be added to this list, please let us know by subscribing or contacting us on Twitter at @SalzburgGlobal.

List of dates, questions, and people leading discussions

20 February 2017 - World Day of Social Justice - Why aren't countries accountable to commitment on #EOL care for vulnerable people? - Agnes Binagwaho

20 March 2017 - World Happiness Day - Is dying well as important as living well? - Lynna Chandra

07 April 2017 - World Health Day - How have you prepared for your death? - Suresh Kumar

15 May 2017 - World Family Day - Will caring for your dying loved one bankrupt you emotionally and financially? - Sheila Payne

20 June 2017 - World Refugee Day - 145 countries signed bit.ly/2ah31bH why do refugees have limited access to quality health care and #EOL care? - Emmanuel Luyirika

11 July 2017 - World Population Day - How and what do you measure to ensure quality palliative & EOL care? - Richard Harding

28 September 2017 - International Right to Know Day - Doctors, Nurses, do you want to die the way your patients die? - Bruce Chernof

13 October 2017 - World Hospice and Palliative Care Day* - Do you know how to access #palliative care when you need it? - Stephen Connor

10 November 2017 - World Science Day for Peace and Development - What future research is needed to improve care for people w advanced illness & towards the end of life? - Irene Higginson 

*This year's World Hospice and Palliative Care Day is taking place on Saturday, October 14. We will launch the question the day before to generate more discussion.

READ MORE...
SSASA symposium reflects on implications and global reactions to Trump administration
SSASA symposium reflects on implications and global reactions to Trump administration
Salzburg Global Seminar 

Academics, legal profession representatives, and others working to protect and improve life in the U.S. have considered the implications and global reactions to the new U.S. administration.

The conversations took place on the final day of the 15th symposium of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA), which took place at Schloss Leopoldskron. 

This year's program - Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration - included presentations and conversations on racial issues, immigration, populism, wealth, media, legal rights, civil rights, and criminal law. 

These issues, which will be covered further by Salzburg Global in the coming days, were considered alongside a broader topic of what "the American Dream" means in today's world, whether it still exists, and what this dream represents. 

The program was split into three themes: 70 years of trends and events; quality of life and opportunity; and fairness and justice.

In the last presentation of the session, three speakers provided comments on President Donald Trump’s administration before taking questions from the audience.

Participants heard from one speaker that U.S. prosperity was partially dependent on the Asia-Pacific region and political relations had improved under President Barack Obama, particularly in Myanmar and Vietnam.

The same speaker said President Trump’s win had come as a shock to many in Southeast Asia and countries in the region were now looking forward to see how the U.S. maintains its commitment to the region.

Anne Mørk, an assistant professor of American history at the University of Southern Denmark, said when one looks at the rhetorical presidency theory, it is no surprise President Trump won the election.

Trump has used social media to communicate with the public. When he makes statements on Twitter, he is speaking to his followers without a filter. Mørk described the role of the president in the 19th century as that of a manager - a role she believes President Trump appears to have little interest playing.

Mørk suggested President Trump’s “angry” and “macho” rhetoric almost became a form of entertainment similar to wrestling. She concluded by suggesting the rhetoric had become a policy in itself.

Alex Seago, dean of communications, arts and social sciences at Richmond, The American International University in London, said he pursued American studies because he was enamored by the country and culture. Seago, who’s also a professor of cultural studies, suggested President Trump was making a deliberate attempt to undermine America’s soft power. 

While “the American Dream” may still exist, Seago believes the U.S. has become less attractive to people. He later said the U.S. had a global image of a nation acting as a leading light for people to follow. This image showed the U.S as democratic and a country which gave people opportunities. However, the sense of “you can do anything if you work hard” is a lot less apparent now. 

In his concluding remarks, Ron Clifton, chair of the Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA), said two things had really struck him during this year’s program – one being how fairness and justice can depend on factors such as social status and race. The other thing which he felt was left to consider were the implications of the changes underway in the U.S., especially under the new administration.

He said, “I like the phrase that [a participant] just came up with which is, “At this moment it would seem to me that America is looking less good.” The question is what does that imply for the future and when and where will the turn occur? Of course, being an American, we are optimistic and hopeful, we have a burden to carry and that burden we carry is to make things better and to invite people to join in with us and progress.”


The Salzburg Global program Life and Justice in America: Implications of the New Administration is part of Salzburg Global’s multi-year series Salzburg Seminar American Studies Association (SSASA). More information on the session can be found here. You can follow all of the discussions on Twitter by following the hashtag #SSASA.

READ MORE...
Displaying results 15 to 21 out of 1004