INTEGRATING CRITICAL CRIMINOLOGY: REFLECTIONS ON THE ROLE OF THE ASC AND THE ACJS
DCC Officers are exploring avenues by which to promote greater membership inclusion. One concern along these lines is the etxtent to which our critical criminology colleagues in the ACJS (can and should) participate in the activities of the Division on Critical Criminology. Linked to this concern is the role of DCC Officers and whether election to such an office should require membership, in good standing, in both the ACJS and the ASC. Some officers wonder if this requirement might create a financial hardshp for those elected, especially given limited travel funds and efforts to conduct critical criminology business at both the ASC and ACJS annual meetings. Other officers suggest that the goal of creating greater critical criminology inclusion might entail revisions in the constitution, a task that will require some frank discussion and careful planning over the next several months or longer. We invite you to offer your perspective on these very important matters. During the ASC Meetings in Los Angeles, a separate Business Meeting will be held on Thursday from 2:00 to 3:20 in the Convention Center (RM 308B) to discuss how we can grow and integrate the Division on Critical Criminology of the ASC and the Critical Criminology Section of the ACJS.
The following email exchange describes in greater detail several of the points outlined in this paragraph:
From: Walter DeKeseredy [mailto:Walter.DeKeseredy@uoit.ca]
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 6:17 PM
To: Arrigo, Bruce; Susan F. Sharp; Shahid Alvi; Barbara Perry; j.ferrell@tcu.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca; mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu; meda@hawaii.edu
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and bylaws
Thanks Bruce.
Best,
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: Arrigo, Bruce [mailto:barrigo@email.uncc.edu]
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 2:16 PM
To: Walter DeKeseredy; Susan F. Sharp; Shahid Alvi; Barbara Perry; j.ferrell@tcu.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca; mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu; meda@hawaii.edu
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and bylaws
I agree, Walter. I will post on the DCC website the topics for discussion that will occur at the DCC business meeting. Actually, I've already identified them. One of these will be the issue of CC membership inclusion for ASC and ACJS members. Thanks!
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter DeKeseredy [mailto:Walter.DeKeseredy@uoit.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 2:05 PM
To: Arrigo, Bruce; Susan F. Sharp; Shahid Alvi; Barbara Perry;
j.ferrell@tcu.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca; mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu; meda@hawaii.edu
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and bylaws
Bruce, I think I probably didn't express it properly and I apologize. What I mean to say is simply state what topics of discussion will be at the meeting after the DCC Executive has had discussions.
Best,
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: Arrigo, Bruce [mailto:barrigo@email.uncc.edu]
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 1:58 PM
To: Walter DeKeseredy; Susan F. Sharp; Shahid Alvi; Barbara
Perry; j.ferrell@tcu.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca; mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu; meda@hawaii.edu
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and bylaws
Dear all,
If people prefer to have our discussion on the DCC website now I would support it. However, my preference is for the officers to explore some of the contours of the issue for a while first and then see where we collectively stand. After that, posting some summary statements/ideas/recommendations on the website might facilitate the subsequent discussion by the full membership. This is just an alternative suggestion to the one proposed by Walter.
Bruce
-----Original Message-----
From: Walter DeKeseredy [mailto:Walter.DeKeseredy@uoit.ca]
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 1:52 PM
To: Susan F. Sharp; Arrigo, Bruce; Shahid Alvi; Barbara Perry;
j.ferrell@tcu.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca; mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu; meda@hawaii.edu
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and bylaws
Susan, thanks for your input. It might be a good idea if we posted topics for discussion at the meeting on the DCC website so that people can come prepared for the meeting with thoughts, questions, etc. This is just a suggestion.
Best,
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: Susan F. Sharp [mailto:ssharp@ou.edu]
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 10:16 AM
To: Arrigo, Bruce; Walter DeKeseredy; Shahid Alvi;
Barbara
Perry; j.ferrell@tcu.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca;
mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu;
meda@hawaii.edu
Subject: Re: Committee on Constitution and bylaws
Hi, everyone. As a relative newcomer, I am hesitant to weigh in here but thought I should.
First, I totally agree with Walter that two business meetings are needed. The late Friday business meeting comes at a time when everyone is tired and many are leaving. This is important and should be addressed when the highest likelihood of attendance is occurring. Plus, I think it will entail lots of discussion (as it should). So, an initial meeting to start the dialogue, earlier in the ASC, seems very important to me.
Second, I agree with Walter on the difficulty of attending both meetings, not only due to the costs but also due to fact that it takes away from class time. My department is used to me taking off to go to the ASC in the fall but expects me to attend a regional meeting to support our graduate students in their initial presentations (I am the graduate coordinator and resident mama hen) if I go anywhere in the spring. And they would love to see me attend the ASA and SSSP if I add another meeting.
Third, I am very excited about the inclusiveness of DCC. One of the problems I think the discipline faces is its tendency to splinter into smaller and smaller groups.
Just my thoughts for now.
Thanks
Susan
----- Original Message -----
From: Arrigo, Bruce
<mailto:barrigo@email.uncc.edu>
To: Walter DeKeseredy
<mailto:Walter.DeKeseredy@uoit.ca>
; Shahid Alvi <mailto:Shahid.Alvi@uoit.ca> ; Barbara Perry
<mailto:Barbara.Perry@uoit.ca> ; j.ferrell@tcu.edu ;
ssharp@ou.edu ;
muzzatti@ryerson.ca ; mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu ; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu ;
meda@hawaii.edu
Sent: Wednesday, August 23, 2006 8:32 AM
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and
bylaws
Dear all,
I neglected to include the DCC past Chair in these emails.
Meda: This was my mistake. I'm sorry. Please scroll down so that you can see what issues are being discussed.
Walter: you make several very important points. The cost concerns are quite legitimate. Additionally, I agree that resolving the detials will not take place at the General Business Meeting in November. My hope, however, is that we can move this issue forward collaboratively and in the spirit of inclusiveness and frank dialogue. Patience is indeed important here.
Please let's make certain to include all individuals listed above in our email responses.
Bruce
_____
From: Walter DeKeseredy
[mailto:Walter.DeKeseredy@uoit.ca]
Sent: Wed 8/23/2006 8:46 AM
To: Arrigo, Bruce; Shahid Alvi; Barbara Perry;
j.ferrell@tcu.edu; ssharp@ou.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca;
mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu; rbohm@mail.ucf.edu
Subject: RE: Committee on Constitution and
bylaws
Hi Everyone:
I would like to remind everyone that to promote continuity, we voted at a business meeting to have the outgoing Chair serve as Past Chair on the Executive Committee for two years. I held this position for two years and Meda is now serving as Past Chair (please also send all communication about proposed constitution changes and other DCC matters to her as well). I strongly believe that this approach has been quite effective and has made the life of the Chair and other members of the Executive Committee much easier. Thus, I don't see the need to amend the constitution according the suggestion raised in point number 1.
Now, turning to issues related to the relationship between the ASC and ACJS, I have a few suggestions and from my standpoint, the first one is considerable patience and much open public discussion. Also, I think we might have to organize two business meetings at the conference because we won't be able to cover proposed constitutional changes and other DCC business in an hour or so. In fact, it might take us a year to sort everything out. Frankly, I can't see us constructing something that achieves a consensus in one business meeting. Moreover, we need to think about how we are going to deal with some financial realities. One key one is that people have limited travel support and can't afford to attend two conferences anymore. This has certainly had an impact on participation in both organizations. Financial limitations have also had an impact on criminologists' attendance at the SSSP and ASA meetings.
Regardless of the challenges, I'm sure that we can work things out in time.
Best,
Walter
-----Original Message-----
From: Arrigo, Bruce
[mailto:barrigo@email.uncc.edu]
Sent: Tue 8/22/2006 3:13 PM
To: Walter DeKeseredy; Shahid Alvi;
Barbara
Perry; j.ferrell@tcu.edu; ssharp@ou.edu; muzzatti@ryerson.ca;
mmaidmen@uoguelph.ca
Cc: jtwalker@ualr.edu;
rbohm@mail.ucf.edu
Subject: Committee on Constitution and
bylaws
Dear colleauges,
First, a very warm hello; I trust your summer has been both relaxing and productive. Here at UNC Charlotte,
students
are already back in school and academic life has resumed its
hectic
pace. This brings me to the purpose of this email.
During the late Spring and throughout much of the Summer, Jeff Walker, Bob Bohm, and I formed a committee of sorts to review the DCC constitution. I initiated this discussion and review largely because I sensed that some of our members (especially those with allegiances to the ACJS) felt disenfranchised from the activities of the DCC. Thus, my principal concern was to assess, with the assitance of Jeff Walker and Bob Bohm, to what extent, if at all, are critical crim colleagues in the ACJS wre without voice in the activities of the DCC.
It became increasingly clear to me that although there are some important philosophical differences between the ASC and the ACJS, when focusing on the needs of critical criminologists the present DCC constitution does NOT adequately include the interests/voice of ACJS members. Of course, Bob, Jeff, and I realized that this was very problematic and so we undertook a very provisional step in the hope of rectifying this shortcoming. What are listed below represent possible changes to the DCC constitution. I'm asking that we all, as DCC Officers or as Executive Officers, entertain some dialogue about the soundness of these proposals. My hope is that if we can come to some consensus over the next few months or so, we should be prepared to seek input from the membership on these constitutional amendments at the ASC meeting in November. Of course, there might be more formal procedures that will have to be honored before making any changes (if we do at all); however, at this juncture, I want to continue with each of you the dialogue that Bob, Jeff, and I initiated.
1. There is some absence of continuity from one DCC Chair to the next. This has an impact on growing our agenda of progressive change on various fronts. This discontinuity can be rectified if our membership votes for a Vice Chair (not a Chair) whose length of office is two years. During the person's first year in office the Vice Chair is readied and trained to assume the responsibilities of the Chair. The Constitution Committee recommends that we amend the constitution so that the membership votes for a Vice Chair who will succeed the Chair's position a year later.
2. The present DCC constitution does NOT make it possible for critical criminologists who are members of ACJS (but not ASC) to vote for officers; however, a person can join the DCC (if a member in good standing with the ASC) or the Section on Critical Criminology (if a member in good standing with the ACJS). What this means is that critical criminology gets the financial support of both types of members but excludes ACJS-exclusive critical criminolgists for purposes of voting for officers. In discussions with Bob and Jeff, several changes in the constitution have been put forward. The most significant, I suppose, is that we construct one critical criminology constitution composed of three parts: (1) a section that relates to the activities of those in the DCC of the ASC; (2) a section that relates to activities of those involved in the Section on Critical criminology of the ACJS; and (3) a section that relates to the activities of those involved in both organizations. Although the Constitution Committee is far from cetain what these sections would look like, there are several important points that we have considered thus far. Each of these more global points is listed below and what they fundamentally underscore is a commitment to critical criminology inclusiveness, regardless of organizational allegiances.
A. Critical Criminology welcomes members from either the ASC or the ACJS
B. Membership in the CC Division requires membership in the ASC; membership in the Section on CC requires membership in the ACJS
C. To vote for CC officers, one must be a member in good standing of either (or both) the ACJS or the ASC (along with the corresponding membership in the appropriate Section/Division.
D. To be eligible for CC office, one must be a member, in good standing, of BOTH the ASC and the ACJS
E. CC officers represent the interests of critical criminologists. This means that the officers represent the interests of ACJS members committted to the Section on CC and ASC members committed to the Division on CC.
3. Bob, Jeff and I realize that the ACJS and the ASC are separate entities. However, in our discussions, we have principally emphasized a commitment to critical criminologists. We also realize that, at least in the past, there have been some concerns voiced by ACJS-type critical criminolgists that the ASC is too elitist; conversely, ASC-type critical criminolgists have indicated that the ACJS is too much like a "cop shop." Although these perspectives may have some merit, Bob, Jeff, and I believe that frank and open dialogue is pivotal to promoting greater cohesion among critical criminologists of various stripes.
Finally, we all know that this sort of discussion is freighted with very strong feelings. From my perspective, we are elected leaders of critical criminology and, as such, have some obligation to work through these very complicated and contentious matters. I'm inviting you to help us with this. Please take some time to review what's been outlined. Again, I'd like to see us discuss these matters prior to the ASC meetings in November. Even if we don't come to some consensus, perhaps we can come to some greater understanding about the place of critical criminology in the ASC and the ACJS.
Best,
Bruce
P.S.: Bob and Jeff, if I've missed something here or if I've not described things as you believe we've discussed, please do correct my any incomplete thoughts or misstated ideas.
