Time for some Good NEWS
Free Expression, Liberal Education, and Inclusive Excellence
Originally from http://www.aacu.org/about/statements/2017/free-expression
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
By Lynn Pasquerella
In 2006, during a time when challenges to academic freedom were emerging on college and university campuses from both ends of the political spectrum, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Board of Directors issued a comprehensive statement exploring the concept of intellectual diversity as grounded in AAC&U’s foundational commitment to liberal education. "Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility" was designed as a resource guide for framing and informing discussion around the principles of academic freedom established and set forth by AAC&U and the American Association of University Professors in the trailblazing 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.” Yet, it was also intended to provide guidance on the application of these principles in response to evolving controversies.
"Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility" was equally groundbreaking in its insistence that academic freedom and tenure be considered not only as required for professional autonomy in teaching and research, but also as essential to enabling students to acquire the learning necessary to contribute to the public good. It recognizes that if we fail to help our students connect their education to broader societal issues in ways that inspire them to lead change in a society still challenged by profound inequities, we abnegate our responsibility to promote engaged citizenship, cultural empathy, pluralism, and diversity as the foundation for our nation’s historic mission of educating for democracy.
AAC&U remains dedicated to playing a leadership role in promoting freedom of expression as a hallmark of liberal education within the context of the current landscape through a reaffirmation and reframing of the core principles embedded in the statements produced in 1940 and 2006. The 2006 statement built upon the “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” by foregrounding the capacity of liberal education to foster agency in thought, speech, and action, serving as an accelerator for the emergence of a diversity of informed perspectives and for the development of critical listening skills that invite the broadest possible range of voices to engage in more speech, not less.
Six years later, AAC&U expanded its mission to recognize the inextricable link between equity and quality in liberal education. The incorporation of inclusive excellence as a mission-level commitment invites viewing issues of freedom of expression through this new lens. None of today’s students arrive on college and university campuses devoid of past experiences, pain, and suffering that influence their worldviews. Redressing past and present injustices mandates aligning our expertise as teachers, scholars, researchers, and artists to rewrite the dominant narrative that consigns to the lower shelves of history the contributions of marginalized groups that have shaped American society and culture in profound, albeit often unacknowledged, ways. A commitment to inclusivity, as well as respect for others and free inquiry, must be paramount in maintaining an environment in which the free exchange of ideas can thrive and in guiding the determination of whether speech is protected under academic freedom.
Indeed, an increasingly visible and complex identity politics has fueled controversies over the legitimacy of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” the disinvitation and shouting down of speakers, and accusations of a pervasive enforced illiberalism on campuses. Student protests around a wide range of diversity and inclusion issues highlight the extent to which the conclusions we draw regarding whether arguments and assertions in support of limiting speech are rational and warranted depend, in part, on whose stories are being told and who is doing the speaking. They offer a counternarrative to the dominant discourse that has traditionally marginalized the voices of women, students and faculty of color, religious and ethnic minorities, and members of the LGBTQIA community. Like those who blocked recruiters from campuses during the Vietnam War, these protestors regard their actions as justified on the grounds of necessity and attempts to stop them as further silencing those representing the most vulnerable members of society.
At the same time, those expressing politically conservative views or who have criticized such protests on other grounds, have simultaneously expressed feelings of alienation due to harassment and threats of retribution for exercising free speech. Dissent over the issue of whose voices should be heard and who should decide what constitutes unacceptable speech persists. Discussions regarding how to resolve conflicts between competing claims with respect to freedom of expression on college and university campuses often conflate the First Amendment with academic freedom. Not all speech protected outside of the academy by the First Amendment is permitted within higher education. While the First Amendment protects individual freedom of speech and assembly from government interference, the same protections do not necessarily apply within private organizations. Private colleges and universities are not bound by First Amendment considerations, except under certain specified state laws, and public institutions routinely constrain speech in classrooms, open forums, and through the refusal to grant the use of their facilities. They are permitted to do so if the restrictions constitute reasonable regulations, consistent with their missions, and are deemed necessary to achieve their objectives.
One of American higher education’s greatest strengths is its diversity of institutional types—from community and state colleges and research universities, tribal colleges and historically black colleges and universities to faith-based and single-sex institutions, independent four-year colleges and online universities. Nevertheless, though the missions of these various institutions of higher education may be distinctive, they are united by the shared goals of educating students and advancing knowledge. There are circumstances under which the achievement of both objectives entails restrictions on free expression.
While all views have equal standing in the public square under the First Amendment, this is not the case in the classroom. Faculty members on public and private college and university campuses can mandate respectful dialogue by proscribing certain types of language and other forms of expression and can stipulate rules for being recognized in a discussion. During classroom discussions, on exams, and in essay assignments, not all perspectives are considered uniformly valid. Content and viewpoint are dictated to the extent that one’s contributions must not only be relevant to the topic at hand, but must also demonstrate certain reasoning and communication skills.
Moreover, students are not the only ones whose speech is circumscribed. Faculty members themselves are subject to peer review based on the standards of their profession. Professional autonomy, while valued on college and university campuses, does not extend to freedom from review of one’s teaching and scholarship or judgment based on content and viewpoint. To ensure academic integrity and quality, experts within a field apply agreed-upon methodologies for discerning truth and knowledge, as well as identifying what constitutes reliable and accurate evidence. This is a critical component of educational responsibility since the faculty bears the primary obligation for knowledge production and student learning.
Liberal education is grounded in a commitment to intellectual diversity and protection against the suppression of unpopular viewpoints as a means of guarding against political indoctrination. Insofar as colleges and universities are sites for encountering divergent perspectives, assessing conflicting ideas, evaluating competing claims of truth, creating new knowledge, and upholding intellectual integrity, a liberal education is designed to develop students’ capacities to think critically and to make themselves vulnerable to criticism by welcoming dissenting voices. When preparing students for the future, faculty members should offer curricula that include a diversity of intellectual perspectives appropriate to their disciplines, and they must also be aware of the extent to which their positionality, framing of issues, and syllabi, together with written policies, campus cultures, and comments by other members of the community, can serve as inhibitors of speech.
To prepare the next generation of informed citizens who will shape our democracy, colleges and universities must remain free from entrenched and intellectually rigid forms of political partisanship and engage students from across the political spectrum. In fact, the honest and genuine pursuit of truth, at the core of a liberal education, mandates tolerance for ambiguity and respect for those bearing radically different perspectives. As members of college and university communities come together and appeal to their institutional values in guiding the determination of whether speech is protected, a commitment to respect for others, free inquiry, and inclusivity must be paramount in maintaining an environment in which the free exchange of ideas can thrive.
Originally from http://www.aacu.org/about/statements/2017/free-expression
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
By Lynn Pasquerella
In 2006, during a time when challenges to academic freedom were emerging on college and university campuses from both ends of the political spectrum, the Association of American Colleges and Universities (AAC&U) Board of Directors issued a comprehensive statement exploring the concept of intellectual diversity as grounded in AAC&U’s foundational commitment to liberal education. "Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility" was designed as a resource guide for framing and informing discussion around the principles of academic freedom established and set forth by AAC&U and the American Association of University Professors in the trailblazing 1940 “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure.” Yet, it was also intended to provide guidance on the application of these principles in response to evolving controversies.
"Academic Freedom and Educational Responsibility" was equally groundbreaking in its insistence that academic freedom and tenure be considered not only as required for professional autonomy in teaching and research, but also as essential to enabling students to acquire the learning necessary to contribute to the public good. It recognizes that if we fail to help our students connect their education to broader societal issues in ways that inspire them to lead change in a society still challenged by profound inequities, we abnegate our responsibility to promote engaged citizenship, cultural empathy, pluralism, and diversity as the foundation for our nation’s historic mission of educating for democracy.
AAC&U remains dedicated to playing a leadership role in promoting freedom of expression as a hallmark of liberal education within the context of the current landscape through a reaffirmation and reframing of the core principles embedded in the statements produced in 1940 and 2006. The 2006 statement built upon the “Statement of Principles on Academic Freedom and Tenure” by foregrounding the capacity of liberal education to foster agency in thought, speech, and action, serving as an accelerator for the emergence of a diversity of informed perspectives and for the development of critical listening skills that invite the broadest possible range of voices to engage in more speech, not less.
Six years later, AAC&U expanded its mission to recognize the inextricable link between equity and quality in liberal education. The incorporation of inclusive excellence as a mission-level commitment invites viewing issues of freedom of expression through this new lens. None of today’s students arrive on college and university campuses devoid of past experiences, pain, and suffering that influence their worldviews. Redressing past and present injustices mandates aligning our expertise as teachers, scholars, researchers, and artists to rewrite the dominant narrative that consigns to the lower shelves of history the contributions of marginalized groups that have shaped American society and culture in profound, albeit often unacknowledged, ways. A commitment to inclusivity, as well as respect for others and free inquiry, must be paramount in maintaining an environment in which the free exchange of ideas can thrive and in guiding the determination of whether speech is protected under academic freedom.
Indeed, an increasingly visible and complex identity politics has fueled controversies over the legitimacy of “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” the disinvitation and shouting down of speakers, and accusations of a pervasive enforced illiberalism on campuses. Student protests around a wide range of diversity and inclusion issues highlight the extent to which the conclusions we draw regarding whether arguments and assertions in support of limiting speech are rational and warranted depend, in part, on whose stories are being told and who is doing the speaking. They offer a counternarrative to the dominant discourse that has traditionally marginalized the voices of women, students and faculty of color, religious and ethnic minorities, and members of the LGBTQIA community. Like those who blocked recruiters from campuses during the Vietnam War, these protestors regard their actions as justified on the grounds of necessity and attempts to stop them as further silencing those representing the most vulnerable members of society.
At the same time, those expressing politically conservative views or who have criticized such protests on other grounds, have simultaneously expressed feelings of alienation due to harassment and threats of retribution for exercising free speech. Dissent over the issue of whose voices should be heard and who should decide what constitutes unacceptable speech persists. Discussions regarding how to resolve conflicts between competing claims with respect to freedom of expression on college and university campuses often conflate the First Amendment with academic freedom. Not all speech protected outside of the academy by the First Amendment is permitted within higher education. While the First Amendment protects individual freedom of speech and assembly from government interference, the same protections do not necessarily apply within private organizations. Private colleges and universities are not bound by First Amendment considerations, except under certain specified state laws, and public institutions routinely constrain speech in classrooms, open forums, and through the refusal to grant the use of their facilities. They are permitted to do so if the restrictions constitute reasonable regulations, consistent with their missions, and are deemed necessary to achieve their objectives.
One of American higher education’s greatest strengths is its diversity of institutional types—from community and state colleges and research universities, tribal colleges and historically black colleges and universities to faith-based and single-sex institutions, independent four-year colleges and online universities. Nevertheless, though the missions of these various institutions of higher education may be distinctive, they are united by the shared goals of educating students and advancing knowledge. There are circumstances under which the achievement of both objectives entails restrictions on free expression.
While all views have equal standing in the public square under the First Amendment, this is not the case in the classroom. Faculty members on public and private college and university campuses can mandate respectful dialogue by proscribing certain types of language and other forms of expression and can stipulate rules for being recognized in a discussion. During classroom discussions, on exams, and in essay assignments, not all perspectives are considered uniformly valid. Content and viewpoint are dictated to the extent that one’s contributions must not only be relevant to the topic at hand, but must also demonstrate certain reasoning and communication skills.
Moreover, students are not the only ones whose speech is circumscribed. Faculty members themselves are subject to peer review based on the standards of their profession. Professional autonomy, while valued on college and university campuses, does not extend to freedom from review of one’s teaching and scholarship or judgment based on content and viewpoint. To ensure academic integrity and quality, experts within a field apply agreed-upon methodologies for discerning truth and knowledge, as well as identifying what constitutes reliable and accurate evidence. This is a critical component of educational responsibility since the faculty bears the primary obligation for knowledge production and student learning.
Liberal education is grounded in a commitment to intellectual diversity and protection against the suppression of unpopular viewpoints as a means of guarding against political indoctrination. Insofar as colleges and universities are sites for encountering divergent perspectives, assessing conflicting ideas, evaluating competing claims of truth, creating new knowledge, and upholding intellectual integrity, a liberal education is designed to develop students’ capacities to think critically and to make themselves vulnerable to criticism by welcoming dissenting voices. When preparing students for the future, faculty members should offer curricula that include a diversity of intellectual perspectives appropriate to their disciplines, and they must also be aware of the extent to which their positionality, framing of issues, and syllabi, together with written policies, campus cultures, and comments by other members of the community, can serve as inhibitors of speech.
To prepare the next generation of informed citizens who will shape our democracy, colleges and universities must remain free from entrenched and intellectually rigid forms of political partisanship and engage students from across the political spectrum. In fact, the honest and genuine pursuit of truth, at the core of a liberal education, mandates tolerance for ambiguity and respect for those bearing radically different perspectives. As members of college and university communities come together and appeal to their institutional values in guiding the determination of whether speech is protected, a commitment to respect for others, free inquiry, and inclusivity must be paramount in maintaining an environment in which the free exchange of ideas can thrive.
Loyola Adds More Diversity To Core Curriculum
By Amanda Friedlander | Student reporter. http://www.luc.edu/diversityandinclusion/stories/archive/03-20-17-div-core-story.shtml
Last spring, a group of Loyola students approached the University with concerns about a lack of diversity in the Core Curriculum. They sought to broaden the range of courses that would satisfy Core Curriculum requirements, including classes focused on non-Western history and non-Christian religions. Other students joined in the effort, prompting a discussion with University leaders about the issue.
“The Higher Learning Commission had said we should roll out the current Core for a few years before other changes were made,” says Jo Beth D’Agostino, associate provost for curriculum development. “We were in a moratorium when the students raised these issues, but they felt strongly about them and we felt strongly about them, so we made an exception.”
The Core Curriculum consists of 48 credit hours, or 16 classes, covering 10 knowledge areas such as writing, science, history, and theology. Six of those knowledge areas require students to take both a foundational Tier I course and an additional Tier II course. The Core Curriculum was changed in 2005 and again in 2012; both instances aimed to increase diversity in the required courses and allow students to broaden their understanding of the world as a whole—not just the majority populations of Western society.
Beginning in fall 2017, students will have two additional options to satisfy their Tier I history requirement. In addition to the History of Western Civilization before and after the 17th century, students will have the option to take either American Pluralism or Global History from 1500. Each of these courses will focus on history from the perspective of non-majority populations through the lens of gender identity, race, and religion.
Students will also have the option of taking new Core classes in other knowledge areas. A course on women’s studies and gender studies from a global perspective will be added as a Tier I course in the area of societal and cultural knowledge. Three new Tier II theology classes will also be added, including Social Justice and Injustice, Ethics and Ecology Crises from a Global Perspective, and Religions of Asia.
The Jesuit tradition. At the forefront of these changes is David Slavsky, former director of the Core Curriculum. Slavsky, who is also chair of the physics department and director of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, and other University leaders met with the students who raised concerns about the curriculum. They worked with them to create solutions that would not only satisfy University requirements but also students’ needs for inclusivity and intersectionality in higher education.
Several boards must review and approve proposed changes to the curriculum, a process that looks at rationale for the changes, what effect they will have on student learning, and how they fulfill Loyola’s Jesuit, Catholic mission. The speed of this process typically depends on how quickly each board completes its respective paperwork, but it usually takes about a year and a half from start to finish.
“We moved carefully, but quickly,” Slavsky says. “I got the impression that [students] assumed we’d be oppositional, and that they’d have to overcome our resistance. And rather, our view was, ‘Let’s hear your points. Let’s see if we can work this out.’ And we had really good discussions.”
Some of the challenges that arose during the process of creating and implementing new Core courses involved navigating the needs of 21st century students in alignment with the centuries-old traditions of a Jesuit university. Each review board had to determine what courses will capture the most student interest versus what will best serve students in the long run.
“The idea the early Jesuits had is a good idea, but they didn’t know about molecular biology,” Slavsky says. “They didn’t know about climate change. So how do we maintain that tradition? We have almost 500 years showing us it’s a pretty good tradition, but how do we make changes to meet the needs that our students face?”
An ongoing conversation. Other Jesuit universities are grappling with similar issues. Core directors across the country discuss changes in student interest, as well as how to solve similar issues based on local resources and culture. Each director contributes to the conversation by offering solutions that have worked at their respective universities.
The conversation is ongoing and constantly changing, depending on the needs of their students. While students can count on the Core Curriculum involving theology and philosophy for many years to come, the exact distribution and variety of courses is ever a work in progress, Slavsky said.
As the current changes were inspired by students speaking up about their concerns, Slavsky encourages any student who has concerns about the curriculum to speak with his or her academic department and work with faculty to create change.
“We want to make students active participants in the American republic. We want them to be engaged and informed participants,” he says. “And we think in order to do that, they need to have rigorous academic experiences in as many of the major knowledge areas as they can. And so that’s what we’re always thinking about whenever we add to, subtract from, or change the Core.”
By Amanda Friedlander | Student reporter. http://www.luc.edu/diversityandinclusion/stories/archive/03-20-17-div-core-story.shtml
Last spring, a group of Loyola students approached the University with concerns about a lack of diversity in the Core Curriculum. They sought to broaden the range of courses that would satisfy Core Curriculum requirements, including classes focused on non-Western history and non-Christian religions. Other students joined in the effort, prompting a discussion with University leaders about the issue.
“The Higher Learning Commission had said we should roll out the current Core for a few years before other changes were made,” says Jo Beth D’Agostino, associate provost for curriculum development. “We were in a moratorium when the students raised these issues, but they felt strongly about them and we felt strongly about them, so we made an exception.”
The Core Curriculum consists of 48 credit hours, or 16 classes, covering 10 knowledge areas such as writing, science, history, and theology. Six of those knowledge areas require students to take both a foundational Tier I course and an additional Tier II course. The Core Curriculum was changed in 2005 and again in 2012; both instances aimed to increase diversity in the required courses and allow students to broaden their understanding of the world as a whole—not just the majority populations of Western society.
Beginning in fall 2017, students will have two additional options to satisfy their Tier I history requirement. In addition to the History of Western Civilization before and after the 17th century, students will have the option to take either American Pluralism or Global History from 1500. Each of these courses will focus on history from the perspective of non-majority populations through the lens of gender identity, race, and religion.
Students will also have the option of taking new Core classes in other knowledge areas. A course on women’s studies and gender studies from a global perspective will be added as a Tier I course in the area of societal and cultural knowledge. Three new Tier II theology classes will also be added, including Social Justice and Injustice, Ethics and Ecology Crises from a Global Perspective, and Religions of Asia.
The Jesuit tradition. At the forefront of these changes is David Slavsky, former director of the Core Curriculum. Slavsky, who is also chair of the physics department and director of the Office of Institutional Effectiveness, and other University leaders met with the students who raised concerns about the curriculum. They worked with them to create solutions that would not only satisfy University requirements but also students’ needs for inclusivity and intersectionality in higher education.
Several boards must review and approve proposed changes to the curriculum, a process that looks at rationale for the changes, what effect they will have on student learning, and how they fulfill Loyola’s Jesuit, Catholic mission. The speed of this process typically depends on how quickly each board completes its respective paperwork, but it usually takes about a year and a half from start to finish.
“We moved carefully, but quickly,” Slavsky says. “I got the impression that [students] assumed we’d be oppositional, and that they’d have to overcome our resistance. And rather, our view was, ‘Let’s hear your points. Let’s see if we can work this out.’ And we had really good discussions.”
Some of the challenges that arose during the process of creating and implementing new Core courses involved navigating the needs of 21st century students in alignment with the centuries-old traditions of a Jesuit university. Each review board had to determine what courses will capture the most student interest versus what will best serve students in the long run.
“The idea the early Jesuits had is a good idea, but they didn’t know about molecular biology,” Slavsky says. “They didn’t know about climate change. So how do we maintain that tradition? We have almost 500 years showing us it’s a pretty good tradition, but how do we make changes to meet the needs that our students face?”
An ongoing conversation. Other Jesuit universities are grappling with similar issues. Core directors across the country discuss changes in student interest, as well as how to solve similar issues based on local resources and culture. Each director contributes to the conversation by offering solutions that have worked at their respective universities.
The conversation is ongoing and constantly changing, depending on the needs of their students. While students can count on the Core Curriculum involving theology and philosophy for many years to come, the exact distribution and variety of courses is ever a work in progress, Slavsky said.
As the current changes were inspired by students speaking up about their concerns, Slavsky encourages any student who has concerns about the curriculum to speak with his or her academic department and work with faculty to create change.
“We want to make students active participants in the American republic. We want them to be engaged and informed participants,” he says. “And we think in order to do that, they need to have rigorous academic experiences in as many of the major knowledge areas as they can. And so that’s what we’re always thinking about whenever we add to, subtract from, or change the Core.”
A 15-Year-Old Started a Program to Build Friendships With Immigrant and Refugee Students at School
“This is how we get kids together during school, how we get people to sit at different lunch tables and to go out of their comfort zone.”
“This is how we get kids together during school, how we get people to sit at different lunch tables and to go out of their comfort zone.”
New Study Found No Link Between Immigration and Increased Crime in Forty Years of Data
Politicians often claim that there is a relationship between immigration patterns and increased crime. In a study done at the University at Buffalo however, no links were found between the two. According to the findings, immigration instead appears to be linked to reductions in some types of crimes instead.
Politicians often claim that there is a relationship between immigration patterns and increased crime. In a study done at the University at Buffalo however, no links were found between the two. According to the findings, immigration instead appears to be linked to reductions in some types of crimes instead.
Muslim, Jewish families share dinner after protest encounter captured in viral photo
Gregory PrattContact Reporter
Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-jewish-muslim-fathers-dinner-met-20170210-story.html
The Yildirim family brought a gift when they arrived at Rabbi Jordan Bendat-Appell's home in Deerfield for Shabbat dinner on Friday.
It was a drawing by 7-year-old Meryem Yildirim depicting the moment at O'Hare International Airport that brought the two families together: two fathers — one Muslim and the other Jewish — with children perched on their shoulders as they protested President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.
Chicago Tribune http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/local/breaking/ct-jewish-muslim-fathers-dinner-met-20170210-story.html
The Yildirim family brought a gift when they arrived at Rabbi Jordan Bendat-Appell's home in Deerfield for Shabbat dinner on Friday.
It was a drawing by 7-year-old Meryem Yildirim depicting the moment at O'Hare International Airport that brought the two families together: two fathers — one Muslim and the other Jewish — with children perched on their shoulders as they protested President Donald Trump's executive order on immigration.
5,000 Free Turkeys From Muslim Group Being Given Out At Chicago Schools
By Sam Cholke | November 21, 2016 6:26pm
WOODLAWN — A Muslim group is more than tripling its past charity efforts and giving out more than 5,000 free turkeys to needy families at schools on the south lakefront Tuesday.
The Sabeel Food Pantry will continue a 15-year tradition and pass out the Thanksgiving turkeys at eight schools starting at 9 a.m.
Dr. Jihad Shoshara, the lead coordinator for the past 10 years, said it's a way to give back to the community in a way that boosts a sense of respect by allowing people to join in on an American holiday that otherwise couldn't.
"It's not just charity, it's something that really means something to people," Shoshara said. "They can now do what other Americans are doing all across the country."
Organizers said that the drive shows how Muslims for years have been ingrained in the fabric of American society and the effort runs counter to the portrayal of Muslims during the election year.
"In this year of divisive political rhetoric which has stoked misperceptions and stereotypes of Muslim Americans, this is a clear example of Muslims not only giving back but leading the effort of giving back and extending a helping hand," organizers said in a press release.
In a video of last year's effort, turkeys were passed out with a card that said, "Happy Thanksgiving From Your Muslim Neighbor."
The Sabeel Food Pantry will continue a 15-year tradition and pass out the Thanksgiving turkeys at eight schools starting at 9 a.m.
Dr. Jihad Shoshara, the lead coordinator for the past 10 years, said it's a way to give back to the community in a way that boosts a sense of respect by allowing people to join in on an American holiday that otherwise couldn't.
"It's not just charity, it's something that really means something to people," Shoshara said. "They can now do what other Americans are doing all across the country."
Organizers said that the drive shows how Muslims for years have been ingrained in the fabric of American society and the effort runs counter to the portrayal of Muslims during the election year.
"In this year of divisive political rhetoric which has stoked misperceptions and stereotypes of Muslim Americans, this is a clear example of Muslims not only giving back but leading the effort of giving back and extending a helping hand," organizers said in a press release.
In a video of last year's effort, turkeys were passed out with a card that said, "Happy Thanksgiving From Your Muslim Neighbor."
Shoshara, a who attended CPS as a child, said the schools have found a way to get closer to the community as well.
Shoshara said that parents who come to parent-teacher conferences get a ticket to jump to the front of the line during Tuesday's give-away and it has caused attendance to shoot up at the conferences.
He said the Sabeel Pantry, 3031 W. Belmont Ave., has been able to more than triple the number of turkeys to 5,000 from 1,500 last year thanks to a matching grant from the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, a nonprofit that is the largest halal certifier in the country.
Turkeys will be available until supplies run out.
The schools participating include:
• Carnegie Elementary School, 1414 E. 61st Place
• Dulles Elementary School, 6311 S. Calumet Ave.
• Emmett Till Academy, 6543 S. Champlain Ave.
• Fairfield Academy, 6201 S. Fairfield
• Fiske Elementary School, 6020 S. Langley
• South Shore Academy, 1415 E. 70th St.
• Wadsworth Elementary School, 6650 S. Ellis Ave.
• Woodlawn Community Elementary School, 6657 S. Kimbark Ave.
Shoshara said that parents who come to parent-teacher conferences get a ticket to jump to the front of the line during Tuesday's give-away and it has caused attendance to shoot up at the conferences.
He said the Sabeel Pantry, 3031 W. Belmont Ave., has been able to more than triple the number of turkeys to 5,000 from 1,500 last year thanks to a matching grant from the Islamic Food and Nutrition Council of America, a nonprofit that is the largest halal certifier in the country.
Turkeys will be available until supplies run out.
The schools participating include:
• Carnegie Elementary School, 1414 E. 61st Place
• Dulles Elementary School, 6311 S. Calumet Ave.
• Emmett Till Academy, 6543 S. Champlain Ave.
• Fairfield Academy, 6201 S. Fairfield
• Fiske Elementary School, 6020 S. Langley
• South Shore Academy, 1415 E. 70th St.
• Wadsworth Elementary School, 6650 S. Ellis Ave.
• Woodlawn Community Elementary School, 6657 S. Kimbark Ave.
Cook walked 10 hours to work every day — until moving surprise from co-workers
Alexandra Zaslow TODAY
Thanks to a generous Ohio community and his co-workers, Kevan Finley will no longer have to spend 10 hours a day walking to work.
The 30-year-old was working as a cook at a Ruby Tuesday near his home in Elucid, Ohio, until it shut down in June. When he had trouble getting a local job that would pay him more than minimum wage, he decided to continue working for the chain restaurant's location in Mentor — 9 miles away.
He was making the 18-mile round-trip trek every day, six days a week since then.
"I didn't mind the walk and didn't feel the need to tell anyone at work about it," Finlay told TODAY.
After the restaurant's general manager found out a month ago how he got to work, co-workers took turns driving him home whenever possible.
And then, while driving him home one day, waitress Shayla Kathleen found out Finlay had been saving up for a car and studying to get his license. She told the rest of the staff and together they created a GoFundMe page, which has already raised more than $8,000 for Finlay. "He is always in a good mood and never complains," Kathleen told TODAY. "He deserves what the community has done for him."
Finley has already passed the state exam, but still needs to take his road test. As soon as he gets his license, he plans to head straight to Lakeland Auto Credit, where a car will be ready and waiting for him. "I would really love a truck since I'm 6 feet, 4 inches, but will be grateful for any car," Finley said. The owner of the car dealership, Neil Perry, has even offered to donate $1,000 of his own money to go toward the car.
"Up until recently, Kevan had no idea about any of this and when I told him about the GoFundMe," Kathleen said. "His only response was, 'I was simply just going to work.'"
Mobilizing for Justice and this website are not sponsored by or affiliated or officially connected with Loyola University Chicago.