Servant Leadership and Overcoming Organizational Blind Spots

by Gary Miller, Director of HR Process Transformation at DePaul University

To overcome blindness to operational realities, leadership must embrace a mindset focused on empowering the frontline.

-------------------------------------

“Most ailing organizations have developed a functional blindness to their own defects. They are not suffering because they cannot solve their problems, but because they cannot see their problems.” -John Gardner[1]

Attitudes and beliefs, if not grounded in reality, can cause this blindness at the individual level as well. Consider the case of Hiroo Onoda, a Japanese soldier in World War II who didn’t get the message when Japan surrendered and didn’t believe those who tried to persuade him. For almost three decades, he hid in the jungles of the Philippines, foraging for food and stealing from local farmers. In 1974, he returned to civilization after his former commander finally convinced him of the truth.[2]

Mindsets can have a strong grip on societies and communities as well. In 1962, Thomas Kuhn introduced the idea of scientific revolutions and paradigms.[3] He explained how better interpretations of research findings can take a long time to become influential because of the tenacity of prevailing attitudes and beliefs associated with prevailing scientific theories.

In 1972, the social psychologist Irving Janis coined the term groupthink to describe the tendency of leadership groups to make bad decisions because of being “blind” to certain realities often obvious to many on the outside. The term became famously associated with the narrow and errant mindset of American auto industry executives who failed to “see” changing consumer preferences. “Over time, they [the auto makers] cultivated leadership and a culture that believed that not only were Americans the undisputedly best automakers in the world, but that these companies knew exactly what the American population wanted,” reported one article.[4]

Universities seemingly do a lot to counter groupthink, with some seeking broad representation from all segments of the communities they serve. Further, many seek diversity among board members, administrators, faculty, and staff and have ongoing outreach initiatives, even beyond the federally required affirmative action regulations. Faculty and staff councils bring additional eyes to senior leadership, helping broaden the collective mindset of the institution and making sound strategic decisions more likely.

Yet, depending on the individual mindsets that senior administrators and managers bring to their leadership role, which can vary widely across a college or university, they could be blind to significant organizational problems and inefficiencies. Some who really know the ropes bring insights from having a detailed knowledge of the work and the strengths of the people who perform the work. As Craig Mousin pointed out in his column in the winter 2016 edition of Update (page 9), “A leader who has learned the ropes can be trusted by others in the team to know all the ins and outs of a skill or a profession and lead well.”

In today’s complex organizations, however, with rapidly changing technologies, greater competition, new opportunities, and changing student demographics, few leaders really know all the ropes. Consequently, boards and senior executives are now more dependent than ever on the experiences and insights of faculty and student-facing staff. These frontline professionals — the face of the university to students — are the ones who know their institutions’ strengths and weaknesses at the operational level. They know what is needed to improve the student experience, eliminate frustrating bureaucracy, and streamline processes. The quality of efforts meant to unleash the potential of these frontline professionals varies from college to college and across departments.

Failure to empower these individuals may have significant negative consequences. David Graeber’s article in a recent edition of the Chronicle of Higher Education suggests that some senior administrators are completely oblivious to what’s happening among their staffs. He cites survey results, albeit from Britain and Holland, that show 37 to 40 percent of all workers are convinced that their jobs make no meaningful contribution to the world. He claims that higher education is no better, describing testimony he’s received from staff: “Many… don’t end up doing much; some administrative staff will inevitably end up sitting around playing Fruit Mahjong all day or watching cat videos. But it’s generally considered good form to give all staff members at least a few hours of actual work to do each week.” Graeber further claims that some senior administrators view staff’s role as serving them: “They must be provided with a tiny army of flunkies” to feel “appropriately impressive and powerful.”

Leaders who view their role as being the boss and the staff’s role as primarily there to help them look good do not value the insights of the frontline nor do they empower them. Consequently, these leaders are unaware of the opportunities and challenges in their areas. As Gardner observed, their units will suffer because they cannot see their problems.

The Mindset that Brings Sight

In order to bring operational and service challenges — as well as opportunities — into sight, leaders must empower the frontline. This means that university boards and senior executives should emphasize the development of a leadership culture whereby those in positions of authority over others view their role primarily as serving the organization, faculty, and staff. Mindset must shift from being boss to being servant, as Adam Grant might put it, from being a “taker” to being a “giver.”[5]

The approach to leadership that is consistent with the giver mindset and unleashes the power of the frontline is that of servant leadership, which has long been recognized as a best practice. Carol Walker’s 2015 Harvard Business Review article argued the importance of a servant leadership philosophy for new managers. She wrote:

Robert Greenleaf coined the term [servant leadership] 35 years ago, but the concept is still vital and empowering. Granted, “servant” doesn’t sound nearly as powerful as “boss,” but it has the potential to deliver far more of what most of us are really after: influence. The reason is simple. When you have a servant mentality, it’s not about you. Removing self-interest and personal glory from your motivation on the job is the single most important thing you can do to inspire trust. When you focus first on the success of your organization and your team, it comes through clearly. You ask more questions, listen more carefully, and actively value others’ needs and contributions. The result is more thoughtful, balanced decisions.

The power of servant leadership flows from a right view of the use of power and position, as depicted by the Catholic Social Teaching principle of subsidiarity. “On the basis of this principle, all societies of a superior order must adopt attitudes of help (“subsidium”) — therefore of support, promotion, development — with respect to lower-order societies. In this way, intermediate social entities can properly perform the functions that fall to them without being required to hand them over unjustly to other social entities of a higher level, by which they would end up being absorbed and substituted, in the end seeing themselves denied their dignity and essential place.”[6]

The guiding principle of subsidiarity underlies organizational and societal efforts to create equal opportunity for all, especially the under-resourced. It underlies the laws, policies, and practices to promote diversity and inclusion. The principle stresses the development of persons and groups to enable their success. Vocation of the Business Leader puts it this way:

The principle of subsidiarity offers business leaders great insights. It encourages them to use their power at the service of everyone in their organization and prompts them to question whether their authority serves the development of all their employees…. For business leaders on every level, from team leader up to chief executive, this is very demanding but rewarding. Working under the principle of subsidiarity calls for restraint and a humble acceptance of the role of a servant leader.[7]

A leadership culture that embraces the philosophy of servant leadership and, consequently, the giver mindset and the subsidiarity principle, in which senior administrators and managers see their role as serving others and the organization, is key to unlocking the full potential of an institution. Such a prevailing culture would help avoid many of the organizational ills described by Graeber. Faculty and frontline staff so enabled by leadership, who know they can make a difference and that their opinions are valued, and who understand clearly how their work contributes to the mission of the university, will remedy the functional blindness organizations may have to their own defects.

[1] Bibeault, D. B. Corporate Turnaround: How Managers Turn Losers into Winners. (New York: McGraw-Hill, 1981).
[2] Onoda, H. No Surrender: My Thirty-Year War. (Tokyo/New York: Kodansha International, 1974).
[3] Kuhn, T. S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2015).
[4] See examples of the Groupthink impact at https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/311864.
[5] In his book Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success, Adam Grant presents a common but destructive leadership mindset: the “taker” mentality. Simply put, takers like to get more than they give. “They feel that to succeed, they need to be better than others.... They self-promote and make sure they get plenty of credit for their efforts.” See Adam Grant. Give and Take: Why Helping Others Drives Our Success (New York: Penguin Books, 2014), p. 21, 35.
[6] Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace. Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), sec. 186. See http://www.vatican.va/roman_curia/pontifical_councils/justpeace/documents/rc_pc_justpeace_doc_20060526_compendio-dott-soc_en.html.
[7] Naughton, M.M & Alford, H. J. Vocation of the Business Leader: A Reflection. (Vatican City: Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, 2014). Obtain a copy from https://www.jesuitdigitalnetwork.org/authoring/8731-vocation-of-the-business-leader/view.

Building Organizational Excellence on the Foundation of Human Dignity

by Gary L. Miller

In the spring 2014 edition of Update, Craig Mousin recommended that Catholic colleges and universities provide “a workplace that is an effective laboratory of CST [Catholic Social Teaching] in action.” But how can that be done? Mousin observed that the contribution of Catholic Social Teaching to the reduction of precarious work in the 20th century does not seem to be recognized by contemporary business leaders. He suggested, “Catholic colleges and universities would seem the best place to breach the barriers [between scholars and business leaders/management authors] by providing a workplace that is an effective laboratory of CST in action. CST’s foundation in the dignity of each person—who is not a commodity, but a member of the human community created in the image of God—provides one starting point. Above all considerations, the dignity of each person—each student, staff, and faculty member—should influence daily decisions about allocating resources and determining employment policies.”

The vocation of the Business Leader (VBL)  also recognizes respect for human dignity, as well as the common good, as a starting point. It describes these concepts as “foundational principles which should inform the way we organize the labor and capital employed, and the processes of innovation, in a market system” (38). For CST to be recognized for its contribution to good work and organizational effectiveness, employers need to be able to translate the concepts of CST into present-day management practices and language. Further, to show relevance in a results-oriented culture, the connection between CST-aligned management practices and organizational success must then be demonstrated.

Significant resources are available to Catholic university leaders for taking CST beyond the foundation of dignity (and even beyond CST-grounded policies and philosophy statements) to actually bringing about good and productive work. In fact, “organizing good and productive work” is one of the objectives organizations should have, according to the VBL, in order to promote human dignity and the common good. The document even provides several practical considerations in its discernment checklist: provide employees with appropriate and genuine autonomy (in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity), design jobs that allow employees to use and develop their skills and knowledge, train employees appropriately to enable their success, clearly define responsibilities so that employees know what is expected of them, ensure safe working conditions, provide living wages, and give clear and honest performance feedback.  A large volume of organizational and management research sheds much light on how to do all of these things effectively.

Regarding translating CST concepts into contemporary management language, consider the CST idea of “human flourishing.” The VBL points out that “the way human work is designed and managed has a significant impact on whether . . . people will flourish through their work” (44). What does it mean for employees to flourish? In contemporary management-speak, it means that they are engaged.  Engaged employees tend to be more enthusiastic about their work than those who are not.  They identify more with their employers, feel more valued, and have a greater sense of wellbeing.

A large body of research supports this notion that employees who are engaged, flourish. For instance, the American Psychological Association’s 2014 Work and Well-Being Survey  found that “In predicting well-being, engagement and trust accounted for 50.8% of the variance.” Also, it found that “Workers that feel valued were significantly more likely to report having high levels of energy, being strongly involved in their work and feeling happily engrossed in what they do.”

CST and Organizational Success

Does treating employees with dignity and creating work environments in which they can flourish support organizational success? Again, picking up on the growing volume of engagement research findings, the answer is clearly yes. Unlike employee satisfaction research, which has generally shown little effect on business outcomes, engagement research has found a significant impact. For example, customer retention (could disengaged part-time faculty be hurting student retention?), loyalty, profit, and customer satisfaction are generally found to be much stronger in organizations where employees are engaged. Several studies that show the relationship between engaged employees and positive organizational outcomes are cited below.

To be true to mission values, Catholic colleges and universities must place the principles of Catholic Social Teaching, as Mousin suggested in his column, at the forefront of management considerations. Beyond being the right thing to do, creating workplaces that are effective laboratories of CST in action could help confront mounting financial pressures through better engagement of faculty and staff, especially those in part-time classifications. Making CST principles operational can be done by incorporating CST-aligned best practices, understanding contemporary management expressions of CST concepts, and finding the tools to measure the success of these workplace experiments.

We invite you to respond to this column through the Human Resources and Mission blog. We also invite you to post links to your mission statements, as well as HR and compensation philosophy documents if you would like to share them with our readers. This will permit a fuller discussion of how mission and CST influence the employment process.  The opinions expressed in this column are the author’s alone and do not represent those of DePaul University or the Association of Catholic Colleges and Universities.

[1] Information about the Vocation of the Business Leader as well as a link to the document can be found at https://www.catholic.org/news/business/story.php?id=45927.

[2] For instance, Dr. Michael Naughton, University of St. Thomas (MN), has done considerable work in this area. See a list of selected articles at http://www.stthomas.edu/catholicstudies/faculty/naughton.htm.

[3] See https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2014/04/employee-distrust.aspx.

[4] A sample of studies that show the relationship between engagement levels and positive business outcomes include: Harvard Business Review Analytic Services Report: http://www.yorkworks.ca/default/assets/File/analyst-insights-HBR_Achievers%20Report_TheImpactofEmployeeEngagementonPerformance(1).pdf; 2013 Gallup Engagement Survey Results (see the summary on page 9):

http://www.gallup.com/strategicconsulting/163007/state-american-workplace.aspx; Specific Best Practice Employers Engagement Findings: http://www.apqc.org/sites/default/files/files/Link%20Engagement%20to%20Bus%20Outcomes.pdf; and Towers Watson 2012 Survey: http://www.towerswatson.com/en/Insights/IC-Types/Survey-Research-Results/2012/07/2012-Towers-Watson-Global-Workforce-Study.

Social Justice Warrior: The Legacy of John A. Ryan

Article written by By Arthur S. Meyers

Published by Commonweal July 2, 2018

"In our nation’s debate on health care and other social issues, we should mark the words Ryan spoke in a 1943 radio address when he was seventy-four years old. Referring to the millions of low-income people who could not afford health insurance, he stated, 'Social justice and the common good demand that this evil be corrected by a system of public compulsory health insurance.'"

https://www.commonwealmagazine.org/social-justice-warrior?utm_source=Main+Reader+List&utm_campaign=a7a4bae78a-EMAIL_CAMPAIGN_2017_03_16_COPY_01&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_407bf353a2-a7a4bae78a-91253745

Restoring Community in the Workplace by Practicing Forgiveness

By Patricia M. Bombard, BVM, D.Min

Mistakes, misdeeds, conflict, misunderstandings, and hurt feelings are always possibilities in the natural course of human interactions. – David Bright

Forgiveness in the Workplace
Immaculée Ilibagiza¹ is a Rwandan woman who survived the 1994 genocide by living for three months with seven other women crammed into a bathroom in a pastor’s home. In her book, Left to Tell: Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust, Ilibagiza describes the moment when she realized that, if she survived, forgiving those who had murdered her family was the only true path back to life for her. To not forgive her family’s killers would leave her as devoid of life as her murdered parents and siblings. The lesson: Forgiveness is about us, not them.


Ira Byock² drew on his experience as a palliative care physician working with people at the end of life to write his book, The Four Things That Matter Most. Byock says that the words, “I forgive you” and “Please forgive me” are two of the four toughest things we ought to say as often as possible in relationships. (The other two are “Thank you” and “I love you.”) The lesson: Forgiveness is not easy, but it is an important skill we can learn.


David S. Bright³ is a scholar who researches the role of forgiveness in the workplace. He suggests that forgiveness is an “intrapersonal experience.” It requires a person to first become aware of and then choose not to act on the negative emotions that arise when he or she feels victimized. Bright also suggests that taking such an attitude can turn a negative experience into a learning opportunity for everyone involved, and that the act of forgiveness can restore a positive environment in the workplace. The lesson: Forgiveness is all about feelings and how to manage them.


To illustrate a fourth lesson on forgiveness, we need to go back about 400 years to 17th century France and two stories about forgiveness drawn from the life of St. Vincent de Paul. In the early days of his priesthood, Vincent’s mentor, Madame de Gondi, a wealthy aristocrat, invited Vincent to console a dying peasant man by offering to hear his confession. Afterward, the man’s profound joy at receiving forgiveness for his sins moved Vincent to reevaluate his role as a priest. Soon after, Vincent preached a sermon on general confession in the chapel at Folleville. The response by the villagers was so overwhelming, Vincent had to call upon his Jesuit colleagues to help him hear confessions. This event made apparent to Vincent the need for more well-trained priests and helped him conceive the idea of the Congregation of the Mission (Vincentians), initially a small band of colleagues who traveled to villages spreading the message of forgiveness and reconciliation.⁴


Vincent’s biographers offer several more dramatic accounts of village-wide reconciliations. One large town “of twelve hundred souls” reportedly “had a violent, even bloody, reputation, with frequent homicides committed there” — 70 in three years. Following the preaching of the visiting Vincentians, however, “almost everyone made a general confession and were reconciled to God and to their sworn enemies.”⁵ The lesson: Forgiveness is not only an individual, personal affair. It is also about restoring a community.


Forgiveness in the Workplace
In this column, we will further explore these four lessons: that forgiveness is about us because it is about our feelings and, if used effectively, can restore community. In a previous column, author Mariella Palacios described the need for Catholic colleges and universities to create an intentional workplace culture in which everyone is connected to the mission and to one another. But what happens when that connection breaks because of the “mistakes, misdeeds, conflict, misunderstandings, and hurt feelings” that David Bright talks about in the opening quote above? How can a leader or manager restore a sense of community so essential to delivering on mission?


Byock suggests several strategies for learning to be more forgiving. One is simply accepting that we all are merely human and “that means we screw up from time to time.”  He also suggests that before we jump to feeling victimized, we consider the situation of the other person. “Most of the time when people are nasty, mean-spirited, or greedy they are acting out their own pain,” Byock observes. Leaders and managers can help create a culture of forgiveness by being clear about their own level of expectations around workplace behavior.

Bright elaborates on Byock’s simple suggestions. Bright says that forgiveness “functions as a lubricant to the friction that occurs during the natural course of human interaction.” Bright has a model for how to focus the lubricant of forgiveness on the friction caused by conflict, misunderstandings, and hurt feelings in the workplace. However, before we use Bright’s model to learn what forgiveness in human relationships should look like in the workplace, a few words on how not to think about forgiveness.


Forgiveness Is Not…
First, says Bright, forgiveness is not a pardon. It is not simply letting someone off the hook for his or her bad behavior and moving on. At the same time, it is not a denial of injury; nor is it an agreement simply to forget about it. Forgiveness also is not the same as reconciliation, or at least reconciliation without true forgiveness. Bright says that often two people who agree to reconcile are, in truth, simply agreeing to continue to work together; meanwhile, one or both may continue to harbor negative feelings that will continue to adversely affect their performance, and that of their team, as we shall see in a moment.


Finally, Bright emphasizes that forgiveness does not condone the wrongdoing. The forgiveness act is separate from any punishment or other consequences that might result from the offensive behavior. However, because forgiveness is ultimately about feelings, it important to note that without the act of forgiveness, negative feelings will remain in the workplace even if “in justice” the offending employee is shown the door.


Forgiveness and Emotional Intelligence
Bright defines forgiveness as “a response to perceived negative experiences…in which the propensity toward harbored negativity is displaced or dissolved.” The word perceived  in this definition is very important. If a person believes she or he is injured, the negative feelings – ranging from hurt, disappointment, or powerlessness, to disgust and even anger – arising from that perception are very real. Those feelings are the “harbored negativity” that needs attention.


Research by Daniel Goleman and his colleagues Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee⁶ on emotional intelligence (EQ) suggests that feelings and the ability to manage them properly play a major role in a group’s effectiveness. EQ research shows that a group “catches” emotions emanating from its members. We all have seen how quickly laughter can spread through a group. The same is true of negative emotions. The closer the team, the quicker emotions cycle through it. If someone is harboring negativity, very soon the whole team will be focusing time and energy on coping with the negative emotions swirling around them — time and energy not focused on their work.


Bright observes that learning to transcend negative feelings and engage in forgiveness can create an “undoing” effect and release the positive emotions that help promote healing. He also cites research on the amplifying effect of forgiveness within organizations. This occurs when one person’s expression of forgiveness makes others more likely to forgive, thus amplifying the positive emotions and wellbeing felt by all. This effect may account for the village-wide experiences of forgiveness reported by the French Vincentian priests.


What Leaders and Managers Can Do to Promote Forgiveness
One key idea from Bright’s research is that the forgiveness process can lead to important learnings, for both individuals and the organization. To gain this benefit, leaders and managers need first to create an organizational culture that allows for mistakes and conflict to happen, while trusting in the forgiveness process to manage them. Leaders and managers, says Bright, “can choose to see any perceived slight, in either human or performance issues, as an opportunity for learning rather than keeping score, discovery rather than retaliation, and as a moment for personal and organizational development.”

Second, Bright suggests that successful leaders and managers learn to practice and help foster forgiveness as an organizational strategy. Such a strategy can help leaders and managers “maintain the benefits of positivity in their own experiences, and as a way to help encourage healthy, effective relationships among others.” Such positivity can even lead to greater creativity and improved performance.

Steps to Forgiveness

The first step, then, in practicing forgiveness is recognizing the effect of what has happened on one’s emotional state. A person who perceives an offense should take time to become aware of the feelings generated by the experience. According to EQ researchers Boyatzis and McKenzie, the steps to forgiveness start with listening — first to one’s own feelings in order to name and claim the full range of the feelings triggered by the situation.

In this highly personal work, the next step involves a choice. As Bright explains, “An individual participant in an organization chooses to overcome the potential negative emotions, thoughts, and behavioral tendencies that occur after he or she perceives that another person or group has committed an offense against him or her.”

Then, once a person reaches clarity around her or his own perception of the experience and emotional response, it is now time to take the next step, which is to explore the story of the experience with the other person. This requires setting up a time that feels emotionally right to tell one’s own story, and a willing invitation to listen to the other side. This exchange of stories opens up the opportunity for learning and a commitment to change behaviors in the future.

Finally, as Byock suggests, it is important to say aloud the words, “Please forgive me” and “I forgive you” to one another. This ritual brings an important moment of healing and closure to the incident.

To summarize, the steps in Bright’s model that leaders and managers, as well as team members, can learn in order to reap the communal benefits of forgiveness are:

• Acknowledge the wound. Examine your perception and the impact of the incident.

• Reframe perceptions of the offense and offender by telling your story and listening to the story of the other person.

• Separate justice and forgiveness. Forgiveness is not about consequences; it is about feelings.

• Choose to forgive. Make the life-giving choice for you and your group.

As a leader or manager, you may find it best to act as a facilitator in bringing together two people in conflict to engage in this process. I once was asked to do so by a member of a small non-profit team that had been suffering under the emotionally toxic environment created by two people upset over an incident that had happened five years earlier. I trusted the process and fortunately all ended happily.

Finally, Bright recommends that some people can find additional strength to make the choice to forgive through reflection on their own religious tradition. St. Vincent de Paul and those who served with him in the early Vincentian missions certainly believed in the power of forgiveness.

------------------------

1. Immaculee Ilibagiza, Left to Tell: Discovering God Amidst the Rwandan Holocaust (Carlsbad, CA: Hay House, 2006).
2. Ira Byock, M.D., The Four Things That Matter Most (New York: Free Press, 2004).
3. David S. Bright, “Forgiveness as an Attribute of Leadership.”In ed. Edward D. Hess and Kim S. Cameron, Leading with Values: Positivity, Virtue and High Performance (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press, 2006), 172-193. 
4. Thomas McKenna, Praying with Vincent de Paul (Winona, MN: St. Mary’s Press, 1994), 17-18. 
5. Louis Abelly, The Life of the Venerable Servant of God Vincent de Paul. Book Two, ed. John E. Rybolt, CM, trans. W. Quinn, FSC (New York: New City Press, 1993), http://via.library.depaul.edu/abelly_english/3.
6. Richard Boyatzis and Annie McKee, Resonant Leadership: Renewing Yourself and Connecting with Others through Mindfulness, Hope, and Compassion (Boston: Harvard Business School, 2005).

It's More than Just the Dreamers - Vincentian Heritage Podcast

by Rev. Craig Mousin, J.D.

It's More than Just the Dreamers - Vincentian Heritage Podcast :
https://soundcloud.com/bcicirel/it-is-more-than-just-the-dreamers

Related Articles by Rev. Craig Mousing, J.D.

You Were Told to Love the Immigrant, But What if the Story Never Happened? Hospitality and United States Immigration Law Vincentian Heritage Journal: Vol. 33: Iss. 1, Article 8

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2784951  -

Abstract

• For over 200 years, part of our national narrative has included a story of hospitality towards the immigrant. Familiar with the biblical narrative of caring for the stranger, generations of Americans have welcomed immigrants and invited them to participate in developing our land. In claiming that our immigration system is broken, moreover, President Obama cited Scripture to not oppress the stranger when proposing to defer deportation of certain classes of undocumented persons. Yet the federal government simultaneously detained and deported unprecedented numbers of persons.
  
  Relying upon Scripture to not oppress while detaining and deporting so many reflects how the national and biblical narratives have been challenged recently. The biblical narrative is also contested by post-Enlightenment critiques that reject a divine presence and the biblical concept of justice. A broken immigration system challenges the justice of the U.S. law. The European Union finds its commitment to member’s open borders and the very concept of the nation-state threatened by refugees. These crises suggest that the welcoming narrative may have lost its force. This article argues to the contrary, that both the welcoming and biblical narratives do and should continue to shape contemporary responses to immigrants and refugees.
  
  This article proceeds in four parts. Part I maintains that both narratives retain cultural force. For many, the biblical narrative — a narrative specifically formed in exile — shapes faith and nurtures conceptions of justice and morality. That narrative, however, also played a crucial role in the founding of U.S. society and government, necessitating interpretation by all those interested in public policy.
  
  Part II suggests that if current U.S. immigration law been in effect in the ancient biblical world, no such narrative would ever have occurred as every major biblical protagonist would have been excluded or deported out of the story. What does the U.S. lose today by implementing a law with little discretion or mercy?
  
  Part III examines St. Vincent de Paul and his mission of hospitality. St. Vincent understood the biblical narrative to challenge the pretense of security based on physical walls and exclusion of the vulnerable and the refugee from society, emphasizing that people meet the divine through the poor and the stranger.
  
  Part IV argues that the biblical narrative — and St. Vincent’s particular interpretation of it — call us to grant lawful status to most undocumented immigrants and challenge the detention and deportation of women and children. Current policies deny the immigrant’s dignity and a fair process while depriving the U.S. of the gift of the immigrant. When increased enforcement and detention has failed to make the nation feel more secure, why not seek security through the claim of the biblical narrative, instead of doubling-down on already failed enforcement policies? The article concludes that persons who derive their understanding of justice on the biblical narrative should seek to love the immigrant through reform of immigration law, while also suggesting alternatives to detention and deportation. 

A Clear View from the Prairie: Harold Washington and the People of Illinois Respond to Federal Encroachment of Human Rights 29 S. Ill. L. J. 285 (Fall, 2004/Winter, 2005)

https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2997657

Abstract

• The national debate over sanctuary cities demonstrates the deep divide between local community protection of its members and federal law that disrupts family and community bonds. This article discusses two Chicago efforts to prohibit city police from enforcing federal laws. Former Mayor Harold Washington issued his first 1985 Executive Order prohibiting city employees, including police, from cooperating with federal immigration officers unless required by law. Responding to misuse of city records and discriminatory tactics by federal officers, Mayor Washington recognized that civic harmony and health depended upon community trust that Chicago would not partner with federal immigration enforcement. Over a century earlier, the Chicago Common Council, after finding that the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850 undermined justice and dishonored humanity, prohibited Chicago police from assisting in the apprehension and removal of slaves.  This article examines these two Chicago responses to federal law by: (1) examining the shifting relationship between local and federal enforcement of immigration law since the colonial days; (2) providing the context and rationale for Mayor Washington’s Executive Order 85-1; (3) exploring the context and rationale for the Chicago Common Council’s 1850 order; (4) addressing the proposed 2003 national legislation that sought to require municipal police to assist in enforcing federal immigration law; and (5) surveying the breadth of Mayor Washington’s vision for city government in protecting all community members. His vision to protect human rights, ban discrimination, and build a secure community demonstrated the distinct disadvantages of the proposed Clear Law Enforcement for Criminal Alien Removal Act of 2003 and the Homeland Security Enhancement Act of 2003. Although neither bill was enacted, Mayor Washington’s vision continues to provide a critique of efforts to involve municipal police in enforcement of immigration law.

Craig's Story - Video:  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=c9VTkjhzIcI