Finley In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     66   Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal Peace In Every Relationship: Building an Interdisciplinary, Holistic Domestic Violence Program on College Campuses Laura Finley Assistant Professor of Sociology & Criminology, Barry University lfinley@mail.barry.edu Introduction Despite recognition that college-aged students are particularly at-risk for experiencing abusive relationships (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2009; Leonard, Quigley & Collins, 2002; Sellers & Bromley, 1996; Schwartz & DeKeseredy, 1997; Strauss, 2008), the creation and implementation of impactful campus-based educational programming remains a challenge. Some colleges and universities are teaching domestic violence by adding specific courses or even whole programs on the topic, but more frequently the academic coverage of this topic comes from units or event one-time lectures within specific courses. Those programs that address the issue more extensively tend to be directed at the graduate level (see for example University of Central Florida, University of Colorado at Denver, etc.). Due to the siloed nature of higher education, rarely are curricular approaches to domestic violence education interdisciplinary in nature (Astin & Astin, 2000; Harkavy, 2006). Yet it is clear that a true understanding of the issues and dynamics related to domestic violence necessitates a multi-disciplinary approach (Allen-Meares, 1998; Colarossi & Forgey, 2006; Hall & Weaver, 2001; Retkin, Stein & Draimin, 1997; Weinstein, 1999). Further, it is hard to believe that ad-hoc approaches reach the masses of students who might at some point in their lives experience or be impacted by abuse, nor those who wish to get involved (Fisher, Cullen & Turner, 2009). In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     67   Similarly, while campuses often provide programming outside of the curriculum on the topic of domestic violence, often through their Student Affairs or other non-academic units, such programs also typically fail to reach a large percentage of students. Oftentimes, these events are required for student-athletes or fraternity or sorority members (Anderson & Danis, 2007). Although that is logical, given the over-representation of these groups in abusive relationships, educators know that often fail to internalize, or may actively resist, information when it is made mandatory. Further, one-time events are far from adequate to change perceptions and beliefs, let alone to challenge the social norms that underlie abuse. Domestic violence is a complex issue that involves patriarchal social norms, gender expectations, intersecting inequalities, and legal, policy, and advocacy implications. One-off events or event short academic units simply cannot address the issue thoroughly. And, importantly, such cursory attempts fail to inspire students to take action to help end abuse. It is clear that domestic violence, what former UN Secretary General Kofi Annan called “perhaps the most shameful” and “most pervasive” human rights violations (Shabazz, 2006), are impediments to the development of more peaceful communities. Colleges and universities, then, must work to improve the ways they teach about domestic violence. What is needed is a campus- wide, holistic approach that integrates numerous disciplinary areas but that also goes beyond the confines of the classroom. Such a program would inspire students to get involved at the campus, community, or national level. An impactful domestic violence awareness program would bring campuses together with community providers, allowing students opportunities for service learning and providing useful skills for the community. In sum, a holistic domestic violence educational initiative would follow Cannon (2011) in that it would be based on the concepts of thinking, caring, and acting. How to do so is the million dollar question. This article highlights the ways that campus- based domestic violence educational efforts can draw on the rich literature in peace education to build such programs. It presents a case study of one campus-based program that utilizes peace education concepts and practices to raise awareness about domestic violence. Curricular Concerns Although domestic violence can be addressed in numerous disciplinary areas, it is often not. Or, when it is, it is done in a cursory way that leaves students ill-prepared to understand the issue. Even in disciplinary areas in which the topic is often addressed, research suggests there remains much work to be done. For instance, Danis (2003) found that while 92 percent of BSW and MSW-level social workers had worked with victims of domestic violence, more than half felt their college education did not adequately prepare them. Students in medical-related fields often receive some type of education about domestic violence (Wilke & Vinton, 2003). This is important, but it is still limited, as most programs only address the issue for one class period or perhaps during a short unit. Lecture is typically the only mode of teaching (Alpert, Sege, & Bradshaw, 1998. Hamberger, 2007; Hamberger & Phelan, 2004). Thus students are passive recipients, rather than active learners. As a consequence, such programs may teach about peace but fall short of teaching for peace (Finley, 2004). In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     68   Many still see domestic violence as a “woman’s issue.” Often, these “women’s issues” are still included largely as a part of specialized programs or courses. As Wilke and Vinton (2003) explained, specialized programs or courses may reinforce the current dichotomy between “mainstream curriculum” and “special populations” (p. 226). Clearly, it is problematic to chalk domestic violence up to being only a woman’s issue. The effect may be that believe that only women are victims of abusive relationships and that it is women’s responsibility to address the problem. Further, it is generally only those students studying in the specific discipline who will take those courses, again ensuring that the curricular reach is limited. It is unusual to find any interdisciplinary programs or curricula in higher education that address domestic violence (Astin & Astin, 2000; Harkavy, 2006). Faculty rarely have the opportunity to work together to integrate any topic across disciplines. Most universities and colleges are not structured to support holistic, collaborative education. Rather, most institutions of higher education reinforce societal individualism (Astin & Astin, 2000; Finley, 2004; Palmer & Zajonc, 2010; Sperber, 2000). Jasper (2002) explained that universities have, over the last hundred or so years, increasingly been structured on a natural sciences model. This results in “… a division of labor into departments and disciplines that only make sense if they correspond to objective aspects of the world out there that can be divided into tiny fragments. It means evaluation criteria that turn to the disciplines. Only other experts in your sub-subfield can judge your work, so peer review is used not only for publications but also promotions…” Further, “…hyperspecialization can be the death not only of creativity but of solid understanding, for it is often the big picture that is most important. …The rare interdisciplinary seminar is seen as fun, not an integral part of one's life as a scholar or teacher” (Jasper, 2002). Interdisciplinary training and education is essential to enable people to work collaboratively to help victims and to prevent abuse (Allen-Meares, 1998; Colarossi & Forgey, 2006; Hall & Weaver, 2001; Retkin, Stein & Draimin, 1997; Weinstein, 1999). Increasing class sizes makes it is difficult, if not impossible, for professors to do much but lecture. Lecture-based methods, what Freire (1970) called “banking education,” is often conducted in auditorium-style arrangements that are not conducive to dialogue or group activity (Sperber, 2000). Banking education is not well-suited to addressing issues like domestic violence. Domestic violence is a social problem that is connected to patriarchy and authoritarian systems of power and control. Teaching strategies that utilize the same power and control results in a disjuncture between the message and the mode of presentation (Gardner, 1993). Educators must be careful to address the root of the problem of domestic violence, rather than contribute to the already widespread pathologizing of victims. Berns (2004) explained that the dominant ideology or “frame” (Best, 1995) about domestic violence is victim-focused. This easily leads to victim-blaming, whether overt or more subtle. Today, victims are told they must “take back the power.” Berns (2004) critiqued this new “empowerment” model, asserting that, “This focus may help build support for programs that help victims of domestic violence. However, it does little to develop public understanding of the social context of violence and may impede social change that could prevent violence” (p. 3). Alternately, real empowerment involves, “an understanding that powerlessness is a result of structural and institutional forces In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     69   that allow for inequality in power and control over resources. Therefore, empowerment should be a process that aims to identify and change the distribution of power within a culture to achieve social justice” (Berns, 2004, p. 154). Another issue is that many professors are ill-equipped to deal with the emotional difficulty of teaching about domestic violence (Gardner, 1993; Bent-Goodley, 2008; Murphy- Geiss, 2008). Teaching about domestic violence may reopen wounds for those who have experienced it while those without personal experience often find it intellectually difficult to imagine, despite hearing statistics and theoretical explanations. Research has found that students want more creative, engaged, thoughtful and reflective assignments, in particular as it relates to understanding social inequalities and gender-based violence (Bent-Goodley, 2008). Yet much of the “how to” work on teaching in more integrated and engaging ways is focused on K-12 schools. As such, the pedagogical approaches that are most effective with adult learners at the collegiate level are in need of further development (Turay & English, 2008). This is where the vast literature on peace education and human rights education (HRE) can be tremendously useful, as it provides a framework as well as practical ideas on how to both inform and inspire students to transform their communities and their world (Cannon, 2011; Dale & Kalob, 2006; Finley, 2011; Jenkins, 2007; Kester, 2010; Lin, 2006). Concerns about Campus-Wide Programming Many universities teach domestic and dating violence outside of the curriculum. Campus programming around domestic and dating violence varies, but typically features one-type events, like expert speakers or survivor panels. Surely such efforts are worthwhile, but they are probably unlikely to result in wide-scale change in people’s understanding about gender-based violence. For one, such one-time events rarely reach a substantial portion of the campus population. Attendance is generally voluntary, or may be mandated for a small segment of the population, like fraternity and sorority members. Thus presenters reach just a few already-interested students or may be presenting to those who are disinterested but required to attend. Additionally, one session or even a few seminars or workshops is not nearly enough to address the complexity of domestic violence. From the scope and extent of the problem to forms of abuse, to victim and offender characteristics, to warning signs and impact of abuse, to resources and prevention, a true understanding of abuse must be much more extensive. One-time events are unlikely to inspire students to take action to transform their own relationships, to assist those in need, or to get involved with efforts to challenge social norms and structures that permit abuse. Sometimes, campuses hire experts or well-known names to present on issues like domestic violence and sexual assault. These people are well-versed and dynamic speakers, but they typically require significant honoraria and can only present one time. Further, hiring an outside “expert” might send a message to students that domestic violence is a national problem but not one in their community. Consequently, students may believe that no local activists or advocates are working on addressing the issue, thus they leave the session unable to identify and begin working with local social change movements. Further, students cannot see themselves as In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     70   leaders in the movement to end abuse when they are always being taught by “experts.” As Astin and Astin (2000) noted, many times people believe that the only student leaders on campus are those that have some type of formal title. Those who do not may feel as though it is someone else’s job, not theirs, to make a difference. Additionally, campuses tend to present domestic and sexual violence in very binary and negative ways. Programming stresses how “not” to be a victim or a perpetrator. Women in particular are encouraged, and at some campuses they are required, to enroll in some type of self- defense course. This serves to reinforce the individualized perspective of abuse (Berns, 2004; Bumiller, 2008; Ferraro, 1996). That is, if women are taught where they should and should not walk on campus, with whom they should associate, and how to fight back against an attacker, the onus for ensuring they are not victimized is on them alone. Further, self-defense-based approaches reinforce the misconception that women’s greatest risk is from a stranger. In reality, women are at far greater risk from someone they are dating. Students find this emphasis on the individual to be off-putting, as most do not see themselves as ever being a victim or a perpetrator. Limitations of the Educational Paradigm Perhaps the primary barrier to more interdisciplinary, holistic, and action-oriented domestic violence teaching is that higher education still largely uses traditional teaching methods that are not conducive to transformative education. That is because, as Lin (2006) noted, our current educational paradigm fails to teach whole persons. We do not teach in ways that allow students to see themselves as being interconnected. Instead, we teach in ways that emphasize separateness—body from minds and spirits, people from nature, each person from each other. As Lin (2006) explained, “We have trained people to use their minds sharply but have largely neglected to cultivate their hearts and souls with love and compassion” (p. xi). Education today is often fragmented and divisive. It typically reifies a competitive, capitalist social system, generally without critique. Some have called the present educational paradigm militaristic. Militarism is “…the deep conditioning of the society to valorize military cultures” (Feinman, 2000, p.11). It is a mindset or system of values that privilege hierarchy, authority, obedience, discipline, pragmatism, efficiency, rationality, competition and force (Feinman, 2000; Merryfinch, 1991). Eisler (2000) referred to this as dominator modeled. Kester (2011) explained, “Our schools and nations intend to create democracy and community interdependence, yet to do so educators often use tactics of war-making (e.g. obedience-drilling, secrecy, and competitive games) that reflect more fully the very ideologies the school system intends to transcend” (p. 5). Finley (2010) elaborated on how higher education is, if anything, even more dominator-modeled than K-12 schools. Zajonk and Palmer, authors of the Heart of Higher Education, told interviewer Scott Jaschik (2011) that higher education today has “an impoverished and outdated view of reality (including ourselves), a truncated notion of knowing and learning, and a cost-benefit approach to ethics.” Peace Education: A Different Educational Paradigm In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     71   The scholarship on peace education provides a different framework for teaching and can help guide the creation of more impactful domestic violence awareness programs. Peace education takes many forms, as Harris and Morrison (2003) explained and covers a range of topics (Boulding, 1988; Reardon, 1988; Galtung, 1996; Harris & Morrison, 2003). Peace education can, as Jenkins (2007) and Finley (2010) be either about peace, which emphasizes the teaching of specific content, or it can be for peace, which focuses on inspiring students to transform their beliefs, values, and actions towards a peacemaking and peace-building paradigm. As Kester (2010) explained, “peace education as a practice and philosophy refers to matching complementary elements between education and society, where the social purposes (i.e. why teach), content (i.e. what to teach), and pedagogy (i.e. how to teach) of the educative process are conducive to fostering peace. Accordingly, peace education is a dialogical experience conducted through participatory learning, where learners communally and cooperatively grapple with contemporary issues (i.e. talking points) related to local and global contexts” (p. 2). Peace education should emphasize teaching positive peace. Positive peace is “a process of disbanding structural conditions that foster systematic inequities and societal injustice. Positive peace supports an agenda for greater equity, greater social justice and increased political participation” (Grodofsky, 2012, p. 741). ). It involves humans cooperating to benefit all (O’Kane, 1991). It is education that “enables learners to critically analyze the root causes of violence, war, conflicts and social injustices, and develop alternatives to violence” (Turay, 2005, p. 465). Bajaj and Chiu (2009) explained that “peace education seeks to achieve human rights for all by transforming students into agents of change for greater equity and social justice,” drawing on multiple disciplines to educate for social justice and social responsibility. As Finley (2010) noted, “Positive peace, then, encompasses the very things domestic violence advocates desire as well. That is, to help victims live in a world in which they are safe, secure, and in control of their own destiny.” Similarly, Fetherston and Kelly (2007) explained, that the goal of “…education ‘for’ peace is graduates who go on to work in the peace field, presumably adding to the strength of ‘alternatives to violence’ voices around the world” (p. 263). Ultimately, as Lin (2006) noted, we should seek to inculcate our students “peace intelligence.” Peace intelligence is “a form of intelligence that is associated with a deep love for all lives, a deep compassion for all existences, a courage and a conviction for unconditional forgiveness and reconciliation. It is the ability to see others’ losses as our losses, others’ pain as our own pain. It is cultivating the ability to coexist in a peaceful, respectful manner” (p. 68). Similarly, Paul (1999) and Murphy-Geiss (2008) discuss the need for emotionally-engaged education, a pedagogical approach that “can leave a long lasting, even transformative impression on students that outlives the details of course content” (Murphy-Geiss, 2008, p. 378). Human rights education (HRE) is a form of peace education intended to “prepare students about human rights, for human rights, and towards a human rights consciousness. As such, students can recognize social injustices (civic intelligence) and become advocates of such In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     72   injustices (civic responsibility) evident in their immediate schools and communities” (Osanloo, 2009, p. 156). Opotow, Gerson, and Woodside (2010) asserted that the study of human rights can encourage students to be morally inclusive, an attitude characterized by a willingness to “extend fairness to others, allocate resources to them and make sacrifices that would foster their well- being” (306). HRE is, as Galtung (1996), explained, a method that teaches “peace by peaceful means.” Freire (1970) outlined a form of transformative learning he called conscientization. Education should not prepare students to live in a world that is oppressive and disempowering, according to Freire (1970). Rather, the goal of education should be to teach people to question, challenge, and transform their world into one that is better, one that is more empowering and that is socially just. As Fetherston and Kelly (2007) explain, such an education is “no longer ‘neutral’ but oriented towards the achievement of social justice and personal liberation” (p. 267). Drawing on Freire’s (1970) work and that of peace educators, Turay and English (2008) developed a transformative model for peace education (TMPE) for adult learners. Their model includes celebrating the diversity of learners, participatory learning, globalized perspectives, indigenous knowing, and spiritual underpinnings. According to Turay and English (2008), transformative education begins with personal reflections and stories. Additionally, social change projects and service learning activities help ignite students’ passion to help and develop their leadership skills. Critical peace education has also emerged as a transformative approach built on Freireian concepts. Bajaj (2008) explains that, in critical peace education, “attention is paid to issues of structural inequality and empirical study aimed towards local understandings of how participants can cultivate a sense of transformative agency assumes a central role.” Critical peace education, according to Bajaj (2008) should emphasize depth over breadth, the “messiness” and complexities of human rights issues, and analysis of asymmetrical power relations and their impact not just on marginalized groups but on the entire society. Further, critical peace education must include methods that do not impose violence by disempowering students (Bajaj, 2008; Brantmeier, 2011). Transformative education will involve profound shifts in the ways we understand ourselves and our world. It is developed through critical reflection and dialogue and emanates from opportunities to encounter new information or experience something that disrupts our current understanding (Fetherston & Kelly, 2007). Developing transformative education is not easy. Given that young people have generally been educated in systems that are what Eisler (2000) called dominator-modeled, they come to expect knowledge to be presented in authoritarian, hierarchical ways. Challenges to this form of pedagogical practice may be met with confusion, apathy or disdain. Professors must then engage in a practice of slowly peeling back what Bourdieu (1977) called “habitus,” or the common-sense, taken-for-granted assumptions about how education is done. Fetherston and Kelly (2007) explained that challenging students’ assumptions and beliefs about how learning occurs may be “like peeling an onion, and yet eventually leaving space for the self to see more thoroughly the effects of what is taken for granted” and eventually translating “”into questioning other knowing about the world” (p. 278). Some in the field of social work have also begun to integrate peace education principles and concepts into their pedagogy (Gil, 1998; Gradofsky, 2012; Ife, 2008; Reichert, 2001) and In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     73   some scholars have done so in other fields like criminology (i.e., Pepinsky, 2000), but literature does not suggest that peace education is widespread in areas outside of traditional peace studies. Conceptualizing a Holistic, Transformative Domestic Violence Educational Program To shift our educational paradigm from one that is militaristic and dominator-modeled to one that is holistic and centered on peace and human rights will require both creativity and collaboration (Finley, 2011; Krishnamurti; 1981; Palmer & Zajonc, 2010). Drawing on the insights of peace educators and HRE, campuses can create transformative, holistic domestic violence awareness programs that integrate traditional content knowledge as well as emotional components like survivor’s stories, arts-based activities, multi-media to address the many different learning styles, and wellness events. Further, a transformative, holistic domestic violence awareness program should involve numerous disciplinary areas, including but not limited to communications, public relations, marketing and business students, along with medical, nursing, psychology, sociology, social work, political science, education and other disciplines can and should be involved (Guigno, 2009; Keller & Otjen, 2007; Reese, 2004). Further, such a program should integrate opportunities for students to design projects, to take action to serve their communities, and to share what they have learned through peer education initiatives. Students must be taught as if they are leaders in the effort to end abuse, not just would-be victims or offenders. Bystander intervention efforts, then, are a mainstay of an effective domestic violence awareness program (Banyard, Moynihan & Plante, 2007; Banyard, Plante, & Moynihan, 2004; Burn, 2009; Casey & Ohler, 2012; McMahon & Farmer, 2009). Involvement in real or life-like situations helps students see that it is not just the government’s responsibility but that of each individual to ensure that we all have the human rights we deserve (Print, Ugarte, Naval & Mihr, 2009). Case Study of a Holistic, Transformative Domestic Violence Educational Program Barry University, a Catholic, Liberal Arts university in Miami Shores, Florida, has built an innovation domestic violence awareness and education effort that involves both curricular and extra-curricular activities. Since 2006, the program has been organized through the collaborative efforts of faculty in numerous disciplinary areas, as well as by staff and students. The program involves year-round activities, with special emphasis in November and February. Although October is National Domestic Violence Awareness Month, November was selected as a month of focus because organizers noticed that students found it difficult to choose between involvement in this program and other programs designed to raise awareness about breast cancer, disabilities, and other issues featured that month. February is Teen Dating Violence Awareness Month as well as the month of Valentine’s Day, a time when many are thinking about relationships and thus ideal for discussing healthy ones. The program includes arts-based components, theater, movement and physical activity, and film components, with the goal of reaching a diverse range of students. Service learning is a key component of the program. Students are provided opportunities to engage in service that not only addresses the issue of gender-based violence on campus but also aides the community and victims in need. Through service learning and other programmatic efforts, the community is engaged throughout the year. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     74   The arts are highly valued as a tool for teaching peace in that they prompt creative thinking and stimulate learners’ affective responses (Byron, 2011; Cannon, 2011; Finley, 2011; hooks, 1994;  Lin, 2006; Palmer, 1998). Research has demonstrated that the arts are a great way to raise awareness about abuse, as they help us tap into our emotions. Arts can help those who have experienced harm share their feelings. For those who have not, the arts can be a powerful vehicle for understanding the emotional impact of abuse. As Knafo (2000) explained, the arts help viewers “...bear witness to horrible events and to hold traumatic reality in consciousness” (pp. 661-662). Art can be “raw and confrontational; it reaches out with a sense of urgency. It is meant to invoke a visceral involvement in its audience” (Knafo, 2000, p. 663). The Barry University program integrates several arts-based components. One of these is the Clothesline Project. Started in Cape Cod, Massachusetts in 1990, the Clothesline Project “…is a vehicle for women affected by violence to express their emotions by decorating a shirt. They then hang the shirt on a clothesline to be viewed by others as testimony to the problem of violence against women. With the support of many, it has since spread world-wide.” Additional information is available at http://www.clotheslineproject.org/index.htm. The Clothesline Project has been supported by evaluation research. For instance, Cheek, Rector and Davis (2007) found the Clothesline Project to be a positive learning experience for social work students. Barry University coordinates the Clothesline Project, generally during the month of November. Each year, the Student Government Association hosts the effort in a major walkway on campus. Typically, a fraternity or sorority assists. Students hang shirts that have already been painted as a way to demonstrate the project and to encourage students to paint their own shirt. Dozens of shirts are added to the line each year, creating a huge visible display. The display is then used to initiate dialogue about abuse. Another arts-based component is the Silent Witness Project, a national initiative intended to raise awareness about abuse and, in particular, the fact that domestic violence can be lethal. Life-size red cardboard cutout bearing breast plates that honor those in a community who have been killed from domestic violence are used as “silent witnesses” in communities all over the U.S. More information is available at http://www.silentwitness.net/index.htm Since 2006, Barry University has collaborated with an area domestic violence agency to display their silent witnesses around campus. The breast plates are changed annually to reflect domestic violence homicide victims in Miami. It is a powerful way to remind the community that abuse kills, and professors in various disciplines have used the witnesses for writing prompts and to initiate research projects. Peace educators note the importance of using multiple methods that meet the needs of all styles of learners (Finley, 2011). Since so many students are visual learners, it is important to integrate multimedia into a domestic violence awareness program. Many feature films and documentaries address domestic violence that can be used in classes or as public screening and dialogue events. Media Education Foundation offers a wealth of great documentary films addressing various aspects of abuse and the social norms that allow it to continue. A simple Google search reveals extensive lists of feature films and documentaries that address domestic violence. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     75   Barry University’s program always involves at least one film screening. Often, these are “Dinner and a movie” events in which food is provided to attendees. One year we featured the film Slumdog Millionaire then facilitated a dialogue about abuse as a global human rights issue. A local domestic violence survivor of Indian origin made some tasty Indian snacks. Students enjoyed the dialogue and were happy to be able to support a survivor. In 2012, Barry University coordinated a screening of the Academy Award-winning documentary Saving Face, which addresses acid attacks. Throughout the country, physical activities like 5K walks are used to raise funds for domestic violence services. Barry University has coordinated some slightly different events, however. In 2012 and again in 2013, the university hosted a Zumba event to raise awareness. Zumba originated in South Florida and is widely popular. Some 100 people attended the Zumba classes each year. Information about abuse was placed around the room and during breaks, organizers shared more information about the issue and about local services. Another component of a holistic, transformative domestic violence awareness program involves reaching out to the community. Critical peace educators (Bajaj, 2008; Brantmeier, 2011; Cannon, 2011) call on educators to help their students understand local human rights issues related to power and difference through active collaborations in the community. Recent institutional interest in global citizenship and civic responsibility illustrates a commitment to learning in ways that extend beyond the classroom, with an ultimate goal of bringing about social change (See Mayhew & Fernandez, 2007; Miller, Beliveau, DeStigter, Kirkland, & Rice, 2008). Service learning and community engagement projects beyond our institutional locations represent best practices in achieving these outcomes. According to the National Service-learning Clearinghouse (2013), “Service-learning is a teaching and learning strategy that integrates meaningful community service with instruction and reflection to enrich the learning experience, teach civic responsibility, and strengthen communities.” Service-learning and community engagement bring together “academic” expertise with experiential learning to create new ways of viewing the world (Erickson & O’Connor, 2000; Mitchell, 2008; O’Grady, 2000). Further, these opportunities afford students, faculty, and community members with the ability to engage in real situations with real people with real possibilities for social justice education. Additionally, having students teach young people about abuse is a well-recognized strategy for community change. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) (2010) has called peer education models a promising practice in violence prevention, and research has shown that peer education programs help change students’ attitudes about sexual assault and domestic violence (Smith & Welchans, 2000). Barry University started a domestic violence peer education program in 2011-2012, with support from an Avon Foundation grant. Graduate students studying counseling were trained to present to college and high school youth about dating and domestic violence. They presented to student groups and classes on campus as well as at local conferences and to area high schools. Building on the literature cited earlier in this paper, the peer education program utilizes a bystander intervention approach that encourages participants to see themselves as agents of change who can intervene to stop abuse (CDC, 2010). In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     76   In 2012-13, a grant from the City of North Miami has supported additional peer-led sessions to local youth. A key component of peace education, and, as such, of a holistic, transformative program, is that it inspires action (Brantmeier, 2011; Cannon, 2011; Finley, 2011; Lin, 2006). Gardner (1993) noted the importance of student-initiated social change projects. Service learning allows students to make connections to one another and to develop a sense of empathy and pride (Koliba 2000). Further, it helps students develop critical analysis and writing skills, better see connections between theory and practice (Alberle-Grass, 2000; Kuh, 1995; Parker-Gwin, 1996; Roschelle, Turpin, & Elias, 2000), and see themselves as part of the community, not just the campus. Students who participate in service learning related to domestic violence or other social issues may be more likely to enter careers in the non-profit sector and advocacy organizations (Alberle-Grass, 2000). Roschelle, Turpin and Elias (2000) argued that religious-based institutions that include social justice in their missions, as is the case of Barry University, are particularly well-suited for this type of service learning. The primary service learning vehicle at Barry University is the College Brides Walk (CBW). The following portion of the article describes the College Brides Walk and its service learning component, as well as the ways that it promotes peace through community collaboration to address domestic and dating violence. The College Brides Walk The goal of CBW is to raise awareness about dating and domestic violence. Further, recognizing the many misconceptions about abuse, CBW helps accurately identify who can be a victim, why abuse occurs, and its impact. Importantly, CBW is intended to provide a vehicle for campuses and communities to work together in the effort to help victims and to prevent abuse. The idea of a Brides March began more than a decade ago, when Josie Ashton, a South Florida activist and a college student at the time, became outraged upon hearing about the brutal murder of Gladys Ricart. Gladys Ricart, a Dominican woman, was killed by an abusive ex- boyfriend on September 26, 1999, just moments before she was supposed to marry another man. Ricart was in her wedding gown posing for photographs with her closest loved ones when Agustin Garcia barged in and shot her point blank. Ashton obtained permission from the Ricart family to walk in Gladys’ memory, then walked from the New Jersey home where Ricart was killed to Miami, Florida, wearing her own wedding gown and carrying signs denouncing abuse. She stayed in 14 domestic violence shelters and visited 22 cities, facilitating dialogue about abuse. Ashton’s efforts have inspired annual Brides Marches in New York, Wisconsin, Washington, D.C. and now Florida and the Dominican Republic. Media typically covers the Brides Marches, which is essential in prompting public discussion about a topic that is still too often taboo. In 2010, Ashton met with several colleagues at South Florida colleges and plans began to start a Brides March on a college campus. The first CBW was held on February 11, 2011. Attendees included students, faculty and staff from Barry University and four other South Florida colleges and universities, as well as community members. Some 300 people met for In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     77   opening ceremonies, which featured survivor’s stories, activist’s efforts, and support from local officials. Approximately 100 proceeded to walk the 7.5 mile course, which wove through some of the busiest streets in Miami. Many participants wore wedding attire. After the walk, participants ate dinner, and had the opportunity to interact with community providers of services to victims of domestic and dating violence. In 2012, the 2nd Annual College Brides Walk featured a similar format but different speakers. Despite a heavy rain, close to 400 people attended the event in year two. In 2013, more than 450 people attended the event, with some 200 walkers, again despite inclement weather. While the walk itself is impactful, the inspiring survivor stories allow attendees to see victims as human beings. Attendees hear their pain and suffering, yet also see their amazing resilience. Survivors describe horrific physical, sexual and emotional abuse. Given the goal of correcting misconceptions about who can be a victim, organizers select a diverse array of survivors to speak at the event. Further, the stories all emphasize the role each individual must play in making social change to end abuse. One of the speakers in year one was the mother of a young man who, with his friend, was murdered by the friend’s ex-boyfriend while attending a Florida university. Despite numerous attempts to contact police about being stalked by the ex- boyfriend, no action was taken. The young man’s mother went on to spearhead the creation and passage of critical legislation related to dating violence in Florida. In year two, a speaker discussed the connection between domestic and dating violence and animal abuse and shared her local activism to help the pets of abused women. Year two also featured a student-led mid-walk program. A student who had grown up witnessing abuse and had recently lost a cherished friend to a senseless act of violence led a solemn balloon release in which attendees could write or say something to those they had lost to violence. In year three, Grammy-nominated Latin artist Elain, an ambassador for the United Nation’s UNiTE program, performed at the opening event while a powerpoint slideshow featuring pictures of those who in the last year had lost their lives to domestic violence played. There was not a dry eye in the room and thus, consistent with the work of Lin (2006) and Noddings (2004) and others, the program served to stimulate emotional responses and develop attendees’ sense of caring, love and justice. Students can earn service learning credit for participating in the College Brides Walk. Students in Perspective Consciousness and Social Justice (SOC 200), a required course for students whose majors are in the Arts and Sciences at Barry University, are offered the opportunity to complete the ten hours of service learning required for the course by assisting with and participating in the College Brides Walk. The emphasis in SOC 200 is on equality and justice. The course critiques systems of thought which conceive of inequality as natural, promotes understanding of the ways institutions perpetuate inequality, and helps illuminate the experiences of disadvantaged or marginalized groups. The course is structured around the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (UDHR). SOC 200 is intended to provide students with a better understanding of what it means to be an activist, and through the service learning requirement, provide opportunities for activism that is tied to course content. The course, then, was developed based on principles of critical peace education and human rights education. Students can earn service credit the day of the event as well as before it. Before the event, students help to create banners and decorations that feature statistics and catchy phrases related to identifying, responding to, and preventing abuse. Students doing this work must In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     78   conduct research, using credible sources to identify current and factual data about abuse. Some work in small groups to create poster boards addressing specific facets of abuse, such as male victims and victims with disabilities. Students can also assist with outreach to local elementary, middle and high school classes. With a trained adult (either an organizer or one of the graduate peer educators), students go to community organizations and to schools to talk to young people about abuse and to engage them in artistic activities, like the Clothesline Project. Many of the schools and groups reached through these efforts then attend the CBW. On the day of the event, students earn service hours by helping to set up all the visual displays, posters, and painted t-shirts. They also help the local organizations that are tabling at the event and provide tours for the high school groups who attend. Further, students have the option of actually participating in the walk. Those who choose not to walk must attend additional training about domestic violence, along with other community members. All students earning service hours are required to listen to the speakers before the event so as to hear the authentic voices of victims. In all, more than 100 students elected to complete their service learning hours with the College Brides Walk in the first year. Some 150 did so the second year, and a similar number in year three. At the end of the term, students are required to write a journal-style paper in which they reflect on what they did and how it connects to class material. Student papers indicate that those who participate learned much about the prevalence of domestic and dating violence, who is most likely to be victimized, the warning signs of abuse, how to support victims, and how they can get involved locally to stop abuse. Most comment on the horror that victims endure and are tremendously moved by the speakers’ courage. Many describe enjoying being part of a critical mass that brings the message from the campus to the community. Professors teaching the course guide students in seeing the ways that domestic and dating violence are related to structural inequalities (Bajaj, 2008; Brantmeier, 2011). While each student’s paper is unique, most are able to connect what they learned about abuse to class material on gender, highlighting how women are more likely to be victimized due to gender role norms that still tend to stress aggressive masculinity and passive femininity. Some also draw connections between other inequalities like poverty and racism, showing how these influence who is most at risk for victimization and the likelihood that they will be able to access appropriate local resources to obtain and maintain safety. Most importantly, students note the importance of a community response in order to respond to and hopefully prevent domestic and dating violence. As such, students are learning to see the importance of localized understandings and localized responses to human rights issues like domestic violence (Bajaj, 2008; Bajaj & Chiu, 2009; Freire, 1970). Conclusion Barry University’s holistic program, and in particular the College Brides Walk, has been developed and implemented from a framework of critical peace education, transformative peace education, and human rights education. It has been very successful in terms of participation and media attention. Local and even national televised and newspaper media have covered the event each year, with year three receiving coverage from as far away as Chicago. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     79   Each year, the program becomes even more community-based, helping to bridge the difficult college-community gap (Boyer, 1996). Planning is about to begin for the 4th annual College Brides Walk, and the program continues to expand in scope and in collaboration, with new efforts on campus being led by counseling, social work, nursing and psychology students. Off-campus, additional colleges, universities, K-12 schools and community partners continue to agree to help. Collaborations with Women of Tomorrow Mentor and Scholarship Program, Honey Shine Mentoring, and a local girls school (Young Women’s Preparatory Academy) resulted in almost 200 high school girls attending workshops before the 3rd year CBW as well as scheduling ongoing sessions for additional training on topics related to women’s human rights and domestic and dating violence. Several years into these efforts, what is needed next is a more systemic evaluation of the program and its impact on social norms. It is clear from students’ service learning papers and from other feedback throughout the seven years that attendees to these programs learn a lot, but is not entirely how and to what degree that translates into changed behaviors. Anecdotally, more students have sought to get involved as volunteers at local domestic violence centers, but a more comprehensive analysis would be useful. An important addition to the 3rd and upcoming 4th year CBW is the development of a community-based research project (CBR) that provides students the opportunity to create, implement, and analyze survey results at the walk. This work is supported by a Barry University mini-grant and will serve as the starting point for ongoing assessment of the program’s impact. Strand et al. (2003) define CBR as “collaborative, change- oriented research that engages faculty members, students, and community members in projects that address a community-identified need” (5). CBR is a form of participatory action research that critiques the rigidity of Western social science research and its’ emphasis on objectivity and the authority of researchers over research “subjects” (Strand et al., 2003). CBR has been promoted as a useful tool for evaluating domestic violence educational programming (Bell et al. 2004; Bowes 1996). Although the program is still evolving, it is an exciting attempt to integrate peace education, HRE and service learning to raise awareness about domestic violence. The CBR project is an important element to benefits students and community and that will help the program refine and expand. Through continued and expanded collaboration, research, and service, it is hopeful that the program at Barry University can not only reduce the amount of abuse in the Miami Shores area, but that it can serve as a model for other campuses wishing to create more holistic, transformative programs. References Alberle-Grasse, M. (2000). The Washington study-service year of Eastern Mennonite University: Reflections on 23 years of service learning. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 848-57. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     80   Allen-Meares, P. (1998). The interdisciplinary movement. Journal of Social Work Education, 34,2-5. Alpert, E. J., Sege, R. D., & Bradshaw, Y. S. (1997). Interpersonal violence and the education of physicians. Academic Medicine, 72(Supplement), 41-50. Anderson, K., & Danis, F. (2007). Collegiate sororities and dating violence: An exploratory study of informal and formal helping strategies. Violence Against Women, 13(1), 87-100. Astin, A., & Astin, H. (2000). Leadership reconsidered: Engaging higher education in social change. Battle Creek, MI: W.K. Kellogg Foundation. Available at http://www.wkkf.org. Bajaj, M. (2008). Critical peace education. Available at www.tc.edu/centers/epe/htm%20articles/Bajaj_ch16_22feb08.doc Bajaj, M., & Chiu, B. (2009). Education for sustainable development as peace education. Peace & Change, 34(4), 441-55. Banyard, V., Moynihan, M., & Plante, E. (2007). Sexual violence prevention through bystander education: An experimental evaluation. Journal of Community Psychology, 35, 463-481. Banyard, V., Plante, E., & Moynihan, M. (2004). Bystander education: Bringing a broader community perspective to sexual violence prevention. Journal of Community Psychology, 32, 61-79 Bell, Holly et al. (2004).   Balancing power through community building: Researchers, survivors, and practitioners set the research agenda on domestic violence and sexual sssault. The Journal of Women in Social Work, 19, 404-417. Bent-Goodley, T. (2008). Teaching social work students to resolve ethical dilemmas in domestic violence. Journal of Teaching Social Work, 27(1/2), 73-88. Berns, N. (2004). Framing the victim: Domestic violence, media, and social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Best, J. (1995). Images of issues: Typifying social problems. New York: Aldine de Gruyter. Bourdieu, P. (1977). Outline of a theory of practice. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. Boulding, E. (1988). Building a global civic culture: Education for an interdependent world. New York: Teachers College Press. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     81   Bowes, Alison. 1996. “Evaluating an Empowering Research Strategy: Reflections on Action- Research with South Asian Women. Sociological Research Online 1(1). Accessed January 15, 2013. www.socresonline.org.uk/socresonline/1/1/1.html. Boyer, Ernest. (1996). The basic school: A community for learning. New York: John Wiley & Sons. Brantmeier, E. (2011). Toward mainstreaming critical peace education in U.S. teacher education. In Malott, C., & Porfilio, B. (Eds.) Critical pedagogy in the twenty-first century: A new generation of scholars (pp. 349-375). Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Bumiller, K. (2008). In an abusive state: How neoliberalism appropriated the feminist movement against sexual violence. Durham: Duke University Press. Burn, S. (2009). A situational model of sexual assault prevention through bystander intervention. Sex Roles, 60, 779-792. Byon, A. (2011). Storytelling as loving praxis in Critical Peace Education: A Grounded Theory Study of Postsecondary Social Justice Educators. Dissertation submitted to Portland State University. Available at http://dr.archives.pdx.edu/xmlui/bitstream/handle/psu/7053/Byron_psu_0180D_10334.pd f?sequence=1 . Cannon, S. (2011). Think, care, act: Teaching for a peaceful future. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Casey, E., & Ohler, K. (2012). “Stepping up.” Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 27(1), 62-83. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. (2010). Preventing intimate partner and sexual violence: Program activities guide. Retrieved fromhttp://www.cdc.gov/ violence prevention/pub/ipv_sv_guide.html Cheek, T., Rector, K., & Davis, C. (2007). The Clothesline Project: An experiential learning project with MSW students. Journal of Teaching Social Work, 27(1/2), 141-154. Colarossi, L., & Forgey, M. (2006). Evaluation study of an interdisciplinary social work and law curriculum for domestic violence. Journal of Social Work Education, 42(2), 307-23. Danis, F. (2003). Social work response to domestic violence: Encouraging news from a new look. Affilia, 18, 177-191. Eisler, R. (2000). Tomorrow’s children. Boulder, CO: Westview. Erickson, J., & O’Connor, S. (2000). Service-learning: Does it promote or reduce prejudice? In O’Grady, C. (Ed). Integrating service learning and multicultural education in colleges and universities (pp. 59-71). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     82   Feinman, I. (2000). Citizenship rites: Feminist soldiers and feminist antimilitarists. New York: New York University Press Ferarro, K. (1996, fall). The dance of dependency: A genealogy of domestic violence discourse. Hypatia, 11(4), 77-92. Fetherston, B., & Kelly, R. (2007). Conflict resolution and transformative pedagogy: A grounded theory research project on learning in higher education. Journal of Transformative Education, 5(3), 262-85. Finley, L. (2011). Building a more peaceful world: Creative integration of peace education. Charlotte, NC: Information Age. Finley, L. (2010). Where’s the peace in this movement? A domestic violence advocate’s reflections on the movement. Contemporary Justice Review, 13(1), 57-69. Finley, L. (2004). Teaching peace in higher education: overcoming the challenges to addressing structure and methods. Online journal of peace and conflict resolution, 5(2). Fisher, S., Cullen, F., & Turner, M. (2009). Unsafe in the ivory tower: The sexual victimization of college women. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Freire, P. (1970). The pedagogy of the oppressed. New York: Continuum. Galtung, J. (1996). Peace by peaceful means: Peace and conflict, development and civilization. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Gardner, S. (1993). Teaching about domestic violence: Strategies for empowerment. NWSA Journal, 5(1), 94-102. Gil, D. (1998). Confronting injustice and oppression: Concepts and strategies for social workers. New York: Columbia University Press. Grodofsky, M. (2012). Community-based human rights advocacy practice and peace education. International Social Work, 55(5), 740-753. Guigno, C. (2009). An autonomous service learning domestic violence outreach program. Journal for Civic Commitment, 12. Retrieved October 9, 2012 from http://www.mesacc.edu/other/engagement/Journal/Issue12/Guigno.shtml Hall, R, & Weaver, L. (2001). Interdisciplinary education and teamwork: A long and winding road. Medical Education, 35, 867-875. Hamberger, L. (2007). Preparing the next generation of physicians: Medical school and residency-based intimate partner violence curriculum and education. Trauma, Violence & Abuse, 8(2), 214-225. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     83   Hamberger, L., & Phelan, M. (2004). Domestic violence screening and intervention in medical and mental healthcare settings. New York: Springer. Harkavy, I. (2006). The role of universities in advancing citizenship and social justice in the 21st century. Education, Citizenship and Social Justice, 1(1), 5-37. Harris, I., & Morrison, M. (2003). Peace education. 2nd ed. Jefferson, NC: McFarland hooks, b. (1994). Teaching to transgress: Education as the practice of freedom. New York, NY: Routledge. Ife, J. (2008). Human rights and social work: Towards rights-based practice. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. Jaschik, S. (2011, February 8). “The heart of higher education.” Inside Higher Ed. Retrieved October 9, 2012 from http://www.insidehighered.com/news/2011/02/08/interview_with_authors_of_the_heart_ of_higher_education Jasper, J. (2002, February 7) How the research-university model has killed the creativity of humanists and social scientists. Chronicle of Higher Education. Retrieved October 9, 2012 from http://chronicle.com/article/How-the-Research-University/46235/ Jenkins, T. 2007. Community-based institutes on peace education (CIPE) Organizer’s Manual. New York: IIPE. Keller, S., & Otjen, A. (2007). Creating and executing an applied interdisciplinary campaign for domestic violence prevention. Journal of Marketing Education, 29(3), 234-44. Kester, K. (2010). Education for peace: Content, form, and structure: Mobilizing youth for civic engagement. Peace & Conflict Review, 4(2), 1-9. Knafo, D. (2000). Revelations and rage: Violence against women in the work of women artists. Violence Against Women, 6(6), 661-681. Koliba, C. (2000). Moral language and networks of engagement: Service-learning and civic education. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 825-38. Krishnamurti, J. (1981). Education and the significance of life. New York: Harper & Row. Kuh, G. (1995). The other curriculum: Out-of-class experiences associated with student learning and personal development. Journal of Higher Education, 66(2), 123-155. Leonard, K., Quigley, B., & Collins, R. (2002). Physical aggression in the lives of young adults: Prevalence, location, and severity among college and community samples. Journal of Interpersonal Violence, 17, 533-550. Lin, J. (2006). Love, peace, and wisdom in education. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     84   Mayhew, M., & Deluca, S. (2007). Pedagogical practices that contribute to social justice outcomes. The Review of Higher Education, 31(1), 55-80. McMahon, S., & Farmer, G. L. (2009). The bystander approach: Strengths-based sexual assault prevention with at-risk groups. Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment, 19, 1042-1065. Merryfinch, L. (1981). Militarization/Civilization. In W. Chapkis (Ed.), Loaded questions: Women in the military. Amsterdam: Transnational Institute. Murphy-Geiss, G. (2008). Bringing the facts to life: Facilitating student engagement with the issue of domestic violence. Teaching Sociology, 36(4), 378-88. National Service-learning Clearinghouse. (2013). What is service learning? Retrieved January 15, 2013 from http://www.servicelearning.org/what-service-learning Noddings, N. (2004). The challenge to care in schools: An alternative approach to education, 2nd edition. New York: Teachers College. O’ Kane, M. (1991-92, Winter). Peace: The overwhelming task. Veterans for Peace, Inc., Journal, 19(3). Opatow, S., Gerson, J., & Woodside, S. (2010). From moral exclusion to moral inclusion: Theory for teaching peace. Theory Into Practice, 44(4), 303-318. Osanloo, A. (2009). Civic responsibility and human rights education: A pan-educational alliance for social justice. Intercultural Education, 20(2), 151-159. Palmer, P. (1998). The courage to teach: Exploring the inner landscape of a teacher’s life. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Palmer, P., & Zajonc, A. (2010). The heart of higher education: A call to renewal. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Parker-Gwin, R. (1996). Connecting service to learning: How students and communities matter. Teaching Sociology, 24, 97-101. Paul, R. (1999). Critical thinking, moral integrity, and citizenship: Teaching for the intellectual virtues. In Pescosolido, B., & R. Aminzade (Eds.) The social worlds of higher education: Handbook for teaching in a new century (pp.128-36). Thousand Oaks, CA: Pine Forge Press. Pepinsky,H. (2000). A criminologists’ quest for peace. Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, 567, 158-170 Print, M., Ugarte, C., Naval, C., & Mihr, A. (2009). Moral and human rights education: The contribution of the United Nations. Journal of Moral Education, 37(1), 115-132. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     85   Reardon, B. (1988). Comprehensive peace education: Educating for global responsibility. New York: Teachers College Press. Reese, D. (2004). Risk of domestic violence after natural disaster: Teaching research and statistics through the use of a participatory action research model. Journal of Teaching in Social Work, 24(3/4), 79-94. Reichert, e. (2001). Placing human rights at the center of the social work profession. The Journal of Intergroup Relations, 28(1), 43-50. Retkin, R., Stein, G., & Draimin, B. H. (1997). Attorneys and social workers collaborating in HIV care: Breaking new ground. Fordham Urban Law Review Journal, 24,533-5 Roschelle, A, Turpin, J, & Elias, R. (2000). Who learns from service learning? American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 839-47. Schwartz, M., & DeKeseredy, W. (1997). Sexual assault on the college campus: The role of male peer support. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Sellers, C., & Bromley, M. (1996). Violent behavior in college student dating relationships: Implications for campus providers. Journal of Contemporary Justice 12(1), 1-27. Shabazz, Saeed. November 6, 2006. “Violence Against Women a Global Phenomenon.” New America Media. Accessed January 15, 2013. http://news.newamericamedia.org/news/view_article.html?article_id=8f3648e416500579 ce78928fb304850a Smith, P., & Welchans, S. (2000). Peer education: Does focusing on male responsibility change sexual assault attitudes? Violence Against Women, 6(11), 1255-68. Sperber, M. (2000). Beer and circus: How  big-­time  college  sports  is  crippling  undergraduate     education.  New York: Henry Holt and Company, LLC.   Strand, Kerry et al. (2003, Spring). Principles of best practice for community-based research. Michigan Journal of Community Service Learning, 1-15. Strauss, M. (2008). Dominance and symmetry in partner violence by male and female university students in 32 nations. Children and Youth Services Review, 30, 252-275. Turay, T. (2005). Peace education. In English, L. (Ed.). International encyclopedia of adult education (pp. 465-67). London: Palgrave. Turay, T., & English, L. (2008). Toward a global culture of peace: A transformative model of peace education. Journal of Transformative Education, 6(4), 286-301. Weinstein, J. (1999). Coming of age: Recognizing the importance of interdisciplinary education in law practice. Washington Law Review, 74,319-366. In Factis Pax Volume 7 Number 2 (2013): 66-85 http://www.infactispax.org/journal     86   Wilke, D., & Vinton, L. (2003). Domestic violence and aging: Teaching about their intersection. Journal of Social Work Education, 39(2), 225-35.