Psychologists and Torture

Assalamu alaykum

August issue of the British Psychologist - The Psychologist magazine, has an intriging article, please read and share your thoughts.

August 2007 484
The Psychologist Vol 20 No 8

Psychologists and torture

More than a question of interrogation

MARK BURTON and CAROLYN KAGAN on how organised psychology should respond.

HOW can organised psychology best promote and protect human rights in relation to military occupation and the detention of terrorist suspects or insurgents?

The very terms used to pose this question indicate its fundamentally political nature. ‘Organised psychology’ refers to bodies like the British Psychological Society and the American Psychological Association (APA), but such bodies represent a variety of interests. For example, there are significant numbers of US psychologists in the pay of the military and related state organisations, as well as an APA ‘Division of Peace Psychology’. ‘Military occupation’ can indicate a particular understanding of the situations in Iraq, Afghanistan, Palestine or Haiti, with varying views on where the liberation of the populations and the bringing of democracy sit on the agenda. ‘Terrorist suspects’ or ‘insurgents’ implies contrasting understandings of the motives of political violence, and of how people should be treated.

The APA has entered this complex sociopolitical debate about psychologists’ role in ‘national security’ (see The Psychologist, News, October 2006, and this month; Letters, November 2006). There are a number of key issues, not all of which were reported by The Psychologist or have surfaced within the APA debate. The main purpose here is not to document the debate and internal politics of the APA – that can be found elsewhere (Behnke, 2006; Moorhead-Slaughter, 2006; Psychologists for Social Responsibility, 2006a; Soldz, 2006a, 2006b; Summers, 1992); instead, the intention is to contextualise this debate in the wider debates and controversies on psychological torture. While the key issues we discuss have the APA at their heart, they are relevant to us all, due to the extensive influence of the APA over professional psychology worldwide.

What constitutes ‘torture’?
The APA’s President’s Task Force Report on Psychological Ethics and National Security (The PENS Report: APA, 2005) embraces the US government’s ‘Reservations, Declarations and Understandings’ to the United Nations Convention on Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or punishment (see McCoy, 2006; Soldz, 2006b). There are no less than 19 of these reservations (in itself remarkable), but the central issue is the definition of psychological torture itself.

The US reservations, at least if narrowly interpreted, would exempt hooding, forced adoption of stress positions, isolation and sleep denial – the very techniques that formed the core of the CIA methods used at occupied Guantánamo, Abu Ghraib, and elsewhere (McCoy, 2006; Physicians for Human Rights, 2005) and by the British in Northern Ireland in the early 1970s (Watson, 1978). Basoglu et al. (2007) have recently provided empirical evidence that ‘psychological manipulations, humiliating treatment, and forced stress positions, do not seem to be substantially different from physical torture in terms of the severity of mental suffering they cause, the underlying mechanism of traumatic stress, and their long-term psychological outcome’. So when the APA condemned torture, it may be argued that its definition, being parasitic on the US reservations, excluded precisely the kind of torture (approved by Defence
Secretary Rumsfeld in December 2002) based on psychological research and which psychological interrogation consultants might advise on. Similarly, the reservations and the APA exclude from the definition of torture the newer use of cultural, religious and sexual ridicule again documented at Guantánamo and Abu Ghraib.

The role of psychologists

The APA also legitimises the role of psychologists in interrogation:

…it is consistent with the APA Ethics Code for psychologists to serve in consultative roles to interrogation and information-gathering processes for national security-related purposes…
(APA, 2005, p.1)

While the APA declaration is clear that the same ethical rules apply to those in healthcare roles and those in other roles, this legitimation is in stark contrast to the position adopted by the World Medical Association, its 1975 declaration of Tokyo following the BMA review of the Northern Ireland experience. This declaration proscribed the participation of physicians in designing, or even monitoring, interrogation strategies. This rule was also adopted by both the American Medical Association (AMA) and the American Psychiatric Association.

Moreover, the 1982 United Nations General Assembly addressed the ethical questions associated with the participation of medical and other health workers in the interrogation of detainees. These principles establish as an absolute rule that health workers ‘may not engage, actively or passively, in acts which constitute participation in, complicity in, incitement to or attempts to commit torture or other cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment’ (cited in Rubinstein et al., 2005).

Therefore, by allowing psychologists to participate or assist in the interrogation process, the APA is adopting a position out of step with both the medical profession (as Anne Anderson of Psychologists for Social Responsibility pointed out in a letter in 2006 to APA President Gerald Koocher) and the wider UN declaration on health workers, while at the same time making a declaration that appears to condemn psychological torture.

The US context is distinctive. The military established Behavioural Science Consultation Teams to advise the Guantánamo interrogators (Miles, 2007; Physicians for Human Rights, 2005; Soldz, 2006a, 2006b). While the AMA and the American Psychiatric Association gave clear directions that this was inappropriate, the APA, following its military-dominated PENS Task Force, leaves the road open. Perhaps this is why the US military is reported as saying that it is planning to ‘use only psychologists…to help interrogators devise strategies to get information from detainees at places like Guantánamo Bay’ (New York Times, 7 June 2006, cited by Psychologists for Social Responsibility, 2006b).

The BPS (2005) made a clear declaration against torture and the participation of psychologists and the use of psychological knowledge in its design. While it does not explicitly proscribe the
participation of psychologists in interrogation, it does endorse the UN declaration. Its position is at least implicitly in line with the medical bodies listed above, and at variance with the APA.

Just following orders?

Most concerning of all, the APA allows its members the ‘Nuremberg defence’ that ‘I was only following orders’. Article 1.02 of the 2002 revision of the APA Ethics Code reads:

If psychologists’ ethical responsibilities conflict with law, regulations, or other governing legal authority, psychologists make known their commitment to the Ethics Code and take steps to resolve the conflict. If the conflict is unresolvable via such means, psychologists may adhere to the requirements of the law, regulations, or other governing legal authority. (APA, 2002)

The implication is that psychologists are permitted to assist in torture and abuse if they can claim that they first tried to resolve the conflict between their ethical responsibility and the law, regulations or government legal authority. Otherwise they can invoke the Nuremberg defence, but would still of course be out of step with international law. But this problem would not arise at all if there were a clear ban on all participation in interrogation, as suggested by Anne Anderson’s letter to Gerald Koocher of the APA.

As Miles (2004) indicates, the notion that by being present in compromised interrogations psychologists can prevent harm is almost certainly illusory, with significant risks of being ‘drawn in’ to the whole process. An ethical rulebook is a weak safeguard in such total institutions as
the Guantánamo or Abu Ghraib prisons, or in many other military and penal contexts.

The roots of the APA position

The APA rests its declarations on two ethical principles, the first is the uncontroversial ‘do no harm’, while the second is that ‘psychologists are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society’. Former APA President Gerald Koocher (cited in Soldz 2006c) used the combination of these principles to legitimise the involvement of US psychologists in interrogation and other roles in State security.

However, in our view the problem is not one of individual professional practice but of collusion with a whole oppressive system. The APA’s position is arguably consistent with a 50-year history of psychologists’ collaboration with US state security. As detailed by McCoy (2006), the CIA took up Hebb’s Canadian defencefunded work on sensory deprivation, funding further work to take it to its limits in producing psychological breakdown. This research and the phenomenon of sensory deprivation is the cornerstone of psychological torture, a paradigm refined
over the years (CIA, n.d.-b). This further development has been done within the
agency – for example in the mass torture of prisoners during the Vietnam war (McCoy, 2006), or through the culture-specific elements added for Muslim detainees in the present conflict (Physicians for Human Rights, 2005; Soldz, 2006b). It has also been done through further commissioned research, typically through CIA-created funding vehicles such as the Human
Ecology Fund (Greenfield, 1977; Harper, 2004; McCoy, 2006; Watson, 1978).

The symbiotic relationship of US psychology with influential sections of the US military-security establishment is also suggested by the majority of psychologists on the PENS Task Force with links to the military (see e.g. tinyurl.com/2186at), and what Soldz has argued are carefully crafted rules and guidance to psychologists on this question. He suggests that the APA leadership does not want to risk governmental support for psychology. As the APA Division 19 (Military Psychology) proudly proclaims, the US Department of Defence is the largest employer of psychologists worldwide. The problem is that support of psychology by the past and current US governments is, almost by definition, compromising for the ethics of the profession, not merely at the level of codes of practice but in terms of the very construction of the discipline itself together with its knowledge. Psychologists of our generation simply didn’t learn how classic research by Hebb, Schein, Orne (Harper, 2004), Janis and possibly Milgram (McCoy, 2006) was funded by the defence establishment with a view to improved social control in global conflicts.

As a further example of psychological complicity with state security, Gray and Zielinski (2006) argue that the CIA’s handbook on counter-insurgency (CIA, n.d.-a), used to such devastating effect on human rights in Central America, is likely to have been written by psychologists.
Considering the wording, and taking account of the size of the psychological operations units in the US army (the 4th Psychological Operations Group at Fort Bragg currently has 1300 staff and accounts for 26 per cent of the 5000 total: Pike, 2006), we too find this plausible.

More than interrogation

No doubt some readers will be thinking that this is dirty work, but someone has to do it – that the ends, in terms of intelligence gained from interrogation, justifies the means. Yet consider the current conflict in Iraq: is the use of torture and ill treatment really a matter of interrogation and intelligence? It seems that in the 10 known US prisons, more than 50,000 people were detained at some point in 2005. Many were ill-treated using the various techniques known as psychological torture. At least 26 have been killed (Physicians for Human Rights, 2005). In addition to the death toll for Iraqis outside prison – some 186,000 excess deaths attributable to the coalition forces (Burnham et al., 2006) – and atrocities like the destruction of Fallujah, this massive intervention has the familiar characteristics of the regimes imposed on Vietnam and in
Latin America, where social control is imposed on a population by the establishment of fear. It has been suggested (e.g. Gray, 2006) that many of the torture victims are not actually interrogated, and are returned in extreme distress as a lesson to the population – just as the mutilated corpses left by the US-trained death squads in the Latin American dictatorships had the same purpose (CIA, n.d.-a).

An enduring conflict

We would like to conclude by broadening the perspective further, just as radical psychologists have tried to argue that psychology should extend its analysis to the societal construction of psychological life and the mechanisms of social control (Armistead, 1974; Martín-Baró, 1996;
Parker, 1999). In our view, the imperialist state has for years been harnessing its psychology to refine its methods of social control (Herman, 1995; Prilleltensky, 1994), whether through anti-democratic, pro-system propaganda in the core countries of the West (Carey, 1997) or in
the control of those populations who try to take on the empire and its economic system (Duckett, 2005; Lira, 2000; Martín-Baró, 1988).

The implication of this analysis is that socially responsible psychologists should by all means work to achieve a coherent stance by organised psychology on torture and interrogation. This stance should be backed by a clear ethical code, and it should a) prohibit any involvement in
interrogation; b) prohibit psychologists from taking research and development money from state security organisations; and c) encourage involvement in the promotion of humane policies of detention and crime prevention, and against neocolonial military adventures.

But we should not fall into the trap of thinking that this will change the basic paradigm of social control exerted by the state, which will also pick up and use psychological knowledge not produced in a military/state security context. Nor will it do much by itself to reduce the influence of the security apparatus on North American psychology – itself the hegemonic force in world psychology, and one that touches us all.

■ Mark Burton is a qualified clinical psychologist who now works as a manager in a public service. He writes here in a personal capacity. He is also a Visiting Professor at Manchester Metropolitan University.

■ Carolyn Kagan is Professor of Community Social Psychology and Director of the Research Institute for Health and Social Change at Manchester Metropolitan University.

DISCUSS AND DEBATE
How can psychologists best work to prevent military interventions in other countries?

How can psychologists best support initiatives to end torture and abuse of people in detention?
Have your say on these or other issues this article raises. E-mail ‘Letters’ on psychologist@bps.org.uk or contribute (members only) via http://www.psychforum.org.uk/.

WEBLINKS

On the APA controversy: tinyurl.com/38dopfPsychologists for Social Responsibility: http://www.psysr.org/ The Martín Baró Fund: tinyurl.com/27qwbaThe CIA’s interrogation manual: www.kimsoft.com/2000/kubark.htm UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment: www.hrweb.org/legal/cat.html

References

American Psychological Association.(2002). Ethical principles ofpsychologists and code of conduct.Retrieved 23 Jan 2007 fromwww.apa.org/ethics/code2002.html

American Psychological Association.(2005). Report of the AmericanPsychological Association Presidential

Task Force on Psychological Ethicsand National Security.Washington,DC:Author.Armistead, N. (Ed.). (1974).

Reconstructing social psychology.Harmondsworth: Penguin.Basoglu, M., Livanou, M. & Crnobari, C.(2007).

Torture vs other cruel,inhuman, and degrading treatment:Is the distinction real or apparent?Archives of General Psychiatry, 64,277–285.Behnke, S. (2006).

Ethics andInterrogations: Comparing andcontrasting the AmericanPsychological,American Medicaland American Psychiatric

Association positions. APA Monitor,37(7), 66.British Psychological Society. (2005).

Declaration by The BPS concerningtorture and other cruel, inhumanor degrading treatment orpunishment. The Psychologist, 18(4),190.Burnham, G., Lafta, R., Doocy, S. &Roberts, L. (2006).

Mortality after the 2003 invasion of Iraq: a crosssectionalcluster sample study. TheLancet, 368(9545), 1421–1428.Carey,A. (1997).

Taking the risk out ofdemocracy: Corporate propagandaversus freedom and liberty (editedby A. Lowrey). Champaign, IL:University of Illinois Press.CIA. (n.d.-a).

CIA Manual: Psychological operations in guerrilla warfare.Retrieved 3 October, 200, from www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/cold.war/episodes/18/documents/cia.ops/CIA. (n.d.-b).

KUBARK Counterintelligence interrogation: The CIA’s secret manual on coercivequestioning. Retrieved 30November 2006 fromwww.kimsoft.com/2000/kubark.htmDuckett, P. (2005). Globalised violence, community psychology and thebombing and occupation ofAfghanistan and Iraq. Journal ofCommunity and Applied SocialPsychology, 15, 414–423.Gray, G. (2006). [Letter to the editor].

Torture, 16(1), 65–66.Gray, G. & Zielinski,A. (2006).

Psychology and US psychologists intorture and war in the Middle East.Torture, 16(2), 128–133.Greenfield, P. (1977).

CIA’s behaviorcaper. APA Monitor, 1(December),10–11.Harper, D. (2004).

Psychology and the‘War on Terror’. Journal of Critical Psychology, Counselling and Psychotherapy, 4(1), 1–10.Herman, E. (1995).

The romance ofAmerican psychology: Political culturein the age of experts. Berkeley, CA:University of California Press.Lira, E. (2000).

Psicología del miedo yconducta colectiva en Chile (Thepsychology of fear and collectivebehaviour in Chile). In I. Martín-Baró (Ed.) Psicología social de laguerra. San Salvador: UCA Editores.Martín-Baró, I. (1988).

From dirty warto psychological war:The case of El Salvador. In A.Aron (Ed.) Flight,exile and return: Mental health andthe refugee. San Francisco:CHRICA.Martín-Baró, I. (1996).

Writings for aliberation psychology. New York:Harvard University Press.McCoy,A. (2006). A question of torture:CIA interrogation from the Cold Warto the War on Terror.New York:Metropolis.Miles, S.H. (2004).

Abu Ghraib: Itslegacy for military medicine. TheLancet, 364, 725–729.Miles, S.H. (2007). Medical ethics andthe interrogation of Guantánamo.American Journal of Bioethics. 7(4),5–11.Moorhead-Slaughter,O. (2006).

Ethicsand national security. APA Monitor,37(4), 20.Parker, I. (1999). Critical psychology:Critical links.

Annual Review ofCritical Psychology, 1, 3–18.Physicians for Human Rights (2005).Break them down: Systematic use oftorture by US forces. Cambridge, MA:Author. www.phrusa.org/research/torture/pdf/psych_torture.pdf.Pike, J. (2006). 4th PsychologicalOperations Group (Airborne).Retrieved 19 November 2006from tinyurl.com/2yoyg4Prilleltensky, I. (1994).

The morals and politics of psycholgy: psychological discourse and the status quo.Albany,NY:New York University Press.

Psychologists for Social Responsibility.(2006a). [Press release]. Retrieved 23 Jan 2007 fromtinyurl.com/3a9drz .

Psychologists for Social Responsibility.(2006b, June 21, 2006). Psychologist surge Guantanamo closure. Retrieved 23 Jan 2007 fromtinyurl.com/2jbasa.Rubinstein, L., Pross, C., Davidoff, F. &Iacopino,V. (2005).

Coercive US interrogation policies:A challenge to medical ethics. Journal of the American Medical Association,294(12), 1544–1549.Soldz, S. (2006a).

A profession struggles tosave its soul: Psychologists, Guantánamoand torture. Retrieved 14 Sept 2006 from www.counterpunch.org/soldz08012006.htmlSoldz, S. (2006b).

Bad faith and distortions from the AmericanPsychological Association: Protecting the torturers. Retrieved 14 Sept2006 from www.counterpunch.org/soldz09062006.htmlSoldz, S. (2006c, 12 June) ‘Psyche,science and society’ blog. Retrieved23 January 2007 fromtinyurl.com/yfjpyb.Summers, C. (1992).

Militarism, humanwelfare, and the APA EthicalPrinciples of Psychologists. Ethics &Behavior, 2(4), 287–310.Watson, P. (1978).War on the Mind:Themilitary uses of psychology. NewYork: Basic Books.August 2007487

Islamic Religiosity Models & Scales Thematic Issue JMMH

JOURNAL OF MUSLIM MENTAL HEALTH
Announces

"ISLAMIC RELIGIOSITY – MEASURES AND MENTAL HEALTH
Guest Editors:
Mona M. Amer, Ph.D. - Yale University School of Medicine; monaamer75@gmail. com
Ralph W. Hood, Jr., Ph.D. - University of Tennessee at Chattanooga; Ralph-Hood@utc. edu

The Journal of Muslim Mental Health is pleased to announce the upcoming thematic issues focused on Islamic religiosity scheduled for publication November 2007 and May 2008. The two issues will: explore theoretical controversies and practical challenges in researching psychology of religion among Muslims, introduce new measures of religiosity for use with Muslim populations, and explore the links between religiosity and aspects of interpersonal and mental health.

Instruments discussed in the thematic issues assess constructs such as:
- Religious commitment and general religiosity
- Questing and religious reflection
- Fundamentalism
- Religious coping
- Perceived religious discrimination
- Religiosity in spousal selection and marital satisfaction

The thematic issues have international representation, with authors from:
- Australia
- Kuwait
- Iran
- Pakistan
- United Arab Emirates
- United Kingdom
- United States

Additional features are included such as book review and clinical case study.

In light of the dearth of validated instruments for use with Muslims, this will be an essential reference volume for researchers and clinicians working with Muslim populations.

For more information about the Journal of Muslim Mental Health and how to subscribe, please visit
http://www.tandf. co.uk/journals/ titles/15564908. asp
or contact: journal@muslimmenta lhealth.com .

My Iraq: Child psychiatrist

As part of the BBC's Iraq week, child psychiatrist Dr Haidr al-Maliki describes his personal and professional anxieties.

My Iraq: Child psychiatrist


Dr Haidr al-Maliki was an army psychiatrist during Saddam Hussein's regime.

He now works as a child psychiatrist at Ab Ibn Rushed Hospital in Baghdad. He lives with his wife and four children.

There used to be about 80 psychiatrists in Iraq, now there are just 20 to 25.

And some of them will leave. Fifteen or so will eventually go to the UAE or to Jordan; it's difficult.

About a year ago, during Ramadan, four boys aged about 15 to 20 came into my private clinic, in front of my patient.

They asked "Are you Dr Haidr?" I said yes. And they shot me several times.

One bullet went into my right shoulder, another into my right arm. I am left with nerve injury and muscle atrophy.

Afterwards they told me I couldn't go to my clinic and that I had to leave the country. They didn't say why.

So, now I don't go out, I just stay at home. My own private jail.

During Saddam's regime we could take our families to the cinema.

I want to drink, I want to dance, I want to visit my friends. But I can't do anything. If I even think about going for a drink in my club 500m from my house, I will be killed.

Iraqi people are living in difficult times. Most of us have been exposed to aggression: attacks in the street, car bombings, kidnappings.

Most Iraqi people now deal with each other in an aggressive way; they show disturbed behaviour; they have lost their civility.

We don't know how to treat these problems really.

But I can't leave Iraq. If I and my friends leave, who will help our people?

Limitations of care

I was asked to open the child psychiatry centre in Ab Ibn Rushed hospital, but I have no training in children, really.

I read books and I try to help.

Most of the children are suffering from post-traumatic stress disorder, especially those who have been exposed to kidnapping.

Most of the children I see are bedwetting. They have disturbed behaviour or epilepsy.

We treat them with simple medication; it is very difficult.

Most of the families come here for help and sometimes we can do nothing for them, except offer support and advice.

Source

Psychologists - Instrumental to Torture

Pentagon Says Psychologists Have Been Instrumental to Torture

A new Pentagon report confirms that military psychologists played a central role in designing and implementing psychological torture at Guantanamo and in Iraq and Afghanistan. In response, PHR has called on the American Psychological Association (APA) to respond with immediate corrective action.

The Pentagon report reveals that military psychologists with the Survival, Evasion, Resistance and Escape (SERE) program transformed torture methods used in "resistance training" for US personnel into standard operating procedure for military interrogations. The methods, which are known to cause extreme harm, include stress positions, prolonged sleep deprivation, isolation, sensory bombardment, sexual humiliation, forced nudity, induced hypothermia, exploitation of fears and phobias and more.

The APA must do more than merely reiterate the Association's general policy against torture. PHR is urging the APA to reverse Association guidelines, written in part by SERE psychologists, that encourage a key role for psychologists in national security interrogations. In a letter to APA President Sharon Brehm, PhD, PHR calls for the APA "particularly to reject these [SERE] interrogation methods and prohibit any role of psychologists in designing, implementing, training or observing their use or evaluating detainees subjected to them."

PHR's letter to Dr. Brehm coincides with a growing movement of concerned APA members and other psychologists seeking to protect and restore psychological ethics in the national security setting. PHR urges psychologists to support this movement by endorsing a resolution currently before the APA Council of Representatives calling for a "Moratorium on Psychologist Involvement in Interrogations at US Detention Centers for Foreign Detainees." The Council of Representatives will vote on the resolution at the upcoming APA national convention in August.

For More Information visit Physicians for human rights website

What do you make?

Assalamu alaykum

Its funny how I have always seen teaching as my last resort. Nevertheless at the of my mind I felt that it was something not that I didnt want to do, but rather ity was somthing I was kind of scared of doing.

Sisters and teachers amke the best combination. Not only is it good practice :) but also its rewarding and it gives great flexibility.

After all that I have said in the past, I may keep it open as an option afterall.

If you are unsure, chek this out from Muslim Matter....


This is an inspiring video, and after watching it I couldn’t resist posting it here. It’s entertaining, but there is a good message about teachers and the impact they can have on their students.

Watch the video.


Here is a transcript of the poem:
What Teachers Make, or
Objection Overruled, or
If things don’t work out, you can always go to law school

By Taylor Mali
www.taylormali.com

He says the problem with teachers is, “What’s a kid going to learn
from someone who decided his best option in life was to become a teacher?”

He reminds the other dinner guests that it’s true what they say about
teachers:

That those who can, do; those who can’t, teach.

I decide to bite my tongue instead of his
and resist the urge to remind the other dinner guests
that it’s also true what they say about lawyers.

Because we’re eating, after all, and this is polite conversation.

“I mean, you’re a teacher, Taylor”
“Be honest. What do you make?”

And I wish he hadn’t done that
(asked me to be honest)
because, you see, I have a policy
about honesty and ass-kicking:
which is, if you ask for it, then I have to let you have it.

You want to know what I make?

I make kids work harder than they ever thought they could.
I can make a C+ feel like a Congressional medal of honor
and I can make an A- feel like a slap in the face.
How dare you waste my time with anything less than your very best.

You wanna know what I make?

I make kids sit through 40 minutes of study hall
in absolute silence.
No, you can not work in groups.
No, you can not ask a question (so put your hand down)
Why won’t I let you go to the bathroom?
Because you’re bored and you don’t really have to go, do you?

You wanna know what I make?

I make parents tremble in fear when I call home at around dinner time:
“Hi, This is Mr. Mali, I hope I haven’t called at a bad time,
I just wanted to talk to you about something your son did today.
he said, “Leave the kid alone. I still cry sometimes, don’t you?”
And it was the noblest act of courage I have ever seen.

I make parents see their children for who they are
and who they can be.

You want to know what I make?

I make kids question.
I make them criticize.
I make them apologize and mean it.
I make them write, write, write.
And then I make them read.
I make them spell definitely beautiful, definitely beautiful, definitely
beautiful
over and over again until they will never misspell
either one of those words again.
I make them show all their work in math.
And then hide it on their final drafts in English.
I make them realize that if you got this (brains)
then you follow this (heart) and if someone ever tries to judge you
by what you make, you give them this (the finger).

Let me break it down for you, so you know what I say is true:
I make a difference! What about you?

How to write a cover letter

WHAT SHOULD YOUR COVER LETTER DO FOR YOU?

It should answer the question - Why should I hire you? It should grab the employers attention and point out why you, above all other applicants, should be contacted for a personal interview.

YOUR ADDRESS (Do not put your name here)

TODAY'S DATE
Mr./Ms. EMPLOYER'S NAME (If you don't have one, get one!)

TITLE

COMPANY'S NAME

ADDRESS
DEAR Mr./Ms. EMPLOYER:

FIRST PARAGRAPH: This is the "why I'm writing to you" paragraph which immediately tells the employer the position you want to be considered for. This is short - usually 2-3 sentences. Points to cover:

*Why you are writing and which position you are applying for.
*How you heard about the position is irrelevant unless it is a mutual contact or recruiting program. Do not write, "I learned of this opportunity through the Career Services Office."
*Show from your research why you are interested in this position or organization. The goal is to make a connection - do this Briefly and Specifically or leave it out; sweeping statements will not work.

SECOND PARAGRAPH: This is the "why I'm qualified" paragraph. Highlight some of your most relevant experiences and qualities as they relate to the position for which you are applying.

Choose 2 - 3 points you want to make about Specific experiences/accomplishments or about general qualities you have exhibited, and provide Specific examples to support those points.

This paragraph will change according to the job/employer for which you are applying. This is usually the longest paragraph of the letter. You may break this paragraph into two if it looks too lengthy or if your points work best in separate paragraphs. Points to ponder:

The first sentence should be a hard-hitting opener. It is a quick introduction, which is accomplishment-oriented and directed at the skills and qualifications needed for the job/industry.

The body of the paragraph should provide evidence to back up what you've just claimed. Cite specific jobs/internships/activities/projects and accomplishments associated with those experiences. Use your resume to come up with some specifics, but NEVER reiterate passages from your resume word for word. Discuss why what you did is to the employer- relate the facts to the job. Strong examples are important!

The final sentence is a summary of what you've discussed above. It's a good idea to mention the position title and company name to bring the reader back to the specific job in question.

FINAL PARAGRAPH: This is a short 2-4 sentences paragraph. You should refer to the enclosed resume, request an interview and let the reader know what will happen next (Contact them within specific period of time unless it is a recruiting program). It is vital that you thank the reader for his/her time and consideration.

Sincerely,
Your Signature
Your Name

Enclosure(s)


Tips to Make Your Letter Professional

*Research the company and the specifics about the position so you can tailor your letter to the needs of the organization.

*Avoid using too many sentences that start with "I" or writing in the passive voice (ex. "This experience enabled me to..." or "Through my internship, I was responsible for..."); instead, make yourself the subject of each sentence and use active descriptions (ex., "In this internship, I demonstrated sound judgment and problem-solving skills on a daily basis.").

*Do not use contractions (I'd, didn't, it's).

*Spelling, grammar, or punctuation mistakes are out of the question! Cover letters are a reflection of your writing skills, so make each cover letter an example of your best work.
Be sure to sign your letters. (Black ink is suggested)

*Keep your letter short and simple. This is not the time to tell your whole life's story.
Have a Career Specialist review your cover letters during drop-in hours: Monday-Friday 1:30 – 4:30 and Wednesday 8:30am – 11:30am OR you can make an appointment anytime.

*Use good quality paper that matches your resume paper and envelopes.

More info

Are you a seeker?

Assalamu alaykum

Ever needed a quick fix for happiness? Well you know what there is one! But there is a catch! Our hearts must ne fist open, ready for acceptence and ready to give from whatever is needed from us and others.

The following is some great traits which we should all try to obtain to make ourselves and others feel wanted and loved, to fill pur lives with sustenence, to grasp the concept of tranquility, for our hearts to be complete, and to be a true seeker of happiness.

Characteristics of The Seeker of Happiness


Ibn al-Qayyim said:

"...The seeker of Allah and the Hereafter - rather, the one who seeks to obtain all knowledge, productiveness, and leadership, such that he is a leader who is taken as an example in all of this - should be brave, bold, in control of his whims, and not under the control of his imagination.

He should be abstinent from everything except that which he is after, passionate about what he has turned his face towards, knowing the path to it, as well as the paths which lead away from it.

He should be bold in his aspiration, firm in his resolve, and not swayed from his goal by the blame of the blamers or the discouragement of the discouragers.

He should generally be tranquil, constantly in thought, and not be moved by the sweetness of a compliment or the pain of criticism.

He should be forthcoming in providing himself with what he needs to help him obtain his goal, and should not be incited by those who oppose him.

His slogan should be patience, and his rest should be his fatigue, and he should love to have the best manners.

He should make the best of his time, not mixing with the people except in a most cautious state, just like a bird that quickly comes down to snatch a morsel from between two people.

He should stand over himself, encouraging himself by way of hope and fear, and should seek to be outstanding amongst his group..."


['al-Fawa'id'; p. 265]