In its 2026 UUA GA report, the Commission on Appraisal states it will be “sharing … how the issues with which the Association has been concerned in the past have or have not been resolved, and how they continue to echo in the present.” Widespread concern about the SWANA region crisis is an unresolved issue that echoes in the present. Our Association has no formal structure for addressing SWANA region concerns other than its membership in the coalition of Churches for Middle East Peace. No GA 2026 reports mentioned Churches for Middle East Peace, Palestine, or Gaza. While UUs hold the line against Christian Nationalism’s deadly impact in the US, we recognize that its foreign policy is also deadly. It intersectionally impacts people here and in other lands. US faculty were beaten and fired, and students arrested, imprisoned, and deported for speaking about the genocide in Gaza. Palantir services ICE and overseas aggression. Many UUs have ties to bombarded lands. Many UUs are in deep grief. Younger generations expect progressive institutions to be vocal. We ask the commission to include engagement with how the UUA can better include and respond to morally injured UUs regarding crises in the SWANA region.
It is unclear to me what is meant by the phrase “its foreign policy”. What does the “it” refer to? US foreign policy is the obvious choice, but the sentence isn’t clear to me. I am confused by the structure of the sentence.
Hello, it’s Rev. Monica Dobbins, chair of the Commission on Appraisal. Thank you for reading our report! I just want to clarify that our intention in saying that we are planning to share “how the issues with which the Association has been concerned in the past have or have not been resolved, and how they continue to echo in the present”, we were specifically referring to the issues raised in previous Commission reports, dating back to the 1930s. Most of these relate to governance and polity.
to me, the structure says that Christian Nationalism’s foreign policy is being opposed, but really it should be the U.S. foreign policy (though they seem to be the same these days)
Grateful for the opportunity to affirm Palestine and Palestinians at this GA. I’m sad that we had to find a logistical way to ensure this naming. I hope that our Association will be intentional moving forward about including Palestine in the naming of what is happening in our world. I’m voting YES on this Responsive Resolution.
This resolution includes a genuine thought about a process that the Commission could engage in. One con speaker said this was co-opting a report (it was not) and criticized not quoting an entire sentence (an RR is limited to 200 words!). It’s interesting that the two con speakers focused on process concerns rather than the substance and pain contained in the proposed resolution. I appreciate their expressions of solidarity and acknowledgement of pain that many people feel. The question remains - what institutional structures and activities can the Association’s bodies engage in that will make a material difference in lifting up concerns of UUs at all levels on this topic.
I take seriously the independence of the Commission on Appraisal. So I have reservations about voting yes for this. Also because the concerns raised by the Commission that the topic might be outside their specific history of concern. But what mechanisms are there to provide input to the Commission on what they should consider? How independent should they be? Aren’t they interdependent with GA? I guess I’m straying afield, but that question is central: What right or authority does GA have to tell the COA what to do? Given that responsive resolutions are not binding, I guess this is really a suggestion than “telling them what to do.”
We aren’t telling them what to do - just affirming that this would be a good thing for them to do. They have done a study on class in our faith. That wasn’t mentioned by the con speakers, but was part of my presentation.
Other denominations are much more advanced than us. There is structure and process devoted to make that happen. For one of the most pressing moral issues of the day, that seems appropriate. Methodists divested from occupations and Israel Bonds last year, for example. This requires a groundswell of people in the pews to provide the grounding for the entire organization. And too many people feel suppressed or ignored or minimized.
Yes, this is a suggestion; what was proposed by the UUA board in 2015 was that the CoA become a subcommittee of and appointed by the board; that was rejected. (Yea, 2015 delegates!) Passing a resolution is not limiting in that way and I don’t think would be unreasonable.
Granted, the rationale for the SWANA Responsive Resolution could have been worded better, please see the Commission on Appraisal mission:
The Commission on Appraisal shall:
review any function or activity of the Association which in its judgment will benefit from an independent review and report its conclusions to a regular General Assembly;
study and suggest approaches to issues which may be of concern to the Association; and
report to a regular General Assembly at least once every four years on the program and accomplishments of the Association.
In 2024, UUA delegates adopted a “Solidarity with Palestinians” AIW. Also, as noted in the responsive resolution, UUA is a member of “Churches for Middle East Peace”. In fact, UUA was one of the founding members of CMEP. I believe holding the UUA accountable for how it engages on SWANA issues falls within the charge of the Commission on Appraisal to “review any function or activity of the Association”.
I write on behalf of the Commission on Appraisal with some points to consider:
The COA is concerned about this Responsive Resolution, but not for any moral reasons, as we are sensitive to and appreciative of the issues raised. Understanding the procedural reasons for this RR being made in response to our report, and being sympathetic to the named grief, nevertheless we ask delegates to vote no on this resolution.
Our concerns are based on the following:
a misunderstanding about what our report is communicating, namely that “the issues with which the Association has been concerned in the past” is referring specifically and exclusively to the topics already covered by reports of our predecessors on the Commission. It was not intended to be a broad statement about any issue before the Association, but limited to “sharing our findings about the Commission’s past reports” as named earlier in the same sentence.
a misunderstanding of the work of the Commission broadly speaking. This is a critical issue, and our report names “assessing our current structure and processes” as the central task of the Commission in the year ahead. Under our current structure and practices, having to shift work midstream in response to this or any similar resolution is untenable.
we caution against setting precedent for individual delegates to direct, in reality or by perception, the work of the Commission, which is independent, broadly represents a cross-section of Unitarian Universalists, is elected by the General Assembly to carry out its work, and chooses its own area(s) of study. Nevertheless, we are open to and planning listening sessions around the country in the year ahead to hear from UUs so as to build that relationality that will allow us in the future to be nimble and responsive to issues as they arise and are relevant to the Association.
That sort of responsiveness is not possible now, nor has it been definitively determined that it is appropriate for the COA to be the locus of such responsiveness for the entire Association. Once again, we make no statement for or against the specific issues raised by this particular resolution. And yes, we do acknowledge and often experience the deep pain and frustration that is named in it.
Speaking for myself and not on behalf of the Commission, I hope that we UUs can continue to find better ways to handle ourselves in the wider world.
Thanks to you all for your service and commitment to this faith we all share!