CONTENTS

THECE TR 2 Tolerance Can Bring Understanding to the Multicultural Community

by C.W Von Bergen, Martin S. Bressler, George Collier, & Alison N. Von Bergen

22 The Next 50 Years of College Unions by Chester Berry

28 100 Years of ACUI

5ASSOCIATION 46 2013 Education and Research Fund Donors

4 ACUI Begins Search for Next CEO

THE

BULLETIN APRIL 2014. VOL 82. ISSUE 2

.:}I P wted WI h vegetable-baseo Ilk 0'1 SO-percen recycled. FSC-cer Ifie paper. Please recycle.

~ TO THt

THE BULLETIN • APRIL 2014 • ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE UNIONS INTERNATIONAL TIE CEIITRE 12

BY C.w VON BERGEN, MARTIN S, BRESSLER. GEORGE COLLIER,

& ALISON N. VON BERGEN

College unions originated as debating societies. These organizations oftercd students a means of engaging in a free flow of ideas, discussions to advance knowledge and reason, and forums for

contesti ng political and social issues, One hallmark of these organizations, as suggested by the historical publication The College Union Idea, was that there could be unity through diversitv of people and ideas and that this accord could be ad\'anced by under­standing of differences and the opportunity for public debate and discussion,

In recent times, union and acti\'ities professionals have become more involved with initiati\'(~s to bat­tle bias and hate crimes at colleges and universities and addressing diversity and inclusion issues by pro­moting "tolerance," Nloreover, some ha\'e expressed a desire to go beyond tolerance and mo\'e toward acceptance and celebration of d iffrrences, Bur such a progression may not be possible or e\'en desirable,

Another way of defining tolerance is as ci\'iJity, with respect toward others and harmon\' \\'ithout

13

QUESTIONS ABOUT TOLERANCE rarely surface for fear that one be

PERCEIVED AS INTOLERANT­not a label people want today.

conformity. This understanding of tolerance is offered as a more appropriate and effective model for easing hostile tensions between individuals and groups and for helping commu nities move past intractable conflict. Ultimately, tolerance as civility requires dia­logue, which was the founding principle of college unions so ma nv vears ago.

According to The College Union Idea, "It is not difficult to disco\'(T what had alwavs been the most important of those characteris­tics which make of university life a thing apart. It is a free discus­sion. The contest of mind against mind is the greatest benefit which a uni\'ersity can conter. Thus, to focus these interests of free dis­cussion-to give them name, local habitation, pennanency-became the object of severa] enterprising spirits who succeeded in founding a debating society for the whole of the University of Oxford. The new entity, to be known within a verv , shon ti me and ever si nce , almost afkctionately as 'The Oxford Union,' did not spring spontaneously. Thoughts of such a unity had been in the air for some years, and the fine idealis­tic view persisted that this should be unity through diversity. Unity could come from, or even be stim­ulated by, the understanding of difference. Even conversions were possible. The policy of oppor­tLl11ity for public debate scarcely demands an apologist."

The Importance of Tolerance

ACUI's core pmpose is to

advance campus cOlllmunity build­ers and one of its strategic gOclls is to enhance members' intercul­tmal proficiency. Hans Oberdiek, in his book !illerance: BctweC71 Forbearance and Acceptance, noted that one means of achieving this worthy goal is to encourage indi­\'iduals to affirlll, accept, and approve others' practices, opinions, ,lnd beliefs through increased levels of tolerance. Tolerance is consid­ered indispensable for any decent society-or at least for societ­ies encompassing deeply divergent ways oni fe typical of many VVestern cultures. James HaJ lemeier noted in Tolerance, Respect, and Charitv: A Virtue-ethical Account of Interaction with the Other that tolerance today IS considered essential and a highly desirable qualitv in U.S. societv, and Peter Kreeft indicated that it is one of its few noncontro\'ersia I \'a lues inA Refutatioll of 1vforal Relatil'islfI­Tj'al1JCriptum. Algll111eJlt fin' Relatil'lsl'i'l: ToleranCt'.

In a world bmdened b\' Injus­tice, inequalin', and related bigotrv, mal1\' peop Ie in si St t h.lt the best solution to address these evils involves greelter degrees of tolerance. vVithin the last gen­eration, it rose to the apn ()~'

America's public moral rhi1m­ophy. Politicians urge toler.lJlce tOward minonties. T({u!Jill/J Tolerance magazine is rhe i].1tion's

leading journal serving educa­tors on diversity issues and is scm free to all U.S. school disnicts. I t showcases nu merous strategies teachers and parems can adopt to instruct children in becoming more toleram. The press is full of references to the need to d is­play tolerance when LlCed with individuals or groups espoLlsing a different view or rei igious belief A tolerant society, we are told, is an objective sought after by any­one who believes in the values of parliamemary democrac~'. There are museums in Los Angeles and New York dedicated to toler­ance, and an International Day for Toler:lllce adopted by the United Nations is annu,llly observed on Nov. 16 to educate people about the need for tolerance and to help individuals understand the nega­tive effects of intolerance.

I n Pernicious Tolerance: HIIII'

Teaching to (CA,ccept Differmces)' Undermines Civil Society) Robert Weissberg provided some back­grou nd abou t tOlerance and noted that historically, tolerance was seen as a perm issive practice of allowing a person, practice, or thing of which olle disapproved That is, tolerant individuals were expected to "put lip with" what they r()und to be disgusting in order to coexist with those who were difterellt. Tolerance comes from the Latin words tolerare, which means to bear or sustain, and tollere, wh ich mea IlS to Ii ft up. It implies bearing other people

14

and thei r beliefs the way one bears a burden or migraine headache. Therdore, traditionally tolerance was seen as a relatively detached attitude of suffering that which we disliked or detested.

Tolerance as endurance carries with it connotations of superior­itv. Embedded in the idea of this definition is the notion that what is endured is less valuable or even socially or morally wrong. "vVho of us wants to be tolerated/endured because of our skin colour, our culture, or for that matter our gen­der or our religion?" asks Rivka Witenberg in her paper "Racial Tolerance and Acceptance as the Basis for Harmonious Living in a Civ iI Society." Jlldgmenta Iism is an integral element in the con­cept; disapproval IS intrinsic. While it may once have been good enough to be put up with, today such an understanding of toler­ance has become insufferable. Distinguished psychology profes­sor Barry Schwartz expressed this sentiment when he said: "Who arc you to 'tolerate' me) \Vho are you to say that my way oflife is inferior to yours) Who are you to judge>" in his publication Tolerance:

Should We Approve of It, Put Up lvith It, or Tolerate It?

Evolution of Tolerance as a Construct

Tolerance appears to have changed definition over the years f!"Om the obligation not to toler­ate the perceived immoral and depraved to the obligation to accept the legitimacy of the mor­ally different. Todav, tolerance requires affirming the right­ness of the nonconventional and nontraditional. This definitional shift appears to have begun with the 1955 publication of Samuel A. Stouffer's CmnmunL,m., Conformity and Civil Liherties, wh ich operationa Iized tolera nce as a willingness to extend civil liberties to persons holding con­troversial group affiliations or political views-initially com­Illunists, socialists, and atheists. Citizens were asked, for example, if an admitted communist might be allowed to speak in one's com­munity or an atheist could have a book housed in a library. The slightest expression of aversion to the atheist's book or communist's speech became evidence for the

individual's "intolerance." Keep adding unattractive groups and activities and, sooner or later, the data would demonstrate unhealthy intolerance or that society itself is institutionally intolerant. To avoid such hateful societal thinking, some affirmative action or recog­nizing and respecting beliefs or actions with which one disagrees was recommended.

Enter the declaration by the United Nations of 1995 as the "Year of Tolerance." The official proclamation issued by the Un ited Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organizations (UNESCO) defined tolerance as: "Respect, acceptance, and appre­ciation of the rich diversitv of our world's cultures, our forms of expression, and ways of being human." UNESCO also noted that being tolerant is not only a moral duty, but also a legal and political requirement. Schwartz seemed to concur with such a defi­nitional change when he observed: "1 think that most of the time what we have in mind when we speak of tolerance is something closer to 'acceptance' or even 'cel­ebration.' Acceptance implies

approval, and celebration implies enthusiastic approval."

The lexicon oftoday's tolerance supporters requires approving others' principles and standards. To argue otherwise 'would invite charges of engaging in "mean­spirited, right-wing polemic endorsing hatefulness," accord­ing to Weissberg. The tolerant person is broad-minded-open to other beliefs, truth claims, moral convictions, and lifestyles. The absence of tolerance may well be considered the root of much evil: hate crimes, religious and polit­ical persecution, and terrorism. Tolerance, it appears, has changed its definition from suHering the loathsome to an almost blank­check endorsement of countless differences. Questions about tol­erance rarely surface for fear that one be perceived as intolerant­not a label people want today.

Interesti ngly, the graciousness implied in this "appreciate differ­ences" brand of tolerance may not extend to all. For example, while gay and civil rights groups are generally applauded, one might typically find silence when it comes to fundamentalist Christians, the military or paramilitary groups such as police departments, bor­der patrol agents, FBI, or CIA. Today's tolerance demands ,Kcep­tance of politically correct views but intolerance toward those who cling to "traditional" values. Those holding conservative views regarding such issues as abortion, the death penalty, global warm­ing/climate change, gun control, health care, immigration, same­sex marriage-just to name a

FIGURE 1 Three Interpretations of Tolerance

fell' isslles-,m: Oi'ten ostracized alld labeled c1S ignorant, bigoted, judgmental, rigid, ofknsile, mr­rOil-minded, alld JI),c:n~itjl\:.

This contemporarl' interpreta­tion of wi crance poses a dilemma: HOll call inctillduals be asked to accept all people's lallies and prac­tices lI'hell they ma\' beliel'e some of those ideas and behal'iors are wrong, perhaps even abhorrent; Such a one-sided interpretation of tolerance as acceptance often engenders the very divisiveness it proposes to eliminate.

Tolerance as Civility To move past such cIrcum­

stances, tolerance as civility is offered. This view of toler­ance occupies a middle grou nd between tr,lditional and con­temporary interpretations of the term ,wd involves treating people with whom we differ nei­ther with forbearance nor with approval. Rather, tolerance as civility includes courtesy, polite­ness, manllers, good citizenship, and concern for the well-being of our cOllllllunities, realizing some conflict and tension is inev­itable (see Figure I). As William Dry asserted in Getting to Peace, "Tolerance is ... showing respect tor the essential humanity in every person."

Nicole Billante and Peter Saunders surveyed the litera­ture on civility in "Wh)! Civility Matters" and suggested three elements that together constitute the term. The first part is respect for others. Civility requires that we express ourselves in ways that demonstrate our respect for

at hers. The second ingred ient is self-regulation in the sense that it requires empathy by putting one's own immediate sel t~interests in the context of the larger common good and acting according,," The third component is civiJin as public behavior toward strang­ers. This is similar to Stephen Carter's view in Civility that "civility equips us for everyd'l\ life with strangers .... We need neither to love them nor to hate them in order to be civil toll'ard them." Philosopher Immanuel Kant expounded on this point ir Perpetual Peace: A Philosophl(/) , Sleetch and accorded hospitalitl . central significance in how peoh'k from different cultures can "elU<:::' into mutual relations which ma' evemually be regulated by pul'· lie laws, thus bringing the hUIl1.L" race nearer and nearer to a co" mopolitan constitution." In ri;. \Nest today, hospitality is mw. associated with etiquette ~1"

entertainment. However, it ,~.

involves showing respect tor O!1('

guests, providing for their nee.:; and treating them as equals

Note t hat respect is accor,'. the penon. vVhether his or ;..,_ ideas, beliefs, or behavior shu be tolerated is an emireh' dil'·~

ent issue. Tolerance of indilll requires that each person's I·i. point receives a courteous hl',lL r ~

notthat all views have equal II u"

merit, or truth. Rejecting ,11

er's ideas or practices shall Li ,.. be equated with disrespect for . person. The view that no IX":"

beliefs may be any better another's can be considered .. tional and ridiculous.

Not all TOLERANCE is a VIRTUE,

nor is all INTOLERANCE necessarily a VICE.

Moreover, not all tolerance is a virtue, nor is all intolerance nec­essarily a vice. An exaggerated tolerance may amount to a vice, while intolerance may sometimes be a virtue. This is substantially in agreen1ent with Aristotle's definition that virtue in general holds the right ("golden") mean between t\l'O extremes that are both vices (deficiency and excess). For example, courage is the mean between cowardice and fool­hardiness, confidence the mean between seifdeprecation and \·anit\" and generosity the mean between miserliness and extrav­agance. Tolerating everything regardless of its abhonence is no \·irtue. Likewise, it is not a vice to be intolera nt of that which should not be tolerated and is evil (e.g., the categorical moral imperatives not to kill, steal, or maliciously deceive others are examples of behavior that is outside the bou nds of tolerance). Some behavior is so wrong it cannot be tolerated. A tolerant person is nontolerant of such reprehensible behavior. Tolerating cruelty and brutality is abdication, not respect.

Criticism-disagreeing with an opinion, idea, or behavior-is dis­tinct b'om insult-an attack on the person's very being. Individuals should care tl)r others' hum,1n­ity as they take ofrense at their

0pJl1lOns. This view is consistent with renowned psychotherapist Albert Ellis' concept of uncon­ditional other-acceptance in his book The Road to Tolerance: The Philosophy of Rational bnotive Behavior Therapy, which declared that one is not required to "toler­ate the antisocial and sabotaging actions of other people... But you always accept them, their per­sonhood, and you never damn their total selves. You tolerate their humanity while disagreeing with some of their actions." Ellis' observation conesponds with the Kantian perspective noted by Thomas E. Hill Jr. that "human beings are to be regarded as wor­thy of respect as hu man beings, regard less ofhow their values differ and whether or not we d iSJppro\e of what they do." Simph b\· \irtue of their humanit\, all people qu,11­ify for J status of digni[\·, \\·hlch should be recognized [)\ "II. JUSt because someonc has J dillerem value svstCI11, does not m.lke them less human.

Thus, cui Imllli",'" ,HDCks must be rejeered Jn lhc~e dis­cussions, the \.·h.1f,1(rtr llt" an expert is ,HLh:k.l'd or p'-,lised J

as ,1n ~1ttempt to 01'-(:Clli: ,or est,1bJ ish persall [11'(1\ Id~,.

discredltin!! ; )m

Clinrol1\

TOLERANCE AS CIVILITY IN OTHER CULTURES

The conceptualization of tolerance

as civility seems consistent with

Eastern and some African thinking.

Asian societies, particularly in China,

Japan, and South Korea, stress building

harmonious interpersonal relation­

ships through avoidance of conflict

and compliance with social norms.

Yi-Huan Jiang observed in his paper

"Confucianism and East Asian Public

Philosophy: An Analysis of 'Harmonize

but Not Conform'" that for many Asian

philosophies based on Confucius' teach­

ings, tolerance implies harmony without

conformity. Essentially he argued that

based on benevolence and love, someone

inspired by Confucius would graciously

allow for differences in beliefs and values

for the sake of harmony but would not

necessarily feel obligated to accept and

endorse them.

Similarly, John Kani in his treatise on

Ubuntu, described how the concept is

woven into the fabric of South African

society. Ubuntu represents a collec­

tion of values for treating others with

harmony, respect, sensitivity, dignity,

and collective unity simply because of a

person's humanness. The Ubuntu value

system provides a framework for how

people should treat others and values

a collective respect for everyone in the

system. An imperative delineated from

Ubuntu can be that it remains important

to treat others as family-with kind­

ness, compassion, and humility. Indeed,

Mzamo Mangalisco, in his periodical

Building Competitive Advantage from

Ubuntu: Management Lessons from South

Africa, noted that "treat[ing] others with

dignity and respect ... is a cardinal point

of Ubuntu. Everything hinges on this

canon, including an emphasis on humility,

harmony, and valuing diversity,"

These African- and Asian-based

principles present a strong argument for

tolerance viewed as civility. Good people

will disagree. Rather than demonizing

those with whom they differ, people

can affirm an individual's dignity and

essential worth even when the person

expresses ideas deemed offensive.

18

l-\ow ARt. '/OlJ \)OING 0\'\ '/OJR st.£:, IN ClR.\)ER To H,\?R<::NI:. BIJT f\S v.l~ f\\.l. VJ,\CJW, Vf\\"\llS N£W '(~A.R'S Rl:-SOUJT\O~S? ONE'S't.ll=, ONE ~'J5T \-\F\\J~

I \)\\)t-\T TI-If\T I t.J\PUES \-.\~\('t: I\N'/. Ct:RHIN

,{f\l\Jtt:.S.

I\R't. \<El~ T\\j~ 't:'iI:.R'I 'S'{STEM S()M~ \\)t.~ 01" W\-\~\S "GOO'\)' O~ \3~UEF IS 't:QIJl\ll'l \jP-.U[)

"NO W( NEm TO TOLERATE DIVERS \I'!. VIRTUE 15N1 'BI:.*R' T'Hf'..\'\ \j1~E, Irs

JUST \)IFFEI<Et-\T

I

he h:ld improper sexual liaisons. " Adv,lI1cing a deliberate ad homi­" " I o

nem fallacy crosses the line from >? ~ c argument to attack and can easily

urn> become a precu rsor to hate. This

is dangerous because it promotes the false belief that destroying the person can eliminate unwanted or inconvenient ideas.

Tolerance as civility preserves . the dignity of each person ,1S it accommodates and explores a rich diversitv in ideas, cultures, and beliefs through civil discourse and dialogue. Tolerance promotes learning because, as philosopher John Stuart )\f1ill said: "Received opinion may be wrong ,1nd the heretic right."

Fostering Dialogue Tolerance as civilitv includes

dialogue and openness to oth­ers. The richest form of civi I dialogue should not be con­strued as merely an exchange of in form:ltion, aceordi ng to Fra nk Richardson in Virtue Ethics, DialoBue, and "Reverence," but rather a process in which the fXH­

ticipants actively question thei r own perspectives and include the other as a partl1lT in their cultuLll

selfexploration and learning. This type of exchange can lead to greater selfunderstanding as well as a thoughtful consideration of another's perspeeti\·e. It can also help one recognize and begin to address inconsistencies, tensions, and blind spots in one's think­ing. This kind of dialogue can be a productive \Vav to question the values and standards of one's own cultural community in light of other viewpoints.

At its best, dialogue can be challenging and enriching and can result in greater clarit\' about, dnd sometimes alterations in, one's own worldview. Such dialogue introduces profound possibilities for sel fen m ination and tra nsfor­mation in ways that members of di\'erse groups understand: what might be good for them, what might be praiseworthy, :lnd how to bring that goodness into being. In t he end, j nd ivid u,11s mayor may not be persuaded, yet because of their \\illingness to listen, the rela­tionshIp h,lS been strengthened b\ thei r d ialoguc, not eroded by obst i11<1C\ or mistrust. Tolera nce as ci\ility sust,lins civic order by promoting its ongoing criticism,

analysis, debate, and imprm'ement by the people, and in the best cases, for the people. Without dis­agreement there is not tolerance, only affirmation. Skeptics help LIS all 111o\'e forward; the demagogues do not.

Of course, as George Orwell once said, "There arc some ideas so absurd that only :In intellec­tual could believe them." Even so, the temptation to reflexively cate­gorize alien customs and practices as contemptuous or immoral must be resisted. Such a judgment may reflect the limits of a person's own horizon, rather than the truth of someone else's point of view. Stephen Co\'ey, in his text The 7 Habits ~f Highly Effective People, referred to a similar concept when he suggested: "Seck first to under­stand, then to be understood'" This is similar to empathy :lnd can be intended to impro\'e com­munication by suggesting that individuals listen with the intent to

understand others' perspectives­not listen solelv \\ith the intent to

repl\'. Indeed, studies pu blished in Journal of Per.ronality and Social Psychology and Serge-Christophe Kohn's The Thell1'Y ~f Reciprocity

1 C\JN\ '?NCJ\N If I Cf\N TOlERf\TE 1\-\~T \'I\\lC\\ TO\HJ\\N(~

_"2

THE CENTRE THE BULLETIN • APRIL 2014 • CELEBRATING 100 YEARS OF ACUI 19

have suggested that incorporat­ing empathy and reciprocin' mal be highlv effective in enhancing cil'i Iitl',

Tolerance as civilitl' allcms differing I'iews to h,lI'e an equ,l1 right to exist, although not ncc­essarilv 'In equal share in truth, Can it be considered intoler,1l1t to claim the sun as the center of our solar svstem because others might think the Earth to be the center> Is it intolerant to claim that life on earth el'OJved [i'om a universal co 111 man ancestor approximately 3,8 bilJion years ago as opposed to God creat­ing hu ma ns in their present form 10,000 veal'S ago> Should schol­ars be considered intolerant when they believe one 11I'pothesis true and another hlse> PersoLls mav strongh' disagree with ideas and I'igorouslv argue against them in the public square but still displav respect for indil'iduals despite their differences,

Tolerance as civilitv does not mean accepti ng anot her per­son's belief---onJv his or her right to hal'e that belief It is similar to the L1l11OUS words (some say falsell') attributed to Voltaire: "I detest what vou write, but 1 would gil'e ml' life to make it possible for vou to continue to write," Persons should listen to and learn from others but not feel obligated to agree with every person or accept their viewpoints or approve of their conduct, It can be considered a disservice to alJ when beliel'ing that toler­ance, respect, charity, and dignity impll' nCl'er saying or doing anl'­thing that might upset someone, Indeed, in the Journal of LVforal Education, Robin Barrow went so hr as to sal' "that taking offense, when it means treating one's personal hurt ,1S grounds

for punlli\c rC'F'un'e. illl'olves a rcfu_'.ll ;:1> ,1.(1\\ [ole rance, to allOlI frecLilIm ,'r lil 1"'1,11' fair-for 11"111' "houlJ I'lIlJ bc: "lIolled to sal' II'h,lt IOU 1I',HlL I"!len others are denied dut righ: hI' IOU>"

Summary and Conclusion ToleLlnce hi"conc,llh mC<1l1t

that persons must be Ililling to put up \\'it!J orhl'rs' beliefs ,1nd conduct th'lt thel' found objectionable, Todal', hcmel'er, tolerance incre.lsingll- me,lns not onlv apprOl'ing those I'iell's and beh.wiors with which one mal' dis­agree and find objectionable, but a Iso accepti ng, endorsi ng, J nd cel­ebrating them,

TolerJnce as endorsed here employs respect and civility tor perJons since el'erl' individual pos­sesses inherem value, It does not require embrJcing another's belief or conduct-onlv affirming one's right to halT that beliefor engage in lawful conduct,

This approach is similar to various presidenti,ll Jppeals tor cil'iJitv, First, JS a teen, George \tVashington copied into a school workbook "110 Rules of Cil'ility & Decent Behavior in Companv and COlll'ersation," Washington's main rule of civilitv indicated: "EI'ery action done in company ought to be done with some sign of respect to those thelt are pres­enL" Second, President George H, \tv. Bush, in his 1991 commence­ment address at the Unil'ersity of Michigan, ,1sserted: "We must conquer the temptation to assign bad motil'es to people who dis­agree with us," Third, consider the remarks of President Barack Obama in his 2009 commence­ment address at Notre Dame Unil'crsitv amid much public contrOl'Cl'SV, Some "pro-life" per­sons thought that the president

should not be invited to speak at a Catholic university because his "pro-choice" position on abor­tion contradicts Church doctrine, and manv objected to the univer­sin' awarding him an honorarv degree, President Obama devoted a section of his address to the demonstrators-not on the mer­its of one abortion position O\'cr another-but rather on public discourse, Obama obsen'ed that while opposing I'iews would and should be presented Ilith passion and conviction, thev could be done "without reducing those with dif feri ng I'iews to caricatu re," Then he suggested J model: "Open hearts. Open minds, Fair-minded words" in the context of "fJ'iendship, civil­itv, hospitalitv, and especiallv love," These presidential words are remarkably consistent with the interpretation of tolerance as civilit~, suggested here,

Tolerancc as cil'i Iitv cnta iIs no obligation to esteem others' wavs of life, nor does it decree tlut we be silent about our dif ferences, Tolerance interpreted as civil ity does, however, stronglv encourage us to explore the ter­rain between torbearance and acceptance, consideri ng possibi Ii­ties of mutual understanding and Jccommodation along the wal', Such a construct of tolerance is essentiallv the guiding philoso­nhl' behind the earliest colleoet ~ 0

unions-thJt all might be wel­come to gather Jnd engage in civil discourse. Civility permits conflict and criticism of others' beliefs and practices, but it limits the IVaI's in IVhich this conflict can be pursued, For criticism to be civil, it cannot be blind, be based all stereotypcs, or debase opposing viewpoints, but rather requires knowledge and basic concern tor the identin' and voice of others,

20 THE BULLETIN • APRIL 2014 • ASSOCIATION OF COLLEGE UNIONS INTERNATIONAL THE CENTRE