Balancing Ethical Imperatives and Political Constraints: The Dilemma of New Democracies Confronting Past Human Rights Violations

Since the early 1980s, newly emerging democracies have been confronting the ethical and political dilemma of how to address a legacy of human rights violations committed by former governments. Unlike the circumstances surrounding the war crimes trials in the wake of World War II, when recently deposed rulers were powerless, in many contemporary political transitions the perpetrators of past abuses continue to wield considerable power. As new governments attempt to repair the damage caused by their predecessors and to prevent the recurrence of human rights violations, they must avoid provoking a backlash. In his Lecture, Sefior Zalaquett argues that these new governments must adopt, through democratic means, a human rights policy that focuses on discovering the truth regarding past human rights violations. As long as the principles of international law are respected, each nation may tailor its human rights policies in accordance with its inclination towards severity or clemency. Using Chile as his case study, Sefior Zalaquett examines the policies adopted by the democratically elected Aylwin government in the aftermath of the Pinochet military regime. In Chile, political constraints prevented widespread prosecution of past abuses. Instead, the government attempted to reveal the true story of every individual who was reported as dead or disappeared. To accomplish this task, President Aylwin appointed an impartial commission. The commission, of which Sefior Zalaquett was a member, investigated human rights abuses committed by the previous government, and published a detailed report recommending reparations for the families of the victims and preventive measures to ensure that such abuses are not repeated in the future. Sefior Zalaquett concludes from the experience of Chile that even in the face of challenging political constraints, nations can confront the atrocities of the past responsibly and effectively

The Relationship of Worldviews of Advisors and Students and Satisfaction with Advising: A Case of Homogenous Group Impact

The purpose of this study was to investigate whether differences in worldviews between academic advisors and their advisees (both traditional and non-traditional students) impact students\u27 use of and satisfaction with the advising process. This study surveyed 115 students and 5 advisors from a four-year liberal arts university in southeastern United States. Analyses of the data revealed no significant differences among traditional and non-traditional students\u27 worldviews. However the degree of match between advisees and their advisors on two components of worldviews (self-worth and meaningfulness) was related to students\u27 use of and satisfaction with the advising process. There was a significant difference (F = 4.398, p \u3c .0148) between students\u27 self-worth and their perception of whether their advisors understood them. There was also a significant difference (F = 4.172, p \u3c .0183) between student self-worth ratings and their commitment to actively seeking advising. In addition, there was a significant difference (F = 3.57, p \u3c .0336) between student perceptions of “meaningfulness” and how students perceived the importance of advising. These findings suggest that a) students who have a similar self-worth value as their advisor have a sense that they are being understood, b) students who scored high or were within the means of their advisors self-worth tended to actively seek advising, and c) students who scored high or above their advisors mean score in meaningfulness, felt that advising was an important activity tor them. Implications for how understanding students\u27 worldviews might improve academic advising are also discussed