Video: Promoting the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals

Dr. Alaa Murabit discusses the promotion of the U.N. Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs), at Harvard Divinity School, highlighting the intersection between women's leadership, religion, and sustainable development. She will present unique examples of women's religious leadership to advance human rights, societal development, and peacebuilding and explore the importance of leveraging religious scholarship.

Speaker

Dr. Alaa Murabit, UN High-Level Commissioner and SDG Global Advocate

Moderator and discussant

Professor Jocelyne Cesari, T. J. Dermot Dunphy Visiting Professor of Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding for 2018-19 at Harvard Divinity School

Event sponsored by Religions and the Practice of Peace (RPP) and Women's Studies in Religion Program at HDS.

Full event description

  FULL TRANSCRIPT:   [MUSIC PLAYING]   DAVID N. HEMPTON: So welcome to this year's keynote, Religions and the Practice of Peace Colloquium. Thank you all for joining us tonight. I'm David Hempton, dean of the Harvard Divinity School.   And I'd like to extend a very warm welcome and thanks on behalf of RPP in the Divinity School to our keynote speaker, who's traveled around the world many times to be here, Dr. Alaa Murabit, who traveled all the way from Doha to be with us and we have already put to work with two wonderful sessions already. So we are keeping her very busy.   And also, a special welcome to tonight's moderator and discussant, my colleague, Professor Jocelyne Cesari. And it's also really great to have you with us.   We'd also like to thank the Women's Studies and Religion Program at Harvard Divinity School for cosponsoring, and also thankful to the Provostial Fund for the Arts and Humanities at Harvard for supporting this year's keynote events and the Reverend Karen Vickers Budney and Al Budney and RPP's other generous supporters for making this and other RPP events possible. And as always, our special appreciation goes to our RPP student assistants and staff for all their hard work in organizing this event. Thank you so much for all of you.   [APPLAUSE]   A goal of these RPP Colloquium sessions is not only to learn about peace, but also to practice peace with one another. And as has been our custom for the last several sessions, we're going to begin with two of our graduate assistants, Hope and Kinga, who will offer introductory words for our time together and help us get ourselves focused. So, Hope, thank you so much.   HOPE WILLIAMS: We are gathered to advance sustainable peace and to learn and grow in our peace practice. Let's begin by cultivating engaged, caring, and appreciative relationships here and in all of our settings. Sustainable peace is a complex endeavor to which everyone has much to contribute. We'd like to share some aspirations which we hope you'll help us keep in view.   As members of one human family, how can we relate to one another in a spirit of love and friendship, despite our differences, disagreements, and limitations? How can we acknowledge contributions from all cultures and traditions as equally valuable, and appreciate and benefit from everyone's experiences and personal wisdom?   How can we attend to our biases and oppressive systems of power based on race, ethnicity, religion, gender, sexual orientation, economic status, and other factors, and empower one another to promote justice and shared flourishing? How can we work for equity and justice in ways that are humanizing, build connection, and promote healing and transformation? What wisdom, knowledge, and spiritual resources do we need to do this?   Please join us in creating a courageous, respectful, and forgiving space, conducive to deep sharing, deep listening, and mutual learning. Let's practice sharing questions and comments as well as concerns and differences of view while maintaining a validating environment across difference.   We are interdependent. And we need one another to expand our vision and help us consider our blind spots. So let's seek deeper understanding when we see things differently, draw upon our spiritual resources, and support one another in constant improving our approach to each other and to everything that we do.   KINGA TSHERING: Thank you, Hope, for sharing those aspirations and raising those highly pertinent questions. We acknowledge that sharing the conversation of this kind is challenging. And listening to other perspectives and sharing our own makes us vulnerable and feel very uncomfortable. And it can be hard to process this in the moment and even find words.   But at the same time, I hope you do agree that these things are very essential for us for our growth and collaboration towards sustainable peace. So we all thank all of you in advance for this.   Now, to give an overview of today's program, we will begin and end with a moment of silence. But first, after the introductions, Dr. Murabit will present her talk, which will be followed by a brief response from Professor Cesari here. And then they will join in a conversation between Professor Cesari and Dr. Murabit.   Then after that, we'll give you five minutes to actually discuss with your neighbor, to the person next to you. And then finally, we'll open up the floor for questions and answers. And if you prefer to actually submit those questions in writing, please do so.   We will have the team members from RPP go around and collect the questions before, actually, the session starts. But also, if you prefer to submit during the course of the session also, you're most welcome to put it in the basket-- actually question basket at the reception table. Or you can always post it on the RPP website and email as well.   So let's begin now with a moment of silent contemplation or prayer, in gratitude and in remembrance of all lives who are suffering here and around the world, and set our intentions for our practice of peace.   Thank you.   DAVID N. HEMPTON: So thank you, Hope and Kinga for helping center us. In the one Harvard Sustainable Peace Initiative, we're exploring how the university here at Harvard can draw upon its cross-disciplinary resources and global reach to help mainstream sustainable peace as a goal of leadership across sectors and communities, and to explore innovative approaches to operationalizing this goal in specific contexts.   The United Nations, as it happens, has also launched a sustainable peace agenda. And we've been eager to learn more about how this is unfolding. How can activities for sustainable peace and sustainable development reinforce each other? How can high level international efforts be informed by and amplify the wisdom and activities at the grassroots? What is the importance of women's leadership of religious communities and of religious resources? And how can their roles be supported?   Dr. Murabit, UN high level commissioner on sustainable development goals, global advocate, is a foremost expert on all these topics. And we're really honored and delighted to have her with us this evening.   Yesterday evening and earlier today, she led two Interactive workshops-- the first on the emerging security threats and stakeholder mapping, and the second on negotiation and alliance building in sensitive conflict environments with multiple stakeholders. So tonight, we're delighted for the opportunity to hear from her on the subject, "Promoting the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals-- Women's Leadership, Religion, and Leveraging Scholarship."   First, I'd like to introduce our moderator and discussant, Professor Jocelyne Cesari. Jocelyne is the inaugural TJ Dermot Dunphy Visiting Professor of Religion, Violence, and Peacebuilding here at Harvard Divinity School for 2018 and '19. She also holds the Chair of Religion and Politics at the University of Birmingham in the United Kingdom and is Senior Fellow at Georgetown University's Berkley Center on Religion, Peace, and World Affairs. She's the President of the European Academy of Religion.   Her work on religion, political violence, and conflict resolution has garnered recognition and awards from numerous international organizations, such as the Carnegie Council for Ethics and International Affairs and the Royal Society for Arts at the United Kingdom. She's a professorial fellow at the Institute for Religion, Politics, and Society at the Australian Catholic University. And she teaches here on contemporary Islam and politics at the Divinity School and directs the Islam in the West program. Not sure how you manage to do all of that.   [LAUGHTER]   She's also a highly prolific and distinguished scholar. Her most recent books are, What is Political Islam?, Islam, Gender, and Democracy in Comparative Perspective, and she co-authored with Jose Casanova the book called The Awakening of Muslim Democracy-- Religion, Modernity, and the State. She's written many other books-- too many to mention. But we are really delighted to have her at the Divinity School as a colleague and friend, and also as our moderator and discussant tonight. Jocelyn, thanks so much for all you do for us.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Thank you, Dean Hempton. I would like now to introduce our speaker. Dr. Alaa Murabit is a medical doctor, Canadian Meritorious Service Cross recipient, 1 of 17 Global Sustainable Development Goal Advocates appointed by the UN Secretary General, and a UN High Level Commissioner on Health, Employment, and Economic Growth.   In 2016, she founded the global mentorship program for emerging leaders and co-founded the Omnis Institute, a non-profit that challenges critical global issues by empowering emerging local leaders, and became Executive Director of Phase Minus 1, which provides thought leadership in conflict resolution and inclusive security.   Dr. Murabit was recognized for efficacy in security, health policy, and sustainable development as one of Canada's Top 25 Most Influential Women in 2018 by Women of Influence. She received the 2018 Nelson Mandela International Changemaker Award by the Nelson Mandela family and the BlogHer 2018 Voice of the Year Award they Sheknows Media. In 2017, she was named a Forbes 30 Under 30, Aspen Institute Spotlight Scholar, and Bay St. Bull Canada's 30x30. So lots of numbers right there. But [LAUGHS] for my French mouth, it's a lot of numbers.   Her leadership in global policy and elevating the role of women, particularly young minority women on global platforms, was recognized by Harvard Law School, which named her the youngest 2017 Woman Inspiring Change. Dr. Murabit completed high school in Saskatoon, Canada, at age 15 and moved to Zawia, Libya, where she enrolled in medical school and founded the Voice of Libyan Women at age 21.   Challenging social and cultural norms, she champions women's participation in peace processes and conflict mediation. Programs such as the groundbreaking "Noor Campaign" are replicated internationally. Her TED Talk, "What My Religion Really Says About Women," released in July, 2015, was selected as the TED Talk of the Day and one of "four moving TED Talks you should watch right now" by The New York Times.   Nicknamed "The Libyan Doogie Howser"-- I don't know if I pronounce this well, but--   [LAUGHTER]   --by Jon Stewart, and applauded for innovative approach to security, Dr. Murabit serves as advisor to numerous international security boards, think tanks, and organizations, including the UN Security Council Resolution 1325, UN Women Global Advisory Board, and the Council on Foreign Relations.   An Ashoka Fellow, she's the youngest recipient of the Maria Bellisario International Humanitarian Award by the Italian government, and was named the "International Trust Woman Hero 2014" by The New York Times, "1 of 25 women under 25 to watch" by Newsweek, A "100 Top Woman" by the BBC, and the SAFE Global Hero. [EXHALES FORCIBLY] [LAUGHS]   [LAUGHTER]   She was nominated to address the UN General Assembly multiple times, including during the Commission on the Status of Women opening session and to address the UN Security Council during the 15-year anniversary of Resolution 1325. Dr. Murabit completed her medical degree at the University of Zawia and completed her Master's in International Strategy and Diplomacy with Distinction at the London School of Economics. Please welcome Dr. Murabit.   [APPLAUSE]   ALAA MURABIT: I actually quite liked that introduction.   [LAUGHTER]   I think it went quite well.  So I am incredibly honored and excited to be here today. The past couple of days, as Dean Hempton mentioned, we had a couple of great exercises. The first was stakeholder mapping. And I think there's a few people here that did stakeholder mapping. There's Anne. Her and I have spotted each other.   And then today, we did negotiation, which was a live, interactive negotiation that was meant to be a conflict situation. And we were meant to get to a civil war. And instead, I think we stayed on a local problem-- a dilemma of, do you build a school in a residential area dominated by senior citizens if young families want to come and move in there? And what are some of the solutions and ways in which you can negotiate that space.   So when I was first asked to come and give the workshops and the lecture, I had to go through a couple of things mentally. First and foremost, I am a policy and strategist. That's what I do. I do policy and strategy. I'm not a religious expert, unless we're talking about my own practice of religion. And I think that was one of the things that I really wanted to touch on as we had this conversation.   The second was why I fundamentally believe in the sustainable development goals and why I think it's actually a practice of faith that I fundamentally believe in things like climate change and reproductive rights. And so I'll get into a little bit of that.   But before I do, I will start from the very beginning. I am one of 11 kids. My dad is a doctor. Mom was a stay-at-home mom. And I was raised in Saskatoon. Who here knows where Saskatoon is?   [AUDIENCE MURMURING]   Like two or three people. You know?   AUDIENCE: No, I don't.   AUDIENCE: Canada?   ALAA MURABIT: A guess? I like how someone was like, somewhere in Canada.   AUDIENCE: It's probably in Canada.   [SCATTERED LAUGHTER]   AUDIENCE: I'd say Canada.   ALAA MURABIT: There you go. OK, Canada's pretty good. I mean, we're working with one of the biggest, or the biggest, land area country. But it's a pretty good answer. So it's in Saskatchewan, Canada, which is the heart of the prairies. And the population of the city I remember when I was growing up with somewhere around 190,000-200,000. So it wasn't large at all.   And we were one of very few families, I would say, who looked like us. In the past 10 years there's been a surge of immigration. But when I was younger, that wasn't very common.   And I am the perfect middle child. Now, I say "perfect." Some people laugh at this. But some psychologists have written that middle children are either radical or malignant for a family, which I personally find very offensive. I think that we actually transform the world. And there is the extinction right now of the middle child. A lot of families are only having two kids. So I just want to say, middle children change everything. They're fantastic. I'm going to plug for the middle child.   But I have five older brothers and sisters and five younger.   AUDIENCE: [LAUGHING]   ALAA MURABIT: Right? I mean, it's a good place to be. I get all the benefits of being older and none of the responsibility, and all the perks of being younger. I'm not going to deny it. It was a pretty fantastic place to grow up.   But growing up, I knew without a doubt that I wanted to go into medicine. My dad was a doctor. My oldest sister, who is arguably one of my biggest role models, was going into medicine.   And I think especially when we talk about faiths, it's interesting to me because I fundamentally believe the walls of a hospital have probably heard more prayer than any church or synagogue or mosque. To me, it is one of the places where people are their most faithful, their most generous, their most merciful. And I can argue that people who, in any other circumstance would say they are not faithful, are praying in the walls of a hospital.   And so, to me, it was a place where you genuinely get to see people at their most human. And I always felt very comfortable in the walls of a hospital. I felt like, this is a way in which I could contribute, but also a way which was needed.   So growing up, that was the plan. I knew that from as young as five and six years old. We have a running joke in my family-- for any PhDs, you will not find this funny-- [CHUCKLES] about what a "real doctor" looks like. And that was automatically a surgeon, right. I mean, an internist just googles things, or back in the time they would just look at their dictionary and encyclopedia of health challenges-- the surgeons are the ones you really want to fix things.   And so the running joke was, when you're on a plane and you're having a heart attack, which doctor do you want? And that was the doctor I was going to be. [LAUGHS] That was all I know when I was young. I was going to be the doctor you wanted on a plane.   And as I got older and kind of went through the motions and knew medicine was the plan, I was at 15-- I finished high school quite early at 15-- considering whether or not I would stay in Saskatoon where I would have to probably complete two bachelor's degrees before I was old enough to be considered for medicine. And I knew I wanted it. And my mom had moved to Libya a year earlier. And I said, well, what's the option of doing it there?   Up until that point in my life, I had never really felt challenged because of my gender-- at all. And so people who know me in high school, when I talk about what I do now, they're like, what? When did that happen? Which is fair. I never once felt like I was in a position of inferiority. I never once felt like I was in a position where I couldn't accomplish. I never felt like I was in a position where a system was created to ensure that I couldn't succeed-- ever.   It was actually quite the opposite. In my family, my father, like most immigrant fathers, prioritized overwhelmingly school-- how well you did in school. That was the metric for whether or not you could go out with friends or if you could go on that camping trip. That was the metric. And I did really well in school. So I was always told, whatever you want to achieve, you can. You want to be a doctor? If I told my mom I wanted to go to the moon, she would probably say, OK, I'll pack you lunch. There was no hesitation there.   And from a religious perspective, my mom used to say to me, the mercy from your parents, God had 100 times that. And she would always tell me-- because I had a few problems with the local mosque. I was always opinionated. I always have been.   And I would go to the local mosque and be told often that my opinions weren't always necessary. Or I remember when I was very young and the adults were praying and we would play, people would automatically tell us, like, who's taking care of you? Be quiet.   And so the mosque wasn't always the most comfortable place for me growing up. And as I got older, it actually became a lot more challenging. Because some of the language and the treatment that I was seeing the men get-- my brothers get-- was very different than I felt I was being treated.   So I remember once when I was 12 listening to the Backstreet Boys, which I still think are one of the greatest bands of all time. And I will debate you on that. And somebody went and spoke to one of the seniors in the mosque. And he called us in and said, you can't listen to that. That's inappropriate. It's "haram," which means like forbidden religiously. And there is severe punishment.   And I went home that day very upset, speaking to my mom and dad. And my mom was more upset than I was. She said, no, they shouldn't say that to you. They shouldn't. You're going to the mosque. They need to be more welcoming. This is a religion of mercy.   And so there was definitely that mixed messaging to a degree growing up, but never to the point where I ever questioned my role or my space or what I could accomplish or what I could do at all. Because my parents' voice and my sisters' example and my brothers' example and all of that always superseded what I was being told externally.   So I moved to Libya at 15, and enrolled in medical school, and definitely noticed some cultural differences. In Canada, when my sister said she was going to go into plastic surgery, the general population told her that wasn't a smart lifestyle decision.   The same thing is told to a lot of women here in Boston. If they say, I want to go into neurosurgery. Like, are you sure that's the one? You're not going to have much of a life outside of the hospital. Right?   And so I'd heard that before. But my first year in medical school, I was very clearly told by a professor, it's great that you're going to get the degree and hang it up-- with the meaning of, you might not necessarily ever use it. And to me, that was a shock.   And there were all those kind of cultural differences over the course of the next five, six years-- but nothing that struck me as-- sorry, I am freezing-- so, so extreme that I would ever feel negated or the exact opposite. I actually felt like there was a lot of appetite in my university for conversation about inclusion. I felt that there was so much appetite for conversations about gender equality.   And what I think is confusing for a lot of people, because we often attempt to make it sound like one part of the world has a case made on gender equality and one part doesn't, was, it was so rare to find other people interested in medicine in Saskatoon-- other young women. And 70% of my medical school class in Libya was women. 70%. So the difference in terms of that societal and cultural support for women's excellence in particular fields skyrocketed.   And I had never had that when I was growing up. I was always one of the only ones who said, I'm going to go into medicine, and there would be one girl who'd say, I'm going to go into vet med. And I'd be like, I would never do that. We were the two science nerds. And that was something even our teachers would mock us for-- or would joke, not mock-- but joke. So it was interesting to see that kind of switch.   When I was in my final year of medical school, the Libyan Revolution broke out. And I had no interest getting engaged in the long-term. Definitely believed I really wanted it to focus on survivors of sexual violence and reparations for them.   So what had happened during the Revolution was a lot of the young women who survived sexual violence were not treated with the same level of respect and deference that a lot of the soldiers who had lost limbs or needed psycho-social or health support work. So a lot of these young women were not given the same psycho-social support. They weren't sent abroad for health treatment. They weren't given scholarships to go abroad to study. They didn't necessarily have any of those things.   The exact opposite. If they were treated with anything, it was-- some patients from the community, depending on the community's political center-- but oftentimes, it was like, this has happened. We understand, but let's ignore it. Let's pretend like it didn't. And that meant that a lot of those women did not have support moving forward.   So the organization really was started as a way to say, how can we change that particular conversation? How can we ensure that these women have reparations? How can we ensure support for them? It was not initially started from any political or economic lens.   Very quickly-- so I remember when I started it, I said, in two or three months-- because school had been halted due to the Revolution-- so I was like, in two or three months when school starts up again, I'm going to be done. I'll have solved this problem. I will have solved women's equality. And I'm just going to go back to med school. And it'll be a very quick, short chapter in my medical career life.   And as I'm sure many of you can imagine, that's not how it went. For the first couple of months, we were talking to different stakeholders, particularly women and other organizations, about what we could do. Most organizations were still very humanitarian-leaning because there was still active conflict in parts of the country. And so many were not prepared to have kind of that theoretical-- what they felt was a theoretical conversation. And others felt like it wasn't the time to have this political conversation. We needed to first ensure security and remove weapons before we talked about women's reparations for female sexual conflict survivors or anything like that.   So the question first became, how do we find people who were politically allied with this belief? And I very quickly learned that that meant we needed to start electing people and supporting people in their election who felt that health support was a basic right.   From there, political leaders would say, OK, so how are we going to pay for this? And we started thinking about, how can we get more economic power behind this? And over the course of the next year and a half to two years, we would help train 17 women who would then get elected. In its first election, we had 17% of our parliament was women, which actually was the same number as the United States. But we would also work with women on business plans, CVs, interviews, and see how we can get more women engaged in the economy.   By the end of the second year, we had also done a very large conference called One Voice, where we brought together different religious, political, economic leaders, along with civil society. So we had about 150 representatives from different civil society around the country. And they would actually sit at the same table with members of what, at the time, was the national transitional council to solve things, to ask the hard questions, to see if they could work together on solutions in what we hoped was a power-neutral space.   And after about a year and a half, we noticed that when we did the workshops for women's political participation or economic empowerment, they were the same faces from the same families. So families that were already relatively open to women's inclusion, their daughters would come. Those mothers would come, right. Those sisters would come. And it was very rare for us to be able to engage women and girls from different communities that weren't already open to this conversation.   And that was actually where we first began to delve into the topic of faith, which, up until then, we had not touched at all. Mainly because I was told by a lot of women's rights organizations, if you talk about religion, you're empowering the religious leaders-- the more conservative religious leaders who are interpreting this to exclude women.   Yet I would go into different communities, and we would be told very vocally by families that they did not agree with us. I had members of my own extended family say, this is great for you, but not for my daughter. And I would say, well, why not? And they'd say, well, because God. God doesn't think women should lead-- and you can fill in the blank-- companies, countries, organizations-- fill in the blank-- other than families. Families, women could lead.   And so very quickly, we began to ask ourselves, how do we actually tackle that problem? And in my opinion, there was only one way to do that. And the best example I can give of this-- and if you answered this question earlier today, you're not allowed to answer it now. But from a medical perspective, if you are a doctor, and the patient comes in with an infection on their arm, what do you do? What do you do?   AUDIENCE: You would clean it off. And you would provide an antibiotic.   ALAA MURABIT: OK. Before we do that. Before you give them an antibiotic, is there anything you want to do?   AUDIENCE: You could take a history.   ALAA MURABIT: Take a history, OK. What else?   AUDIENCE: Look at it.   ALAA MURABIT: You look at it. I hope so. [LAUGHS]   [LAUGHTER]   I hope so. What else?   AUDIENCE: You engage. What's your name? That's one thing.   ALAA MURABIT: OK. So that's part of the history. What else?   AUDIENCE: I suppose you have to ask permission to treat them. So ask for the patient's permission.   ALAA MURABIT: Oh, you're a much better doctor than I am. I never ask.   [LAUGHTER]   I'm just like, if you're here, I assume you want some help. [LAUGHS]   So you're going to take a history. You're definitely going to want to know what kind of strain it is, right? And then you'll wanted to debride and clean it. And debriding is oftentimes painful and a bit more difficult than putting a simple Band-Aid on top and some rubbing alcohol. But it does prevent the patient from coming back a week later and needing what, if that had gone untreated? What would happen to that patient's arm?   AUDIENCE: Amputations.   ALAA MURABIT: You'd probably have to amputate, right, if that infection got into the bone and spread. So the reality is, by taking a proper history, by learning as much as we can about the root challenges, by actually knowing exactly what we're dealing with, and by taking the time and energy and expertise to treat it properly, even though it's more cost-intensive and time-intensive and definitely needs a lot more specialized knowledge, we can prevent a bigger challenge a week down, right?   And so from a medical perspective, identifying that root challenge was incredibly important. Why do we not have more girls coming from families that are not often in the workshops we're doing or in the seminars we're doing? And if the challenge is an assumed religious challenge, how do we, then, treat that?   So we started with something called International Purple Hijab Day-- International Purple Hijab, and tie. We asked people to wear ties and scarves, ribbons, et cetera. But the idea behind it was a day of solidarity. And that, for us, was testing the water. It's February 13 every year. It's an international day. And it's action against domestic violence. It's actually celebrated because a man killed his wife in New York and quoted it as being his religious right. And religious groups stood up and said it's not.   And so we said, if this works in these communities, if we can get more buy-in, if more schools open the door, if more families want to engage with us, maybe this is a conversation we need to be having.   And so we did International Purple Hijab Day, and within the first year, we had over 4,000 to 7,000 people participate. We had people who previously would never send a photo to us, on our online Facebook they would send it without their face because they didn't want everybody else to know them. But they would send it to us. And they would say, our whole family participated this year.   And we were able to go to schools across the country. Doors were wide open. People wanted to have this conversation because they felt comfortable with the language we were speaking, it was no longer about CVs and elections. It was now about basic values that they understood and shared.   And so after we did that, we said, OK, this is definitely a conversation we can have. And as I said, there was a bit of pushback from a lot of international organizations and other women's rights organizations, where they said, you're giving power to this conversation, in which my response was, I cannot give something power when it already dictates the places that I can enter. People were having these conversations without women. They were leveraging this interpretation to exclude women. And so when somebody has more power than you in a particular society, I'm not giving them power. I'm leveraging that to get my own.   And so we did something called the "Noor Campaign." And "noor" in Arabic means to enlighten. It's this notion that this was a conversation that wasn't necessarily right-versus-wrong, but it was definitely one that only had one perspective that was being heard.   And so to be able to do the Noor Campaign, we wanted to go to another level. We wanted to be able to leverage religious text with authority. And I am not a religious scholar. So we knew we had to leverage religious scholarship.   And we went to the highest religious authority in the country and gave them a list of the Hadiths, which are sayings of actions of the prophet and verses from the Quran that we wanted to use. The Quran as the Islamic holy book.   And over the course of six months, we went back and forth with them on those Hadiths. They confirmed them, which was important to us because we wanted their logo saying, this was legitimate. We're not cherry-picking religious sayings. We're not reinterpreting it. This is somebody you trust has approved of our use of this. We wanted that logo because we felt that would give us a footprint in many communities.   But then to go a step further, they said, listen, you can't use the logo if you have a billboard with a lot of faces on it. We don't like this commercial. There's some crude language. And so we actually worked with them over the course of six months to make sure that that messaging was something that they were comfortable with, but that we were still using the messaging we felt was important.   And people often asked me why we chose to do this. And I mean, I'm sure you can imagine that an organization called the Voice of Libyan Women versus the most established religious institution, if we had gone toe-to-toe and we had been vilified in the media or delegitimized, nobody would have heard what we were saying.   So to us, the importance was getting our message out and getting it out through channels that people trusted so the message was already more trusted-- particularly given we were talking about interpretation of faith and saying that the interpretation of some of these verses was leveraged for political and economic gain by other parties.   So the Noor Campaign first started with a soft media launch. We put up billboards and commercials and radio commercials for three months before we entered a single school or workspace. And we wanted to do that so people had time to understand what this conversation was going to be. We didn't want to be the first time they heard this to be when we were in the room, because the immediate reaction would have been negative, we think.   And so we had that moment for those billboards. People started having that conversation internally. We had some funny radio commercials about different-- not funny, but lighthearted commercials that were having difficult conversations. So if somebody was failing a class, a young girl failing a class, and her brother telling her, you've got to study harder. You have to work harder. And her saying, why? And he would actually use a saying from the religion about how that the cornerstone of our faith is knowledge.   So the idea here was that we could have these kind of day-to-day interactions. We could root them in this conversation around faith, that faith is a daily practiced reality, and that it is embedded in your daily actions, that it can't only be used when you're talking about things that adhere only to the faith, like prayer or fasting, et cetera.   And so from there, we then entered schools. It became the largest campaign ever conducted in Libya very quickly. We went spoke personally with over 50,000 Libyans. And we did this through a team. So it wasn't me individually.   We had teams in every single one of our cities. And those teams were made up of local leaders. So our team in Benghazi, which is the second largest city in Libya, was made up of a former minister. And there were volunteers. And so they would go into schools locally. And the teams were made up of local civil society organizations.   They then got to name their city team. And they got to give themselves a city team logo. And the reason for this is because, as I mentioned, I am one of 11 children. And competition does wonders for engagement. So the idea was, whichever team could reach the most people and have the most of these conversations was better. And so each team had their own logos and their own name and went out to local community, to the local schools and stuff.   And the reason this is important is because, I mean, I joke to people and say, the first time I went to Texas, I felt like I was in a different country. And I think that can be said for most parts of every country. If you go to the east or west, they're fundamentally different. There's different attitudes. There's different ideas. There's definitely different social values and norms.   And so for me to go to a community that was not my own and to talk about something as personal and as valued as faith, it's very easy to overlook what I'm saying, simply by saying, well, she doesn't come from here. Oh, she was raised in Saskatoon. Or, oh, she's from the west, because I come from Zawia, which is a western city.   And so taking that in mind, taking that regional perspective in mind and the reality that that plays for people, we wanted the message to be coming from people they know, they trust, they went to school with, former professors, ministers, people who were part of their circle already. That way, we were able to secure the message, which was, using Hadiths and verses that were already approved by the Ministry of Religion so people can trust the message, we were able to take away the potential for people to ignore the messenger. Because the messenger was somebody they trusted, et cetera. And so we wanted to make sure this was as credible as possible on every side.   And the last component of the Noor Campaign was to get surveys. What we wanted from all of this was data. We don't have a lot of data. Around the world, we don't. But we definitely don't when it comes to post-conflict or conflict countries. And we definitely don't when we're talking about women's inclusion and the rights of women as they relate to social and cultural and religious norms in that space.   And so for us, it was a question of, who do you think is responsible for women's inclusion? Who do you think is responsible for religious messaging? Who do you trust to deal with things like a dispute in the family, et cetera?   And so we handed out a questionnaire. And the questions were only different based on age or reading level. So a grade-fiver would not have the same questionnaire as a university student. But the metrics were quite similar. We wanted to understand, in your opinion, who are the most trustworthy individuals when it comes to what dictates norms, rights, et cetera? And we included religious leaders, political leaders, even the media in that questionnaire.   Now, as the years have gone on, this methodology has been replicated in over 40 countries. A lot of them are not Muslim majority countries. Some don't even have a prominent religion that they leverage it through, but through historical stories and folklore. So Sri Lanka used stories of powerful mythological women that really helped that messaging come across.   And each context is dictated by the local community-- same way that we had done it in Libya. In most countries, we highly recommend that local communities have local city teams. I do think there is something incredible to be said for trusting those who have that message and how much quicker the message, then, translates to action and implementation.   So the reason I tell you this story, or these stories, is because they center three of the questions I'm going to try to answer tonight. And the first one is going to be very specific to the UN's Sustainable Development Goals. How many people here know what the Sustainable Development Goals are? OK. That's actually pretty good. I'm actually pretty impressed. Most places I go, people are like, I know what the UN is? [CHUCKLES] OK, so who here can tell me what the sustainable development goals are? Anyone? All the hands went down. Yes.   AUDIENCE: So back in 2015, the UN launched an initiative setting up 17 different goals to be achieved by the end of 2030. And the UN laid out the issues they've titled as the top priority.   ALAA MURABIT: Mm-hmm. Perfect. So they're part of Agenda 2030, which is an agenda that the United Nations has set out to accomplish by 2030. They are 17 goals that go from everything from no poverty, to reducing inequalities, to economic growth, to climate change, life on land, life under water, partnerships, and peace, justice, and strong institutions, which is the biggest difference from the Millennium Development Goals, which were pre-2000.   Another important thing about the Sustainable Development Goals is they are nonprescriptive, which means they are not like the Millennium Development Goals, in the sense that developed countries tell developing countries, this is what you need to do to live better. They are global. There is not a single country that has accomplished any of the sustainable development goals to the degree that they need to be.   So when the Sustainable Development Goals were being negotiated and in post-negotiation, there was an active conversation about whether or not partnerships, which is Goal 17, needed to be included. People said, that's just a known reality. You have to partner, or else you're never going to be able to achieve these goals. You can't imagine achieving climate change if you're not going to work with other people.   And so there was significant pushback in having it there. And many people argued, well, then we shouldn't have to write any of these goals. Because they all seem like common sense, right. No poverty seems like common sense the same way partnerships do. But unless you explicitly say it, then people don't that that's part of your value statement, right-- that partnerships really is, in and of itself, a goal.   And so when we started looking at different partnerships, there were ones that were pretty obvious. Corporate partnerships, right, because we noticed that corporations have taken on a lot of the roles that nation-states used to take on. Now you get your information from corporations. You can get your information off Facebook at 9:00 AM. You can get milk from Amazon at 10:00. You don't really interact with the government as much as you used to, to a significant degree.   And so corporations were an obvious one. Academic institutions were quite obvious. Think tanks were obvious. How else will we see our metrics and see what changes are happening? Governments, naturally. The UN is a multilateral system.   And what wasn't as obvious was cultural, religious, and social institutions-- so the power that something like the Scouts could have on the sustainable development goals, which we've now seen, and the power that different religious institutions could have on the sustainable development goals and on the implementation of them.   And one of the biggest comments was, do you really think they're going to buy into it? I mean, what incentive would a religious or social institution have to work on the sustainable development goals? It's a country-led agenda.   And I always felt like the best answer for that from my perspective was, because I think the idea of reducing inequalities and no poverty and quality education and quality health care were inherently, for me, faith-based values. It was this idea of equality, compassion, respect, and that, if we weren't having that conversation, then maybe it was religious institutions that weren't necessarily fit for purpose, not the Sustainable Development Goals.   Because I don't think-- and I say this ready to be proven wrong-- but I don't think there's a single religion in the world that would overwhelmingly advocate inequalities and to destruct the planet and low literacy rates and conflict and weak institutions. I don't actually think that exists.   AUDIENCE: Can you say that again? I'm sorry, I missed that.   ALAA MURABIT: I said I don't think we can arguably find a religion that promotes the antithesis of the Sustainable Development Goals, that supports poverty, that supports conflict, et cetera.   AUDIENCE: But that's not the same thing as saying that there's any religion out there that actually supports doing away with poverty. That's a, from my perspective--   ALAA MURABIT: Oh, no, I agree with you.   AUDIENCE: That's a tricky statement.   ALAA MURABIT: Right.    AUDIENCE: And I don't mean to be challenging at all.   ALAA MURABIT: No, no, please do.   AUDIENCE: But religions are not for poverty. But they're not against poverty either.   ALAA MURABIT: Well, but religions aren't really for or against anything.   AUDIENCE: [LAUGHS]   ALAA MURABIT: No, no.   AUDIENCE: Wow. I'm a preacher. You just hurt my feelings.   ALAA MURABIT: No, no. [LAUGHS]   [LAUGHTER]   I apologize.   AUDIENCE: No, no, no.   ALAA MURABIT: Let's be fair. Let's actually take this to the next level. Religions aren't necessarily for or against anything. Our understanding of religion may be. But religion in and of itself, if we look at just the documentation, it's words on a piece of paper. What it needs is, it needs human interpretation. And so the human interpretation of faith may not be for or against poverty. Do you agree or disagree with me there?   ALAA MURABIT: No, I get what you're saying. I think my response, and I think my fundamental belief, is that there can be wonderful poets, wonderful interpreters. We all, I'm sure, adhere to different scholars within our own faith and feel as though that scholar is the most expert. But the fundamental reality is, as much as you can respect an interpretation, it is still a human-based interpretation. That is my belief.   And I think that a lot of the challenges that we do see in religion today are borne out of a realization that that interpretation is, for the most part, in most major faiths, particularly the major Abrahamic faiths, is a very exclusionary interpretation. And what that means is, I think my personal challenge-- and probably the challenge that I am sure I will have until I am 100 years old if I live that long, God willing-- is marrying what I believe about the religion to what I hear in interpretation about the religion, about my own faith.   And so I think one of the things that I always keep in mind is, first off, religious institutions are just that-- they are institutions. They may not necessarily mirror your own daily practice. And oftentimes, that leadership, the same way we see it in government and corporations, et cetera, is heavily male-dominated. That's been very true for Islam, and that's very true for Abrahamic faiths.   And so if you are not there for the reading and for the contextualization and the interpretation of that faith, then you are often not there for the implementation of those policies. You are left out entirely of that interpretation. And that is something that we have seen when it comes to women's inclusion in religion-- that, because women were often not there during that interpretive phase, those voices, those experiences have not been included in the implementation post-fact. And that can be now for Islam. And that can be for Christianity, for Judaism, et cetera.   And I think that when we look at really kind of what defines faith practice, or at least what has defined it for me and what has defined it in my own work, is a belief that, oftentimes, if we do not challenge that, if we do not challenge the lack of inclusive interpretation and the lack of inclusive leadership, then those faiths are definitely used for political, economic, and social gain. But also, they're not necessarily fit to serve many of our communities.   And so my answer to your question about religions not necessarily being for action against poverty is because we haven't interpreted them to be that way. When I think of Islam and the way my parents taught it to me and the idea that it is of mercy and it is of grace and it is forgiveness and that God is the most beneficial and the most merciful, I automatically assume based on that text that it is a religion that is overwhelmingly opposed to waste and to poverty. That would be my personal understanding of the faith.   And I think what faith communities have not leveraged enough is challenging interpretation that leans more negatively. And that's often because we don't necessarily have inclusive interpretation. We don't have homeless people given the same level of respect in religious interpretation as we do those who get to live in those beautiful homes near mosques and stuff like that. And that goes back to every major Abrahamic faith.   And the last thing I'll touch on before we do open question and answer, because I'm sure there's going to be a lot, is really focusing on that inclusive interpretation. So when I am asked what I think the biggest challenge is for religious institutions moving forward, my answer is always that I think, much like every other institution, every other corporation, every other space, religions do actually need inclusive leadership.   We know that there isn't enough. I mean, we can see that, and we can also see when women's leadership does come in that families and communities are more open and more willing to listen to different perspectives and opinions on what seemed to be very strict faith-based notions.   And so a good example I'll give here is-- there was a-- and in my opinion it is a more extreme interpretation that a woman who is raped must marry her rapist. And it wasn't until women scholars and women leaders, religious leaders stood up against that and actually used religious scripture to say, no, that, in fact, is not true. That was the first time it had happened. And a lot of people said, well, why hadn't it happened before? And that's what we have to start asking ourselves, are the doors open when it comes to religious education?   When I look at Islam, because that's the faith that I know best, I know that that's not the case. The doors are not as open for women's religious education in Islam for women as they are for men. We know that because women are often not able to study in those centers without a male accompaniment. We know that because they are not given the same resources and support. We know that because oftentimes women have isolated centers of education that are not deemed at the same level as men.   Now, this will not surprise you, but most faiths mirror this, be it Christianity, be it Judaism, the level of female scholarship and the openness to female scholarship in religion is much more limited than it is for men. And then we ask ourselves why these interpretations are often very exclusionary.   And so my ultimate question, I think, when it comes to the execution of the Sustainable Development Goals-- peace in general. I mean, we know that women's inclusion, when it comes to a corporate board, if you have 30% of women, people trust you more and you have higher economic output as a company, right. We know that if you have a minimum of 30% of women on a parliament, you are more trusted. Citizens have more trust in the government, and that group is considered more transparent. That's the perception, right. And perception is often reality. So we know that.   We know that when it comes to inclusive peace processes, 90% of peace processes will fail within five years. When we include women, you look at a 35 times higher chance of them lasting 15 years. We know that. We know women's inclusion economically, socially, politically, pays dividends.   And so I think the one point that I always like to make is that, why are we not asking those same questions about religion? Why are we not asking about inclusion in faith? Because I personally think that is the single most transformative. Thank you.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Thank you.   [APPLAUSE]   For the sake of some exchange between us, I just would like to raise a few points that are directly related to what you said. So you said lots of things. So I will just focus on a few things that really brought my attention.   The first one is when you moved to Libya and you realized that-- well, not you-- but comparing to your situation with Canada, the status of women's rights in Libya and the fact that women were, indeed, part of lots of bodies of higher learning and part of social and economic forces. This is something that is very key, because having looked at lots of discussion on women's rights and Islam, the idea is that women are behind in all aspects. And it's too bad I don't have my PowerPoint. But I would show you that, actually, even inequality of salaries, even in political representation in some Muslim countries, they are beyond or before Western countries.   ALAA MURABIT: Yeah.   JOCELYNE CESARI: So, and why we don't realize that? Because we look at the religious dimension, which is not automatically included in the social advancement. Women's rights were advanced in the post-colonial context by multiple states, meaning in the sense that the building of the new national communities implied promotion of women. And lots of authoritarian states we're using it like, we are good to women.   But at the same time, the women where remaining-- and you said it several times-- a pillar of the family. So they were advancing women's rights in education, economy, even political representation, but maintaining women in some kind of more subdued situation in the family.   And in the West, we have this kind of vision that all these go together, meaning if you look at the evolution, the curve of women's rights, it goes from equality of rights, sexual equality, and so on, while in most of evolution of women, especially in Muslim countries, the two don't go together.   (CHUCKLING) And I'm going to say it, Iran is a perfect example. There is a joke in Iran. A woman can run for presidential election, although it has changed. But she cannot divorce her husband.   That's the paradox of women's rights in most of Muslim countries. And I think your experience here shows that. And it should be said more clearly that the challenges are not at all levels of human rights.   And Islam is not-- I mean most Muslim leaders have said it clearly-- unless we are talking about Saudi and Wahhabism, and it's another story-- but you could not find any traditional religious leader opposing women's education or social work or even civic activity. So these are important things to do, to remind people. But does it mean that women are completely a free agent when it comes to sexuality and family life? No.   ALAA MURABIT: But I have a question for you. Do you think that's true for women anywhere?   JOCELYNE CESARI: It's true for women that are dealing with, I would say, some kind of religious prescription. If I look at the example of the evolution of women's rights in Catholic country, the package came together. I mean, in the sense, it was political emancipation, but also emancipation for the limitation of the Church, while these two elements didn't go together in the evolution of women's rights in Muslim countries. And the point here is not about Islam.   ALAA MURABIT: Yeah. No, I get what you're saying.   JOCELYNE CESARI: It is about a new way of dealing with the status of women in this new national community. And they are central. That's why the body of women is central to all political fights, because there was a time when the secular leaders were unveiling them. There were bullied by--   ALAA MURABIT: Which is still happening around the world.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Yes, exactly. But now it's the opposite, to veil them. But the logic is the same. It is, the women are the guarantee of our national identity of pol--   ALAA MURABIT: Well, 100%. So there is a theory when we look at feminist theory and we look at conflict, and we talk about how women's bodies often represent the borders of nations. So when we look at sexual violence in conflict, one of the reasons that sexual violence is often a tactic and a tool in conflict is because if you are to sexually violate the women, which is the national borders of that country, you have not only taken dignity away from the opposing country, but then you can also actually force them to carry your own child and then prevent long-term conflict again. Right. So that's an often-used tool in war.   I think there's a couple of things I will say. I think we have to be very aware that, when we talk about Muslim countries, it's not homogeneous at all. Muslim countries is a huge spectrum. And Iran, I think, can very rarely be used as an example for the majority. And it's very easy. We see it in the media every day.   And I think the reason that we don't know how incredibly powerful women are in many Muslim countries is because the media paints a very good picture of those kind of traditional Islamophobic tropes of women being always covered in burqas, et cetera, et cetera. And while it is true that some women around the world-- and Iran is an example of it-- are forced to wear the scarf in some countries, they are also equally asked to take it off in countries like France.   And so I think it would be unfair to assume that there is any country in the world, be it coming from Catholic origin or Muslim origin, or really any, where we can say that women have been emancipated fully, at all. I mean, I can find things like abortion rights and reproductive rights in the United States as religiously rooted, as you will find things like political and reproductive rights in Muslim countries or in Jewish countries politically rooted. And we have to be very aware that that's something that crosses all religions.   And you brought up the Catholic Church. A good example is Argentina, which has the highest femicide rates in the world-- the highest femicide rates in the world. And they have marches against femicide. And a huge part of that is this belief that the woman is the honor of the family, right.   We talk about "honor killings." And I often hear them mentioned for Muslim-majority countries. And my question to that is, 75% to 80% of women killed in the United States are killed by a significant other. And oftentimes, the significant other claims it is because she has brought shame to him, which is, in and of itself, a form of honor killing.   And so we're very, I think, complacent with changing the terms and assuming that this is something that is removed from us. And I do fundamentally believe it is a challenge of all religions.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Yeah.   ALAA MURABIT: Because, at the very core, if you do not have women there at the interpretation level, then they are excluded from the interpretation-- for every major faith. And they become fair game. I fundamentally believe that we could look at any faith and say, how could this have been transformed if women were there from the agenda-setting, interpretation-setting phase from that faith? If we had said, not 60 years ago, particular women and minorities got voting rights, but long before that because they were part of that agenda-setting and interpretation-setting phase.   And I think the biggest challenge there is recognizing and owning that religion is a significant economic, political tool. It is.   JOCELYNE CESARI: And so this brings me to the second point I wanted to make before turning to the audience. It's, what you describe is something key, which is mobilization that is not based on principle, but based on solving issues. And it's very far from the academic way of thinking. But I think it's key to understand how people interact in some context.   And you presented this work you did with the Noor Campaign of not political. And you are right if we think of politics as political parties or--   ALAA MURABIT: Oh, no, it was political. Our initial work was apolitical.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Yes.   ALAA MURABIT: The Noor campaign was overwhelmingly political.   JOCELYNE CESARI: OK. But even the initial work, I would say, it is political. Because then I am sorry to become theoretical, but I'm Aristotlean, meaning what did Aristotle say? Man is zoon politikon. The man is a political beast. [CHUCKLES] Meaning you do not exist, and politics doesn't mean political parties of state. It means what you mention strongly when you talk about Islam and religion, is community. You do not exist despite all our discourse on individual musicians, if you're not a community.   And politics is, first and foremost, the management of community. So religion is part of it since the beginning. It's our Westernization that has put religion in its nice little niche, like it's my faith that I wear inside on the side.   But religion, since the beginning, is about building a community, especially in Abrahamic faith. Religion doesn't come from me or you. It comes from a community. Anthropologists said monotheism is one god, one message, one people. It's not me. It's a community. It's a revelation-based community.   So in this sense, it's eminently political, but not as a politician or parties on sense. And it's key to rehabilitate this community dimension of religion. That's why people are pushing back against you, because they want religion in a nice little niche, like you go to the imam or you go to the mosque, and you think you have gotten the religious voice, but while the religious voice is all the people doing things that may have nothing to do with rituals.   And I think this is key. And this is where our scholarship as academics has also work to do, meaning in the sense that you turn to the clerics, but you also mentioned you needed for some kind of input from religious knowledge.   ALAA MURABIT: Of course.   JOCELYNE CESARI: And we have lots of things to do here, that honestly, I don't think, we are a little behind. [CHUCKLES] Meaning we have work to do to understand religion, not only as an individual or faith-based kind of aspect, but also having something to say for community. And the demand outside the West is huge for that-- maybe, I mean, even in the West, I would say. But we are-- so I want you to--.   ALAA MURABIT: No, I fundamentally agree. And I do think it is community. And I think the strength of the campaign was recognizing the importance of community. It was the reason we created local city teams. It was the reason we tried to ensure as much as possible that these were messages coming from a space that you trusted.   Because when you hear something from your next door neighbor who you've known for 20 years, who is a member of your community, who you trust, who you admire, you know their morals, you know their values, you're a lot more likely to trust it. That's why word of mouth is still the best marketing technique in the world, despite the emergence of the internet and all of that.   I would go a step further in saying-- and I think this is particularly true for the women and the minorities in the room, but it's also for the men-- it is impossible, I think, to be a woman today and not be inherently political.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Absolutely.   ALAA MURABIT: Our bodies are political. Every time that you succeed, every time you fail, every time you enter a space, every time you leave a space. I actually remember when I was 21 or 22. And one of my mentors-- somebody who I admire and trust who is an older white man-- said to me, listen, I have to be honest with you. Because I was getting frustrated that people weren't listening to everything I said when I walked into a room.   He said, you know, you have to kind of prove yourself. I said, well, what on earth do you mean by that? And he said, well, when you walk into a room, people see four things. They see that you're a woman. They see you're Arab. They see you're Muslim. And you're lucky, this last one you'll grow out of, but they see that you're young.   And I remember when he first said it, I was very frustrated with it. But it's true. We all walk into spaces with what are perceived to be our superficial identities, right. When I walk in, I have to almost, unfortunately-- and I actually see it in my everyday life-- where you almost have to prove that you're supposed to be in that room.   And I'm sure most women here can attest to that as well in their own workspace. Or somebody will say something like, your English is so good. Or you're so clever for a young woman, at which point I always say, you're so clever for an old man.   [LAUGHTER]   And the reality is, we have those different political identities. The reason they're so important in today's world is because they are leveraged as political identities. They mean something for your socio-economic status.   Here in the United States, the color of your skin means something for your likelihood of dying in childbirth. These are realities, right. And you're not going to be able to walk away from that.   But what we can do, and what I hope the Noor Campaign did, and what I think a lot of religious scholarship can do, is actually leverage those identities to create communities where people can come and talk openly about the challenges, about whether or not, yes, their local mosque does actually serve the community well, or whether or not that local mosque needs to be transformed.   The same goes for a church or a synagogue. How can our institutions, how can our religions better serve the purposes of our communities?   And I do think it is the way in which religion is talked about right now, where the two are almost forcibly separated. And I do think that does a disservice. It fundamentally does a disservice.   And the reason that religion becomes a much higher priority in post-conflict countries is often because it serves the original purpose of community. Religious institutions provide flour. They provide water. They take on the role almost of community service provider. And so there's a lot more interest and engagement with them. And that's leveraged by groups that don't necessarily want to use religion for the best outcome.   And I think what we need to be able to do is recognize that innate need for human community and connection and say, if religion is a platform that exists-- and I personally don't think religion is going away. I think it will mutate in different forms. But it's not going away. And if that platform exists, how can we leverage it to ensure the best fit for this community, for it to be in its best form and its most useful, most compassionate, most empathetic, most merciful form? How can we do that?   JOCELYNE CESARI: I think we could go on and on. But it's better if we stop here.   ALAA MURABIT: Open up for questions.   JOCELYNE CESARI: And I will give you five minutes to confer amongst yourselves. And then you can also write questions if you are not comfortable asking directly. I think some RPP assistant will collect if you want to write a question. But I was told to give you five minutes of, not debriefing, but [LAUGHS] talking to yourselves before asking questions.   And we can open the floor for question and answers with Dr. Murabit. So I take any hands who come up. Yes, please.   AUDIENCE: OK, I have two questions. First of all, I think it was you in your speech, said that we should respect all cultures as being equal. Does that mean we respect cultures where women aren't allowed to drive and men control the world? All we equal to them? That's question one.   Now, you said that that you believe that the religion is male-dominated because women weren't there when we interpreted. So we have the Bible. And the term "Bible" doesn't necessarily only mean religion. We have a text Bible. We have a political Bible. Whatever happened 2,000 years ago, we can't undo. What are we going to do? We have a male pope. We have a male president. What are we going to do to change it now?   ALAA MURABIT: I think it's a very good question. For the first one, would you like to take that, or? [LAUGHS]   [LAUGHTER]   HOPE WILLIAMS: Yeah. So I'm just speaking on behalf of RPP and myself. But I think when it comes to respecting all cultures, it's recognizing that the people of that culture have dignity, right, and that every person who lives in a nation where maybe the woman can't drive or she's still trying to get her rights to drive, that she is just as much a person and a human being with dignity as much as I am sitting here working at RPP, right.   So I think it's really just more saying that-- and it's OK to recognize that injustices happen and inequalities happen-- but we don't choose where we're born. And that respecting the people who live in those cultures and respecting those cultures and their experiences as legitimate is what we stand for, I think, in RPP. And I think that's my answer to your question.   ALAA MURABIT: I think that's a fantastic answer.   JOCELYNE CESARI: Yes.   ALAA MURABIT: I do. I think that's a fantastic answer.   [APPLAUSE]   And I would add in, you probably have a lot more in common with those women, and your government probably has a lot more in common with their governments than you guys have different, right. And so we have to recognize that there are different spheres of power.   And I mean, I think the professor would probably agree with this one. I'm not for superficial shows of women's emancipation. I'm not. I'm not for putting women as ministers. I'm not for suddenly deciding you're going to let women drive when it becomes politically expedient because your feet are under the fire for another reason. I fundamentally don't believe in it.   I think women's rights and women's inclusion in the amplification of women does not look like superficial checkboxes. It looks like the fundamental reality of women having equal ownership, women having equal say legally, women being able to be things like the president. I think that's women's inclusion, as it is. And I think we're very good globally at checking those superficial boxes and saying, oh, here we are-- we are 50% women in our cabinet-- and not really looking at the structural and the systemic.   And so that gets me to the second question about what can we do for the structural and systemic. I think there is this amazing statistic about how over 90% of girls when they are 7 think they can be president, and how that plummets by the time they get to high school. But boys still think, up towards 100%, that they could still be president.   And what that statistic tells me is there is so much power if we talk to girls and boys when they are young. And I think what all religions fail to do very well is talk to children about scholarship, religious responsibility, and the power that lies there.   And I can speak specifically for Islam. My hope is that women who are in positions where they say, listen, I don't think what's happening in my church, synagogue, mosque, et cetera, is right, say, let's create alternative spaces where people can collect, where people can talk about different interpretation or different ideas, or create those spaces.   And a good example is actually a group called the Muslim Space in Austin, where they've created a community where kids can come and play and ask questions about religion, and girls are not automatically told that they can't be imams and scholars. And they ask those questions. And they engage them from a young age.   Because I can tell you from personal perspective, it is very difficult-- and I do not think I would be here if it had not been for my parents-- telling me from day one that I had one major responsibility in faith, which was to seek knowledge. And my mom would always tell me when my brother would make a mistake and I would try to blame him, that in Islam, you are independently responsible.   And we have a very famous saying, by the prophet that if somebody commits injustice, even if they are your brother or your sister your mother or yourself, you must stand against them. And so my mom would say that to me. It was usually to get me to rat out my brother or sister when they did something wrong.   [LAUGHTER]   But it was a very effective tactic in the sense that, had I not been taught that, I would not have thought I was capable to accomplish what I was able to. And I would not have thought I had the religious right to do so.   And so I think we really need to change the way we're talking to younger people and say, listen, you have the right to have these questions. We're often, in many of our religions, vilified if we ask difficult questions about faith and about belief. So you have the right to have these questions. You have the right to ask them, and what are your solutions? The same way we ask people to innovate in any other space-- the same way we ask people to ask, can we drive better? Can we deliver things to people's homes? Like, the same way we ask practical questions, I do think we need to open the comfort of that conversation in religion. I do.   And I think one of the challenges in religion has been it's always felt like you could not be part of those high level conversations, that you had to be a professor of religious studies to even contribute. And I think we need to shift that. Because religion is inherently personal. It's not academic. It's not theoretical. It's not, right.   Religion, when you think about your own faith journey, is oftentimes emotional. And it's about your own belief system. You're not usually reading through and saying, well, academically in 1962, x and y happen. That's very rare. And so I think we need to allow for the humanity to be part of that conversation.   AUDIENCE: Hi. I actually came because I was really interested to hear you speak about the SDGs. And my background is in the UN system, before that government of Canada, before the Médecins Sans Frontieres. I come from Fletcher. So I was just wondering what your experience of the process has been. I mean, we see the language coming from Guterres. I get the emails from my organization "PSEA response."   Yeah, but when you're out there in the field, like when I was in Afghanistan, we only had two female junior local hires in an office of 50-plus people with 5 sub-offices, and same on the Syria response-- two junior local female hires. And I just was wondering if you could speak to that, not only in terms of the parity, but the larger structural and systemic changes, I'd be really interested.   ALAA MURABIT: That's a fantastic question. I think one of the biggest challenges that faces the UN, faces most multilateral institutions, and faces every government is the inclusion of women in tangible ways, from an agenda-setting level.   The UN, because it's 193 member countries, and all those different countries have different perspectives on women's inclusion and leadership, they have to attempt to marry that political reality with the daily reality on the ground. And so what you'll find them doing often is doing something like having a gender advisor who will sit next to the Secretary General's special representative, but definitely not have the same level of power-- if any, right. And that's one of those checking-the-box, oh, women's inclusion? We got a gender advisor.   And the difficulty there is-- and I think this is the challenge politically-- it normalizes the exclusion of women or the parallel expertise of women. So you'll have peace processes where they will have a parallel process that includes civil society and women. They will not be included in the formal process, right. And what we're saying to local communities is, we agree with you. Women are not important enough to be part of this conversation.   And a large part of the time, the UN and member states will say, well, we don't want to get too sensitive culturally. It's a conflict environment. But at the same time, they will go and sit on the floor and eat with their hands and do all those cultural things at 2:00 or 3:00 AM to get an economic deal. They will do that. That is when they will work with the culture to get benefit out of it. But when it comes to the inclusion of women, that's too sensitive of a conversation.   So my issue with, I think, the rhetoric on a political level is that we just don't have the will. And I think we need to start being a bit more honest about it. I think Guterres is making attempts, particularly with the leadership.   But you can have 50% leadership of women, and when you look down that chain, if there's 2% mediators, 9% negotiators, there's something going wrong. You do not have the systems and structures in place to sustain that women's leadership. So we can have it now with Guterres, and with the very next secretary general go back to 10% or 20%, and nobody would blink an eye.   And I think we have to challenge ourselves and ask, if we had 10% or 20% male leadership, would we be as complacent? Because I think that's one of our biggest issues. 50% was made a huge deal out of it. Everybody said, well, how is he going to find qualified women? Where's he going to find them? Is he going to have to train them specifically? And we have never asked that when it is 80%, 90% cabinets of men, right, or leadership or executive leadership teams of men. So I do think we have to challenge ourselves in our own companies.   The second thing I'll say, which I think is my call to action in almost any talk I go to about political inclusion of women, it's very easy, I think, for us to look at structures bigger than ourselves. So MSF is a good one. The UN is definitely a good one, where you can say there isn't enough women's inclusion or there isn't enough parity in terms of racial equality or religious equality, et cetera.   And I think the one thing that allows for me to have some sort of faith in the system and faith in humanity is that we all have the responsibility once you hold a position of power to open that door for other people. So my mentorship program came out of a realization that when I walk into a room, I genuinely look for other women. And I look for other minority women. I think we all look for what we are.   And I used to, when I was 21 and 22, think when there were no other women in the room, it was maliciously intended. I'd be like these guys didn't want women because they know we're fantastic, and we compromise, and we make change happen. And I would ask some of the men, and they'd be like, I didn't even notice. They wouldn't have even noticed. Because their partners are there, people they've worked with, their colleagues.   And so it took me a while to recognize that it's actually not malicious. We look for what we are. And we need to be able to also open the door and say, there are more of me out there. I'm not the only qualified woman or minority or et cetera.   And I think that's a challenge that I give everyone. So men, women alike, go home and think to yourself, who in my company is not in a decision-making room? When I'm sitting around at a board meeting, what are the voices that are missing, especially the ones that don't look like me? Because we very rarely ask that.   I can tell you I've never really looked around and thought about minority youth men as much as I do young women-- almost never. And I've had that comment thrown back at me, as when I'm in a room, who do I think is missing? And it's exercised my ability to say, not only will I start a mentorship program and encourage more women to get engaged, but I'll also demand structural change.   So how can we systemically, within the UN and other bodies, say, from the internship level-- which is unpaid still, which is a huge challenge for a lot of people who don't have the resources-- but from an internship level, how can we ensure that, as you climb up, women are increasingly included in managerial positions? Because we know from that first promotion, the first managerial promotion-- what's the percentage of women that make that first promotion compared to men? Who knows?   AUDIENCE: I have been at a company, and there has been no promotion of women.   ALAA MURABIT: OK, no promotion. I mean, you should leave that company.   [LAUGHTER] Statistically, that's not the reality. So for every 100 men, it's 79 women that make it through the first managerial promotion. Subsequently, every time after, you're looking at a 20% to 30% drop. So by the time you get to senior executive levels, you're looking at a leadership for women between 20% to 25% as opposed to men. Right.   And so the issue isn't necessarily recruitment for the UN. It's retainment. How do we actually retain women employees? How do we retain employees as they go through different life cycles?   You'll notice there's a huge age discrepancy in leadership in the UN, because it's not well-versed to how can they actually work with a 35-year-old woman in the middle of her reproductive years, as opposed to a 65-year-old man who's at the end of his political career, right? And so we need to create a system that actually can retain people over time, create more flexible, and, to be honest, create more lucrative positions, so that those with families, those in local communities actually have a need to work with the UN.   So things like diaspora pay versus local pay would be another issue when it comes to women's recruitment in countries like Afghanistan, Syria, et cetera. So it's a difficult issue. And it's one that I think most international NGOs, development organizations will face and are facing in terms of how to retain and recruit.   AUDIENCE: Actually, my question is not specific to a gender equality. It is a general question about Sustainable Development Goals. So as you are the advisor for the SDGs, I would like to ask, what are there systems or arrangements in place to attain that Sustainable Development Goals in 2030? What are the capacity-building initiatives, structural dimensions, something like that, especially for the local actors?   ALAA MURABIT: Mm-hmm. That's a very good question. The Sustainable Development Goals, he's asking what are the national action plans, more or less, for the achievement of the Sustainable Development Goals. And some countries have put their national action plans together. It's now around 40 countries have done that. Some will actually be announced during the high level political forum this July in New York. And some have not.   And the challenge with the Sustainable Development Goals, the underlying fundamental challenge with anything that is not legal doctrine in the UN is that it really is about sovereign nation states choosing to be part of this. And so in 2015, 193 countries signed on. But there really isn't a checks-and-balances system at the UN level to say, if you don't do this, you're cut. That doesn't happen, right. The countries, at a national and local and regional level, regions have to decide whether or not they're going to do a national action plan.   And UN member teams and UN member states can definitely engage with them and say, we can work with you, we recommend. So the office of partnerships can say, we'll work with you to form a national action plan. We'll give you expertise, et cetera. But it has to be country-led. And so my biggest recommendation to countries that do not have a national action plan is for the civil society there, which is oftentimes robust civil society to begin to engage on that.   The SDGs, I think for civil society-- and I compare them, for me, to Resolution 1325, which was Women, Peace, and Security-- it was a UN Security Council resolution-- are incredibly powerful. Some countries say it's just a piece of paper, which is true. It is. Everything is just a piece of paper until you leverage it the right way.   And for us, Resolution 1325, Women, Peace, and Security, meant I could use that piece of paper that my country agreed to to say, you need to listen to me. I need to be in these meetings. I need to be included in conflict mediation and conflict resolution meetings. I have a right to be here. You told the whole world that, right. And it was actually very good political leverage for me.   And I do recommend to civil society to leverage the SDGs in the same way. Countries, including the United States, have signed on to those 17 goals. They have signed on to climate change. They've signed on to quality health. They've signed on to no poverty. They've signed on to peace, justice, and strong institutions.   And in countries where the civil society is robust and capable, that's when government needs to have their feet held to the fire and say, these are commitments you made to the international community. These are commitments you need to meet at home. And we'll work with you on that national action plan.   AUDIENCE: So, sorry, we actually had one anonymous write-in question. So I thought I could pose it now. If you had to point to, say, one or two keys to improving the status of women globally, what would they be?   ALAA MURABIT: Oh, that's easy. Health care and education. I think if a woman does not have complete control over her body, it is difficult to ask her to have any type of leadership or to demand that she have that type of leadership in other areas.   The fact that in 2019, we're still talking about women's reproductive rights as though they are a negotiable issue, the fact that women are still taxed for basic sanitary products, the fact that girls are leaving school because of sanitation and because they get their periods completely negates their leadership and their agency from a young age. And so I think, fundamentally, access to health care and universal health care would transform the reality for women around the world.   Second to that, education. If you educate 10% of girls in a country, the GDP increases 2% to 3%. When a girl is educated, she creates a cycle of education for her family. She marries later. She has less kids. She's more likely to vaccinate her kids.   When women are employed equally, they reinvest 90% of their income into their community, as opposed to men who reinvest 30% to 40%. And when we equally educate and employ girls, we're looking at a greater economic growth than China and India combined.   So I think, at the bare minimum, if we were to meet education and health care, we would see incredible transformational things when it comes to women's inclusion, by shear force of the fact that they can then tap into the agency they already have. I don't think we need to empower women. I think that's disingenuous. Women have agency. They are empowered. I think we need to ensure that structures and systems are in place where they can then tap into that agency at the same rates we allow for it to happen to young boys and men.   AUDIENCE: Thank you very much. My name is Damaris. I come from Kenya. And I was just intrigued by you speaking about how you've been leveraging powers of communities and local actors to be able to succeed. And I'm thinking about Nairobi, which is a booming P-sector. And most of the people who work in that sector are not necessarily from the communities that come from there. And I'm wondering what kind of advice you would give to people who go to create or create peace with communities where they don't come from?   ALAA MURABIT: I think that's a very good question. And the young woman who also worked with the UN can probably attest to this. It would be dishonest to say that peace-building and conflict, in and of itself, is not a huge money-maker. That would be disingenuous.   It's why a lot of conflicts reemerge. 90% reemerge within five years, because war does mean a lot of money for a lot of people. Peace-building does, as well. There are entire companies and organizations that are built under that premise that go into local communities.   And this might be unfair of me, but I do fundamentally believe intention is different if you're going in for economics than it is when you are part of that community. And when peace and conflict are fundamental, daily realities for you and for your family, I do think it's different than when you're parachuting in and part of a corporation that's making money off of that conflict.   That being said, I don't think it's going away anytime soon. As emerging security threats increase, as we see more borderless conflict, as we see more uncontainable and unnegotiable conflict, we're going to see a lot more engagement from international actors.   A good example is the Ebola conflict, right. You're not going to negotiate with the disease. And so you do have what is assumed to be international expertise and international support come in. And in those instances, oftentimes the international support and expertise is much better paid than the local support and expertise. So you're facing the economic reality for the local community, as well.   My piece of advice for this, to be incredibly honest, is that local civil society needs to create a stronger community amongst itself. That is very difficult because local civil society is often pit against each other for funding opportunities and partnership opportunities with international organizations.   But I genuinely think it is the only thing that works. Because when you have a very strong, connected local civil society, and when you have strong and connected local-- and they can even be employees of those international organizations-- but when they are fundamentally connected to the local civil society, those international organizations are more often than not forced to listen to local voices with more measure.   And when that civil society is fragmented, it's easier for international organizations to come with agendas and numbers that have been dictated in Brussels and London of like, educate 2,000 girls, whether it makes sense or not for that community, and actually get them implemented because they don't have that robust civil society that will stand up against them.   I also think local civil society, when it is more connected and powerful, does not necessarily have to go through international NGOs as interlocutors to be able to get to their own government and to international governments. They are taken more seriously as an independent stakeholder. So that is what I think is incredibly important in countries like Kenya, and I would argue, even in countries like Libya, where, unless civil society itself is very well connected to one another and demands their own agency, they do, ultimately, often get co-opted.   AUDIENCE: You mentioned your concern for survivors of sexual violence in Libya and reparations. How did the reparations go? And what did they constitute?   ALAA MURABIT: Well, what we were demanding was full reparations of psycho-social health, education-- the same reparations-- there had been a set of reparations that was provided for some of the fighters. And so we had demanded the same. And the Justice Minister, a year and a half later, did offer those reparations.   AUDIENCE: Did they get them over time?   ALAA MURABIT: I mean, I think to the same degree that a lot of the military did. So I'm sure that those that were more proactive in reaching out got them. I wouldn't have specific numbers for you. But for us, the end game was that they were actually a legal right.   AUDIENCE: And in both cases, the men and women, there weren't cash payments involved?   ALAA MURABIT: I believe there were some. I believe there were some. So if you were going overseas to get health care, I believe that was part of it, yes.   AUDIENCE: Thank you very much for your conversation. I'm quite interested to your strategy to secure the message that you mention that the team work with local leaders to make sure that it is the person that local people trust. So it is better to secure the message. But I wonder, is there an assumption that local people trust local religious leaders? I mean, what if the local religious leaders do not have that trust among their people? Yeah. So what will you do in that condition?   ALAA MURABIT: For sure. Our local city teams did not include religious leaders. So when I say "minister," I meant government minister. And they included a lot of civil society. They included some students. Religious leaders did not want to join our local city teams. I don't think they appreciated the idea of getting direction on faith from an organization that focused on women's rights.   And to be quite honest, I think we were comfortable with that. A lot of them attended some of our seminars. We were in conversation with them. But we were comfortable with being able to give our message in a way that was undiluted or unimpacted by their interpretation or their personal beliefs. So we didn't actively try to recruit religious leaders at all. We didn't. One of the reasons was because of what you mentioned, but mainly because we just didn't want to have to deal with those power dynamics.   JOCELYNE CESARI: I'll take one more question.   AUDIENCE: You mentioned that 70% of your class at the medical school in Libya were women.   ALAA MURABIT: Yes.   AUDIENCE: Do you have any knowledge about what percentage of those 70% became doctors or practicing physicians?   ALAA MURABIT: Oh, we had a much higher percentage of girls graduate. Oh, yeah. I'm not sure how many would be doctors five years out. But I think we were still in the 60%-something when we graduated. We had more girls in the class throughout.   I think one of the realities-- and I joke about this-- my sister is a pediatric plastic surgeon. She's a plastic surgeon in Canada. And when she wanted to go into plastic surgery, people overwhelmingly told her not to. She was the only woman in her years of residency and, until now actually, maintains the highest mark on the boards in Canada. And she's been out for 10 years. She finished her boards 10 years ago.   And people were often surprised by her desire to go into plastic surgery and would tell her, you should go into pediatrics or obstetrics and gynecology. Deal with kids, or deal with babies. That was usually what she got in Saskatoon.   So I remember when I was in my last year of medical school in Libya, I was saying, I'm going to go into surgery. And somebody said, but why? Go into obstetrics and gynecology, or go into pediatrics. And I was like, oh, turns out they're not so different after all.   [LAUGHTER]   So around the world, there is an assumption that women, particularly in science-related fields, but medicine is where women are more likely to go into dermatology, or there's this assumption that they'll go into the healing fields, but the "softer" ones, right.   And there was a picture that was trending on Twitter I think yesterday or the day before, where there were two kids, looked like they were about five. And the boy was wearing blue scrubs that said "future doctor," and the girl was wearing pink scrubs that said "future nurse." And there was a backlash from people on Twitter saying, like, why are we still trying to place these gender norms on these children? Or these assumed gender roles.   And I think that that's true whichever country in the world you're from. I mean, the amount of times that I've signed an email "Dr. Alaa" and people expected me to be a man, I cannot tell you.   And I think that's the last question. So I'll close up on a story quick that I like to tell because I think it's hilarious, but also very depressing.   [LAUGHTER]   Which sums up life pretty well sometimes. But when I went to my first big UN meeting, and the UN does this thing where they etch your name and your name plate. And they really want to show that they value your participation.   And so I had prepared for about two weeks before this meeting. I flew in from Libya for it. I used to have one of those old Motorola flip phones that I was real excited about. You all know what I'm talking about-- unless you're born in like 1996, then you probably don't. But I went to the meeting. I showed up early and sat in my seat, laid out my computer and my papers, took a few pictures to send to my parents, of course.   And then within minutes, a young intern came up to me, probably only a few years older than me, and said, excuse me, but that is Dr. Murabit's seat. And I hear he is very difficult.   [LAUGHTER]   So if you could go please sit in the back with the support staff. And I did something that I think a lot of people could argue would be very out of character, where I picked up my stuff and I went and I sat in the back. I think I was pretty just shell-shocked. And it wasn't until some of my colleagues came in and they were like, what are you doing in the back? Sit in your seat. And I was like, oh, I was just, you know, taking it all in.   [LAUGHTER]   And I don't know if, by a show of hands, how many of you have done this where you've gotten into an argument, and then you've spent the next two hours, like in the shower, driving home, or whatever, thinking of all the things you could have said instead of what you actually said. Yeah.   So I spent the next two hours of that meeting thinking of all the things I would have said. Oh, you don't think a "Dr. Murabit" can be a woman? Like, I was going to go off. And I have 10 brothers and sisters, so I am very good at arguing. And so I was prepared with some responses.   And it wasn't until about 10 minutes before the meeting ended, we were talking about young women's inclusion. And someone said something so ridiculous that it snapped me out of kind of my thinking because I noticed everybody else agreeing with him.   And I was like, wait a second. Are you guys really talking-- that's your solution for women's inclusion? And they were like, well, where have you been? We've been talking about this for the past two hours. Now you suddenly disagree with us?   And I actually do attribute this to the mercy of God, the universe. I fundamentally believe that had I left that meeting without being snapped out of it in that moment, I wouldn't have started my mentorship program. Because I wouldn't have recognized how systemic the problem is, that it's not about one intern not knowing, it's because our systems have taught young women that leadership does not look like them.   And I would not have realized that when you are in a position-- because I remember prior to that meeting, I was overwhelmingly opposed to quotas. And when I left, I wasn't. And it was because prior to that meeting, I thought, you know what, when you deserve to be in a chair, you earn it, you work hard, you're listened to, you're heard, et cetera.   And I left that meeting thinking, if you have people in those rooms that have different perspectives and different realities, and you ensure-- you ensure-- that they know that it is their responsibility when they're in those rooms to speak up and to be heard, they can actually change and shift the conversation. They can do that. One person can do that as long as they fundamentally believe that is their right, that is their responsibility, that they have to own the space they're in.   And I think if we were to more actively ensure that women and minorities were in all positions, that we had equal, inclusive representation-- we're not talking about 90% women, 10% men-- we're saying if we had representation that looked like the societies that we govern in-- if we could fundamentally do that, I think we would have transformative policies that could actually be implemented and could be trusted. But unfortunately, we don't. So that's what we all have to work towards together.   [APPLAUSE]   DAVID N. HEMPTON: Yeah, thanks so much. Maybe could I just ask one more question?   [LAUGHTER]   ALAA MURABIT: I took the mic off. This better be real good, Dean Hempton.   [LAUGHTER]   DAVID N. HEMPTON: So thank you so much, both of you, for inspiring conversation and a kind of moral, political community vision, too. And I suppose that's my question. I mean, as you look out from the UN and the Sustainable Development Goals and so on, what's your optimism level about what we've talked about tonight? And are there real examples of countries that you think have made really substantial progress in these areas in the last 20 years that we might look to as exemplars going into the future?   ALAA MURABIT: I definitely think so. I think Rwanda's a very good example in terms of being able to take a very fragmented history and cultural reality and shift it to ensure greater inclusion. There's obviously challenges there. But I think in the time that they've been able to completely shift a lot of cultural norms to the betterment of society to ensure inclusion, to create significant growth and innovation, I do think they're a very good example in that regard.   They have the highest percentage of women in parliament. That has really been spurred predominantly by their investment of women economically and in their investment and ICT. And a lot of that was because there was that window of opportunity post-conflict that exists in most conflict areas for social and gender norms to be challenged. And that was taken on fully.   In terms of optimism, I'm so glad you ended on such a positive note-- [CHUCKLES] I am optimistic. I actually am. And I'll tell you why. I mean, "optimistic" might not be the best word. I'm realistic.   I think if we look at the world today, and we look at the reality that we all live in, I think it is the first time in history-- and this will always happen. In 10 years, people will be more capable to do this. So this isn't a unique moment. This is something that grows every minute, which is why I think it's beneficial. But we are all more uniquely capable of determining our place and our destiny than we were 10 or 20 or 30 years ago.   That's a reality, particularly for women around the world. I know that had I been born the year my mother was born, my life would probably look fundamentally different. And something that I've heard every day from my mom growing up, especially when I complained about school, was that if I could do anything for myself, it had to be to be entirely independent.   My mom raised 11 kids. And her one piece of advice for life was always, you need to be financially, you need to be independent. The only person who should tell you what to do and where to go is you. And you need to be able to create that for yourself.   And I think that the reason we see so many women of my generation saying we can do this, we want change, is because of the doors that were opened by our mothers and our grandmothers and leaders that came before us. That's the reality.   And so while it might look like we're only at 30% now, we were only at 10% 20, 30 years ago. And if we're at 30% now, imagine what the next generation is going to be capable of.   So I don't think this is a quick fix. I don't think we're all going to wake up in five years and be like, oh, Madam President, oh, this is fantastic. Oh, the world has changed. Women's rights is here. I don't. I do think that this is generational.   But I know for a fact that if we continue to work the way that we have been working, in 10 years, people will not confuse climate change as a fallacy. In 10 years people will not continue to talk about health care as though it's not a fundamental human right. In 10 years, people will not challenge the right for girls to have equal education to boys. In 10 years, parents will not be devastated when they're told they're having a girl instead of a boy.   I fundamentally believe that the only thing that can move us forward is by people like those in this room, like the professor, like yourself, demanding of their institutions, their jobs, their families, and themselves betterment and saying that the only way we advance is when we teach those closest to us, because that's where we all have our power. We can all have power at work. We can all have influence.   But really, the mimicking, the actual role modeling, the truest form of power is the people around you and what they take from you. And I think that if we can all, in our spaces of power at home, at work, at school, wherever we hold that power, demand that we are going to hold ourselves and our community to a higher standard, we're going to see that moving forward.   So I'm fundamentally optimistic because the people I'm around demand that of me. I hope I demand that of them. I've been told I'm difficult, so probably.   [LAUGHTER]   And I imagine in 30, 40, 50 years, when I see my niece and I see where she is, I'm going to be amazed, because those weren't even options that I considered. And I think that's something a lot of our grandmoms can say about us.   DAVID N. HEMPTON: Thank you. And thank you.   [APPLAUSE]   [MUSIC PLAYING]