To a great extent, popular culture is a series of remakes.Remakes of classical theatre.Remakes of children’s stories.Remakes of old movies.
There’s nothing basically wrong with that.Hamlet has been restaged thousands of times, sometimes preserving its original historical context, other times being modernized.Film director Akira Kurosawa transported “Macbeth” and “King Lear” into Japanese historical reimagining with stunning effect in “Throne of Blood” and “Ran.” Director John Sturges reciprocated when he repurposed Kurosawa’s “Seven Samurai” as a rollicking American western, “The Magnificent Seven.”
But each remake occurs at a specific moment.Times change and, with those changes, we get altered views of both the originals and the remakes.Changing views of diversity have deeply influenced that process.
I’ve rarely given in-person presentations since the pandemic. Taking a deep breath, I did speak to Civitan International’s Chattanooga chapter about my documentary: Untold, Stories of a World War Liberator. With Yom HaShoah (Holocaust Remembrance Day) on April 23, it was relevant timing for a topic that’s very personal for me. My dad was a U.S military intelligence office during the war assigned to interrogate Nazi POWs. My documentary is based on his wartime letters.
I’m honored to carry on his legacy, especially for our youth, which is why pre-pandemic, I spoke at a local high school’s Holocaust education elective class. I began by asking the students why they’d chosen this Holocaust elective. One student said, “I wanted to hear both sides of the story,” and added that she’d read online that the Holocaust is just propaganda and didn’t really happen.
Fathers and Mothers Days are great American traditions, but I’m not sure I like them. Unhappily, I have a really big problem with these days because I don’t have the goods. My mother and grandmother who were such loving figures in my life are gone. My father, who I take after in so many ways, is gone, too. I’m feeling a bit sorry for myself. My children live far away but will no doubt call or send a card. I’m grateful for their love but I would really like to call my own parents. Just knowing they were around made life balanced and feel more secure.
I don’t often use AI, but I made an exception over the weekend when severe storms were expected and schools announced closings for Monday. The report echoed the storms of a few weekends ago when 60 tornadoes and 40 deaths came close to us. Was this the new norm? I couldn’t resist going to my computer and asking AI if this weather was unusual. Here’s the AI response: “Yes, Chattanooga’s weather has a high risk of severe storms, including damaging winds, tornadoes, and large hail…” Unnerved, I asked a native Chattanoogan friend her thoughts on this unusual weather. “There was nothing like this growing up. These severe storms and tornadoes are relatively recent. Same for Alabama, Kentucky, Louisiana and Mississippi.” When I whispered “Climate Change is real”, we both nodded in agreement.
Agreement that climate change is real science is growing. Earlier this year, the Yale Program on Climate Change Communication published the results of a survey on global warming. The national average of believers in global warming is 72%. And 71% of those surveyed worry about the effects on future generations. Some may doubt that the global warming is caused by human action, but even before these storms, 75% of respondents supported funding research into renewable energy.
Unfortunately, the current administrationsEnvironmental Protection Agency (EPA) announced that it’s starting the process of undoing 31 environmental regulations. Check out these media blasts: “Trump administration aims to eliminate EPA’s scientific research arm”,“E.P.A. cancels climate grants, intensifying battle over $20 billion”, “Climate group (Breakthrough Energy) funded by Bill Gates slashes staff in major retreat”, and “Trump has fired the scientists who monitor the ocean”.
Does the EPA have regrets over these changes that put our planet at risk? Hardly! This is what EPA administrator Lee Zeldin wrote in the Wall Street Journal: “By overhauling massive rules on the endangerment finding, the social cost of carbon and similar issues, we are driving a dagger through the heart of climate-change religion.”Supposedly, this “kill” will usher in a new Golden Age.
That “climate-change religion” phrase is intended to demean and is part of the new goal to dismiss the many religious leaders emphasizing our responsibility to take care of the planet. Don’t let that happen! One of my favorite climate-change religious leaders is The Rev. Dr. John Pawlikowski who reported how The Chicago Council of Global Affairs in 2019 brought together 51 mayors & staff to develop a flexible mayoral covenant on climate change.
Four years later, Pawlikowski wrote about the 28th United Nations Climate Change Conference (COP28) where governments discussed how to prepare for future climate change, including transitioning away from fossil fuels. But given the complex politics over the COP28 which was controversially held in oil-rich Dubai, it’s obvious that our planet’s stability is in the hands of a small group of rich entrepreneurs and their political supporters. Follow the money!
The EPA now wants to reject saving the planet and humanity in favor of cheaper cars and unregulated industries. But the EPA’s own 2009 endangerment findings block that move.The findings concluded that human-produced greenhouse gases did threaten public health and welfare and must be regulated. So now what? The EPA will no doubt discredit its own endangerment policies and denigrate its supporters. Are you ready for a vicious storm of attacks on climate change believers and environmental projects?
We must remain strong and persevere. Religious leaders and community organizations must come together regardless of one’s political party affiliation. Reject the “hoax” conspiracies and embrace our responsibility to protect the future of this planet and ourselves. If not us, then who?
Dear readers: Before you bid au revoir to this side of planet Earth, add Little Rock in Arkansas and, a few blocks away, the Little Rock Nine Museum, to your must-do bucket list. And if you get there, before leaving town take the walk down South Park Street – alone like I did years ago – in front of the imposing fortress of Little Rock Central High School. Hold that possibility until the end of this narrative and, with it, a recommendation.
But before the anti-DEI history erasing crowd comes gunning for my noggin, snatches me off a street corner and handcuffs me for a one way government expenses paid one way trip to a prison in El Salvador, I figured that I’d try to stay one step ahead of them with another little-known bit of history they’d prefer that you didn’t know about, namely that of one Grace Lorch.
Silly me! You’d think that I’d have learned by now that acting on a hunch can take you into uncomfortable situations, places that can leave you struggling with finding the right words. I guess I’ll never learn.
You see, given the turbulent times of today – and acting on a hunch – I called to check in on several longtime friends “Jimmy,” “Barbara and “Eddie” recently. Although I was primarily interested in their physical well-being, after reading an article about “grief” (I’ll get to it further down ) I’d hope to get their thoughts on that topic as well.
ADR (Deborah Levine): Papa Balla, thank you for joining us. You’ve worn many hats in the AI and intercultural world , as the creator of SIETAR AI, the promoter of the Intercultural AI Framework, and a lead contributor to the EU ACT in GPAI. Could you start by telling us what inspired the creation of the Virtual SIETAR AI Symposium?
Papa Balla Ndong: Thank you for having me. The Virtual SIETAR AI Symposium was born from a sense of urgency to ensure that intercultural perspectives are not an afterthought in the AI space, but a foundation. AI is shaping how we work, communicate, and understand the world. Yet, without cultural sensitivity and ethical alignment, it risks deepening global inequities. The symposium is a space where engineers, educators, policymakers, and cultural practitioners can co-create a more inclusive and responsible AI future.
ADR: How does the Intercultural AI Framework inform the structure or strategy of the Symposium?
Ndong: The Framework is the backbone. It’s not just a theory , it’s a methodology that centers on three pillars: intercultural sensitivity, iterative dialogue, and ethical adaptability. Each session in the symposium maps to one of these, whether we’re discussing dataset bias, AI ethics across borders, or the human element in machine learning. We’re not just talking about inclusion; we’re practicing it through multilingual panels, cross-regional collaboration, and time zone-aware scheduling.
ADR: SIETAR AI is still quite new. What role does it play in this initiative?
Ndong: SIETAR AI is our think-and-do tank. It connects interculturalists who may never have imagined themselves working with AI. Through this platform, we’ve trained educators on AI literacy, advised on ethical AI curricula, and collaborated with tech developers to humanize AI systems. For the Symposium, SIETAR AI serves as the bridge between the intercultural field and the technological ecosystem.
ADR: You were also selected as a lead contributor for the EU ACT within GPAI. How has that shaped your perspective on global AI governance?
Ndong: Immensely. Being part of GPAI’s EU ACT group means engaging in the practical drafting of codes of conduct and frameworks that could shape legislation. What I bring to the table, and advocate for — is the recognition of cultural plurality. We must understand that a one-size-fits-all approach to AI ethics won’t work. African values, Asian philosophies, Indigenous epistemologies — they all matter. The Symposium reflects this ethos by offering a platform for those voices to be heard and integrated into AI norms.
ADR: This all sounds very ambitious. What are the main challenges you’ve faced in organizing the Symposium?
Ndong: Time and trust. Coordinating across continents is a logistical puzzle. But even more, gaining the trust of communities who’ve been excluded from tech dialogues takes time. We’re saying: “Your voice is not only valid — it’s vital.” That shift doesn’t happen overnight. We’re learning to listen deeply and build long-term partnerships, not just events.
ADR: Who are some of the key collaborators or participants in this year’s edition?
Ndong: We’re bringing together UNESCO experts on education and technology, grassroots AI developers from Africa and Latin America, European policymakers, and even artists and poets. AI isn’t just technical — it’s deeply cultural and emotional.
ADR: And what would success look like for you, after the Symposium ends?
Ndong: Success is a seed. If someone leaves the symposium with a new partnership, a project idea, or simply the sense that they belong in the AI conversation — then we’ve done our job. We want the Intercultural AI Framework to live beyond documents and symposiums. It must become a living practice.
ADR: Finally, for our readers who might want to get involved, how can they connect?
Ndong: We’re open. Anyone can join the mailing list of SIETAR AI, attend the symposium (many sessions are free), or contribute to our collaborative Intercultural AI Framework. This is a global dialogue, and everyone has a seat at the table.
ADR: Thank you, Papa Balla. Your work is a reminder that technology without culture is incomplete — and that the future of AI must be both human and humane.
Ndong: Thank you — and may we build that future, together.
Note: Deborah will give a presentation on Intercultural Leadership in the Age of AI for the Symposium on Friday, April 11.
“Do you have any religious or ethical reservations about what kind of bone we put in your mouth?”That question both startled and pleased me.As I answered with a simple “no,” I broke into a broad smile.
Some context.My young periodondist was in the midst of trying to save my 90-year-old mouthful of teeth from the ravages of aging.To do so she was giving them a thorough laser treatment and selectively rebuilding my dental structure through new bone.
As we approach this year’s holy days, we know that faith can be a source of great inspiration. We also know that religions can also generate the most divisive forces on the face of the planet. There are wars fought in the name of religion, as the Middle East demonstrates and many people prefer to be in the unaffiliated or atheist categories rather than be associated with organized religion. But diverse religions are part of the world reality and regardless of your faith or non-faith, ignorance of religions and religious traditions doesn’t help anything. Religious literacy is a must-have when you encounter and/or work with diverse religions whether they are fellow employees, friends, markets, or communities. Yes, it’s a bumpy road, but well worth traveling.
That was the “brilliant” question asked to Prof. Anita Hill by Senator Howell Heflin, a member of the Senate Judiciary Committee during the 1991 confirmation hearing (comprised entirely of graying white men) there to determine the fitness of Clarence Thomas for a seat on the U. S. Supreme Court.
After a three second – “are you kidding me” – pause and throat clearing, the good professor calmly answered, “no I’m not senator!”
Now let’s fast forward 35 years later to a recent Sunday night when Prof. Hill sat stoically across the desk from her interviewer, CNN’s Jake Tapper, to recap the experience and her life since then. On full display during that interview was the sempiternal nature of her professional demeanor that’s seemingly unchanged by time, a steadiness Prof. Hill exhibited during eight hours of blistering grilling by senators, some of whom had questionable backgrounds with respect to their treatment of women. Her poise and unflappability during her interview were textbook.
