The student-led movement to end mass atrocities.

The Past and Future of STAND and Grassroots Action

Are you a young activist looking to make change in your community? Congratulations, you’ve come to the right place! STAND was founded in 2004 as a student-led arm of the Save Darfur movement, which was a mass mobilization of people across the United States determined to prevent, mitigate, and respond to the genocide in Darfur, Sudan. We are part of a tradition of nonviolent resistance and mobilization that has won campaigns to garner multiple large and small scale changes to bend the arc of history toward justice. Here’s a look at some of the most important lessons that we have learned throughout our 15-year history and how you can apply them. 

Historically, most movements are successful when they use nonviolent direct action, in coordination with peacebuilding, to garner policy or regime change. We saw that with the uprising in Sudan, with the civil rights movement in the United States, with the democratic revolution in Tunisia. We also employed similar tactics at the beginning of our history.

In 2005, 160+ schools and several celebrities participated in a day-long STANDFast, a demonstration to raise awareness for the genocide in Darfur and money for humanitarian efforts. However, the Save Darfur movement wasn’t simply about educating the populace–it had three targeted goals: pressure the United States government to create a special envoy for Darfur, punish perpetrators of genocide, and send UN peacekeepers to intervene in the crisis.

To that end, student activists weren’t just focused on igniting the consciousness of other people through educational events or fasts. They also worked with coalition partners to target leaders through grasstops advocacy, which resulted in that special envoy actually being appointed by President Bush.

Just a few months before the special envoy was appointed, STAND activists protested outside the Sudanese Embassy for 10 days, during which time they met with embassy officials and garnered press for their advocacy. At the time, our website said our goals included “spreading awareness, instigating political action and raising funds for the crises in Darfur.” Even then, spreading awareness was only the first step in creating a movement.

STAND’s history is one of mass mobilizations of young people that have protested, divested, at times been arrested (alongside Rep. John Lewis), and lobbied their congresspeople–850 youth strong from 46 states in 2006–to end the genocide in Darfur. Our history is one of deep empathy, compassion, education, and action.

What has changed since 2006? Largely, the nature of social resistance movements, which have shifted from in-person meetings to largely devolved or digital organizing structures. STAND has changed with the times, and now conducts our organizational planning and advocacy using technology tools and a remote leadership team.

But that doesn’t mean we have to be less effective. By rooting our action in grassroots advocacy’s best practices, building strong relationships across movements, and innovating in the types of tactics we use to gain support, I believe that we can be at the forefront of social change and harness our power like we did in the beginning of the Save Darfur Movement. These three steps are also key to unlocking the potential of individual organizers, so if you’re committed to taking action to end genocide, keep reading.

1. Root Advocacy in Grassroots Action Best Practices

In 2006, Brown University became the sixth campus in the nation to divest from the genocide in Darfur due to efforts by a campus chapter of STAND. Divestment was a concrete way to create change in Sudan: by depriving the Sudanese government of funding, they could influence the actions of the government and reduce their capacity to continue slaughtering citizens. 

The divestment campaigns were designed to mirror the effective anti-apartheid divestment campaigns from student groups, which weaponized billions in endowment funds to start a trend that resulted in $1 billion in lost profit due to corporate divestment in South Africa.

The lesson that can be learned from divestment is one of grassroots action best practices. That is, the use of people power to target simple, effective campaigns using strategic tactics that are capable of scaling. These elements–targets, campaigns, tactics, and scale–are key to creating real-world grassroots change.

The first element of a campaign is planning. If you’re an individual activist, it’s important to identify your allies–who can you work with that will help you–and your resources, what you already have that you can leverage to win. Because grassroots action is all about people power, it’s important to convince as many dedicated, passionate folks as possible that your issue is important, specific, winnable, and urgent. However, even just a couple of students can make a big impact. The key is to work strategically with what you have.

After you have your group of invested youth, your next step is to create a campaign goal. This goal has to be SMARTspecific, measurable, attainable, relevant, and time-bound. Divesting Brown from the companies that engage in Darfur was a perfect goal, since they could easily identify the specific impact they, as an individual chapter, were having on it. It’s more difficult to pick a goal like ending the genocide in Darfur–that’s a mission, not a goal–so they started small, knowing that the final step is to scale.

Let’s talk about targets next. The Brown University students identified the body on campus with the power to divest their campus investments from Darfur, the Advisory Committee on Corporate Responsibility in Investment Policies. Not every school has one of these committees, but there are certainly other targets that may be receptive to change and can be identified in the course of a planning phase. 

In many cases, U.S. foreign policy is controlled by opaque actors in the State Department, White House, USAID, and the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. That is one reason that divestment presents an appealing alternative to lobbying U.S. officials by changing the policy goal to align with more accessible targets. However, these government actors can still be effectively targeted–particularly the Senate, given its role in foreign policymaking as well as Senators’ positions as elected officials.

That’s when tactics come into play. Different tactics can be strategically deployed for different goals, depending on the response of targets. It’s best not to start with tactics—they change depending on our targets and goals. When the Brown students started their divestment efforts, the Advisory Committee in control of the power was by all accounts incredibly amenable to their interests–they cared about the genocide and wanted to do their part to reduce culpability. Thus, tactics involved to further the goals of this campaign were fairly mundane: they did research, held meetings, and gave presentations, which was all that was needed to convince Brown to divest. Sometimes all it takes is for a group of students to lobby their Senator for them to change their mind on an issue and cosponsor a bill.

However, other targets might be more obstinate. As I discussed earlier, STAND’s history is rooted in tactics of protest, especially nonviolent direct action. Nonviolent direct action is more than simply a rally, but it is a specific action that causes a disruption in society to bring attention to a problem, without violence–think, the civil rights sit-ins. Nonviolent direct action, to put it bluntly, works. It means putting yourselves as activists at risk, and should only be used as a last resort. However, when it is done properly, it has an immense power to attract media attention, ignite action, and shame targets into acquiescing to campaign goals. Here is more about using direct action for your campaigns, how to deploy them strategically, and a list of unique nonviolent direct actions that can be used in a campaign (look under noncooperation). Remember: mobilization is not the same thing as organization–one is a short-term demonstration, and another is a long-term strategy for policy change.

Finally, the Brown University campaign is such a great lesson because it scaled. The campaign was replicated not just at other campuses, but the student leaders were able to make Providence, RI (where Brown is located) the first U.S. city to divest from Darfur, gaining national attention.

When campaigns are rooted in best practices, they are poised to win.

2. Build Strong Relationships Across Movements and Groups

However, advocacy campaigns don’t exist without immense people power, and that can be difficult to sustain. In the new digital age, some advocacy groups report fewer attendees at in-person events and meetings because social media fractures in-person civic life (don’t worry, up next is how to harness digital power for change). It’s no secret that there are fewer STAND chapters across the country than there used to be. However, our relationships are as strong as ever, and have the potential to grow.

In 2010, Notre Dame students gathered nearly 1,000 signatures to ask President Obama to continue supporting peacekeeping in Sudan. The students running this campaign used a rally to increase media attention, but they also did something unique. They leveraged the “Notre Dame athletic brand” to create social change by creating a coalition of unlikely student allies to attend the rally, which included representatives from Student Government, the Notre Dame men’s basketball and lacrosse teams, the Center for Social Concerns, and the Campus Ministry, among others. This event drew many supporters, and subsequent press coverage provided a signal boost to the petition.

Building strong movements means exploring and creating new allies. The Notre Dame students worked across disparate campus groups to organize a large mobilization and find common ground on an important issue. The chapter at the University of Pittsburgh employed a similar strategy in 2008 by partnering with a large number of diverse student groups to host events on campus.

Now, STAND is exploring partnership opportunities with youth peacebuilding organizations around the world, and has already partnered with many anti-genocide groups, including The Enough Project, Students Organize 4 Syria, and other organizations. With youth movements like the March for Our Lives and the Sunrise Movement gaining traction, youth activism hasn’t felt this palpable since the Save Darfur movement first started.

But it’s not just about finding partners, it’s about creating lasting relationships with each other. That’s why we send each other professional development opportunities in our Slack Channel, build community in our annual retreats and weekly phone calls, and are creating an alumni network. 

As an activist, you must invest in everyone who helps you, by authentically showing up and helping them in return. It may look different, depending on the situation, but could mean anything from looking over a resume, to attending an event, to sharing a post on social media. Take the time to learn who your allies are, what their goals are, and what personal experience brings them to this work. By investing in those relationships, you broaden the movement and demonstrate your commitment to helping others in real time.

3. Innovate in Tactics Using Youth and Technology

This is a vitally important lesson for every activist in the 21st century. In 2006, MTV hosted a competition to raise awareness for the situation in Darfur. The Darfur Digital Activist competition resulted in students at the University of Southern California creating a viral educational video game that depicted the struggles of a Darfurian refugee, to place users in the shoes (literally) of those displaced by the conflict. STAND co-founder Nate Wright helped launch the game that year.

Students took care to ensure that the game was accurate and sensitive by consulting with humanitarian workers, but also embedded calls to action within the game by presenting players with options such as petitioning elected politicians to support the Darfur Peace and Accountability Act, starting divestment campaigns, or writing to the President.

Not only was the game a huge success, helping win the prestigious Governor’s Award Emmy among other awards, it also illustrated the immense power that innovations in technology can have for building empathy for human suffering and genocide. A Michigan State University study found that the game “elicited greater role-taking and resulted in greater willingness to help the Darfurian people than reading a text conveying the same information.”

Many advocacy organizations misunderstand or underestimate social media and other digital tools’ power, but youth sure don’t. 

Take high school student Feroza Aziz, whose TikTok on the Uyghur crisis amassed more than 3.6 million views and spurred news coverage. The mass atrocities being perpetrated in China are the subject of a recent STAND blog post, and advocacy efforts are gaining steam

Designing video games and creating TikToks are still only the tip of the iceberg of the power of technology for increasing advocacy and awareness. The #MeToo movement has sparked a worldwide reckoning with sexual violence and power, and the potential for digital organizing is huge. By utilizing our intimate knowledge of technology, youth can innovate new ways to reach people, bring them into the fold, and activate them to engage in campaigns.

Furthermore, in the post-coronavirus and climate change-aware world, it is vitally more important to explore alternative advocacy tactics that don’t involve travel or in-person events. That’s why STAND is investing in creating digital organizing guides and strategies to equip our grassroots with the tools they need to organize virtually–and why we already conduct the majority of our organizational work via Slack and Zoom.

These three principles, of grassroots action, building relationships, and innovation in youth and technology have been central to STAND’s practices throughout our history. By understanding STAND’s past, we unlock keys to our future, and can map a trajectory forward guided by grassroots action and mobilization of youth.

“More people, and particularly more young people, are getting involved in politics, recognizing that everything they care about seems to be coming back to this political question—that the humanitarian is no longer simply humanitarian,” Samantha Power said in 2017 as reported by Slate

She spoke the truth our generation seems to know inherently: that problems of oppression, equality, war, and genocide cannot simply be solved through humanitarian work alone. We need to fight for political victories–and we need to win.

Jordan Stevenson is a senior at Eastern Washington University, where she is majoring in International Affairs with a concentration in Global Public Policy, and minoring in Economics and Spanish. As an MC member, she co-leads STAND’s State Advocacy Lead program, communications operations, and policy process. Prior to joining STAND, Jordan served as a Global Youth Advocacy Fellow for Planned Parenthood, lobbied for women’s rights and U.S. foreign policy with Population Connection, and researched Indonesian political rights with the U.N. Development Programme. She currently works on campus at the Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis, is an LGBTQ Policy intern with GLIFAA, and does economic development work in Kenya with Partnering for Progress.

Beyond Women, Peace, and Security: Gender and Peacebuilding

Have you ever thought about how peace actually comes about? If you’ve taken a history class, you’re probably familiar with the concept of peace treaties. The peace treaty, which is a legally binding document, is a tool of diplomacy that ends conflict between two or more parties, usually governments at war. These documents are incredibly important; they often set terms of surrender, in which parties may or may not agree to give up arms, acknowledge atrocities, cease certain attacks, settle debts incurred prior to or during the conflict, release prisoners, pay reparations, and possibly create structures that will inform the relationship going forward, such as an annexation of territory or alliance.

Peace is not simply a nebulous value. It is also a state of existence. It is an everyday experience for some, and a future experience to hope for, for many. When STAND and other organizations advocate for resolving conflict and creating peace, we are not simply advocating for the principle of peacefulness, but a change in the status quo for hundreds of millions of individuals around the world. One way that this is achieved is through peace treaties. These documents can have significant impacts on the resulting life for civilians. However, not all peace is created equal. The best peace treaties repair harm, reconcile atrocities, and provide a sustainable framework to continue a state of peace amongst all parties forever (or at least for the foreseeable future).

This is where the issue of gender becomes especially important. Conflict often disproportionately impacts women and girls in certain ways due to the use of sexual violence or kidnapping as a weapon of genocide or war. Certain peace treaties may provide better reparations for gender-based violence perpetrated during conflict than others, could potentially ignore the impact of war on women, fail to release women prisoners of war, or even fall apart without the assent of women.

Those “possibilities” are reality, and largely due to the lack of women involved in the treaty-writing process. According to UN Women, “between 1992 and 2018, women constituted 13% of negotiators, 3% of mediators and only 4% of signatories in major peace processes tracked by the Council on Foreign Relations.” This is unacceptable. Not only is it exclusionary and oppressive to women, it also does not set the foundation for sustainable peace. Research shows that peace treaties and agreements are more likely to create durable peace if women participate, and “peace agreements signed by women show a higher number of agreement provisions aimed at political reform and a higher implementation rate of these provisions” (UN Women). 

So, how do we ensure that women’s voices are heard in peacemaking and peacebuilding processes? The United Nations’ original gender-aware peace policy, Resolution 1325, establishes a framework to measure, promote, and address the unique impacts of conflict and mass atrocities on women and to increase women’s participation in peace. This policy also helped create the Women, Peace, and Security agenda, which countries around the world, including the United States, have since formalized. This agenda has helped provide funding for women peacebuilders, codify the issues that women face in conflict settings, and train women on issues of peace and conflict resolution. Of course, there is more work to be done, beyond what the Women, Peace, and Security agenda has accomplished.

One important aspect we have to acknowledge is gender diversity; although the Women, Peace, and Security agenda has promoted women’s rights, it often utilizes narrowly defined terms of gender identity and expression. Unfortunately, the issues faced by gender non-conforming, non-binary, and transgender folks have been “largely absent from gender and peacebuilding research, policy and programming” and require further research (International Alert). Going forward, it is necessary to integrate gender-inclusive terminology in peacebuilding, not only to benefit folks of diverse gender identities, but to promote human rights and normalize these issues in international society. 

The participatory aspect of peace negotiations is another important element to consider, especially the capacity for substantive participation from women and other gender identities. A major barrier to women’s participation in peace processes is that gender-diverse people all over the world face barriers to literacy, education, and job training that would help prepare them to formulate the documents and negotiate agreements for peace. It is not enough to simply add more women to the peace delegations and negotiating teams, but the international community must equip them with the tools necessary to make change. Increasing the proportion of gender-diverse individuals who are specifically trained as legal professionals, such as lawyers or paralegals, can help prepare societies to face peace processes with more gender diversity.

Finally, a key to promoting gender inclusivity and substantive participation in peace is the prevention and resolution of gender-based violence in conflict. It is vitally important that all human rights, peace, and foreign policy organizations continue to recognize the role that gender-based violence plays in conflict, and advocate to end impunity in cases of sexual violence, prosecute offenders, or create other non-legal transitional justice apparati to resolve the pain and trauma caused by this violence. 

What can we do to help? The first step is to educate yourself. Visit the resources listed below to learn more about the role of gender in peacebuilding. The second step is to support and promote gender-diverse lawyers, encouraging women and gender-diverse folks to pursue law training in the context of peace. For the United States, this means passing policy to help fund programs that train women lawyers and paralegals all over the world–and domestically. It means holding perpetrators of sexual violence accountable and supporting survivors of sexual violence with resources and access to justice. Finally, it means creating a gender-diverse world by using individuals’ correct pronouns, advocating for diverse perspectives on gender, using more inclusive language, and creating institutions to support and protect gender identity. 

Today is International Women’s Day! In honor of this international celebration, please enjoy this blog, and feel free to share it on social media.

Jordan Stevenson is a senior at Eastern Washington University, where she is majoring in International Affairs with a concentration in Global Public Policy, and minoring in Economics and Spanish. As an MC member, she co-leads STAND’s State Advocacy Lead program, communications operations, and policy process. Prior to joining STAND, Jordan served as a Global Youth Advocacy Fellow for Planned Parenthood, lobbied for women’s rights and U.S. foreign policy with Population Connection, and researched Indonesian political rights with the U.N. Development Programme. She currently works on campus at the Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis, is an LGBTQ Policy intern with GLIFAA, and does economic development work in Kenya with Partnering for Progress.

STAND Opposes Trump Administration’s Syria Policy Change

U.S. policy ought to be shaped by us, not dictators abroad.

On October 7th, 2019, the Trump Administration announced a change in United States foreign policy in Syria following a phone call with Turkish President Erdogan. This change would remove U.S. troops from a Kurdish-controlled border region, where they have been preventing conflict between the Turks and Kurds so as to maintain the delicate balance in the war against ISIS and Bashar al-Assad. This change opens up the floodgates for Turkey to attack the Kurds, a persecuted ethnic group and embattled ally of the United States. 

In 2011, Syrian civilians challenged the autocratic rule of President Bashar al-Assad in nonviolent protests, which quickly morphed into a civil war. Assad launched a vicious counterinsurgency and has managed to hold on to power with help from allies Russia and Iran, who have prevented international action against the Assad regime. Since the beginning of the war, a number of often brutal armed groups have entered the conflict, including ISIS and Jabhat al-Nusra. The conflict has killed hundreds of thousands of people and displaced millions. According to Mercy Corps, over 11 million refugees have fled their homes, and less than half of the necessary humanitarian aid has been provisioned.

While the U.S. government lacks leverage over most actors in the conflict, and have not been perfect actors during the conflict, there are measures it can take to help. These include engaging in diplomatic negotiations, ensuring any foreign intervention prioritizes civilian protection and anticipates potential political solutions, and giving substantial financial support to the millions of refugees displaced by the conflict as well as humanitarian aid during the crisis. Implementation of the landmark 2017 Geneva peace talks on Syria policies or restarting diplomatic talks again to end the crisis is unlikely without U.S. presence to mitigate conflict between the Turks and Kurds. 

Furthermore, as this U.S. policy change was a result of Turkey’s President Erdogan, STAND strongly asserts that foreign policy ought to be shaped by U.S. citizens and diplomats, and especially not foreign leaders with an interest or history in perpetuating genocide. President Erdogan has refused to recognize the Armenian genocide or reconcile with its lasting impacts, despite campaign promises and international pressure to do so. Along with a history of authoritarianism, human rights abuses, and corruption, Erdogan’s administration has also been accused of having close ties with the Islamic State, proving that he should not influence U.S. foreign policy.

We thank our members of Congress, especially in the Senate, who have criticized the President’s move, leading to a partial reversal of policy Monday afternoon—but this is not enough. The United States ought to work with the United Nations on implementing the Geneva peace talks provisions or reopening diplomacy talks to secure a humanitarian-focused solution to the crisis, pass the GRACE Act to allow more Syrian refugees to safely find a new home, and increase humanitarian aid funding.

###

About STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End Mass Atrocities

Born out of the fight to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, STAND’s purpose has four pillars: to prevent, respond to, and rebuild after mass atrocities by empowering youth to act. STAND is led by a Student Director, chosen annually, and a Managing Committee comprised of college and high school students across the United States and is the only student-led organization focused on genocide and atrocity prevention. STAND is affiliated with the Aegis Trust, a UK-based nonprofit. For more information or to get involved, visit the website, standnow.org or contact info@standnow.org.

STAND Statement on Trump Administration Cuts to Refugee Acceptance

STAND denounces the decision to cut refugee acceptance; passing the GRACE Act is even more urgent.

On September 26th, 2019, the Trump Administration slashed the refugee acceptance ceiling for 2020 to a historic low of 18,000 people from the historic average of 90,000, ending the United States’ legacy of being a safe haven for those seeking refuge from persecution and disaster across the world. With over 70 million people forcibly displaced from their homes globally, we are facing the worst refugee crisis in recorded human history.

STAND reiterates that this change is not only unprecedented and inhumane, but also that refugees are the most vetted individuals entering the United States. They undergo complex security checks through the Department of Homeland Security, Department of Defense, Federal Bureau of Investigation, the Department of State, and a number of U.S. intelligence agencies. Refugees are vital cultural and civic members of our communities and significant contributors to the United States economy. Many refugees become naturalized U.S. citizens, and many of those affected by this policy will be unable to reunite with their families already in the United States..

This is why it is urgent that Congress pass the GRACE Act, H.R.2146 and S.1088. The GRACE Act will uphold America’s long bipartisan tradition of welcoming refugees by establishing an annual refugee admissions level of no less than 95,000, restoring refugee admissions to their historic norms. This legislation also requires quarterly reporting to Congress on refugee admissions numbers. As of September 2019, 22 Senators and 57 Representatives have co-sponsored this legislation.

We urge the remaining members of Congress to pass this legislation immediately, to send a clear message about the United States values and counteract the damage done by the change in this policy.

###

About STAND: The Student-Led Movement to End Mass Atrocities
Born out of the fight to stop the genocide in Darfur, Sudan, STAND’s purpose has four pillars: to prevent, respond to, and rebuild after mass atrocities by empowering youth to act. STAND is led by a Student Director, chosen annually, and a Managing Committee comprised of college and high school students across the United States and is the only student-led organization focused on genocide and atrocity prevention. STAND is affiliated with the Aegis Trust, a UK-based nonprofit. For more information or to get involved, visit standnow.org or contact info@standnow.org.

Lobby Day: Easier Than You Think

Lobby Day Photo_smaller

This month was STAND’s biannual Lobby Day, where activists from all over the United States and world convened in Washington, D.C. to lobby for our policy priorities. Our asks included supporting the Global Fragility Act and the GRACE Act, and passing certain amendments to the National Defense Authorization Act, as well as a resolution on protecting education in conflict.

It was only my second time lobbying at the nation’s capital—I live in Washington state, so traveling to D.C. is exciting in itself. Earlier this year I had the opportunity to lobby for global women’s health funding that made it through the appropriations process. The first time around, I remember being excited but very nervous—running around in too-tight heels, sweaty and scared that I would be late to back-to-back meetings. 

This time, however, I was a lot more confident since I was familiar with the buildings. I knew from experience that no one was going to be rude or mean; almost everyone you meet while lobbying will be polite, appreciative, and accommodating, if a little half-hearted. Also, we were lobbying during August recess, which has its pros and cons: although you’re unlikely to meet the Representative/Senator themselves, there are generally fewer people and meetings, which means that you could have a longer and less frazzled chat with the staff.

My first (and favorite) meeting was with a staff member for Rep. Cathy McMorris-Rodgers’ (R-WA) who covers Armed Services, Veteran’s Affairs, and Foreign Policy issues. He was thoughtful and inquisitive, yet noncommittal. We talked mostly about the district and my university, and how refugee resettlement has been an important boon to the economy, culture, and local community. I told him personal stories about refugees that I’ve gone to school with, gave him restaurant recommendations for the next time he’s in the area, and joked around about football. This meeting lasted nearly half an hour, during which he took notes, asked questions, and then sincerely thanked us for talking with him. He promised to look closer at the legislation and pass it on to the Representative for voting.

The other two meetings I had were with the staff of my Senators, Sen. Murray (D-WA), and Sen. Cantwell (D-WA). In these meetings, the staffers were even more positive about joining the legislation I advocated for. Some staffers talked about their job and their personal background; others were interested simply in the policy at hand. Some were excited to talk about Washington State, others had never even been! It’s important to feel out the room to determine what kind of small talk, if any, can help you forge ongoing relationships with the staffer and the office. 

At the end of the day, I grabbed a quick mocha at Dunkin Donuts in the Longworth House building cafeteria. Being from the West Coast, Dunkin is a treat! I made sure I had all of the contact cards for the staffers I met with and reviewed my notes from each meeting, double-checking that any questions they had were written down for when I wrote my follow-up emails. I opted for flat shoes this time around; my feet thanked me. 

The truth of lobbying is that it is as simple as meeting with your legislator or their staff, telling a story, asking them to support a bill, and then following up afterward. Some meetings are shorter than 10 minutes–but they still make a difference! For so long, I thought it was some scary, difficult, shady business that people with law degrees and family connections did. Not so—anyone can lobby for any cause, and causes like mass atrocity prevention, refugee protection, and ending wars are great places to start! Remember, you don’t need to be an expert to lobby. You just have to be passionate and show up! Contact us if you want to set up a lobby day where you live, and view our resources on lobbying and advocacy below:

Jordan Stevenson is a senior at Eastern Washington University, where she is majoring in International Affairs with a concentration in Global Public Policy, and minoring in Economics and Spanish. As an MC member, she co-leads STAND’s State Advocacy Lead program, communications operations, and policy process. Prior to joining STAND, Jordan served as a Global Youth Advocacy Fellow for Planned Parenthood, lobbied for women’s rights and U.S. foreign policy with Population Connection, and researched Indonesian political rights with the U.N. Development Programme. She currently works on campus at the Institute for Public Policy & Economic Analysis, is an LGBT+ Policy intern with GLIFAA, and does economic development work in Kenya with Partnering for Progress.