Ep 229: Disrupting Hate with Ken Schachter and guests Ellen Kennedy and Bernie Furshpan on hmTv

Ep 229 – Disrupting Hate with Ellen Kennedy and Bernie Furshpan
On this episode of Disrupting Hate on hmTv, host Ken Schachter and co-host Bernie Furshpan sit down with Dr. Ellen Kennedy, founder and CEO of World Without Genocide. From her earliest childhood experiences of being “othered” to her groundbreaking work in human rights law, Ellen shares the journey that led her to build an organization dedicated to preventing genocide and protecting vulnerable communities.

The conversation explores how the definition of genocide has evolved since 1948, the critical distinctions between genocide, war crimes, and crimes against humanity, and the impact of climate change as a force multiplier of violence. Ellen offers insights into international justice, the dangers of politicizing the word “genocide,” and the urgent need for grassroots action—starting in our neighborhoods—to disrupt discrimination and hate before it escalates.

This episode is both sobering and hopeful, challenging us to recognize the interconnectedness of our world and inspiring us to envision what a true “world without genocide” could look like.

Listen in to learn how each of us has the power to confront hate, foster empathy, and push humanity closer toward universal human rights.

Transcript

Disrupting Hate — Ep 229

Host: Ken Schachter
Co-Host: Bernie Furshpan
Guest: Ellen Kennedy, CEO of World Without Genocide (Minneapolis, MN)
Network: hmTv — Humanity Matters TV

[Theme music fades in, then under]

Ken: Welcome back to Disrupting Hate on hmTv. I’m your host, Ken Schachter, joined by my co-host, Bernie Furshpan.

Bernie: Hello, Ken. Good to be here.

Ken: Today we’re honored to have Dr. Ellen Kennedy, CEO of World Without Genocide, based in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The organization’s mission is to protect innocents from discrimination and violence, prevent genocide, and prosecute crimes against humanity. Ellen, welcome.

Ellen: Thank you, Ken and Bernie. I’m honored to be with you.

Origins & Motivation

Ken: Ellen, let’s begin at the beginning. How did you first become engaged in the study of genocide—and what keeps you in this work?

Eellen: It started painfully early. In first grade, a classmate asked me my nationality. I said, “American.” He replied, “No, you’re a Jew.” It was my first experience of being othered. I grew up in a small iron-ore town in northern Michigan—one of very few Jewish families—so I felt that difference.
As I became a professor and traveled, I sought the stories of Jewish people wherever I was. I grew up in the shadow of World War II, and after reading The Diary of Anne Frank, I had recurring “Anne Frank dreams”—being chased by Nazis, waking up terrified. I assumed every Jew had that dream.
In 2005, after years of teaching about atrocities and visiting places like Holocaust concentration camps and Cambodia’s killing fields, I went to Rwanda to study transitional justice—11 years after the 1994 genocide. I returned to the classroom with a deeper connection. A student asked, “What are we going to do about this?” That question changed me. Shortly afterward, I founded World Without Genocide. That was twenty years ago. And I’m still answering that student’s question.

Has the Meaning of “Genocide” Changed?

Bernie: The term “genocide” entered law after World War II. Has its meaning or application changed since the original 1948 UN Genocide Convention?

Ellen: The convention was a negotiated document—many countries, much debate, and compromises. The definition centers on the intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnic, racial, or religious group. Notably, other identities—like political affiliation—were excluded despite extensive discussion.
What has evolved through case law is recognition that sexual and gender-related crimes can be instruments of genocide. We’ve moved beyond dismissive notions like “rape as spoils of war.” Women have increasingly been part of the judiciaries, and their perspective helped make this explicit.
One landmark: the first person convicted of genocide in the Rwanda context was convicted for incitement to rape—he didn’t personally commit the assaults but orchestrated them as a tool of genocidal harm. That’s a profound legal and moral shift.

Individual vs. Collective Responsibility

Ken: In Nuremberg we saw individuals at the top prosecuted. How do you approach individual versus collective responsibility in genocidal crimes?

Ellen: First, we need to name the four core international crimes: genocide, war crimes, crimes against humanity, and the crime of aggression—defined in the Rome Statute that governs the International Criminal Court (ICC).
The word “genocide” has become so emotionally loaded that it drowns out the other categories. As human rights lawyer Philippe Sands has argued, the same horrors might be legally characterized as crimes against humanity or war crimes—and receive far less public attention—until the word “genocide” is attached.
Here’s my guidepost: when innocents are targeted, we must pay attention—regardless of the label.
And beneath the labels, it’s almost always about power and control. The visible identity markers—religion, ethnicity, race, nationality—are the tip of the iceberg. They’re exploited to mobilize supporters and consolidate power, while the deeper drivers—control of resources, status, security—sit below the waterline.

Crimes Against Humanity vs. Genocide (Plainly)

Bernie: Can you draw a clear line for listeners—crimes against humanity versus genocide?

Ellen: Genocide requires intent to destroy a protected group as a group (national, ethnic, racial, religious).
Crimes against humanity involve widespread or systematic attacks against civilians, but without the requirement that the victims belong to a protected group targeted as such. It’s massive violence, but not necessarily anchored in the four protected identities.

Human Nature, Scarcity, and Conflict

Ken: Is tribal conflict hardwired into us? Is this biology?

Ellen: Biology plays a role, but the flashpoints are usually scarcity and distribution of resources—food, water, land, minerals, economic opportunity. That’s where grievances ignite.
Today, the climate crisis is a force multiplier—failing crops, water insecurity, displacement. When a quarter-million people are suddenly displaced by floods, where do they go, and who bears the strain? Fear rises, and demagogues exploit it. Climate stress doesn’t “cause” genocide; it amplifies the risks of violence, persecution, and mass atrocity.

What People Can Do—Locally and Beyond

Bernie: Your organization emphasizes education and civic engagement. What can everyday people do—right now?

Ellen: Start micro and stay mindful:

• Knock on a neighbor’s door, especially if they seem different from you. Bring cookies; bring curiosity.
• Teach children: if someone sits alone at lunch, sit with them.
• Interrupt dehumanizing jokes and slurs—in your group chats, at work, at the dinner table.
• Learn about crises that are ignored by your usual media diet. Right now, Sudan is arguably the worst humanitarian crisis on the planet and receives minimal Western coverage.
• Support credible human-rights reporting, and push representatives for early-warning funding, atrocity prevention frameworks, and refugee support.
  The late Gregory Stanton’s 10 Stages of Genocide begins with classification/othering. If we can disrupt that at the neighborhood level, we blunt the pipeline to mass atrocity.

On Using the Word “Genocide” in Current Conflicts

Ken: The term “genocide” is used frequently in public discourse about the Middle East and elsewhere. How should we think about “intent” and legal determinations?

Ellen: With humility and rigor. There are ongoing proceedings—the International Court of Justice (ICJ) adjudicates state responsibility under treaties like the Genocide Convention; the International Criminal Court (ICC) prosecutes individuals for war crimes, crimes against humanity, and genocide.
In the Gaza war context, ICJ cases have been brought; at the ICC, there are applications for arrest warrants for leaders of Hamas and for Israeli officials—on war-crimes grounds. These processes require evidence, not social-media summaries.
I don’t minimize the suffering—civilians have endured catastrophic harm. My concern is that labels without due process can obscure the path to accountability and prevention. The rule of law matters because it disciplines our outrage into actionable justice.

A World Without Genocide—What Would It Look Like?

Bernie: Your organization is named for the end state we all want. What would a world without genocide look like?

Ellen: It looks like equity—shared resources, access to food, water, shelter, and healthcare. It’s a world where the Universal Declaration of Human Rights—adopted in 1948, the day after the Genocide Convention—stands as universal, not selective.
I get up each day believing that if enough of us keep pushing the boulder up that human-rights mountain, we can crest it. Maybe not in one lifetime—but progress is cumulative when we refuse to look away.

Closing

Ken: Ellen, thank you for your candor and your clarity.

Bernie: And thank you for the work—twenty years of turning a student’s question into a movement. That’s the kind of persistence we all need.

Ellen: Thank you both. The time is now. Tomorrow is too late.

Ken: That’s a perfect note to end on. Our thanks to Dr. Ellen Kennedy of World Without Genocide. If you found today’s conversation valuable, please subscribe, share, and stay connected to Disrupting Hate on hmTv for more engaged, evidence-driven dialogue.
Until next time—take care, and be well.