A Proposal for University Partnership — Final Launch Version

Dear Colleague,

Every semester, a real disagreement reaches your campus — over a policy, a speaker, a war, an appointment — and your institution faces the same choice it always faces: let it play out as noise in the quad, or give it somewhere structured to go. Right now, most universities only have the first option. This letter proposes the second.

Teach Peace is a complete, ready-to-teach method for moving conflict indoors — into a monitored room, with a defined process, where every argument is actually heard and the group reaches a documented outcome. Not a protest, whose only real tool is volume. A discussion, whose tool is structure. The difference is the entire proposal in one sentence.

The method itself is a single evaluative question, applied consistently: does this action increase or decrease the level of peace in human society? Applied across government, law, religion, business, and daily life, that question becomes a complete, gradable curriculum — undergraduate through doctorate — and a working classroom protocol for handling exactly the disagreements your campus already has, today, without a curriculum to hold them.

The work is finished: a full manuscript, two structured workbooks running nearly 300 questions, a documented protocol for live discussion and disagreement, and a proposed degree architecture, all available for review right now at worldpeaceteachingpeace.com. This is not a concept awaiting development. It is complete, and it works — the site includes real, worked demonstrations of the method applied to live news events, run start to finish, so you can see it function before taking my word for anything.

I have not held a prior academic appointment, and I want to be direct about why that does not weaken this proposal. The material has been rigorously tested through extended, adversarial dialogue with two independent AI systems — now standard practice in serious research and legal work — pressure-testing its logic and its weaknesses at a scale no single reviewer could match. A full biography accompanies this letter, establishing the decades of work behind it.

Here is the part I want to state plainly, because a university evaluating this proposal will reach the question on their own eventually, and I would rather answer it directly: why does this need a third party to run it, rather than existing faculty? Because impartiality is the entire mechanism. A discussion moderator inside this method cannot have an institutional stake in the outcome — cannot be defending a department's funding, a colleague's position, or the university's own public relations while running the room. I bring no institutional stake to any question this method is applied to, on any campus, ever. That is not a limitation of my background. It is the actual qualification.

The other qualification is duration. This is not a framework built for a launch. I legally changed my name to WorldPeace in 1988, thirty-eight years ago, specifically because I understood then that this would be the work of a lifetime, not a project. In the years since, I have survived a wrongful year in federal custody, a contested disbarment, and the loss of most personal relationships that could not withstand the commitment — and none of it moved me off this work for longer than it took to absorb the loss and continue. A university partner is not choosing a consultant for a semester. You are choosing the one person who has already proven, for four decades, that he does not quit when the barrier is real.

Given the scope of what has been built, I believe this framework has a genuine global market — but a project this specific needs one coordinating home rather than many competing versions, and my strong preference is that it be a university in the United States. Alongside university outreach, I am reaching NGOs and student peace organizations directly, on the premise that a framework this substantial deserves more than a single point of failure. I suspect your own institution may already have tested the appetite for something like this — many universities have added peace-related electives in recent years — without yet having a complete, ready-to-run system behind them. This is that system.

The material itself requires no development funding — it already exists. What I am asking for is modest and specific: a working stipend of approximately $2,000 a month to allow me to be present and working full-time in service of this program, adjusted upward only if the role requires relocation to a city and institution I would be establishing myself in for the first time. I bring independent income of my own — web design work, sales from over 160 published books, and direct reader support — and for the past two decades I have lived a deliberately minimal life, working full-time from a single location with no staff beyond occasional art apprentices. Any additional funds beyond basic living support would be directed back into growing this program, not personal use.
If someone at your institution has built a career engaging seriously with unconventional, self-developed work rather than dismissing it on credentials alone, I would ask that this reach them directly.

This letter has been sent, separately and equally, to your president's office, several relevant academic departments, and any officially recognized campus peace organization — not routed through any one recipient to reach the others. If you know of any other person, department, or student group on your campus who might find this worth their time, I would be grateful if you passed it along.

I am prepared to meet, in person or otherwise, at your convenience.
Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Dr. John WorldPeace, JD

johnworldpeace.com  •  worldpeaceteachingpeace.com