Blog Archive » 2006 » September

Her photograph is stunning: a beautiful young woman, full of life, beaming through the robust fulness of her achievement as one of the highest ranking members of the Class of 2005 at West Point. A graduate of Oxen Hill High School, she could have been one of many students of my acquaintance, save for the saber and parade hat and full dress uniform. All week I've been thinking about Lt. Emily J.T. Perez who died in Iraq three weeks ago. Among her many firsts, she was the first Black and Hispanic female command sergeant at West Point. Tragically, she now is also the first female West Point graduate to die in Iraq, the victim of one of those devastating roadside bombs. She was leading her platoon while patrolling a road near Najaf. The bomb destroyed her Humvee.

Several blogs ago I alluded to Katie Couric "wearing her own shoes" as one commentator put it, rather than just "filling a man's shoes." Emily Perez and the other women serving in Iraq are not just filling men's shoes, either — the combat boots they wear are truly of their own style. While, technically, women are still not supposed to be "in combat," in this new kind of war the combat is everywhere and women are on the front lines. Women in combat today are dying with those boots on, a sad but increasingly necessary symbol of equality.

Another haunting image is the collage of photographs that the New York Times published last Sunday of the 65 American military women who have died thus far in the Iraq war. While this is a small fraction of the more than 2700 troops killed in the war thus far, the increased attention being paid to the numbers of women killed in combat-related actions is drawing renewed attention to the dangers of this war and the role of women in the military.

These young women, and the thousands of men who have died or suffered grievous wounds, are sacrificing themselves for our country, and for the ideals of freedom and democracy that are the rationale for this war. While many of us might question the wisdom of this war, the political motivations, the poor judgments that have mounted, we cannot possibly question the patriotism, dignity and heroism of the troops.

One comment in the New York Times article struck me as perverse. A professor at Northwestern University is quoted as saying that the general public does not seem overly concerned with the deaths of young women in war. "They would rather have someone else's daughter die than their son," he said. I find that unbelievably callous. Most people I know would prefer to see no one at war. But under the circumstances, most are also deeply moved and grateful that some young men — and young women — are willing to make this ultimate sacrifice.

Perhaps the best way we can honor Lt. Perez and all of her brother and sister soldiers who have died in this war is to redouble our effort to find a way back to peace.

What do you think about women in combat? Please send me your comments — click on the envelope below, or send me an email at president@trinitydc.edu I will include your comments in one of my next blogs.

Leave it to a Trinity Woman to get a renowned U.S. Senator to do something he doesn't normally do. Senator Barack Obama paid the highest compliment to Kansas Governor Kathleen Sebelius (Trinity '70) last night when he stopped by a small gathering of her friends to applaud the accomplishments of our Trinity alumna. Senator Obama said that his schedule is such that he must normally limit his appearances to candidates for the U.S. House and Senate, and not state offices. But he made an exception for Governor Sebelius because he admires her leadership so much.

Senator Obama ticked off just some of the accomplishments of Kathleen Sebelius: named among the five best governors in the nation by TIME Magazine; elected by a strong majority as a Democratic governor in a heavily Republican state; forged strong political alliances across party lines; took the state from fiscal crisis to a health surplus; improved schools and higher education; bravely tackled health care issues. Senator Obama noted that while gender, like race, should not have to be an issue in supporting candidates for public office, the reality is that very few political women have won the respect and support of citizens across the spectrum in quite the same way that this "State CEO" Governor Sebelius has achieved.

The Trinity alumnae in the room — who were out in force, particularly the Classes of 1969 and 1970 — beamed with pride for their friend and classmate who has achieved so much.

When Governor Sebelius stepped forward to say a few words, she radiated confidence as well as a strong sense of purpose. In an age of so many phony politicians, she is genuine, a good listener with a big heart and broad vision about how her leadership can help to change lives.

One of Trinity's most important goals is the education of women for public leadership. Governor Kathleen Sebelius exemplifies the leadership goals of her alma mater.

See Barack Obama,Kathleen Sebelius

Last week, on Constitution Day, I urged the Trinity Community to spend some time reflecting on the question "Is Freedom of Speech in Danger?" I'm delighted to know that some faculty and students took time to discuss this topic in class, and others posted some reflections on the Free Speech Board in the Well.

Dr. Peggy Ann David wrote that her students in the CAS Introduction to Sociology Course (Soc. 100) had a lively debate on the topic of free speech and Pope Benedict's remarks about Islam. Professor David writes,

Greetings from SOCY 100 Day Introduction to Sociology Class at Trinity. We took up your challenge to exercise our Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech, by incorporating the following in our class discussion on Constitution Day Monday September 18, 2006:

The Text
Our text material included textbook notes on Values in U.S. Society, "freedoms that are essential to teaching and learning," that is, freedom of speech as articulated in the United States Constitution Bill of Rights - Amendment 1, popularly known as the First Amendment. We also included Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights which says that, "everyone has the right of freedom of opinion and expression; this right includes freedom to hold opinions without interference and to seek, receive and impart information … frontiers"

The Context
We discussed freedom of speech in the context of a specific excerpt from Pope Benedict XVI's speech on Faith, Reason and the University Memories and Reflections in Germany, which provoked outrage in the Muslim world and led to demands that the Pontiff apologize for "insulting Islam."

The BBC news reported that the specific remarks made by the Pope (once a member of the Professoriate) "On Holy War" at the Aula Magna of the University of Regensburg at a meeting with the Representatives of Science. The remarks in question was a direct quote from part of a dialogue of "the seventh conversation," carried on in 1931 (circa) by Byzantine Emperor Manuel ll Paleologus and an educated Persian, on the "subject of Christianity and Islam, and the truth of both."

This global incident was unfortunate but timely because our small community of twenty students was discussing Values of United States Society of which "freedom" is most cherished. Even though most students were not aware of the celebration of Constitution Day and the controversial media event, we concluded that the specific text of the Pope's speech was taken out of context.

Thank you for bringing our attention to the tenth celebration of Constitution Day in the United States on Monday September 18, 2006 and challenging the academy to participate in this exercise. You said it best in your Commencement Remarks 2006, "If we dare not speak, we cannot teach…We need freedom and independence to be true universities."

On the Free Speech Board in the Well, several comments were notable:

One writer declared: "Americans should always have the right to speak what is on their minds. That is the beauty of this nation. Some countries are not even having this conversation because of oppression. The security of our nation can be achieved and still allow freedom of speech. that is the 'great balance'."

Another commented: "We must always remember that the sacrifices of our elders and ancestors contributed to ensure our freedom of speech today. They are counting on us!"

Another writer offered this thought: In response to the question "Is Freedom of Speech in Danger?" she wrote, "Not as long as we have courage and our minds are open. The right to speak carries the duty to listen."

Someone else wrote, "Did we ever have Freedom of Speech?"

And another wrote, "More people died on 9/11/2001 of AIDS than as a result of terrorism. The attacks of this day are no excuse for hatred or curtailing of rights. Our freedom of speech, among other liberties, is in grave danger."

So, the dialogue and debate continues in the Trinity community. This is an intellectual community of scholars dedicated to the Constitutional principles of freedom of thought and speech, freedom of belief and freedom of the press, the freedom to be free from unreasonable search and seizure, the right to be free from self-incrimination, the right to privacy, the right to have due process and equal protection of the laws, and all other Constitutional protections. Universities cannot truly exist without such rights and freedoms, and universities have a particular obligation to be effective stewards of these rights and freedoms for the entire society. By exercising these rights in our classrooms and meeting places each day, by studying and proclaiming the freedoms that are the birthright of all human beings, Trinity lives its mission as a true university, as a Catholic institution of higher education with a commitment to social justice, and as an academic community founded to ensure that women — and, by extension, men and all people who come here to learn — have the opportunity to achieve the highest possible level of intellectual engagement for the advancement of our society.

I urge faculty and students to keep sharing your reflections and experiences on these topics — I will post them to this blog if you send them along via the "comment" link (the little envelope) below or send them to president@trinitydc.edu

See also CONSTITUTION DAY, first amendment, free speech

What were they thinking? The news from the Hewlett-Packard Board Room gets weirder and weirder. First, there was the unceremonious ouster in 2005 of Carly Fiorina, one of the most well-known Fortune 500 women executives. Then came the news of bitter, poisonous in-fighting among board members. Soon we learned that Board Chair Patricia Dunn launched a secretive investigation to find out who among the Board of Directors was leaking information to a reporter. Dunn subsequently resigned as Board Chair, but she remains a director.

Today's story in the Washington Post takes the drama to a new low. In a new demonstration of the dangerous lure of Powerpoint, the corporate lawyers and company president actually treated the board chair to a Powerpoint Presentation showing how they would invade and track the email of a reporter (from the San Francisco Chronicle) whom they suspected was receiving corporate inside information from a board member. A TV sitcom writer could not come up with a more ludicrous script, were it not so serious a violation of a number of common sense rules about professional responsibility, respect for privacy, and plain old ethics. The acts might also be illegal.

Why am I bothering to blog about this sad soap opera involving a venerable technology company? Among all of the examples of corporate shenanigans in recent years, this one strikes me as revealing behaviors that might actually come up in other workplaces where Trinity students might have to make some important ethical decisions. Enron and Worldcom were very serious cases about corporate greed and criminal conduct, but few workers actually participate in elaborate schemes involving massive corporate fraud. By contrast, the Hewlett-Packard case exposes behaviors that could come up in many other work situations.

Leaking corporate information is unethical, but so is spying on employees to find out what they're doing. Trying to pry into someone else's email, or taping phone calls, or asking an employee to assume a fictitious persona in order to get information from someone else all skirt ethical boundaries.

Trinity's Honor System was created 100 years ago, long before anyone ever imagined a computer giant called Hewlett-Packard or a concept called e-mail. The beauty of the Honor System is its timeless expectation that members of the Trinity community will act ethically in all situations. While we certainly expect all students to uphold the Honor System in matters such as academic honesty and upholding community agreements here, we also hope that the expectations of Trinity Honor will go with our students into their careers.

I like to think that, in the future, if some corporate executive somewhere suggests the boneheaded idea of spying on a reporter's email or tapping the phones of co-workers (and putting this idea into a Powerpoint presentation!), the Trinity graduate in the room would Just Say No. That's the point of the Honor System.

See Carly Fiorina,Patricia Dunn,Hewlett Packard,Enron,

Today is Constitution Day. Congress has passed a law requiring colleges and universities to observe this day. That's good, because this day gives us an opportunity to reflect openly on the health of the entire legal basis for this nation. And I'm going to exercise my Constitutional right to Freedom of Speech to offer a few observations on this day.

Almost three decades ago I took my first oath as a lawyer to uphold the Constitution of the United States as well as the laws of the State of Pennsylvania (and later, the District of Columbia). Of course, I knew from my earliest memory in grade school that the people govern themselves in this nation, that the Constitution protects the rights of the people, and that the "balance of powers" ensures that the three branches of government — executive, legislative, judicial — serve as checks and balances on each other, so that no governing body or individual can become too powerful. At Trinity, as a Political Science major, I studied how political forces shape the nation's laws. At Georgetown, as a law student, I studied how the legal system ensures the health and vitality of Constitutional principles continuously.

This week in Washington we are witnessing one of the all-time great tests of the balance of powers. In June, the United States Supreme Court ruled that the President of the United States could not proceed with a plan to try terrorism detainees at Guantanamo before military commissions that were not authorized by Congress and that violated international law. Since that ruling, President Bush has proposed new rules for interrogation and trial of terrorism suspects, and he is seeking Congressional approval because that's what the Supreme Court said he must do. However, some influential Republican Senators (John McCain, John Warner, Lindsay Graham) have objected to the proposed new rules, and they have come up with alternative rules.

Whatever one thinks of the proposals, it's a good day for the U.S. Constitution when the three branches of government challenge each other so strenuously. It's also a good day for the Balance of Powers when members of the same political party feel so strongly about fundamental rights that they are willing to argue in public.

At a press conference on Friday, President Bush said that the Senators were undermining the War on Terror and putting the nation at risk. But the Senators and others (former Secretary of State Colin Powell, among others) have pointed out that the rule of law that we cherish so dearly in America cannot be subverted in our eagerness to prosecute terrorism suspects.

A particular issue in this debate is Article 3 of the Geneva Conventions, the international law that defines how prisoners of war must be treated. Article 3 prohibits "outrages upon human dignity." The Supreme Court said that anything our government does to interrogate and prosecute terrorism suspects must uphold Article 3. Following is an exchange from the President's news conference on the topic of Article 3:

QUESTION: Thanks very much, sir.

What do you say to the argument that your proposal is basically seeking support for torture, coerced evidence and secret hearings?

And Senator McCain says your plan would put U.S. troops at risk. What do you think about that?

BUSH: This debate is occurring because of the Supreme Court's ruling that said that we must conduct ourselves under the Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention.

And that Common Article 3 says that, you know, There will be no outrages upon human dignity. It's like — it's very vague. What does that mean, outrages upon human dignity ? That's a statement that is wide open to interpretation.

The President elaborated on this comment in subsequent discussion. Dan Froomkin of the Washington Post summarizes the broad discussion of the president's remarks in various media.

This is a critically important debate, not only about the disposition of the cases at Guantanamo, but perhaps even more important, about the kind of nation we are becoming. The debate is about our Constitutional heritage, our respect for fundamental human rights, even the rights of people whose actions may well be proven heinous. In our Constitutional system, due process means that the accused has the right to know the evidence presented against him or her, to mount a credible and vigorous defense, to be treated as innocent until proven guilty. These are the foundation principles of our nation. No individual governing body acting alone may abrogate these principles. The checks and balances inherent in the Constitution ensure that justice will prevail if the law is upheld.

Lets give thanks, on this Constitution Day, for the wisdom of the Framers.

Constitution Day,Geneva Conventions,Hamdan v. Rumsfeld,U.S. Constitution