There are not many books that meant more to me, when I was in college, than G.K. Chesterton's Orthodoxy and The Dumb Ox. I must have read hundreds of his essays, poems, books, and novels over the years. What a great writer, and what (I think) a perceptive thinker. Entertaining, too! Anyway, I enjoyed this piece, "Rethinking Chesterton," in The Chronicle of Higher Education. Chesterton, we learn, was a "beery supporter of small-scale government." Right on! BSSSG's of the world unite!
Thursday, September 22, 2011
"Rethinking Chesterton"
Pope Benedict's speech to the German Parliament
Courtesy of Sandro Magister, here is a link to Pope Benedict's speech to the German Parliament. The speech focuses on the foundations of law. Benedict's emphasis is on reason (properly understood) and the necessity of striving for justice. Here is a key paragraph near the conclusion of the speech--
"The culture of Europe arose from the encounter bewteen Jerusalem, Athens and Rome--from the encounter between Israel's monotheism, the philosophical reason of the Greeks and Roman law. This three-way encounter has shaped the inner identity of Europe. In the awareness of man's responsibility before God and in the acknowledgment of the inviolable dignity of every single human person, it has established criteria of law: it is these criteria that we are called to defend at this moment in our history."
Richard M.
CUA's Columbus School of Law Dean Search
I suspect that some MOJ readers -- and perhaps also some MOJ bloggers? -- will be interested in this announcement, about a position that, in my view, is of great importance to the enterprise of legal education, and to the "Catholic university project", in the United States:
THE CATHOLIC UNIVERSITY OF AMERICA
Invites nominations and applications for the position of
Dean, The Columbus School of Law
As the national university of the Catholic Church in the United States, founded and sponsored by the bishops of the country with the approval of the Holy See, The Catholic University of America is committed to being a comprehensive Catholic and American institution of higher learning, faithful to the teachings of the Church, and committed to academic excellence. Dedicated to advancing the dialogue between faith and reason, The Catholic University of America seeks to discover and impart the truth through excellence in teaching and research, all in service to the Church, the nation and the world.
The Catholic University of America Columbus School of Law seeks a distinguished legal scholar or member of the legal profession to serve as its next dean. Established in 1897, the Law School is a national leader in preparing students for the practice of law. With 822 students and 57 full-time and 100 part-time faculty members, the Law School has nationally recognized clinics, and outstanding programs, institutes, externships, and study-abroad sessions. Located in the nation’s capital, the Law School is housed in a beautiful modern building specifically designed for contemporary legal education, with state-of-the-art technology throughout its classrooms and library.
The University seeks a candidate who will continue to advance the national standing of the Law School and provide strategic vision at an important time in its history. Candidates should have a demonstrated capacity for leadership, administration, and fundraising, and a long-term vision for the continued growth of the Law School. All candidates are expected to meet the qualifications for appointment at the rank of full professor with continuous tenure by virtue of their scholarly publications and/or distinguished contributions to the profession.
The University seeks candidates who, regardless of their religious affiliation, understand and will make a significant contribution to the university’s mission and goals. Applications from minorities and women are particularly welcome.
Confidential review of applications will begin immediately, and all applications received before November 15, 2011, will receive full consideration. Applications should include a curriculum vitae, a statement of application, and names and contact information of five references. Candidates will be notified before references are contacted. Materials should be submitted to:
Dean George Garvey
Dean Search Committee
Columbus School of Law
The Catholic University of America
Washington, D.C. 20064
Confidential inquiries may be directed electronically to Dr. Michael Mack, Chair of Dean Search Committee at [email protected].
The Catholic University of America is an Affirmative Action, Equal Opportunity Employer.
O'Connell on Drones and Lethal Autonomy
Following up on Rob's recent post about "lethal autonomy" for machines and drones: MOJ readers might want to check out this paper, "Seductive Drones: Learning from a Decade of Lethal Operations", by my colleague, Prof. Mary Ellen O'Connell. Here is the abstract:
The world’s fleets of unmanned combat vehicles (UCVs) are growing exponentially. This contribution aims to raise awareness that the very existence of UCV technology may well be lowering the inhibitions to kill. At least two sets of data indicate a problem: First, we have evidence from psychological studies that killing at a distance using unmanned launch vehicles may lower the inhibition to kill on the part of operators. Second, we have a decade of evidence of US presidents deploying military force where such force was unlikely to be used prior to the development of UCVs. This evidence indicates that the availability of UCVs lowers political and psychological barriers to killing. At the same time, an increasing number of international law specialists are arguing that it is lawful to kill terrorism suspects wherever they are found or to kill them if they are found in ‘weak states.’ These arguments seem intended to support policy decisions already taken, rather than providing rigorous analysis of the relevant international law.
International law establishes a high bar to lawful resort to lethal force. That high bar is derived from the Just War Doctrine and so reflects not just a legal norm, but a moral norm as well. Much policy on resort to lethal force, by contrast, appears to be related to Realist power politics ideology rather than international legal authority. Within Realism, resort to lethal force, killing, is acceptable to send a message of strength or to promote the perception of power in the form of military power. Even among policy makers not committed to Realist power projection there may be a belief in the utility of lethal military force to suppress terrorism that is not warranted by the record.
Wednesday, September 21, 2011
McConnell on the 2010 Term
Professor Michael McConnell has a comprehensive and incisive review of the Supreme Court's 2010 decisions at First Things. He says that as a whole, last year was comparatively calm when one takes a peek at the cases on for 2011. I got pretty excited about some of the decisions that McConnell discusses (and I found it very interesting that he would have signed on to Justice Alito's concurrence in Brown v. EMA, the violent video games decision) but I certainly agree with him about this term. A must read!! [x-posted CLR Forum]
Response to Lew Daly on church-state separation and the labor movement
Peter Laarman responds here to the Lew Daly essay, "The Church of Labor," to which I linked the other day. Notwithstanding my own differences with Daly's view, I don't think Laarman's response is very powerful. He spends a lot of his response unnecessarily pointing out something that I don't think Daly ever questions, namely, that Catholicism and the Catholic Church were not the only driving factors in the rise of the labor movement.
He then objects to what he describes as Daly's proposal to "relax traditional church-state separation in order to permit delivery of tax-supported social services by overtly sectarian groups." But, of course, Daly does no such thing. He proposes, instead, that we move away from our relatively recent mis-understandings of church-state separation, and return instead to "traditional church-state separation," which focused more on institutional differentiation and welcomed cooperation between religious and secular entities in pursuit of the common good. Also misguided is his suggestion that Daly is asking us to "do away with this fusty constitutional barrier" or to "pulverize" the "Wall of Separation." No, he wants us to "get" the barrier right.
By the end of the piece, the reasons Laarman opposes Daly's "libertas ecclesiae schtick" become clear: Laarman disagrees with the "religious right" about policy matters, and worries that Daly's (i.e., a more correct) understanding of church-state separation might facilitate the ability of the "religious right" to advance its / their views. Maybe. Maybe not.
Las Casas Institute at Blackfriars
Check out the website and work of the Las Casas Institute, at Blackfriars, Oxford:
Bartolome De Las Casas OP was a sixteenth-century entrepreneur turned opponent of genocide and advocate for the rights of indigenous peoples in the "new world". His organising, detailed empirical research, and his preaching profoundly influenced debates within colonial Spain . Drawing on his insights, Francisco De Vittoria OP and the wider Salamanca School made striking contributions to the emergence of international law.
Launching our Institute in November 2008 Professor Conor Gearty of the London School of Economics described Las Casas as the "founder" of human rights. As such he stands in a long line of Dominicans and others who have devoted their research and wider lives to the the rigorous study of ethics, institutions, just governance and social justice. Dominicans today have NGO status at the United Nations. They are also at the forefront of inter-faith conversation and pastoral engagement in divided communities in South Africa, Asia, North Africa , South America, Esatern and Western Europe, and the Middle East.
Inspired by their example the Las Casas Institute sets out to become a fresh, open and influential centre for the development of rigorous scholarship, debate and new leadership in these fields. Interdisciplinary in nature, the Institute contributes to Blackfriars' founding vision to be a centre of the social as well as the sacred sciences with particular concerns at the interface of its core interests, faith and the public sphere. Our home in one of the forty-five Permanent Private Halls and Colleges of the University of Oxford puts us at the heart of community of scholars and students with global interests and outlook. . . .
Two Pieces on the Death Penalty and Actual Innocence Claims
In light of the scheduled execution of Troy Davis this evening, the facts of which case have been receiving considerable attention, I thought to note two very different but both excellent, short, and accessible pieces about the death penalty and claims of actual innocence in law. I highlight them because they are both models of careful and limited argument -- perspectives which have been helpful to me as I try to think about a very difficult, complicated, and emotionally fraught subject -- and because they complement one another suitably.
The first, by Thom Brooks, is Retributivist Arguments Against Capital Punishment (Journal of Social Philosophy 2004). Unfortunately this piece may be behind a paywall, but the gist of it is that even if one agrees that murderers deserve death in principle, one can argue from a retributivist perspective against the death penalty because we are not able to have absolute certainty of a person's guilt (as demonstrated by DNA testing). And Thom says that since a conviction is always capable in theory of being overturned by new evidence, capital punishment cuts short the time within which a convicted person may establish innocence -- in this sense, it is a unique sentence, and uniquely problematic from a retributivist perspective.
The second piece, by Will Baude, is Last Chance on Death Row (Wilson Quarterly 2010). In it, Will canvasses the legal issue of "actual innocence" with some attention to the Davis case. But the real insight of Will's piece is that the extensive suite of appeals may at long last be inadequate to vindicate a person's claim of actual innocence. What then, he asks. Perfect accuracy, he writes, is not the goal of the criminal justice system. There are concerns of authority, legitimacy, and finality which have their own claims to our allegiance. Ultimately, Will concludes that it is legislatures, not courts, which should balance these competing and at times conflicting values.
Peter Steinfels on “More than a Monologue”
This past March, both Robby George [HERE] and yours truly [HERE] weighed in on the Fordham-Fairfield-Union-Yale four part program “More than a Monologue” that is advertised to explore the range of Catholic views on “sexual diversity.”
The first component of this colloquium was held this past Friday, September 16, and Peter Steinfels was the moderator of this inaugural event hosted at Fordham University’s Lincoln Center Campus.
Both Robby and I previously expressed doubts about whether this program would, in fact, be more than a monologue. It is important to now take stock of what Mr. Steinfels has to say. His September 19 web log at dotCommonweal is HERE.
Let me offer a short summary. First of all, he states that he had misgivings when he was invited to moderate the September 16 colloquium, or, in his words, he accepted “with some serious reservations.” Nevertheless, he did the proper thing and discussed the invitation with the conveners. I did much the same when I was asked to present one of the key addresses at the same-sex marriage conference hosted by our friends at St. John’s University last November [HERE]. I am pretty sure that I represented the minority view at the conference, but I went, I presented, I discussed, I debated, I listened, I learned, I respected, and I was heard with equal respect. Any trepidation that I initially had about going was dispelled from the experience. To discuss and debate and disagree are not bad things. Mr. Steinfels had similar concerns even though he shares some of the views that were presented at the Fordham conference.
A little over a year before the St. John’s event, I was invited to another symposium that addressed same-sex marriage. I am not sure if I was in the majority side then, but I do know that the conveners invited a good number of speakers whose views differed with mine. They declined the invitations. It struck some of us attending and presenting at that conference that many of those who declined were not interested in a real and robust discussion and debate on the neuralgic issue of same-sex marriage. In short, dialogue is not always embraced by those who demand it in order to present their views.
Mr. Steinfels expresses similar concerns based on the Fordham experience. As he says in his “misgivings,” “Voices defending traditional teaching and practice were not apparent.” Moreover, he offers concern that he “wasn’t sure whether the series promised really to crack the stranglehold of monologue or to replicate it.” Another of his serious misgivings is that in looking over the schedule of speakers for the remaining colloquia, he sees something like a monologue developing—or, as he says, it appears to be “about as open to dialogue as Ann Coulter to liberalism or Rick Perry on social security.”
Mr. Steinfels does express some positive notes about some of the presentations he heard last Friday. However, as he says of Professor Paul Lakeland, one of the principal conveners, “I have no problem accepting [his] statement...that challenging church teaching is not the agenda (Steinfels italics) of the series.”
In making this observation, Mr. Steinfels leaves ample room for the objective reader to conclude that challenging the Church’s teachings on human sexuality is an item of the agenda, however.
Two other points made by Mr. Steinfuls need to be presented here.
The first is that he continues to have uncertainty about the future of this series and where it is going. As he suggests, the next event at Union Theological which is “already a small jab at Catholic identification” may “put the entire series at risk.” Still, he offers hope that the series may do some good, but there is “at least one minefield to cross before reaching its goal.”
The other point is this: he acknowledges that if the surrounding culture is rapidly altering people’s attitudes toward homosexuality, what is to become of those who retain traditional views? He opines concern of what may happen to these folks who may find themselves in “risky” situations in “many social and workplace settings (starting with the academy).”
RJA sj
"Lethal autonomy" for machines
The Obama administration is expanding its use of drones in the battle against terrorism. Meanwhile, technology appears to be headed toward a time when the human role in the use of drones is dramatically reduced. I'm not categorically opposed to the use of drones, but I am concerned that this is an instance in which a program's political popularity (Who doesn't like the idea of eliminating terrorists with zero risk to American troops?) tends to push ethical questions to the margins. Among other concerns, putting one's own troops at risk tends to focus the public's attention on the moral legitimacy of the justifications offered for the armed conflict in a way that is unlikely to happen when machines do the fighting for us.
Recent Posts
Categories
Monthly Archive
StatCounter
PageViews
Since February 19, 2008
