“First they came for the Communists, but …”

Als Pastor Niemöller ins Konzentrationslager kam, schrieben wir 1937, als das Konzentrationslager aufgemacht wurde, da schrieben wir 1933, und die damals in die Konzentrationslager kamen, waren Kommunisten. Wer hat sich darum gekümmert? Wir haben es gewußt, es stand in den Zeitungen. Wer hat die Stimme erhoben, etwa die Bekennende Kirche? Wir haben gedacht: Kommunisten, diese Religionsgegner, diese Christenfeinde – “soll ich meines Bruders Hüter sein?” Dann hat man die Kranken, die sogenannten Unheilbaren beseitigt. – Ich erinnere mich eines Gespräches mit einem Menschen, der Anspruch darauf erhob, ein Christ zu sein. Er meinte: Vielleicht ist es ganz richtig, diese unheibaren Menschen kosten den Staat nur Geld, sie sind sich und den andern nur zur Last. Ist es nicht das Beste für alle Teile, wenn man sie aus der Mitte schafft? — Dann erst ist es an die Kirche als solche herangekommen. Dann haben wir einen Ton geredet, bis er dann in der Öffentlichkeit wieder verstummt ist. Können wir sagen, wir sind nicht schuld? Die Judenverfolgung, die Art und Weise, wie wir die besetzten Länder behandelten, oder die Dinge in Griechenland, in Polen, in der Tschechoslowakei oder in Holland, die doch in der Zeitung gestanden haben. … Ich glaube, wir Bekennende-Kirche-Christen haben allen Anlass, zu sagen: Meine Schuld, meine Schuld! Wir können uns mit der Entschuldigung, es hätte mich ja den Kopf kosten können, hätte ich geredet, nicht herausreden.
…
Wir haben es vorgezogen, zu schweigen. Ohne Schuld sind wir gewiss nicht, und ich frage mich immer wieder, was wäre geworden, wenn im Jahre 1933 oder 1934 – es muss ja eine Möglichkeit gewesen sein – 14 000 evangelische Pfarrer und alle evangelischen Gemeinden, die es in Deutschland gab, die Wahrheit bis in den Tod verteidigt hätten? Wenn wir damals gesagt hätten, es ist nicht recht, wenn Hermann Göring 100 000 Kommunisten einfach in die Konzentrationslager steckt, um sie umkommen zu lassen. Ich kann mir denken, dass dann vielleicht 30 000 bis 40 000 evangelische Christen um einen Kopf kürzer gemacht worden wären, kann mir aber auch denken, dass wir dann 30-40 000 Millionen [sic] Menschen das Leben gerettet hätten, denn das kostet es uns jetzt.

(Hermann Niemoeller, 6. Januar 1946)

dcat

I’m not sure why the hypothetical posed by David in 39 is so vexing to you. Based on your earlier statement

If the college values affirmative action, then not awarding someone with a medal (that no one is actually entitled to, btw) because of any small part that they might play in eroding the values the college holds dear seems to me completely justifiable.

if you believed the College values affirmative action – which I believe is almost irrefutably true, at least to the extent that valuing affirmative action is equated with valuing diversity – then you think the College would be justified in not awarding a Bicentennial Medal to Clarence Ward Connolly (were he, of course, an Eph)

Ward Connerly would get an objection from me. Thomas would get a snide comment but no objection and Bill Frist is just further proof that Princeton the town >>>>> Princeton the college :P

however, my above comment privileges your silly hypothetical instead of the many more valid point about how ridiculous your silly hypotheticals are. So let me say it again: your hypotheticals are not some brilliant way to “iterate to agreement” but rather silly hypotheticals that only serve to distract from the substantive points made by many others about the fact that the bicentennial medal is, no matter what, a value-laden medal and that all fame is not equal.

Again: I really wish a smarter person were the person most closely associated with this blog.

dcat

And I want to augment the quotation that (d)avid just pointed out, but I am erasing the caveat about hypocrisy: Jesus, Dave, you grind your damned political axes here all the time. All. The. Damned. Time. No one has ever accused this of being Catsamblog, or Thomasblog, or Zeemanblog. but all anyone needs to do is say “Kaneblog” and we all know what we are talking about: Dave Kane using some vaguely Williams related story to blather on about his own ideologies that no one else on God’s green earth would publish. You have used Williams as your promotion vehicle to promote your political causes more in 2009 than the rest of us have combined in the history of the blog.

I’ll give you credit for chutzpah, Dave. When you’re dishonest you’re REALLY dishonest, and when you’re hypocritical you’re off the charts. Go big or go home I guess.

I really wish a smarter person were the putative head of this blog.

dcat

One of my central debates is with people who think that Williams is their personal political action vehicle and should be used to promote their causes.

Not saying you are being hypocritical. You could make the case that Williams is too liberal or mainstream or whatever in the status quo and you are just trying to achieve balance, but the source of the sentiment was … unexpected.

Zeeman is offering up useful distinctions. Clarence Thomas has accomplished a lot in his career and is known for being a jurist first and not advocating any particular issue. Randal Terry is known for one thing. Giving Terry a medal would be an endorsement of that viewpoint.

The lack of clear delineating points does not lead to slippery slopes. Just stating the facts. Medals are tacit endorsements. The College embodies values. The Medals should be in line with those values.

Note the “sort of” in my description. I am not recommending, say, an Eph murderer or rapist (and we have blogged about both) for an medal even though they may be the most prominent Eph criminals. Prominence alone is not enough.

But, once we leave aside actual criminals, isn’t it obvious that the slippery slope of partisan bias does not provide a clear stopping point? Unless I am misreading him, Derek would not award a Bicentennial Medal to any Senator or Congressman who voted for DOMA or to any Eph who, like Ward Connerly, played a leading role in a battle against affirmative action. I sense that others (Jeff? JG? Ken?) agree with this.

In other words, only Democratic politicians/activists (and not even all of them!) are eligible for Bicentennial Medals. Doesn’t that strike anyone else as problematic? Can anyone think of a single Republican/conservative who would not fail these tests?

My position is, obviously, that the College, in awarding medals, should be as non-partisan as possible. Leaving aside actual law-breakers, we should award a medal to a person who campaigns for X if, in similar circumstance, we would have awarded a medal to someone campaigning for not X.

I strongly object to this framing by Whitney:

If the College supports same-sex marriage, then Bishop Jackson is probably not an ideal recipient.

The College, as an institution does not “support same-sex marriage.” It does not oppose same-sex marriage. It has no opinion on same-sex marriage. One of my central debates is with people who think that Williams is their personal political action vehicle and should be used to promote their causes.

You got me curious (not being familiar with the series, Choose Your Own Adventure). I took the easy route to sate curiosity & googled RA Montgomery.

I found under Wikipedia that the series is being re-issued. There is more info there.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/R._A._Montgomery

In the spirit of the title perhaps you could start Choose Your Own Bicentennial Medalist.

dcat

http://www.asylum.com/2008/11/12/the-top-20-classic-choose-your-own-adventures/

http://www.advocate.com/News/Daily_News/2009/11/18/Bishop_Jackson_What_Me_Homophobic_/

[sorry all for the inside joke ...]

How aggressively should the College push this? Suppose an Eph is the lead lawyer on a future case which the Supreme Court ultimately uses to ban affirmative action in undergraduate college admissions, and she is a very prominent, well respected attorney (for example, someone like Ken Starr, minus the independent counsel portion of his career). Should Williams consider that person for a Bicentennial Medal?

I think of Bicentennial Medals as being sort of like Time’s Person of the Year. It does not go to the person you like the best or the person who is most prominent on your side of the partisan divide. It goes for “distinguished achievement in any field of endeavor” not for “distinguished achievement (that I agree with) in any field of endeavor.”

Gaining insight into Kane’s view of the world every day. By this definition, Bernie Madoff would be eligible for his work in Ponzi schemes.

I’ve also been hearing a lot of buzz lately about Mahmoud Ahmadinejad in the fields of: a) Holocaust denial; b) Election rigging; c) Authoritarian repression; d) Nuclear proliferation; e) Economic mismanagement; f) Neck wear avoidance. Mahmoud Ahmadinejad is a slam dunk for a Bicentennial Medal, right? And he he certainly is unafraid to challenge conventional wisdom.

Note to Kane: Medals are usually given to people who do something deemed LAUDATORY. Bronze stars are given for heroism helping your side. Not desserters, fraggers, and traitors (no matter who infamous or daring an episode may be).

By granting a medal to someone like Jackson, who has built his national reputation opposing gay marriage, the College would be implicitly endorsing this position. That is why Notre Dame caught such flack for having Obama as a graduation speaker.

If you think my brother does not deserve the same rights in his relationship as, say, Newt Gingrich or Britney spears in theirs, yeah, you’re a bigot. Whether that bigotry puts you in the majority is of no moment to me.

As for Dave’s distinction without a difference, Williams should not be embracing bigotry, period. There are lots and lots of successful Ephs. I’m not sure why we need to bow before the supposed awesomeness of this Bishop of Bigotry.

dcat

I’m trying to remember how Belgium’s former President, a Flaams advocate but not Flaams block, put it in terms of EU policy in Berlin last week– devolve power, as much as possible, to the local, to the people it affects. This should not be a Federal issue; it should not be a States issue; it should, as much as possible, be a local and personal issue.

Let me see if I can find that recording…

Personally, I think marriage should be eliminated as a government term completely, and everyone should only have civil unions with marriage being an optional thing you get if you want a religious ceremony. But telling people you’re taking away their marriage to convert everything to civil unions is far more inflammatory than saying, “We also want marriages,” IMO.

[JG - edited for typos]

1) Williams should not give a Bicentennial medal to anyone whose “primary grounds for fame is opposition to gay marriage.”
2) Williams should not give a Bicentennial medal to anyone whose acts in public life significantly impede gay marriage.

It is not necessary to believe either of these statements in order to believe that Harry Jackson is undeserving of a Bicentennial model.

re: 13
Why is that?

Because the LGBT community made a fatal strategic error in framing the issue as “marriage” (ultimately a religious term) rather than civil unions and partner-benefits (ultimately a legal issue).

It’s always a mistake (from a political or marketing standpoint) to frame your issue in a way that forces people to reject their religious beliefs to support you.

That– combined with the fact that his quasi-historical assertions about the family are pure bunk– are good reasons to deny him the platform and legitimacy of Williams.

1) Williams should not give a Bicentennial medal to anyone whose “primary grounds for fame is opposition to gay marriage.”

2) Williams should not give a Bicentennial medal to anyone whose acts in public life significantly impede gay marriage.

Needless to say, both views are reasonable. When people like Derek uses phrases like “Bigotry is bigotry,” it makes me think that they believe 2) and not just 1).

An example of the difference would be an Eph Senator who, for example, voted for the Defense of Marriage Act. Opposition to gay marriage is not the primary reason for this Eph’s fame, but, by voting for DOMA he has done more to hinder gay marriage than anything that Jackson could ever hope to accomplish.

That there is a mainstream that believes something does not mean that everyone who believes in that is in the mainstream. The mainstream believes taxes suck, does that mean that people who think taxes suck so much that they don’t pay them are “in the mainstream”?

as for your cheap shot at the organizers of Claiming Williams (newsflash: it isn’t about us alumni and our ideas. It certainly isn’t about one of the single most dividing alumni’s ideas), shame on you.