Editorials and Opinions

Georgetowner • May 3, 2012

Roughly two weeks remain before Washington voters go to the polls for the District’s April 3 Primary Election.

It’s an unusual date — usually the District’s primary election is held in September, closer to the November general election.

Even if this election were deemed to be a special election, it sure doesn’t feel that way.  Many of the races —the Democratic Primary nominations for seats on the city council look to be shoo-ins, especially for Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans, who is running unopposed.  But in Ward 4, 7 and 8, incumbents Muriel Bowser, Yvette Alexander and Marion Barry, respectively,  face lots of opposition, none of which has received much coverage or appeared to generate much excitement.

The only truly high profile race is a kind of re-run — Vincent Orange is running again to hold his at-large seat on the council which he won narrowly over Republican Patrick Mara.  Sekou Biddle, a familiar face in roles as educator, local activist and for his brief, appointed term to the seat, lost that earlier race but is running again.

Orange, whom the Georgetowner endorsed in the previous election, has been dealing forthrightly with a few difficulties from the growing campaign contribution scandal involving developer Jeffrey E. Thompson, which has resulted in a shower of subpoenas for records of city council members by federal investigators.

Yet this atmosphere of scandal, ongoing investigations and trouble that hangs over the council (and the mayor as well) has never quite dissipated, which ought to make incumbents nervous.  Or, at least, get the electorate interested. It nevertheless effects the entire city and its image.

In any case, April 3 is the day to express yourself.  We’re not passing judgment here, although elections can take on aspects of judgment on the part of voters.  We don’t even need to say that we find the situation disheartening or exasperating. We’re just saying: Go out and vote.  Please.

Georgetowner •

James Cole: Look at them. They’re just asking for it. Maybe the human race deserves to be wiped out.

Jeffrey Goines: Wiping out the human race? That’s a great idea. That’s great. But more of a long-term thing. I mean, first we have to focus on more immediate goals.

– “Twelve Monkeys”

If you’re ever looking for an intelligent science fiction movie that has a timeless and cogent– if terrifying– message, “Twelve Monkeys” is a classic. Replete with great actors like Bruce Willis, Madeleine Stowe and Brad Pitt, “Twelve Monkeys” was produced in 1995 about a convict (James Cole, played by Bruce Willis) living in a post-apocalyptic future who’s sent back in time to stop a deadly plague released by a terrorist organization known as “The Army of the Twelve Monkeys.”

If a remake of the movie were made today, the opening scene might have Bruce Willis’s character returning to alert a governmental committee about a laboratory-constructed virus that kills 60 percent of all its victims. The scene would have him warning of a plan to openly publish the recipe for the pathogen—a virus with all the virulence of the seasonal flu, and vastly more lethal than the 1918 pandemic that killed more than 40 million people. In his testimony, Willis would warn (in colorful language) that open publication of the study would be tantamount to providing Al Qaida with the operational blueprints for a nuclear weapon. Ultimately, though, his concerns would be dismissed “in the interest of scientific research,” and the recipe for the deadly pathogen would be published openly for all to see.

As entertaining as such a remake would be, the story would likely now be dismissed by studio executives for requiring little suspension of disbelief—because all of the story elements are now actually transpiring.

The virus? Avian Flu, or H5N1–a pathogen that the United Nations Coordinator for Influenza warned could cause a pandemic with the potential to kill 150 million people.

The government committee is also real: The National Science Advisory Board for Biosecurity (NSABB)—a panel of experts formed after the 2001 anthrax attacks that advises the government about “dual use” research with legitimate public health purposes, but also potentially used as a bio-terror threat. Paul Keim, current NSABB head, and a world renowned authority on anthrax, recently said of H5N1, “I can’t think of another pathogenic
organism that is as scary as this one. I don’t think anthrax is scary at all compared to this.”

The World Health Organization recently reported that of the 566 confirmed human cases of H5N1 to date; 332 have died. That number has been kept low up to now only because H5N1 does not spread easily between humans. And yet, the possibility that it could mutate to a more virulent form continues to keep government leaders awake at night. Yi Guan, the virologist at Hong Kong University, recently stated what he would do if the highly infectious H1N1 virus combined with the extremely deadly H5N1 virus: “If that happens, I will retire immediately and lock myself in the P3 lab. H5N1 kills half the people it infects.”

In November, Ron Fouchier of the Erasmus Medical Centre in Rotterdam reinforced that a combined H5N1-H1N1 strain of flu is “probably one of the most dangerous viruses you can make.”

He made it anyway.

In an effort that went largely unnoticed until recently, and using very simple steps, Fouchier successfully mutated the H5N1 bird flu virus in his laboratory, creating an airborne form of the virus that spread swiftly among laboratory ferrets–the standard animal model for human influenza research.

Fouchier sent his research paper to the NSABB and the journal, Science. The NSABB quickly branded it too dangerous to publish, demanding entire sections of the report redacted to prevent the recipe for the virus falling into the wrong hands. Keim explained the rationale as a buying-time maneuver, to “slow down the release of the specific information that would enable somebody to reconstruct this virus and do something nefarious.”

But soon, the scientific community mobilized and scuttled the NSABB’s best-laid plans, crying foul over government censorship of science. “It is essential for public health that the full details of any scientific analysis of flu viruses be available to researchers,” said Philip Campbell, editor-in-chief of Nature.

Late last month, after a two-day meeting, the NSABB reversed its decision and supported open publication of the research once the report clarified that not all of the laboratory ferrets died from Fouchier’s H5N1 strain. Still, one- third of the panel members refused to endorse full publication.

“Rational Man” theory has generally been cited to discount the potential for bio-terrorism. With a pathogen’s inability to be precisely employed or controlled as a weapon, viruses have traditionally been viewed as unlikely
weapons of choice. Since the 9-11 attacks, however, lone wolfs like Bruce Ivins, and terror groups like Aum Shinrikyo and Al Qaida have forever shattered those assumptions. With HHS approval secured last week, the
editors-in-chief of Nature and Science plan to publish the research and mutated H5N1 recipe without redaction.

Georgetowner •

This week, I want to focus on the arts, which is timely both because it is a budget priority of mine and because I recently presented a resolution recognizing theatre: Washington’s “Theater Week” at the Helen Hayes Awards. I am proud to celebrate the legacy, excellence and cultural contribution of theatre in the District of Columbia, and Theater Week provides a great opportunity to do that.

Everyone knows that the District of Columbia is a center for tourism. We as a city must build on this strength by attracting visitors as well as residents into our world-class arts venues. There are 44 professional theater companies operating in the District of Columbia, making us the second most prolific theatre town in the United States based on the number of productions per year. While the theater landscape has grown, I am concerned that dwindling funding could have an adverse impact on potential future growth.

Neighborhoods throughout D.C. have been transformed by establishing and promoting theaters within their communities. From the Arena Stage in Southwest, to the Tivoli Theatre in Columbia Heights, to the Shakespeare Theatre in Penn Quarter, to the renovation of the Atlas on H Street, N.E., and the Studio Theatre in Logan Circle, it is clear that the arts are not simply relevant from an aesthetic or cultural standpoint. The arts provides economic engines for the community, capable of revitalizing entire neighborhoods. I am proud that the District was also the major donor to Arena Stage, the Shakespeare Theatre, Ford’s Theatre and many other performing arts groups like the Washington Ballet and the Washington Performing Arts Society.

The theater industry supports more than 11,000 full-time equivalent jobs in the District, and arts and culture organizations spend over $600 million annually throughout the region. The nearly 2 million audience members that attend theaters in the District annually also generate more than $100 million into the District’s economy — demonstrating that theater is a critical part of the economic engine with benefits
flowing directly back to area businesses.

I am committed to advocating for the arts and reminding my colleagues that the arts are integral to the fabric of our neighborhoods and city. Their importance cannot be overstated, and I will keep working to ensure that our arts community continues to grow and thrive. I have had conversations with the mayor, the chairman and my council colleagues and will be promoting amendments to the budget to move us in the direction of a quantity of funding that will more adequately sustain this important facet of our city.

Georgetowner • April 5, 2012

In the divided, Red State-Blue State, conservative-liberal, right- and left-wing United States of America of today, there are very few proposals that elicit a unanimous, united response.

Here’s one: Ward 2 Councilmember Jack Evans has proposed a measure that would ceremonially rename the corner of Wisconsin Avenue and K Street in honor of Senator Charles Percy.

We can only say: Yes and yes again. We applaud, we approve, for many good reasons. Wisconsin Avenue and K Street marks the entrance to the finally, fully blooming and operational Georgetown Waterfront Park.

There is probably no single person who was more instrumental in getting the park project off the ground and on its way — as a chairman of the Friends of Georgetown Waterfront Park and as out-and-out booster and promoter for the park’s completion. The park’s non-profit — named “Georgetowners of the Year” for 2011 by this newspaper — advanced the idea of Percy Plaza a few years ago.

Percy passed away at the age of 91 just days after completion of the park.  

Percy was a Republican senator from Illinois of considerable achievement and reputation, counted at one time as a possible GOP presidential candidate.  He also had an illustrious business career before entering politics.

As a politician, a popular senator, he was the kind of man who honored the trade, a true moderate who worked both sides of the aisle with style and aplomb, the kind of Republican that seems today to be as rare as a unicorn in a deeply divided American body politic.

When Percy left the Senate, he took up life as a Georgetown citizen and lived up to the highest standards of community citizenship by taking part with great fervor in the community’s affairs. The Georgetown Waterfront Park is rich evidence of his good works.

So: Name an intersection after Sen. Charles Percy? That’s the least we can do. See you at Percy Plaza.

John Fenzel • April 4, 2012

“The gunman entered … and opened fire on ‘everything that moved… How can they attack something as sacred as a school?’”

This witness account, from the school shootings in Toulouse, France is reminiscent of the countless other incidents we have experienced across the United States, most recently at Chardon High School in Ohio.

When a shooting incident occurs in any of our nation’s schools, news travels instantly.  Coverage of the incident dominates our television screens—images of students and faculty streaming outside, parents rushing to police lines, stacks of SWAT teams preparing to enter school doors, media vans lined up on roadways—all of it creating an all-too-familiar scene. So familiar, in fact, that the images and details of each incident have become largely indistinguishable from others.
 
As the discussion has become garbled, so have our strategies for dealing with shooting rampages in our nation’s schools.
 
Following an incident, we’re riveted for a period of a week or so to the news coverage.  We’re systematically guided through the stages of grief by network anchors and pundits: through our guilt for not having recognized the signs earlier…through our anger at the perpetrators…and finally, to our collective view of the incident as an anomaly—something that “could never happen here.” 
 
Months later, another school shooting occurs. This one seemingly disconnected from the one preceding it. And yet, the shooters’ characteristics are remarkably similar:  chronic truancy, religious or political fanaticism, a preoccupation with weapons, someone socially marginalized…on “the fringe,” who is struggling with addiction…and who has announced his intent to kill.  The symptoms and signs remain constant. And in our collective quest to better understand a shooter’s motives, the media narrative often conveys upon us a societal guilt-by-association for the carnage he inflicts.
 
Defining the Problem

On occasion, we take a few steps back to gain perspective rather than catharsis.  And in those moments, it’s possible to transcend our complacency and to see school rampages for what they are: acts of terror.
 
Defining the problem in these terms is a crucial first step toward effective defense—but that step has proven to be surprisingly elusive as we tend to focus instead on the psychology and motivations of the shooter in an incident’s aftermath. But the problem has remained constant:  our children are at risk from those who seek media attention through acts of mass murder.
 
The problem of active shooters in our schools is not new. The first school massacre incident occurred in 1764 at a schoolhouse near Greencastle, Pennsylvania, when four Delaware warriors killed ten children and their schoolmaster. In 1927, a school administrator bombed the Community School in Bath, Michigan, killing 38 people—mostly children.  Numerous other incidents have occurred through the years. The well known and often discussed, like Columbine and Virginia Tech, eclipse those that occurred decades ago, but are no less deadly, like South Pasadena Junior High School (1940) and University of Texas at Austin (1966).
 
What Can be Done?

Identifying students who display at-risk behavior remains key to stopping a school shooting before it occurs.  Homicidal ideation is perhaps the most obvious indicator that a teen may be considering such an act, but there are a host of others, to include: cruelty to animals, suicidal tendencies, and abuse or neglect at home. Reporting comments and observations in advance have prevented many attacks; however, forecasting a school rampage is not always achievable. 

There will be more attacks. As youth addiction to point-and-shoot video games grows, and as weapons become more powerful, a perfect storm of entertainment realism and lethality has gathered, making the potential consequences of future school attacks even more catastrophic than the last.
 
Defending against school rampages is a sensitive topic—far more so than preparing for tornados or fire.  Active shooter drills involving all parties—students, faculty and first responders—are rarely conducted for fear that the visual of the drills alone will be met with cries of outrage from school commissions and PTAs. 

The great irony is that school rampages are responsible for far more fatalities in our schools than severe weather, earthquakes or fires, combined.

So, rather than shrink from tabletop exercises and rehearsals, perhaps we should be insisting on them? Even the simple act of identifying the locations for staging areas, police command posts, media cordons, and reunification sites expedite incident response.  Exercises also give faculty and students a reflexive understanding of school lockdown procedures, and how to effectively respond should they come face-to-face with a gunman. Drills and rehearsals have the added benefit of building relationships with local law enforcement before an incident occurs.  The time for police, first responders and school administrators to be introduced to one another should never be in the midst of a crisis.

Georgetowner •

“OK, fellas, we’ve just finished three days listening to lawyers debate the Patient Protection and Affordable Health Care Act,” Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts announced when the nine justices met to discuss their decision.

“Ahem!”

“Sorry, ladies.”

“You mean, Obamacare,” said Justice Alito.

“Let’s try to avoid a political theater since courts are supposed to be unbiased,” Roberts responded. 
“Pardon me, Mr. Chief Justice,” said Alito.  “Twenty-six Republican attorneys general are asking us to kill it. Not a single Democrat.  This is political.”

“Did any of you even listen to all those lawyers babbling?” asked Justice Thomas. “Total waste of time!  Why can’t we just decide based on all that stuff the lawyers submit?”

“He speaks! You haven’t asked a single question in over six years, Justice Thomas.  Oral argument is a tradition predating our country,” answered Justice Kennedy.

“These arguments never change anybody’s mind,” retorted Thomas. “But six hours over three days? Bush v. Gore was only one hour in December 2000 and that elected a president.”

“Justice Thomas has a point,” said Justice Scalia.  “We haven’t devoted this much time to a case in, what, fifty years? The Miranda rights case in 1966 ran almost six hours. Even the case that resulted in Nixon’s resignation was only three hours.”

Roberts again: “We have four tough issues. First, is the timing right to hear this case? Most of the law hasn’t taken effect, and we generally avoid hypothetical cases.”

“Let’s do it now,” Alito said. “With an election coming up, this decision could shape the court for decades. Justices Ginsberg and Breyer should retire soon.”

“Objection!!!” Ginsberg and Breyer rejoined.

“Noted,” Roberts said. “Is kicking delaying this decision the right thing to do?”

“No,” said Kennedy, usually the swing vote.  “The public will be outraged. Political gridlock will get worse.”

“Agreed,” said Justice Kagan, the newest justice and an Obama nominee. 

Roberts returned to his agenda, “The second question is the biggie: Can the federal government require individuals and businesses with more than 50 employees to buy health insurance and penalize them if they don’t?”

“How is this mandate any different than a tax?” asked Justice Sotomayor, another Obama nominee. “All employees and businesses are required to Medicare tax that provides health care for seniors.”

“But this requires them to buy it from private insurance companies, not from the government. Therefore, it’s not a tax,” replied Scalia.

“Presidents Truman, Nixon, and Clinton proposed government sponsored universal health care and failed,” said Justice Breyer. “This idea requiring everyone to buy private insurance originated in conservative Republican think tanks in the 1990s after Clinton’s plan failed.”

“That was then,” said Alito. “People don’t want the government to mess with their health care.”

“I don’t get it,” inserted Ginsberg. “Only 45 percent of the nation is covered by employer health care. Another 40 percent have Medicare, Medicaid or military coverage, and 15 percent buy their own or have no coverage. Who are the 55 percent who oppose it? Most of the opposition must be people unaffected by this law.”

“This is an emotional political issue, not a logical financial one for most people,” responded Breyer, the most economically savvy justice. “Even the insurance industry supports this law because it will get another 30 million customers.”

“Politics and emotions are irrelevant. This is not a hard case. Congress overreached. No one has a right to health care under the Constitution,” offered Scalia.

“Agreed,” said Thomas.

“Our third big question is what to do with the rest of the law if we toss out the mandate,” said Roberts. “Some of the law is in effect already. Kids age 22 to 26 are covered under their parents’ insurance.”

“Exactly,” added Sotomayor. “Drug prices for seniors were cut $3 billion this year. Child immunizations and cancer screenings no longer require co-pays. Annual and lifetime caps are no longer legal, so people facing life threatening diseases can’t lose coverage. Unraveling the parts of this law already in effect will hurt a lot people.”

Kagan again: “People will be furious when they learn that their kids are no longer covered and insurers can terminate their policies.”

“That’s the price the country pays when Congress passes a bad law,” said Alito.

“Finally,” continued Roberts, “can Congress require states to expand Medicaid coverage for the poor or face reduced federal funding?”

“The Constitution gives no one, not even poor people, any right to health care,” repeated Scalia.

“I have a headache,” said Kennedy.  “I feel a split decision coming. Should I start writing?”

Georgetowner •

Now that Google has broken Apple’s iPhone code, Big Brother has arrived. Google just posted this cell phone conversation between Republican Presidential candidates, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich, on G(otcha)-Tube.

Newt: Rick, we need to talk.

Santorum: OK. Is this call being recorded?

Newt: Not by me or Callista.

Santorum: Together we’re whipping Romney. No one likes the guy. If you’ll drop out, I can win.
Newt: Callista and I could win if you’d drop out. That’s why we call two press conferences every day asking you to drop out. Plus, it’s free TV time.

Santorum: You haven’t won a primary in over a month and I win every week. I even beat you in the deep South.

Newt: Rick, I’ll be 69 on Inauguration Day. Like Reagan was. This is the last shot for Callista and me. Ron and Nancy. Newt and Callista. Synonymous. Four peas in a pod.

Santorum: I was in college drinking beer when Reagan was elected. I didn’t know Reagan, but you’re no Reagan.

Newt: Face it, Rick. You got lucky. During the first 20 debates, you were so far down the stage, the TV cameras couldn’t see you. No one cared about your opinion. Mitt’s millions knocked us off one at a time. You were invisible. Iowa happened before Mitt got to you.

Santorum: I lived in Iowa for 3 years. I visited the home of every voter in Iowa. My kids went to school there.

Newt: Your kids are home schooled by your wife. By the way, what’s her name? Rick, if Iowa had been two weeks later, Mitt’s Super Pac would have crushed you, too. Then Callista and I’d be back on top for the third time. Mitt spent his entire fortune trashing me, but Callista and I are hanging in there because we’ve got strong financial support.

Santorum: Newt, you only have one donor.

Newt: One more than you have.

Santorum: But I’ve had lunch with everyone who’s voted for me.

Newt: You can’t have lunch with 50 million people by November.

Santorum: Voters agree with my morals. They want to give up contraception. Families were bigger and better before sex came out of the closet.

Newt: You can’t run a campaign on social values. And what were you thinking telling Spanish-speaking voters in Puerto Rico they had to learn to speak English? You didn’t win a single delegate. Callista and I have promised $2.50 gas. That’s what people want to hear.

Santorum: If we invaded Iran, got its atomic bombs, and took over its oil fields, gas would be 43 cents a gallon.

Newt: After the primaries, how are you going to attract Independent voters? Reagan taught Callista and me the importance of Democrats for Newt.

Santorum: I don’t have to move to the middle. Most Americans are conservative Christians and agree with me. Besides, Newt, you’ve got a family values problem.

Newt: Reagan was divorced and won. Before you met your wife, she lived for five or six years with a guy 40 years older than she was who wouldn’t marry her. What’s her name?

Santorum: And you were having an affair with a twenty-something staffer while you were prosecuting Clinton for doing just that.

Newt: Come on. Doesn’t Callista look like a First Lady? She led me to Catholicism. My kids love her. Just look at her polish, her hair, her jewelry. Better than Jackie!

Santorum: Newt, if we keep splitting the conservative vote, Mitt’s going to get 35% and win while you and I get 50% and lose. He says he can save the economy, but who wants to read his 59 page plan?

Newt: That’s why Callista and I offered Herman Cain the job as Treasury Secretary. Everyone understands 9-9-9. Reagan taught Callista and me the importance of simply cutting taxes to balance the budget.

Santorum: I’m going to eliminate all taxes on manufacturing. That will create so many jobs that unemployment will disappear. And you don’t need an education to work in a factory.

Newt: I’m going to eliminate capital gains so all rich people – not just manufacturers – will have more money to hire poor people.

Santorum: How do we stop Mitt?

Newt: You need to drop out. Be my VP. If we win, you get the nomination in 2020. If we lose, you’re the immediate front runner in 2016.

Santorum: I’m already the front runner in 2016.

Newt: What’s that beeping sound? Are you recording this?

Santorum: Of course not. What is that beeping sound?

Georgetowner • March 7, 2012

At the latest meeting of the Advisory Neighborhood Commission 2E, officials approved revised designs by the Tudor Place Foundation for new small buildings on the historic home’s grounds along 31st and Q Streets. Such approval was a triumph of balance between neighbors and a historic home. While some did not like the proposed garage designs taking up their line of sight on 32nd Street, the argument did not devolve into a “not-in-my-back-yard” discussion. Tudor Place modified its initial designs after critiques by neighbors and government bodies, and the result was a better design overall.

We must find ways to maintain the historic homes within our neighborhood without going NIMBY on them. They are fragile and expensive to get. Likewise, owners of these properties should always engage the residents in their mission and future. Two historic Georgetown homes – Evermay and Halcyon House – are now under the umbrella of the same non-profit, S&R Foundation, which appears more than willing and able to preserve and protect them. Families, it seems, cannot hang on to such large properties.

As Georgetowners and bearers of the light of history, we must work with the persons or groups that own our historical places. We cannot make it all about us. At the same time, they may own it, but it is not theirs alone.

Georgetowner •

Sandra Fluke, a Georgetown University Law Center student, found herself the target of radio host Rush Limbaugh on March 1 after recommending that employers cover the costs of contraception in their health care programs at a meeting of the House Democratic Steering Committee. For her remarks, Limbaugh called Fluke a “slut” and a “prostitute.”

“So, Miss Fluke and the rest of you feminazis, here’s the deal,” Limbaugh continued. “If we are going to pay for your contraceptives and thus pay for you to have sex, we want something. We want you to post the videos online so we can all watch.”

“This language is an attack on all women,” Fluke responded. “The millions of American women who have and will continue to speak out in support of women’s health care and access to contraception prove that we will not be silenced.”

After a major outcry against the radio commentator – including a phone call to Fluke from President Barack Obama on March 2 – Limbaugh apologized March 3. “In this instance, I chose the wrong words in my analogy of the situation,” he said. “I did not mean a personal attack on Ms. Fluke… In my monologue, I posited that it is not our business whatsoever to know what is going on in anyone’s bedroom nor do I think it is a topic that should reach a presidential level. My choice of words was not the best, and in the attempt to be humorous, I created a national stir. I sincerely apologize to Ms. Fluke for the insulting word choices.”

Below is a letter by John J. DeGioia, president of Georgetown University, commenting on the fracas.

There is a legitimate question of public policy before our nation today. In the effort to address the problem of the nearly 50 million Americans who lack health insurance, our lawmakers enacted legislation that seeks to increase access to health care. In recent weeks, a question regarding the breadth of services that will be covered has focused significant public attention on the issue of contraceptive coverage. Many, including the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops, have offered important perspectives on this issue.

In recent days, a law student of Georgetown, Sandra Fluke, offered her testimony regarding the proposed regulations by the Department of Health and Human Services before a group of members of Congress. She was respectful, sincere, and spoke with conviction. She provided a model of civil discourse. This expression of conscience was in the tradition of the deepest values we share as a people. One need not agree with her substantive position to support her right to respectful free expression. And yet, some of those who disagreed with her position – including Rush Limbaugh and commentators throughout the blogosphere and in various other media channels – responded with behavior that can only be described as misogynistic, vitriolic, and a misrepresentation of the position of our student.

In our vibrant and diverse society, there always are important differences that need to be debated, with strong and legitimate beliefs held on all sides of challenging issues. The greatest contribution of the American project is the recognition that together, we can rely on civil discourse to engage the tensions that characterize these difficult issues, and work towards resolutions that balance deeply held and different perspectives. We have learned through painful experience that we must respect one another and we acknowledge that the best way to confront our differences is through constructive public debate. At times, the exercise of one person’s freedom may conflict with another’s. As Americans, we accept that the only answer to our differences is further engagement.

In an earlier time, St. Augustine captured the sense of what is required in civil discourse: “Let us, on both sides, lay aside all arrogance. Let us not, on either side, claim that we have already discovered the truth. Let us seek it together as something which is known to neither of us. For then only may we seek it, lovingly and tranquilly, if there be no bold presumption that it is already discovered and possessed.”

If we, instead, allow coarseness, anger – even hatred – to stand for civil discourse in America, we violate the sacred trust that has been handed down through the generations beginning with our Founders. The values that hold us together as a people require nothing less than eternal vigilance. This is our moment to stand for the values of civility in our engagement with one another.