-
14 FALL 2002
2002 INDUCT ION CEREMONY
On October 5, 2002, the Academy welcomed its223rd class of
members at an Induction Ceremonyat Harvard’s Sanders Theatre.
Nearly 75 percent ofthis year’s class of 177 Fellows and 30
ForeignHonorary Members attended. An overview of theceremony was
published in the Fall 2002 editionof the Academy’s Newsletter.
President Patricia Meyer Spacks (University of Virginia),
VicePresident Louis Cabot (Cabot-Wellington, LLC), Secretary
EmilioBizzi (MIT), and Executive Officer Leslie Berlowitz
congratulatedeach of the new members in turn. Six inductees
addressed themembership on the challenges facing the world and the
Academyat the beginning of a new century: cosmologist Edward W.
Kolb ofthe Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory and the University
ofChicago, medical researcher Nancy Andreasen of the University
ofIowa, historian and dean Philip S. Khoury of MIT, novelist
ChinuaAchebe of Bard College, news analyst Daniel Schorr of
NationalPublic Radio, and US Senator Edward M. Kennedy of
theCommonwealth of Massachusetts.Their remarks appear below, inthe
order presented.
Edward W. Kolb
In this hyperspecialized and finely partitioned mod-ern world,
there is precious little contact betweenthe sciences, the
humanities, the arts, and govern-ment. One of the hallmarks of this
Academy is thatit brings together artists, writers, scientists,
andpoliticians so we can stand together, arms locked incamaraderie,
and present a united front for the artsand sciences.
I would like to make some remarks about connec-tions between
seemingly unrelated investigations.The great American naturalist
and conservationistJohn Muir said, “When you tug on a single
thingin nature, you find it connected to the rest of theuniverse.”
Organizations may divide the sciencesinto departments, from
astronomy to zoology, butNature herself is not so neatly
partitioned. AsMuir said, everything is connected to the rest ofthe
universe.
-
FALL 2002 15
The most exciting research areas in the sciences
areinterdisciplinary. It’s a magic moment when peoplerealize that
single things they are tugging on area common thread in nature’s
tapestry. We seem tobe in the midst of such a realization in the
study ofthe universe.
As a cosmologist, I study the largest objects in
theuniverse—galaxies and filamentary structures hun-dreds of
millions of light years across. But I work atFermilab, a particle
accelerator laboratory, where weprobe the smallest things in the
universe—quarksand other fundamental particles and forces.
Theremarkable fact is that to understand the largestthings, we must
study the smallest things. Webelieve that galaxies and everything
else in the cos-mos arose from the action of submicroscopic
forcesin the first billionth of a second after the big bang.We
can’t understand galaxies without understandingquarks. Tugging on
quasars connects us to quarks.
Modern cosmology began a hundred years ago inBern, Switzerland,
when a Swiss civil servant—atechnical expert third class, working
in the patentoffice—scribbled some equations on a piece ofpaper and
started down the road to relativity. Thediscoveries of Albert
Einstein sparked the scientificrevolution of the twentieth century.
They rankamong humanity’s greatest achievements. They are
Edward W. Kolb (Fermi National Accelerator Laboratoryand
University of Chicago).
-
16 FALL 2002
part of the framework for our understanding of theorigin and
evolution of the universe.
The development of the big bang model by Einsteinand others was
a triumph of twentieth-century sci-ence. We now understand the
evolution of the uni-verse from the time of the bang, 15 billion
years ago,until today. In spite of the great successes of
moderncosmology, I believe that as we start the
twenty-firstcentury, we are poised for a sweeping revolution inour
understanding of the universe.
The reason I think we are on the verge of a new rev-olution
traces back to, of all things, an accountingirregularity—one that
makes recent accountingissues look like small change. I don’t want
to alarmyou, but 95 percent of the mass and energy of theentire
universe seems to be missing. Well, it’s notexactly missing—we know
it is there, because wecan measure its effects—but it seems to be
invisible.
This is a story that has been unfolding since 1933,when
astronomers first suspected that there wasmuch more to the universe
than meets the eye.Striking recent observations confirm that the
neu-trons, protons, and electrons of which we are madecomprise just
a few percent of the total mass of theuniverse. It seems that most
of the universe is inthe form of an undiscovered elementary
particle.
In 1543 the Polish astronomer Nicholas Copernicusproposed that
Earth is not the center of the solar sys-tem. In 1918 the American
astronomer HarlowShapley, a former president of the AmericanAcademy
of Arts and Sciences, proved that our solarsystem is not the center
of our galaxy, and in 1924the American astronomer Edwin Hubble
discoveredthat our Milky Way galaxy is but one of billions inthe
universe. Perhaps we have finally reached theend of the Copernican
revolution. Not only are wenot at the center of the universe, but
also, the verystuff of which we are made is only a very small
frac-tion of the matter of the universe.
Just when we started to face up to the possibility ofinvisible
matter, in 1998, astronomers uncoveredevidence that the universe is
being pulled apart by
-
a mysterious dark pressure force. It seems thatevery nook and
cranny of space is full of a new typeof dark energy. If this is
true, each liter of spacecontains a million volts of dark
energy.
Thankfully, cosmic accounting irregularities arenot a scandal
but an opportunity. Unlocking thesecrets of dark matter and dark
energy may spark anew revolution as far-reaching as Einstein’s.
Perhapsthere are more than three dimensions of space.Infinite,
hidden dimensions may be awaiting dis-covery. Or maybe the
fundamental building blocksof nature are not particles after all,
but extendedobjects we call strings. Perhaps there is more
togravity than Newton or even Einstein imagined.Whatever the
explanation, it is certain to involvethe interplay of nature on the
smallest scales andon the largest scales.
As a theoretical physicist, I am paid to make pre-dictions, so
I’ll predict that in five years the darkmatter and dark energy will
be understood to resultfrom the existence of dimensions of space we
haveyet to explore. I could also predict exactly how thisremarkable
discovery will revolutionize philosophy,art, religion, government,
technology, and every-day life, but I see that my five minutes are
up.
FALL 2002 17
President Patricia Meyer Spacks (University of Virginia), Vice
PresidentLouis Cabot (Cabot-Wellington LLC), and Secretary Emilio
Bizzi (MIT).
-
18 FALL 2002
Nancy Andreasen
As a representative of the biological sciences, I’dlike to speak
briefly about the importance ofintegrity—particularly integrity in
the twenty-firstcentury. A comment made by Albert Einstein in
alecture at the California Institute of Technologywill provide a
context for my remarks: “Concernfor man himself and his fate must
always be thechief interest of all technical endeavors . . . in
orderthat the creations of our mind shall be a blessingand not a
curse to mankind.” Einstein, above all,understood the promises and
the perils of science.
Why integrity? Because the essence of its mean-ing—derived from
integer, or oneness—provides uswith a compass that we may use to
navigatebetween the perils and promises that we will con-front in
the biological sciences during the twenty-first century. It may
serve to remind us that wemust seek, achieve, and teach integration
ratherthan divisiveness, and that our decisions todaymust be shaped
by a recognition that we all share aoneness with humanity, here on
the one planet onwhich we live, now and for what we all hope willbe
many future generations.
Einstein’s century was the century of physics. Basicand applied
physics have given us many things: air-planes and spaceships,
telephones and television,computers and compact discs, nuclear
power andnuclear weapons. In the year 2002 we can commu-nicate with
one another, and also harm one another,in ways that we would never
have dreamed of in theyear 1902.
Our century is likely to become the age of biology.At the
fine-grained level of cells and molecules, wehave launched the
twenty-first century by mappingthe genome. This accomplishment,
much touted inthe media, is exceedingly modest in comparisonwith
what is yet to be done. We are already begin-ning to perceive just
a few of the sensational (andsensationalized) implications, such as
the ability toclone sheep or human beings. The science ofmolecular
biology offers us many benefits. We canpotentially replace damaged
genes or damaged cells
-
in order to treat, and perhaps even cure, a variety ofdiseases:
cystic fibrosis and multiple polyposis,Parkinson’s disease and
Alzheimer’s disease, cardiacdisease and cancer. We will also be
able to summa-rize the biological contents of every individualhuman
being by the ultimate identity card: a profileof the individual
genetic mutations that uniquelycharacterize each of us, or single
nucleotide poly-morphisms (SNPS), colloquially referred to
as“snips.” This summary of personal genetic endow-ment is a
quintessential definition of what each per-son actually is, or is
going to become, at the bio-logical level. Will we know how to use
this andother genetic information wisely, once we have it?
At a higher level, we are also mapping the humanbrain, using the
tools that I happen to pursue.Technologies such as magnetic
resonance imagingand positron emission tomography permit us tolook
inside the human head and literally watch thebrain think and feel.
Within a few minutes afterobtaining a magnetic resonance scan, we
can givesomeone a picture of her brain and tell her its sizein
cubic centimeters, how much of it is gray mat-ter, and how much is
white matter. Only a fewyears ago, such vivid pictures of the whole
brainsurface could be obtained only after death. Nowwe can obtain
these measures in living humanbeings, repeat them every year if we
wish, and plot
FALL 2002 19
Nancy Andreasen (University of Iowa).
-
how the brain is growing in young children orshrinking in older
people as they age. We can seethe brain shift its blood flow to
multiple intercon-nected regions when people perform the
manycomplex mental tasks that make us human—remembering the past,
planning the future, feelingjoy or sorrow. Through
magnetoencephalographywe can even watch this happen in real
time,observing how the visual cortex records an imageof a face and
then passes it on to areas such as thefrontal or temporal lobes so
that the brain can rec-ognize whose face it is. We can also see how
thebrains of people with illnesses such as schizophre-nia,
Alzheimer’s disease, or autism perform thesemental activities
differently. Someday these imag-ing tools may permit us to predict
who is likely tobecome ill even before the illness itself begins.
Suchmeasures of personal brain endowment may alsosomeday tell us
not only what each person is, butalso what that person is going to
become, at thebiological level. Again, will we know how to usethis
information wisely, once we have it? Will weuse it to prevent
diseases and develop new treat-ments, or will we use it to find
more sophisticatedways to discriminate against and stigmatize
theunfortunate people who have or will develop brainillnesses, such
as schizophrenia?
We biological scientists are being inducted into theAmerican
Academy of Arts and Sciences, not artsor sciences. C. P. Snow
warned many years agoabout the dangers of creating “two cultures,”
theculture of the humanities and the culture of sci-ence. My own
personal journey has taken me frombeing a young professor of
Renaissance English lit-erature to now being a somewhat older
physicianand neuroscientist. Although people sometimescomment on
how disparate these two careers are, Ifind that I am sustained by
my training in thehumanities on an almost daily basis as I
performmy activities as a scientist. In order to use wiselythe
enormous biological knowledge that we willdevelop in the
twenty-first century, we must createa healthy integration between
domains such as phi-losophy or history and domains such as
moleculargenetics or neuroscience. Ultimately, we will find
20 FALL 2002
-
the integrity that we need to exploit the promisesand avoid the
perils of modern biology by creatinga unified discourse between the
two culturesembodied in this Academy—the cultures of thearts and
the sciences.
This sense of our twenty-first-century need foroneness,
integrity, and integration—whether it bea unity of past, present,
and future, of I and thou,or of arts and sciences—is beautifully
expressed byWilliam Butler Yeats in the final lines of one of
myfavorite poems, “Among School Children”:
O chestnut tree, great-rooted blossomer, Are you the leaf, the
blossom, or the bole? O body swayed to music, O brightening glance,
How can we know the dancer from the dance?
Philip S. Khoury
I have been asked to speak on behalf of thehumanities and social
sciences. As a historian, Iam part of both, though I must admit
that I amalso somewhat out of fashion in each. Forinstance, I
belong neither to the wing of thehumanities associated with
cultural studies nor tothe wing of the social sciences that applies
math-ematical and other methods of measurement tothe study of
socioeconomic and political behav-ior. But as an academic
administrator responsiblefor the humanities and social sciences at
my uni-versity, I have greatly benefited from the opportu-nity to
read and debate with colleagues belongingto these two very
different approaches to learn-ing—approaches that in some sense
constitute themethodological bookends of the humanities andsocial
sciences.
I think that one of the most difficult challengesfacing the
humanities and social sciences in thistrying period in our
country’s history is how toraise the level of awareness of cultures
other thanour own, and especially of so-called non-Westerncultures,
which I shall refer to as “distant cultures.”As an area studies
specialist, I have thought about
FALL 2002 21
-
22 FALL 2002
this challenge for many years, but never with moreurgency than
in the past year.
For all that the forces of globalization have done tomake our
world visibly interdependent, and for allthe information and
knowledge-sharing that thetechnologies underpinning globalization
have pro-duced, it is quite remarkable how parochial weAmericans
still seem to be in our understanding ofdistant societies and, by
extension, in our inter-actions with some of them. There are
reasons forthis parochialism: the vast size of the United Statesand
its historic self-containment; our comparativelyrecent involvement
with much of the rest of theworld outside of Europe; and our
tendency to judgeother societies in terms of how they resonate
withour two most cherished values of individual free-dom and
democracy (even though we have tendedto suspend their promotion
abroad when they con-flict with our strategic and material
interests).
In the wake of the monstrous tragedy of September11,
Americans—in spite of shock, anger, and puz-zlement—have begun to
express an unprecedented(in my experience) desire for information
andanalysis about the complex and diverse culturesand societies of
the Middle East and the widerIslamic world, and even beyond.
Unfortunately,what the public has mainly had to rely on are
sim-plistic theories and frameworks of interpretation
Newly elected Fellow Philip S. Khoury (MIT).
-
that view the world in terms of opposites, of back-wardness
against progress, of clashing civilizations,of the forces of evil
against the forces of good.Meanwhile, those who have other
knowledge andwho have long rejected simplistic theories
andframeworks for more richly nuanced portraits ofdistant cultures
are seemingly incapable of render-ing them intelligible to the
public. Why? In partbecause our specialized, rather insular
training hashindered the development of sufficient numbersof
synthesizers and generalizers among us, and inpart because those
who have such capacities havenot managed to gain regular access to
our coun-try’s major channels of communication.
The challenge, then, is to bring greater understand-ing of
distant cultures and societies to an Americanpublic whose curiosity
is growing. Our interpreta-tions must be critical and unapologetic,
but theymust not presume that cultures other than our ownare
inferior or are bent on undermining our valuesand traditions,
September 11 notwithstanding. Inthis way, we will contribute to
making ourselvesmore responsible citizens and to raising the
qualityof debate within our government and policymakingcircles. And
in this way we will be able to send tothe sidelines both the
cultural chauvinists and theromantic apologists who are lowering
the quality ofpublic discourse in this country.
I would note that at the very time that we, asAmericans, are
trying to increase our awareness ofdistant cultures, we are trying
even harder to locateand reassert our own core values. We are doing
sonot only in reaction to the “attack against America”but also in
reaction to an attack from withinAmerica by some whose enormous
personal greedhas shaken our confidence and trust.
Any one of us whose business it is to study societiesother than
our own knows that it is impossible todo so without revisiting our
own values and tradi-tions. I would suggest that in these
unsettlingtimes, there is an unusual opportunity to connectour
desire and need to better understand distantcultures with our
desire and need to examine andassert our own fundamental
values.
FALL 2002 23
-
24 FALL 2002
Let me conclude by circling back to the humanitiesand social
sciences. Many of us gathered here todayknow that the value of a
liberal arts education hasbeen diminished in the past
quarter-century. Thehumanities and related social sciences are less
influ-ential in our educational system and in our widersociety than
they once were. There are complexfactors behind this loss of status
and importance.We humanists and social scientists bear some of
theresponsibility for not making our learning moreaccessible to the
public and for not battling effec-tively the spread of narrowly
oriented technicaltraining within our institutions of higher
educa-tion. My hope is that by accepting the responsibil-ity to
increase awareness of and engagement withmore distant cultures and
societies, and by linkingthis effort to a reexamination of our own
historyand increasingly rich and diverse culture, we canstrengthen
the position of the humanities and thesocial sciences, and of
liberal education generally.
The American Academy of Arts and Sciences, ofwhich I feel
privileged to be a member, is alreadytaking the lead in making the
case for the human-ities through its Initiative for the Humanities
andCulture. Perhaps the Academy would also considertaking up the
challenge of how to effectively trans-mit learning to the American
public about distantcultures and, by extension, how to develop
con-nections between this learning and the ongoingreexamination of
our own social and cultural
Visiting Scholar Andrew Jewett with newly elected
FellowAnne-Marie Slaughter (Princeton University).
-
underpinnings and historical development. Andwhile we are at it,
shouldn’t we consider how tomore effectively transmit learning
about Americansociety, traditions, and values in a critical
andunapologetic manner to those very same distantsocieties that we
need to know much more about?They are no less in need of knowing us
than we areof knowing them. By so doing, we might at longlast
produce a genuine dialogue of cultures.
Now, that’s at least a double challenge!
Chinua Achebe
Three years ago, here in Cambridge, ErnestHemingway’s African
writing was considered suffi-ciently important and interesting by
the organizersof his centennial celebration to deserve a panel
ofits own, called “Writing Africa.” I was on thatpanel, as were
Nadine Gordimer, K. AnthonyAppiah, and two Americans. One of the
majorthemes of our discussion was Hemingway’s appar-ent lack of
real interest in his African characters.Professor Appiah
contrasted, to good effect, theelaborate attention Hemingway pays
to what goeson in the mind of a wounded and vengeful lion inthe
short story “The Short Happy Life of FrancisMacomber” with the
absence of any concern forwhat goes on in the minds of the African
servantswho serve the whiskey and carry the guns for thewhite
hunters on safari. At question time, a youngwoman, clearly offended
by our criticism ofHemingway, asked how we would write Africa.
Ireplied, “Read our books.” I doubt that she rushedaway to follow
this advice.
If I had to deal with that challenge again, I wouldbe more
patient. I would tell that young womanthat what African writers do
is take stories of Africawritten by Westerners and stand them on
theirheads by giving center stage to those servants whobring the
whiskey and carry the guns, as NadineGordimer does in July’s People
and as I do in every-thing I write. In dealing with the gigantic
problemof using a European language as a medium forwriting Africa,
I have rejected the exotic broken
FALL 2002 25
-
26 FALL 2002
English preferred in Europe’s tradition of so-calledAfrican
romances. The English language has asmany dialects as anyone could
wish, from that usedin the King James version of the Bible to
countlessvarieties of authorized and unauthorized speech. Ihave
chosen a version of English capable of match-ing the eloquence and
gravitas of the speech ofAfrican elders. If you read the kinds of
books I readgrowing up, in which African savages are presented,you
will remember that they have no speech; theyhowl, screech, make all
kinds of other noises.
What I heard growing up in my village was differ-ent, and that’s
what I write about. I’m going to readyou a short passage* from my
first novel, ThingsFall Apart, about an event in the life of the
charac-ter Okonkwo. Okonkwo is in deep trouble. He isexiled from
his community. He flees to his mother’svillage far away and is
received by his uncle,Uchendu, but he is in great despair. The
uncle, see-ing that Okonkwo is heading for deeper trouble,calls a
meeting of the kindred to give advice toOkonkwo:
Chinua Achebe (Bard College).
*Reprinted from Things Fall Apart by Chinua Achebe.Copyright �
1958 by Chinua Achebe. Published inNorth America by Heinemann, a
division of ReedElsevier, Inc., Portsmouth, NH. Reprinted by
permis-sion of the author and publisher.
-
FALL 2002 27
On the second day Uchendu called together hissons and daughters
and his nephew, Okonkwo. Themen brought their goatskin mats, with
which theysat on the floor, and the women sat on a sisal matspread
on a raised bank of earth. Uchendu pulledgently at his gray beard
and gnashed his teeth. Thenhe began to speak, quietly and
deliberately, pickinghis words with great care:
‘It is Okonkwo that I primarily wish to speak to,’he began. ‘But
I want all of you to note what I amgoing to say. I am an old man
and you are all chil-dren. I know more about the world than any
ofyou. If there is any one among you who thinks heknows more let
him speak up.’ He paused, but noone spoke.
‘Why is Okonkwo with us today? This is not hisclan. We are only
his mother’s kinsmen. He doesnot belong here. He is an exile,
condemned forseven years to live in a strange land. And so he
isbowed with grief. But there is just one question Iwould like to
ask him. Can you tell me, Okonkwo,why it is that one of the
commonest names we giveour children is Nneka, or “Mother is
Supreme”? Weall know that a man is the head of the family and
hiswives do his bidding. A child belongs to its fatherand his
family and not to its mother and her family.A man belongs to his
fatherland and not to hismotherland. And yet we say Nneka—“Mother
isSupreme.” Why is that?’
There was silence. ‘I want Okonkwo to answer me,’said
Uchendu.
‘I do not know the answer,’ Okonkwo replied.
‘You do not know the answer? So you see that youare a child. You
have many wives and many chil-dren—more children that I have. You
are a greatman in your clan. But you are still a child, my
child.Listen to me and I shall tell you. But there is onemore
question I shall ask you. Why is it that whena woman dies she is
taken home to be buried withher own kinsmen? She is not buried with
her hus-band’s kinsmen. Why is that? Your mother wasbrought home to
me and buried with my people.Why was that?’
Okonkwo shook his head.
-
‘He does not know that either,’ said Uchendu, ‘andyet he is full
of sorrow because he has come to live inhis motherland for a few
years.’ He laughed a mirth-less laughter, and turned to his sons
and daughters.‘What about you? Can you answer my question?’
They all shook their heads.
‘Then listen to me,’ he said and cleared his throat.‘It’s true
that a child belongs to its father. But whena father beats his
child, it seeks sympathy in itsmother’s hut. A man belongs to his
fatherlandwhen things are good and life is sweet. But whenthere is
sorrow and bitterness he finds refuge in hismotherland. Your mother
is there to protect you.She is buried there. And that is why we say
thatmother is supreme. Is it right that you, Okonkwo,should bring
to your mother a heavy face andrefuse to be comforted? Be careful
or you may dis-please the dead. Your duty is to comfort your
wivesand children and take them back to your fatherlandafter seven
years. But if you allow sorrow to weighyou down and kill you, they
will all die in exile.’ Hepaused for a long while. ‘These are now
your kins-men.’ He waved at his sons and daughters. ‘Youthink you
are the greatest sufferer in the world? Doyou know that men are
sometimes banished forlife? Do you know that men sometimes lose
alltheir yams and even their children? I had six wivesonce. I have
none now except that young girl whoknows not her right from her
left. Do you knowhow many children I have buried—children Ibegot in
my youth and strength? Twenty-two. I didnot hang myself, and I am
still alive. If you thinkyou are the greatest sufferer in the world
ask mydaughter, Akueni, how many twins she has borneand thrown
away. Have you not heard the songthey sing when a woman dies?
‘“For whom is it well, for whom is it well? There is no one for
whom it is well.”
‘I have no more to say to you.’
Daniel Schorr
Call it elitism if you wish, but I find it simply awe-some to be
admitted into this impressive society ofAmerican luminaries. Yet,
in candor, I must say thatI may be sailing under false colors.
Presumably, the
28 FALL 2002
-
Fellows are chosen to epitomize the professions anddisciplines
they come from. If I am supposed torepresent the world of
journalism and communica-tions, this may be a big mistake. Over the
years Ihave developed serious reservations about an indus-try in
which I have worked for the past six decades.I have now come to
feel alien to the media thatonce used to be the Press.
Having experienced journalism in its print, radio,and television
incarnations, I have come to mournthe way my beloved profession has
become pro-gressively oriented to entertainment, scandal,
andprofit. I have become aware of increasing publichostility to an
institution supposed to monitor theEstablishment, but now itself a
vast establishment.A public that finds the media insensitive
andexploitative is no longer willing to forgive us ourpress
passes.
It is a long way from Hildy Johnson and “Hello,sweetheart, get
me rewrite!” to the multimillion-dol-lar blow-dried television star
of today. Sometimes itseems to me that our whole profession is
crowdedinto a small corner of a vast entertainment stage,obliged to
borrow the tools and values of entertain-ment and live by its
standards in the grim strugglefor ratings that denote profits to
the corporatenabobs who now control journalism’s destiny.
FALL 2002 29
Daniel Schorr (National Public Radio).
-
Edward R. Murrow, our idol at CBS, in a famousspeech to news
directors in 1958, warned that tele-vision “insulates us from the
realities of the world inwhich we live.” Time has borne him out.
From O. J. Simpson to Monica Lewinsky, the media havedisplayed an
inexorable attraction to scandal, alongwith violence and the hot
pursuit of celebrities.
In the rush for ratings, no one is spared. Recently Isaw CNN
dump out of a live speech by PresidentBush in order to switch to
Los Angeles for the latestword from the sheriff on the
investigation of a childkidnapping. I am not aware that the White
Houseeven complained about this insult to the presidency.
The Internet has introduced a new dimension ofunedited
irresponsibility in journalism. Do youremember how the Clinton
scandal that led toimpeachment first got started? Self-styled
gossip-monger Matt Drudge posted on the Web therumor that Newsweek
was working on some storyabout the president and his relationship
with anintern. In fact, Newsweek was working on a storyand holding
it for further fact-checking. Drudgedidn’t see the need for
checking. From gossip onthe Web, the story quickly escalated to the
so-called mainstream media. So a gossipmonger start-ed the ball
rolling to impeachment.
Our networks have displayed a willingness to takedictates from
the government that once wouldhave been inconceivable. Remember
when, in thewake of September 11, National Security
AdviserCondoleezza Rice had a conference call with newsexecutives
of the five networks and asked them toplay down a videotaped
statement by Osama binLaden? They all agreed to do so and were
praisedby the White House for their patriotism. In the1930s I heard
a lot of Adolf Hitler on the radio. Itnever occurred to anyone that
Americans might beunduly influenced by hearing him.
The definition of “journalist” has changed. A jour-nalist can be
a pretty face and pleasant manner ofreading from a teleprompter. (A
Pew ResearchCenter poll indicated that 77 percent of viewerslike
news anchors who deliver news in “a friendly
30 FALL 2002
-
FALL 2002 31
and informal way.”) Journalists can be talk-showhosts, skilled
at getting guests to yell at each other.A journalist can be a
celebrity who came throughthe revolving door from government. (Of
the fiveSunday television hosts, two—Bob Schieffer ofCBS and Wolf
Blitzer of CNN—are career jour-nalists. Three—George Stephanopoulos
of ABC,Tim Russert of NBC, and Tony Snow of FOXNews—came from
government.)
Occasionally, our news media measure up to theirresponsibility
at a time of national tragedy. Tel-evision displayed its capacity
to bind Americansinto a community at moments like the
assassina-tions of John and Robert Kennedy. It reached newheights
on September 11, and then on the anniver-sary of September 11. I
was impressed by televi-sion’s willingness, on those occasions, to
cancelmillions of dollars’ worth of commercials.
But the Ground Zero coverage is the exception.For the rest, I am
sad about the state of journal-ism—a profession I have loved not
always wisely,but well. So if you want someone who can speakfor the
media, you have the wrong fellow.
I hope you don’t take my fellowship back. I wasjust getting to
enjoy it.
Edward M. Kennedy
The Academy was founded two centuries ago inthe tradition of the
highest ideals of our youngdemocracy. John Adams, John Hancock, and
oth-ers established this distinguished community ofability and
ideals—a place where the best mindscould convene and recommend
measures toimprove public policy and benefit the lives of allour
citizens. They envisioned an American centerfor the arts and
sciences, and I know that theywould be very pleased today with the
Academy’sachievements.
President Kennedy was proud to be inducted intothe Academy in
1955. Years later, at the WhiteHouse, he hosted a dinner honoring
Nobel Prizewinners of the Western Hemisphere. In welcoming
-
32 FALL 2002
his guests that evening, he said, “I think this is themost
extraordinary collection of talent, of humanknowledge, that has
ever been gathered together atthe White House, with the possible
exception ofwhen Thomas Jefferson dined alone.” Jack would saythe
same thing, I’m sure, about the Academy today.
This Academy was founded at a time of greatuncertainty and
challenge. Important as that chal-lenge was for our country, the
founders under-stood that America could not afford to neglect
thearts and humanities in the nation’s life. Our liter-ature and
poetry, our music and dance, our paint-ings and sculpture help to
define us as a people.They are not an extension of our national
life;they are its expression.
As Adams said, “I must study politics and war thatmy sons may
have the liberty to study mathematicsand philosophy . . . in order
to give their childrenthe right to study painting, poetry and
music.”
Much has been written of Adams in recent years.Thanks in large
part to David McCullough, thenation’s second president has earned a
prominenceand respect that even he could not have imagined.His
vision so many years ago is at the very heart ofAmerican values
today. We study his writings andaspire to his example. As future
generations ofAmericans look back on this time in our history,
Edward M. Kennedy (US Senate).
-
FALL 2002 33
we want them to know that we too had the courageand wisdom to
meet the challenges of our day—that we defended the principles of
democracy andfreedom, and preserved our founding ideals andour
national sense of purpose.
Today we face a new threat of war, one that willchange the way
America is viewed by its allies andadversaries. The question of
whether our nationshould attack Iraq is playing out in the context
ofa more fundamental debate that is only just begin-ning—an
all-important debate about how, when,and where in the years ahead
our country will useits unsurpassed military might.
In September the Bush administration unveiled itsnew National
Security Strategy. This documentaddresses the new realities of our
age, particularlythe proliferation of weapons of mass
destructionand terrorist networks armed with the agendas
offanatics. The Strategy claims that these new threatsare so novel
and so dangerous that we should “nothesitate to act alone, if
necessary, to exercise ourright of self-defense by acting
preemptively.”
The administration’s discussion of self-defenseoften uses the
terms “preemptive” and “preventive”interchangeably. However, in the
realm of interna-tional relations, these two terms have long had
verydifferent meanings.
Traditionally, “preemptive” action refers to timeswhen states
react to an imminent threat of attack.For example, when Egyptian
and Syrian forcesmobilized on Israel’s borders in 1967, the
threatwas obvious and immediate, and Israel felt justifiedin
preemptively attacking those forces. The globalcommunity is
generally tolerant of such actions,since no nation should have to
suffer a certain firststrike before it has the legitimacy to
respond.
By contrast, “preventive” military action refers tostrikes that
target a country before it has developeda capability that could
someday become threaten-ing. Preventive attacks have generally been
con-demned. For example, the 1941 sneak attack onPearl Harbor was
regarded as a preventive strike by
-
Japan, because the Japanese were seeking to blocka planned
military buildup by the United States inthe Pacific. The coldly
premeditated nature of pre-ventive attacks and preventive wars
makes themanathema to well-established international princi-ples
against aggression. Pearl Harbor has beenrightfully recorded in
history as an act of dishon-orable treachery.
Historically, the United States has condemned theidea of
preventive war, arguing that it violates basicinternational rules
against aggression. But at timesin our history, preventive war has
been seriouslyadvocated as a policy option.
In the early days of the cold war, some US militaryand civilian
experts advocated a preventive waragainst the Soviet Union. They
proposed a devas-tating first strike to prevent the Soviet Union
fromdeveloping a threatening nuclear capability. At thetime, they
said the uniquely destructive power ofnuclear weapons required us
to rethink traditionalinternational rules.
That debate ended in 1950, when PresidentTruman ruled out a
preventive strike, arguing thatsuch actions were not consistent
with ourAmerican tradition. He said, “You don’t ‘prevent’anything
by war . . . except peace.” Instead of a sur-prise first strike,
the nation instead dedicated itselfto the strategy of deterrence
and containment,which successfully kept the peace during the
longand frequently difficult years of the cold war.
The argument that the United States should takepreventive
military action in the absence of animminent attack resurfaced in
1962, when welearned that the Soviet Union would soon have
theability to launch missiles from Cuba against ourcountry. Many
military officers urged PresidentKennedy to approve a preventive
attack to destroythis capability before it became operational.
RobertKennedy, like Harry Truman, felt that this kind offirst
strike was not consistent with American val-ues. He said that a
proposed surprise first strikeagainst Cuba would be a “Pearl Harbor
in reverse.”“For 175 years,” he said, “we have not been that
34 FALL 2002
-
kind of country.” That view prevailed. A middleground was found,
and peace was preserved.
As these two cases show, American strategicthinkers have long
debated the relative merits ofpreventive and preemptive war.
Although nobodywould deny our right to preemptively block
animminent attack on our territory, there is disagree-ment about
our right to preventively engage in war.
The circumstances of our new world require us torethink this
concept. The world changed onSeptember 11, and all of us have
learned that it canbe a drastically more dangerous place. The
Bushadministration’s new National Security Strategyasserts that
global realities now legitimize preven-tive war and make it a
strategic necessity.
The document openly contemplates preventiveattacks against
groups or states, even absent thethreat of imminent attack. It
legitimizes this kindof first-strike option, and it elevates it to
the statusof a core security doctrine. Disregarding prece-dents of
international law, the Bush strategy assertsthat our unique
military preeminence exempts usfrom the rules we expect other
nations to obey.
I strongly oppose any such extreme doctrine, andI’m sure that
many of you do as well. Earlier gen-erations of Americans rejected
preventive war onthe grounds of both morality and practicality,
andour generation must do so as well. We can dealwith Iraq without
resorting to this extreme.
It is impossible to justify any such double standardunder
international law. Might does not makeright. America cannot write
its own rules for themodern world. To attempt to do so would be
uni-lateralism run amok. It would antagonize our clos-est allies,
whose support we need to fight terrorism,prevent global warming,
and deal with many otherdangers that affect all nations and require
interna-tional cooperation. It would deprive America ofthe moral
legitimacy necessary to promote our val-ues abroad. And it would
give other nations anexcuse to violate important principles of
civilizedinternational behavior.
FALL 2002 35
-
36 FALL 2002
The administration’s doctrine is a call for twenty-first-century
American imperialism that no othernation can or should accept. It
is the antithesis ofall that America has worked so hard to achieve
ininternational relations since the end of WorldWar II.
Obviously, the debate is only just beginning on
theadministration’s new strategy for national security.But the
debate is solidly grounded in Americanvalues and history. I know
that all of you in thisdistinguished Academy will be part of it,
and I lookforward to your contributions.
It will also be a debate among vast numbers ofwell-meaning
Americans who have honest differ-ences of opinion about the best
way to use US mil-itary might. The debate will be contentious,
butthe stakes—in terms of both our national securityand our
allegiance to our core beliefs—are too highto ignore.
On this and on so many other challenges we willface in the
months and years ahead, I know thatthis Academy will help us all to
live up to the idealsestablished by the founders of our country
twocenturies ago.
Remarks � 2002 by Edward W. Kolb, NancyAndreasen, Philip S.
Khoury, Chinua Achebe, DanielSchorr, and Edward M. Kennedy,
respectively.
Photos � 2002 by Martha Stewart.