archive-org.com » ORG » A » AMACAD.ORG

Total: 1374

Choose link from "Titles, links and description words view":

Or switch to "Titles and links view".
  • A Just War? - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    the more aggressive belief in an imperium a universal state where there would not necessarily be an entire Muslim population but a Muslim Rule remained a theoretical possibility to Muslims and remained a possibility in classical Islamic law It disagreed with other aspects of the law and therefore the law leading to war the jus ad bellum which Professor Hehir has so well explicated here became rather messy in classical Islamic law In contrast the law as to how people should behave in war jus in bello was rather elaborately worked out and quite humanely defined no women no children no noncombatants no property not even the smallest tree as it says in the law should be harmed Equally in separate areas of the law the law about highway robbery hirābah there evolved an idea that to attack people suddenly and without warning was wrong cowardly did not allow people the chance to change their minds it could only be for bad purposes and so forth In this way a law developed which actually has a great deal of relevance to terrorism It is surprising how seldom it has been evoked in recent discussions And a third source of law developed which has to do with the universal human responsibility to rescue other people It can be called the right of rescue In Arabic it is called the right to command the good and to forbid the wrong and it is an individual obligation in Muslim thought The individual has a responsibility to forbid what is wrong Interestingly in this particular law all the aspects of what we would consider just war theory in modern Western law that is having a just cause a just intention probability of success are discussed elaborately The curious and rather sad thing is that all three of these aspects of the law were not melded together into a coherent body of law However the high scholastic tradition did undergo a transformation in the 19th and 20th centuries In the 19th century the British wanted to abolish slavery all over the world Muslim law accommodated itself to this And in the 20th century as early as the 1960s partly under the influence of the formation of the United Nations a high scholastic tradition transformed itself to say we are now all partisans of a treaty We no longer speak of the abode of war and the abode of peace something that did not arise in the time of Mohammad but came a century later On the contrary we are all in the abode of treaty dar al ahd as it is called in Arabic because we are all signatories to the Charter of the United Nations In the 1960s a quite brilliant book was written by perhaps the most important living Sunni jurist Wahba Zoheili at the University of Damascus in which he says that the jihad or struggle is now only a struggle against the distortion of Islam The real meaning of the struggle is not a warlike struggle but the struggle to convert He thus offered a complete reinterpretation of the high tradition and many of the ulema accepted his conclusions Nevertheless there was also the development of a contrary tradition which really is well represented by Ayman Zawahiri He is the right hand man of Osama bin Laden and really the most intelligent person as far as I can figure out in that circle and probably the author of most of Osama bin Laden s response or fatwa He represented a new generation His grandfather was a sheikh of Al Azhar one of the great positions in the old scholastic establishment But he himself was a surgeon not trained at all in the religious disciplines He presumably thinks to himself that I can interpret the law as well as my grandfather I can just sit down read the book and come to my own conclusions He is really typical of a whole generation of people who no longer respect the scholastic tradition In the fatwa co signed by him in 1998 after the failed US attack against the al Qaeda camps He says in essence Yes we know about the scholastic tradition but we follow what we like in that tradition The fatwa names several pre modern jurists without actually recounting their arguments and finally quotes one jurist Ibn Taimiyah He explains in effect that This jurist says that in the worst case the person who is defending himself against armed attack or an assailant has a right to strike around him with any kind of force necessary to defend himself In other words a theory had been built which only finds it culmination actually in this particular circle that people in the Muslim world who are true believers are involved in hand to hand combat with the rest of the world Therefore any terrorist act is like striking back at an assailant in such a hand to hand combat As the fatwas from Osama bin Laden continued and more people gathered in his circled or maybe in the circle of Zawahiri additional accusations about the million supposed children believed to have died in Iraq as a result of the American blockade and about Hiroshima and Nagasaki arose Who are the Americans Osama bin Laden s followers ask to talk about collateral damage I will only one very brief prescriptive comment I wish we had announced every day of the war that we would stop the bombing the minute Osama bin Laden and the people representing his entourage were surrendered I don t think he would have been surrendered but I think it would have strengthened our moral position immensely The US made such a statement at the beginning and I think it might have even strengthened our moral position to have made specific statements about who would try them that they would be given for example to the court in the Hague where there are Muslim jurists I do not think we would have avoided the war but I think it would have given the US a clearer moral high ground And secondly I wonder if it is not better to think about this as a moral cause rather than a moral war I have never been quite sure of the war rhetoric I know that it is a very good way to rally people and it puts us in contact with our heroic past and similar dastardly deeds such as Pearl Harbor but I am not sure that it is really a correct analogy At that point I will stop QUESTIONS ANSWERS Berger Thank you very much I am going to start by asking one question of each speaker and then we will throw it open to all Let me ask on the question of the probability of success in Christian tradition Father Hehir what are the grounds used for that category That is to say is it a matter of compassionate concern for one s own people and or the other side and therefore moral or is it pragmatic And how would such an assessment be different from for instance elements of the Powell Doctrine that one needs to have a very clear sense of what the political objective is in a war how achieve that end how to get out and in his case how to preserve the integrity of the institution of the army that is probably not a traditional Christian concern Hehir I do think and Michael Waltzer again I will refer to him has made the point that the language of ethics and the language of strategy are at least analogous In other words you find a lot of similarity if you read strategists just straightforwardly and then if you read moralists They are not identical by any means And indeed the trick most of the time when you are doing the kind of thing that I do is to try and make sure that the language of strategy does not overwhelm the language of morality But there is a kind of inner logic to the two In terms of the criterion of success there are different ways of thinking about the rationale behind it One way to think about it is that war should not be used fecklessly force should not be used fecklessly That is to say you should not undertake an enterprise which involves at its very heart the conscious purposeful taking of human life if in fact you do not have any way to relate ends and means You are simply going to be killing people for no purpose whatsoever There was a way in which in the midst of Vietnam to a lot of people that is what it looked like was going on that we were killing people to save our reputation or to save some vision of global struggle but there was no purpose there was no endgame to it there was no connectedness to it And so on the one hand moral possibility of success is an argument against using force without purpose without rational connectedness of ends and means The second understanding of moral possibility of success is that particularly political authorities who have the right and duty to declare war should not send people to death needlessly in the sense of suicide for example For example I have heard people in the 1970s and 80s make the argument that all the criteria for just war would have worked for the black population in South Africa except possibility of success if the blacks were to take on the South African army they would be slaughtered So you have all these kinds of arguments but no possibility of success That is a second reason First connect ends and means and second be sure of the possibility of success Now there is a limiting principle here This is usually referred to as the moral possibility of success It does not mean that war has to be a sure thing or that every time you use force you know you are going to be successful There is another element here It is the kind of thing you saw in the Polish Ghetto where people say In the name of certain values I will put my life on the line even though there is virtually no chance I am going to succeed So that is a limiting condition on success but the heart of the argument is that you do not use force without purpose without consideration of what one might call the virtue of prudence Berger Thank you For Professor Mottahedeh this is perhaps an idiosyncratic question but it has been bothering me for some time There have been voices I have heard quotes from scholars in the Islamic world saying that Osama bin Laden certainly does not have the authority to issue the fatwas he has However as I understand it his primary reason in the 1998 fatwa for the virtual declaration of war against America has to do with the presence of non Muslim troops and he is particularly bothered by female troops on the soil of Mecca and Medina What is the reaction generally in the Islamic world and among contemporary Islamic scholars to that as a reason Mottahedeh I don t know that he has specifically referred to female troops although I am sure he is bothered by their presence As to the question of authority just as Professor Hehir has said that you have to have justly constituted authority in the Christian world so in the Islamic scholastic tradition you have to have justly constituted authority to declare war One of the things that Osama bin Laden keeps saying is that for eighty some odd years there has existed no Islamic polity So what he is in a sense saying is that I have the authority But sometimes in fact quite frequently he uses the strange ploy of saying I am working in the only real Islamic state of the world run by Mullah Omar and he calls him the Commander of the Faithful So he more or less is hiding behind Mullah Omar to say that he is working under the aegis of the only justly constituted authority Mullah Mohammad Omar by everybody s count is an extremely uneducated fellow Osama bin Laden even with his education in engineering is probably better acquainted with the Islamic scholastic tradition So it is strange that he has to defer to him On the second question about Saudi Arabia it is clear if you look at the fatwa in Osama bin Laden s fatwa he begins with a preoccupation with Saudi Arabia and only secondarily with Palestine although the question of the Palestinians is always there and the preoccupation with Palestine grows as he reaches for a larger audience Muhammad supposedly said on his deathbed and there are two versions of this Clear the Arabian Peninsula of non Muslims or he said Clear the hījaz the province of Mecca and Medina of non Muslims Overwhelmingly tradition has understood the Prophet to have said the second There was a huge Jewish community in Yemen right up until 1947 There is still a small Jewish community there Nobody has ever challenged its right to be there But this change has to do with the evolution of a modern peninsular wide sense of Arab Muslim identity It shows bin Laden to be a child of the polity of the Saudis that saw itself as special guardians of Mecca and Medina and somehow different from every other Muslim polity Among his fellow Saudis there is a lot of sympathy for this complaint Berger I have one follow up to that Is there a difference in how that particular cause is viewed in the Shia world and the Sunni world Mottahedeh There is only one Shiite nation in the world and that is Iran The Iranians are not particularly worried about the presence of American troops for any reason except their own safety With American troops in Arabia and in Afghanistan they feel surrounded Berger Thank you Now if you would like to come to the microphone and ask questions feel free Question I am not quite sure from your presentation Father Hehir the difference between moral exception and rationalization especially in the case of US strikes against Afghanistan Why do you think the cause is just And how would you explain the justness of this cause to a Muslim both in the US and abroad And finally before the strikes started at the end of August did you argue for or against the use of force and has that view changed Hehir I think just cause is fairly narrowly located in this case and it is due to the attack that took place and the promise that Osama bin Laden made that there would be other attacks So I see the use of force as a deterrent It is a response to the attack and a deterrent against future attack And I think that is a legitimate moral use of force If you are promised that there could be large scale damage done to your population that limited use of force is acceptable How would I explain it to a Muslim I think there are two broad areas whenever you deal with the ethics of war One is the cause and rationale and policy issues that go around it I suspect that that would not be an area in which you could be very convincing at least to many Muslims because large arguments will be lodged against US policy in the Middle East or other policies But second I think on the means question I could get someplace First of all the way the debate goes in the United States about Was this attack due to policies the US pursues or patterns of US actions I think there were loads of things wrong with US foreign policy before September 11 that ought to be corrected and I think there are loads of things that are still wrong that ought to be corrected I don t think any of those things justify a direct attack on those two buildings with civilians in them And the way I would try and find common ground with Islam is precisely to pick up the point that Roy made that there is an extended area of Islamic ethics on war on means Part of the problem usually with terrorism not always but usually is precisely that it finds it hard to stay within the context of means in terms of who gets attacked and under what circumstances Did I advocate going to war against Afghanistan before the attack No I thought there were loads of different questions regarding Afghanistan The main thing I would say about Afghanistan before the war was that the United States did not live up to responsibilities that I thought it had to do something about Afghanistan after the Soviets left but I did not see reason for war In the same way that I would not have advocated the use of force against Saddam Hussein until he invaded Kuwait Once he invaded Kuwait that constitutes aggression across a national boundary I think that is an issue of international order and I think you need to respond to it Question I had a couple questions One is about Palestine Are there ways that Palestine can justly use force against Israel considering that it is not a state Does Arafat have the authority to declare war or is it a smart decision not to call it a war when they are contesting land The other question is the morality of the draft under the just war framework Why is it morally prohibited to attack noncombatants of your adversaries and still responsible to send your own somewhat innocent citizens into combat and potentially death Hehir Let me take the second question first The reason why you cannot attack noncombatants or civilians or the reason why you cannot go to war against the whole society is rooted in the very first step Making the argument that war fits within the moral universe is not an easy case By nothing I say do I want to communicate that this is a self evident judgment that war fits within the moral universe I think it is a tough case I think you have the deck loaded against you particularly if you go beyond the moral universe and say you fit within a religious tradition that is wider than the moral tradition that holds all kinds of values about turning the other cheek and going the extra mile This is not an easy case to make If you are going to be able to make the case that war fits within the moral universe and maybe within the religious universe it has got to be a very narrowly precisely defined argument And I think that narrowly defined argument is that people embodied in political communities do things that are objectively wrong Call it aggression for lack of a better term If you make the case that you have a right to stop aggression in the moral order then only those who commit the aggression become subject to attack Therefore you cannot attack a whole society So this is the argument against not attacking civilians It goes right back to the fundamental rationale In other words by attacking civilians purposefully you threaten the whole rationale for the ethic because you are now involved in unlimited war rather than limited war Secondly what about the draft The argument that war can be undertaken in moral terms is because the common good requires it That is to say there are moral values being violated The argument usually goes that political authority has the right to defend the common good and included in that right is the expectation that it can call citizens to minimal civic duties minimal not meaning small but meaning basic And that is what the draft is about I think you should make provision for conscientious objection but the draft is about a sense of loyalty and belonging to a political community and understanding that one has certain obligations to it The draft is often put in the same category morally as taxes We have responsibilities to a political community to contribute to its welfare The first question was do Arafat and the Palestinians have the right to use force against Israel You would have to distinguish the cases it seems to me In principle I don t think it has the right to use force against Israel just because Israel is Israel Obviously there are contested issues since 1967 about boundaries territory and property You could make a just cause argument on that front You could not make a just cause argument and then combine it with means that are illegitimate in the same way that the Israelis having a right to defend certain areas and territory cannot defend them using unjust means Question I will direct this question to Professor Hehir You both talked about the moral proscription against causing civilian casualties and yet in every war that I am aware of in this century we have done precisely that And the reason we have done it is because there is another moral assumption which is that the lives of our troops are more valuable than the lives of the opponent s troops even though in both cases they are 18 year old kids and they are innocent in that sense But there is an implicit and sometimes explicit understanding that the life of one American soldier is infinitely precious compared to the lives not only of the opponent s soldiers but also of their civilians And therefore we dropped the atomic bomb on Hiroshima And therefore we bombed Vietnam from an altitude of 35 000 ft where you could not possibly distinguish between enemy troops and civilians Hehir There several necessary distinctions we must make and you have just highlighted one that we need to make more precisely I would not say that it is a moral indictment of war if citizens get killed It is a tragedy that citizens get killed The moral indictment is when citizens get killed as a result of being purposefully targeted in the course of the war when there is a purposeful intent to take civilian life That was true at Dresden That was true in the German bombing of London That was true in Hiroshima George Bundy s really remarkable history of the nuclear age has this interesting chapter on the decision to drop the atomic bomb And he says that when the time came to make the decision about Hiroshima no one absolutely no one in the upper reaches of the American government even raised the question about attacking civilians He said that the reason this was the case was that that barrier had been crossed already in Dresden and Tokyo It highlights to me the enormous question of keeping alive moral restraints Because if you do not keep them alive in the policy discussions in the minds of citizens and in the minds of policymakers then that is when the logic of strategy overwhelms the logic of moral argument So I would not want to say that every time a civilian gets killed it is morally wrong I would say civilians a should never be directly targeted and b their lives should be preserved insofar as it is possible under the criterion of proportionality Your other question do we kill civilians because we always value American lives more I would go about in the following way I think every life is of infinite value Therefore you only can kill when you have an explicit rationale as I have tried to lay out Secondly it is the responsibility of political authorities to try to reduce the casualties on their own side Thirdly that goal of protecting your own troops must be pursued within the context of a set of other restraints You cannot protect your own troops at the price of consciously killing civilians This is why the bombing of civilian centers in the name of for example protecting against your own casualties would be wrong At the same time it is not wrong for political authorities to try to protect their own troops But they have to do it within limits You then get into very large discussion about how you do that I have had people in class in the last two years who were pilots in Kosovo who object strenuously to the argument that if you bomb from 15 000 ft or 30 000 ft you are less moral than if you bomb from 5 000 ft Their argument which is empirical and not moral is that at 15 000 ft generally immune from anti aircraft fire they can see the target whereas at 5 000 ft flying at 700 mph they cannot see anything But that is an empirical argument and not a moral argument Question The question I would like to address has to do with the issue of harboring terrorists going after those who harbor terrorists who give protection to terrorists This is a problem certainly with respect to terrorists that are nongovernmental And it comes up as a problem it appears to me in dealing with the targeting of the Taliban the ethical problem of dealing with the targeting of the Taliban but also in future situations in which the United States might feel compelled under the Bush doctrine to go after those who harbor terrorists What kind of a problem is that for the just war ethic and how can that be dealt with either in the Islamic tradition or in the Christian tradition of just war Mottahedeh Well it is very interesting During the Iranian hostage crisis I wrote an article about why from the point of view of Islamic law in general and Shiite law in particular Khomeini should behave in a slightly different way And it has to do with the principle which is very strong in Islamic law of safe conduct If someone comes to your territory even on the mistaken presumption that they have safe conduct and it is found out that they are not wanted they are to be led to the borders without harm So that is why I said that from the point of view of the Islamic moral dimension I think it is terribly important that we continually announce that for the surrender of Osama bin Laden and his entourage we will cease any hostility toward any portion of the Afghan people I think that was one of the principles that should have protected our diplomats in Teheran Safe conduct is also one of the interesting ways in which Islamic law was violated on September 11th Anybody who has entered the United States with a visa has absolutely no right to do any hostile act to the United States So the majority were violating the Islamic law as to the conditions of safe conduct in even this very primitive sense Hehir You really have to reshape the ethic when the nature of war changes or the nature of the challenge changes That is very clear in the nuclear age There is a re doing of the ethic in order to think about questions like deterrence which is not how you fight the war but what you do when you are not fighting the war I think there is the same kind of thing going on now When you look at the kind of policy problem we face you can take the president s definition of it to start the discussion You are facing a transnational terrorist network His argument is that he is going after the network and going after the states that harbor the network I think you have to break that out into 3 different categories and test it out in different situations First is the actual group of terrorists themselves What kind of evidence do you show the world that they in fact fit that definition Evidence here I think is really important to the credibility of the moral argument evidence of what you are talking about Second is the relationship between the terrorist group and the state I think in Afghanistan the case is fairly clearly drawn I think you could draw credible links in Afghanistan Beyond Afghanistan I think that question is going to get much more complicated For example if you say there is a state and a terrorist group in the state to automatically say that state is harboring terrorists seems to me to be a jump They may be putting up with what they cannot get rid of They may know or not know a lot about what is going on Think of Lebanon in the 1970s On Lebanese soil there were loads of terrorist groups The idea that the state of Lebanon had the capacity to do anything about that I think is very problematic So if we have a Lebanon case again what are you going to do with that There are other situations like the Philippines where clearly we are not going to say that the state is at fault but you might argue that there is a terrorist group linked to al Qaeda in the south of the Philippines So I want to distinguish between the terrorist group the state involved and the connection between the two And even if you can define that linkage precisely there still is the third group wider civil society which cannot be swept up either into the state or the terrorist group And so once again you are back to noncombatant immunity and civilian society The final point is that the argument about what is next after Afghanistan it seems to me is a highly highly complicated problematic argument You are not going to take this show out on the road and start moving through 60 countries You would become international disorder in the name of fighting for order So the question is what do you do The Iraq debate is interesting in itself There are clearly some people in the Iraq debate who have been waiting to hit Saddam Hussein for 10 years and want to use this as the occasion That seems to me not to be justified If you can make specific cases about terrorism etc it is a different question But it seems to me there is a very large question about what is beyond Afghanistan and what has been labeled a worldwide campaign What linkage and what steps Question I have a fairly simple question In either the Christian or the Islamic tradition can terrorism be morally justified To give some thought to that question let me ask for example in the situation where a nation with very great power assaults or puts at risk a nation with much less power is a terrorist response considered proportionate And also US policy now seems to regard the development of weapons of mass destruction as a form of terrorism Is holding those weapons and using them to establish our military authority over the rest of the world a form of terrorism Mottahedeh Well first of all I would like to point out that we have an example of terrorism in the Bible Samson brings down the temple of the Philistines without any concern for collateral damage and nobody seems to have noticed it or criticized him for it That aside can terrorism be justified within the Islamic tradition You know a tradition can be put to any use you want There was a point at which people said that suicide bombing had something to do with the traditions of Shiism because during the war between Iran and Iraq many Iranians participated in suicidal attacks and the Shiite Hizbollah in Southern Lebanon seemed to be inclined to do this kind of thing And then it became clear that these attitudes had nothing particularly to do with Shiism Such suicidal attacks are currently undertaken by people in the Gaza Strip where the populations consists of Sunni Muslims The Real IRA has undertaken such attacks without any particular consideration for Catholic doctrine I don t think we should say Can the tradition justify it Any tradition can be put to extra work to justify almost anything But is the learned Islamic tradition as a whole largely accepting of terrorism No There is a somewhat related question which has always bothered me and I feel I do not have an answer for it People say If nations use atomic weapons do not other nations have the right to use the poor man s atomic weapons such as biological warfare Of course I am strongly against the use of both but I do think we face difficult moral questions when we assume that we have a right to weapons of mass destruction but the have nots have no right either to these weapons or their equivalents Hehir Definition here is part of the debate that we are in There is not a consensual definition of terrorism People have struggled with it in different ways The way I would try and get hold of the question is to try to go back to some of the categories of just war Who has the authority to invoke the use of force For what purpose And by what means Then that gives you at least neutral terms terrorist is not a neutral term to be able to parse out the argument For example if you look at a simple case simple in the sense of the tradition it is can the just war doctrine which is usually a moral tradition which endows the state with the right to use force to protect the society become a just revolution doctrine Is it possible to justify action against the state political authority given to someone else The answer is yes Much less work has been done on this question than on just war but Thomas Aquinas said that when the government becomes the enemy of the common good the enemy of everyone then the implicit argument is that political authority no longer rests with the state Now the difficult question is where does it go If it leaves the state which group can claim it And that is where you get into very difficult arguments But the point is that it is possible to take the use of force which belongs to the state and take it away from the state because of the way the state acts Now that is within a domestic context You still then are bound by the purposes for which the new group would use force and then finally the methods and means In defining terrorism it is perhaps easiest to focus on the means questions and argue against it from that point of view to argue against means As I said earlier that is often not always but often where a terrorist action will proceed because you can have soft targets and therefore you can use unconventional means and soft methods In this area terrorism gets ruled out because I really do think you have got to hold everybody to just means Now that raises then the questions of weapons of mass destruction This does go back to the question of US policy or the policy of the West and how it is viewed in the world My teaching colleague Stanley Hoffman has written the best piece on this question He has laid out several areas where there are objective reasons for people to be upset Concerning the question of weapons of mass destruction many people in this room know about this problem that the nonproliferation policy is based on an assumption

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=721&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • A Conversation with the Presidents - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    the Academy Bulletin Magazine of the Academy Books Research Papers Monographs and Project Publications Meetings Overview Induction 2015 Upcoming Meetings and Events Friday Forum 2015 2016 Schedule Past Meetings and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password A Conversation with the Presidents 1852nd Stated Meeting The Century Association New York NY Lee C Bollinger Columbia University John Sexton New York University November 28 2001 On November 28th the Academy will hold a Stated Meeting this year in New York City featuring A Conversation with the Presidents Speakers will include Academy President Patricia Meyer Spacks and Fellows Lee Bollinger president designate of Columbia University and John Sexton president designate of New York University Participants will discuss challenges facing educational institutions and learned societies The event is also for New York area Fellows who not have not had the opportunity to participate in an Induction Ceremony within the past two years For more information please call our Events Office at 617 576 5040 Upcoming Meetings and Other Events

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?i=722 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Engineering the Ocean - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password Engineering the Ocean 1850th Stated Meeting Monterey Bay Aquarium Monterey CA Marcia K McNutt Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute November 3 2001 The 1850th Stated Meeting under the auspices of the Western Center will be held at the Monterey Bay Aquarium in Monterey California It will feature a talk by Marcia McNutt President and CEO of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute Dr McNutt will present a series of scenarios for man s intervention in the ocean which may end up helping or hurting mankind New systems are already brining about a revolution in our ability to explore experiment within and ultimately understand Earth s last frontier the ocean The question is whether we will be wise enough to avoid inadvertently destroying it With man s intervention in the ocean will there be the intelligence to understand the implications of our actions the humility to admit what we do not know and the unselfishness to take the long

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=723&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • National Induction Ceremony - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    User Name Password Forgot your password National Induction Ceremony American Academy to Induct 2001 Fellows October 9 2001 Patricia Meyer Spacks the American Academy of Arts and Science s 45th President will preside over the 2001 American Academy Induction ceremony on October 13th in Cambridge MA The Academy s first woman president Spacks is a leading authority on 18th century English literature Speakers at the ceremony include several of the newly inducted Fellows to the prestigious American Academy the nation s leading learned society Former U S Secretary of State Madeleine Albright music producer Quincy Jones Qualcomm founder Irwin Jacobs stem cell researcher Brigid Hogan Humanities Professor Andrew Delbanco and SunAmerica Chairman Eli Broad are scheduled to address the Academy membership The talks will be given as part of a daylong celebration honoring this year s class of new Academy Members The American Academy was founded in 1770 by John Adams and other scholar patriots to to cultivate every art and science which may tend to advance the interest honor dignity and happiness of a free independent and virtuous people The current membership of over 3 700 Fellows and 600 Foreign Honorary Members includes more than 150 Nobel laureates and 50 Pulitzer Prize winners Drawing on the wide ranging expertise of its membership the Academy conducts thoughtful innovative non partisan studies on international security social policy education and the humanities This year s class of new Members of 185 Fellows and 26 Foreign Honorary Members include writer Luc Sante former Amgen CEO Gordon Binder World Wide Web inventor Timothy Berners Lee economist and chess grandmaster Kenneth Rogoff historian and Revson Foundation President Eli Evans microbiologist Anthony Cerami musicologist and University of Chicago president Don Randel syndicated columnist Geneva Overholser photographer Richard Avedon Tony winning lyricist Stephen Sondheim former U S

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=724&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • Race in America: Looking Back, Looking Forward - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    America with a talk by one of this country s most eminent historians John Hope Franklin Drawing on his extensive research on the history of race in America he reflected on the trials and achievements of African Americans in the past and the challenges they face in the future Mr Franklin s numerous publications include The Emancipation Proclamation The Militant South The Free Negro in North Carolina Reconstruction After the Civil War and A Southern Odyssey Travelers in the Antebellum North His classic work From Slavery to Freedom A History of African Americans was originally published in 1947 and is now in its eighth edition 2000 The book spans the period from ancestral Africa to the present with each new edition offering an updated examination of the struggle toward racial equality the accompanying setbacks and unfolding social change In 1990 a collection of essays covering his teaching and writing career of fifty years was published as Race and History Selected Essays 1938 1988 The recipient of many honors Mr Franklin has been awarded the Jefferson Medal of the Council for the Advancement and Support of Education the NAACP s Springarn Medal and the Presidential Medal of Freedom the highest civilian honor In addition he has received honorary degrees from more than one hundred colleges and universities Throughout his career he has served on many national commissions and delegations most recently as the chair of the advisory board for President Clinton s Initiative on Race He is the past president of the American Studies Association the Southern Historical Association the United Chapters of Phi Beta Kappa the Organization of American Historians and the American Historical Association In 1995 the John Hope Franklin Research Center was founded at Duke to collect preserve and promote books manuscripts and other documents relating to the

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=726&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Changing Climate for Nuclear Power in the United States - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    Events Friday Forum 2015 2016 Schedule Past Meetings and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password The Changing Climate for Nuclear Power in the United States 1846th Stated Meeting Cambridge Richard A Meserve US Nuclear Regulatory Commission With an introduction by Dr Ernest Moniz MIT April 11 2001 Richard Meserve chairman of the US Nuclear Regulatory Commission NRC addressed the Academy s 1846th Stated Meeting and gave an overview of how economic deregulation reinforced by the problems in California is radically altering the climate for nuclear power With capital costs largely amortized and with relatively low operating costs existing nuclear plants which already supply 20 percent of the nation s electricity are seen as increasingly valuable Dr Meserve reviewed the challenges the revived interest in nuclear power poses for the NRC With some saying that as many as 80 percent of the nation s 103 nuclear plants are likely to seek renewal of operating licenses Dr Meserve noted that the NRC has improved its capacity to perform high quality technically sound reviews in a timely fashion As interest in new reactor construction grows the commission has put in place a more efficient set of procedures to certify proposed designs backed by a strengthened research program to ensure the safety of new concepts The NRC has also embarked on a far reaching program to overhaul its oversight of nuclear plants through the adoption of risk informed regulation Drawing on insights gained from four decades of operating experience and from advances in probabilistic risk assessment the NRC s new framework focuses increased regulatory and licensee attention on those

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=727&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • William T. Golden Receives 2001 Scholar-Patriot Award - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    organizations Through his wise counsel and visionary leadership Bill Golden has exerted tremendous influence over the development of science policy in the post World War II period both here and abroad said James O Freedman President of the Academy In more than 60 years of patriotic service to this country in and out of government Bill has served as a leading example of what John Adams and our other founders envisioned as the engaged intellectual Freedman added The Scholar Patriot Award is among the Academy s highest honors According to Chief Executive Officer Leslie Berlowitz The award honors individuals who embody the Academy s 221 year old commitment to promoting the arts and sciences in the service of the community and the nation Last year s award went to Leo L Beranek a pioneer of modern acoustics and an early contributor to the development of the Internet Golden s distinguished career of service to the nation began as a naval officer during World War II when he received several Letters of Commendation for inventing an antiaircraft device In 1950 President Truman asked Golden to serve as an advisor to help mobilize the nation s scientific resources His recommendations contained in what are now widely known as the Golden Memoranda established the foundation for a presidential science advisory system and detailed a program for the National Science Foundation Golden co authored and edited three books on science advising to the top levels of government His government work also included roles at the Atomic Energy Commission the Department of State and the second Hoover Commission Golden has helped advance public support of both the sciences and the humanities through a lifetime of service to many of the nation s leading scientific cultural and educational organizations In addition to his role as the chair emeritus of the American Museum of Natural History Golden has made unparalleled contributions as a board member and trustee of the American Association for the Advancement of Science Barnard College the Central Park Conservancy Mount Sinai Medical Center the National Humanities Center and the New York Academy of Sciences In 1996 he received the Public Welfare Medal the highest honor accorded by the National Academy of Sciences In the citation presented to him by President Freedman and Academy Fellow Margaret E Mahoney Golden was lauded for his lifetime of energy generosity and dedication to public life and for serving as a catalyst for the ideas and institutions that forged a new bond between science and government a bond that endures to this day The citation concluded We honor your conviction that devoting one s life to public service to the world of learning and to the great institutions of this country is the best way to perpetuate a democratic and civil society As the American Academy embarks on its third century we are honored to be the fortunate beneficiary of your wisdom and guidance Today s event also marked the 1845th Stated Meeting of the Academy a tradition that

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=728&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive

  • The Physicist as Novelist - American Academy of Arts & Sciences
    2015 Upcoming Meetings and Events Friday Forum 2015 2016 Schedule Past Meetings and Events Fellowships Overview Visiting Scholars Program Hellman Fellowship in Science and Technology Policy Policy Fellowship in the Humanities Education and the Arts Policy Fellowship in Global Security and International Affairs The Exploratory Fund Member Login User Name Password Forgot your password The Physicist as Novelist 1844th Stated Meeting Cambridge Speaker Alan Lightman MIT Commentator Philip Morrison MIT March 14 2001 At the March Stated Meeting in Cambridge Alan Lightman discussed some of his experiences as a physicist and writer and consider the nature of the two communities of scientists and writers the similarities and differences in their ways of working and thinking and in their approaches to truth In particular he focused on the importance of naming or not naming things framing problems in terms of questions and answers certainty versus uncertainty the role of invention in science and in art the different kinds of truth and the nature of the creative moment Lightman s work in astrophysics focuses on the fundamental radiation processes and gravitational dynamics in space His literary writings deal primarily with the human and artistic dimensions of science Among his most recent works are three novels The Diagnosis Good Benito and Einstein s Dreams and a collection of essays and fables Dance for Two His books have been translated into thirty languages In 1996 he received the Andrew Gemant Award of the American Institute of Physics for linking science to the humanities Philip Morrison is a theoretical physicist who has worked to advance the public understanding of science through print film and television For more than thirty years he served as the regular book reviewer for Scientific American he and his wife Phylis coauthored Powers of Ten and write a monthly column Wonders

    Original URL path: https://www.amacad.org/content/events/events.aspx?d=729&t=4&s=0 (2016-02-13)
    Open archived version from archive



  •