So he moved to Alaska.

“I picked Juneau thinking it was the largest city in the state since it was the capital. It wasn’t,” he said, laughing at his innocence. He didn’t know it then, but his misjudgment would prove inconsequential. His yet-to-be-lived career would fly him to the world’s most cosmopolitan cities.

As founder and executive director of the Clean Washington Center (1991 to 2006), an environmental technology center in Seattle, Dougherty brought his vision – to assist U.S. companies in processing and finding markets for recyclable materials − to manufacturers and governments around the globe.

In 2007, his work for the United Kingdom was honored by Her Majesty, the Queen of England, Elizabeth II, who bestowed on him the title “Honorary Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire.”

Dougherty said he doesn’t know who nominated him (the process is shrouded in secrecy) or why he, in particular, was selected, but he left a prolific trail of crumbs that may lead to the reason.

His story begins nearly 50 years ago in a tiny capital city on the panhandle of southeast Alaska.

“You can make a difference if you believe in something and you push for it”

Dougherty got his start at 22 in the office of Alaska Gov. William Allen Egan, the state’s first governor. (Alaska was a territory and did not officially become a state until 1959.) Egan tasked a small team that included Dougherty to secure national funding to get anti-poverty programs going for the rural villages inhabited by Eskimos and Alaska natives. Their effort was part of the national Great Society program, a plan created by President Lyndon B. Johnson to eliminate poverty and racial injustice in the United States.

“That was really transforming,” Dougherty said. “Even though I was a junior guy I realized what an impact I could make. … I realized, ‘Gee, I can make a change.’ And these were substantial changes we were making up there. Not only did we bring Head Start, we brought electricity to these villages and created co-ops for them.”

Dougherty also took part in educating Eskimos and Alaska natives on their rights to their lands − “lands that had never been ‘bought’ from them (when the United States purchased Alaska from Russia in 1867),” Dougherty explained.

“So there was a land claims bill submitted to Congress to pay them for their land, but it wasn’t going anywhere until oil was discovered (in 1968) on the North Slope (the northernmost section of Alaska),” he said. “A judge ruled that the oil companies couldn’t build a pipeline through Alaska to Valdez until they knew who owned the land. So the oil companies jumped in with the natives and got them to push a settlement to the land-claims groups. In the end, the Eskimos and Indians received a huge settlement from the federal government, which then helped them create a more economic base and growth.”

This first job, he emphasized, “made it clear to me that you can make a difference if you believe in something and you push for it.” After several years, Dougherty and his family moved to Anchorage, where he served as assistant city manager. There he led an initiative to consolidate the city of Anchorage and all of its emerging, outlying suburbs – which had their own local governments – into one unified government. It had to go to vote, and it passed.

“I think Alaska was a good thing for me because it’s so sparsely populated that one young guy in his early 20s could make an impact,” he said.

Even so, after getting married and having two children in Alaska, Dougherty began to feel confined and isolated and wanted his kids to grow up in a bigger city with more opportunities.

Seattle and Tougher Challenges

After relocating to Seattle with his family, Dougherty took on “bigger” and “tougher” challenges as assistant director of the state’s Department of Trade and Economic Development.

Gov. Booth Gardner tasked Dougherty with helping smaller businesses get more financing, for which he created two programs − one in which the state of Washington allowed small business to make public stock offerings, an option available only to big business at the time. The other would create an economic development finance authority that would “sell nonrecourse bonds to help small business and economic expansion in the state,” Dougherty explained.

While hearing Dougherty’s testimony before the state legislative committee on behalf of his proposals (both of which passed after much effort), Maria Cantwell, the committee chair and now a U.S. senator (D-WA), played an inadvertent role in charting the course of his career.

She asked him to conduct a yearlong study to devise a plan for reducing Seattle’s ballooning collection of recyclables – a pile so massive the Wall Street Journal dubbed it “Mount Glassmore.”

Dougherty remembers how Cantwell broached the subject: “She said, ‘You know, the cities are collecting papers and plastics and glass. Where are the markets for those?’”

The question threw him for a loop. Dougherty responded with a laugh, “I don’t do garbage!”

One thing he did know: Seattle had started recycling plastic, paper, glass and aluminum, and they were piling up. He also knew the city was paying $20 per ton to ship the papers “to somewhere in Asia to do something with them,” he said.

After completing their study, Dougherty and his team “came to the conclusion that if you didn’t get the industry in your own region to figure out how to process that material and put it back into your own products then recycling wasn’t going to work. Because nobody wanted glass. Plastic companies certainly didn’t want plastic. And the paper industry could only take certain grades of paper.”

The study brought to light a number of conundrums. Dougherty asked himself: “What are the engineered properties (of the recyclable materials)? How do you process this stuff in an economical way so they can be put back into product?”

His answer to these challenging questions was the Clean Washington Center, which he created in 1991. The organization, an effective blend of industry experts and government officials, worked to create markets for recyclable material. Its offshoots continue its mission today.

The CWC was so successful that it soon received $4 million from the federal government to make its work available to other states.

Among its successes were developing markets for recyclables that resulted in an average of about $100 a year per household in avoided waste removal costs.

In 2001, Dougherty told online magazine Recycling Today, “This region has always had the capacity for paper, but we have also developed the capacity for plastics, too. Five years ago we had no capacity to use recycled plastics – mainly PET and HDPE. Now it is a different story. Our engineers went to plastic plants and helped them convert to recycled feedstock. The result is that now we have an annual capacity of 12 million pounds of PET and HDPE. … so that has worked really well.”

After helping several states develop similar programs, the CWC’s trail of success stories caught the attention of New Zealand. Hong Kong, Spain, Australia and Scotland followed suit.

That’s a WRAP

Dougherty remembers the fraught phone call he received from the United Kingdom in 2000: “I was up in Scotland helping them develop a program (Remade Scotland) when I got a call from a spokesman for the environment minister from the U.K. saying, ‘We are so far behind in recycling. … The European Union has set down regulations and if we don’t meet certain levels of recycling we get financial fines. Could you set up a center for all of the U.K., including Northern Ireland?’”

The challenge he was up against was huge. And tough.

David Dougherty’s Officer of the Most Excellent Order of the British Empire medal. (Photo by Mark Brown)

Using the CWC as a template and £84 million from the British government, Dougherty acted as a special adviser to shape the work programs and strategy that culminated in WRAP (Waste and Resources Management Programme). Among his collaborators was WRAP founding chairman Vic Cocker CBE (Commander of the Order of the British Empire, a rank one notch above “Officer”), brother of rock musician Joe Cocker.

Liz Goodwin, CEO of WRAP, who worked with Dougherty in the organization’s infancy, attested, “There were a lot of market failures that needed to be addressed. Some of the issues were lack of awareness, lack of infrastructure to make it easy for people, lack of reprocessing – both technology and infrastructure – lack of end markets, lack of confidence in end markets and lack of standards.”

When WRAP first began, Goodwin said, “household recycling rates (in the U.K.) were around 10 percent compared to 43 percent today. We were just starting on the journey  to increase recycling. … There hadn’t been any real focus on end markets or developing markets for the materials that were collected. There was very little infrastructure.”

WRAP was, and continues to be, a success. Its achievements include helping the U.K. recycling and reprocessing sector to quadruple in size between 2000 and 2008,  diverting 670,000 tons of food from landfills, decreasing growth in household packaging waste and developing a “world-first technology for the closed-loop recycling of plastic bottles, which has led to the creation of a new market for recycled plastics in the U.K.,” according to its website.

Dougherty’s work on WRAP did not go unnoticed.

He remembered, “I got a call at 5 a.m. from the British Embassy. He informed me ‘You have been to the U.K. a lot.’ And I thought ‘Uh oh, I’m going to need a working visa. This is not good.’”

But the man continued: “‘ … your significant contributions to the United Kingdom and other countries have been noticed, and noticed at the highest level. This culminates six months of research on you, and I’m calling to tell you Her Majesty wishes to bestow one of the highest titles on you for your contributions to the world.’”

The honor is not given liberally. Notably, that year Bono was named an honorary Knight Commander of the OBE. Few Americans have received the title. Gen. George S. Patton and Bob Hope are among the Americans honored with the title “Officer.”

A Reluctant Tree Hugger

Thinking restrospectively on his career, Dougherty said, “To be honest, I was more attracted to the prospect of making recycling work than answering a calling to be an environmentalist. My wife is more of an environmentalist than I am.”

But when you spend a couple hours with him, it becomes clear he harbors an inner tree hugger.

“I’ve never seen this as a waste issue. It was always a materials efficiency issue,” Dougherty said. “Once you take down a natural resource, how do you use it many, many times before you eventually have to discard it? As the population continues to expand, these resources are going to get scarce.”

When he reminisces about how far recycling has come in the United States and his small part in its progress, his eyes light up: “When we started recycling it was just glass, paper and aluminum. And then we expanded to plastic. With paper in the beginning they could only take certain grades of fiber, but now they can take all grades. That’s a true example of recycling. We used to cut a tree down to make the Sunday paper and it had a 20-minute life span before you threw it away. Now that same fiber gets used seven or eight times before it gets thrown away.”

In addition to his work with governments, Dougherty has innovated technologies for recycling discarded material into usable, marketable products for corporate clients. He worked with Adidas, turning shoe scraps – canvas, plastic, leather – into artificial turf and other products. In a collaboration with the Miami Heat, he worked with engineers to turn tire rubber and shoe scrap into better cushioning for the team’s practice court. He also helped facilitate the invention of rubberized asphalt from ground-up car tires,
an innovation that is laid on California roads by law and has been implemented in several other states.

“You’ve got to use those resources because this planet is going to have a lot more people and it has got be able to stretch its resources. To me it was always an issue of using our natural resources more intelligently,” the environmentalist in him said. Retired for a few years now, Dougherty “found a new challenge: working with Seattle Historic Parks.” As a board member, he is leading an initiative to create a conservatory for each of the budget-tight city’s 18 deteriorating historic parks.

In his long and decorated career, Dougherty traveled a path that took him around the world and transformed him into many things: executive, government worker, officer, problem solver, believer, even, arguably, environmentalist.

But when reflecting on the whole of his career, Dougherty’s choice of words evoke the spirit of a 22-year-old adventurer who once made his way from Minnesota to Alaska in 1965: “I didn’t plan this. I just followed the road.”

Read more from St. Thomas Magazine.

The multiple-award-winning documentary “Justice for My Sister” will be shown at 7 p.m. Monday, April 15, in Room 126 of the John R. Roach Center for the Liberal Arts on the university’s St. Paul campus.

The film will be followed by a question-and-answer session with Kimberly Bautista, its producer and director. “My hope is that audiences from all walks of life will be moved to recognize the violence in our own communities and take a stand against it,” she said.

Adela at age 27.

The program is free and open to the public. The film is in Spanish with English subtitles. The discussion with Bautista will be translated from Spanish to English and from English to Spanish.

The feature-length documentary begins with the story of a 27-year-old Guatemalan, Adela, who left for work one day and never returned. Her ex-boyfriend beat her until she was unrecognizable and left her at the side of road.

Despite dismal odds, Adela’s sister Rebeca takes on Guatemala’s corrupt legal system in a three-year fight to bring the ex-boyfriend to justice. Of the 6,000 cases of women murdered in Guatemala over the past decade, only 2 percent of their killers were sentenced.

A trailer for the film can be seen here.

The April 15 program includes the sale of Guatemalan crafts; free-will offerings will be accepted. Checks may be made out to La Paz International Inc. All proceeds go to provide financial support for Rebeca, the subject of the film, and Olga, another Guatemalan woman who lives with her children in poverty.

The program is co-sponsored by St. Thomas’ College of Arts and Sciences, Office of Student Diversity and Inclusion Services,  Luann Dummer Center for Women, and the departments of History, Political Science, Women’s Studies, Family Studies, Justice and Peace Studies, Modern and Classical Languages, and Sociology.

While at St. Thomas, Petersen, who is from Albert Lea, Minn., conducted both a Young Scholars research project, dealing with discretionary spending in the U.S. House of Representatives, and a Collaborative Inquiry research project dealing with female congressional candidates and primary elections.

Petersen, 22, had planned to attend graduate school, but he decided to take a break first in order to increase his experience and build his résumé.

“A couple of professors suggested that I take a break from the classroom and do some real-world research to get a better idea of what to expect in graduate school,” Petersen said in an interview. “They suggested that I start applying to think tanks and government agencies.”

The Federal Reserve Board was one of the agencies he applied to, and his St. Thomas research was “definitely a talking point in the interview.”

His Young Scholars research project analyzed newly available data on discretionary, or “earmark,” spending in the U.S. House of Representatives. After testing two empirical models, he noted, “The results indicated that in the 2010 election, earmark spending had no statistically significant impact on either campaign contributions or incumbent re-election likelihood.”

He presented his research at the Midwest Political Science Association Conference in April 2012 in Chicago. “While I was there, I learned that I was doing the right thing for me,” Petersen remarked, “because most of the people there already had Ph.D.s or were grad students … which helped solidify that I wanted to pursue some sort of advanced degree in either political science or economics.”

His Collaborative Inquiry research project examined whether female congressional candidates were more likely to win their primary elections after the success of Hillary Clinton and Sarah Palin during the 2008 election season. His research determined that, as of the 2010 election, there has been “no statistically significant change with respect to women winning primary congressional elections.”

Petersen points out that he benefited from being able to work closely with a faculty member, his research adviser Dr. Monica Hartmann, Economics Department, College of Arts and Sciences, which gave him individual input on his work, and time to write and rewrite several drafts of his projects as well as explore additional questions that arose during the research process.

“The experience that I got from my research at St. Thomas transfers over really well into what I’m doing right now,” Petersen said. Although he can’t disclose what he is working on at the Federal Reserve Board, he did summarize his job as assisting economists in carrying out their work.

Graduate school is still in his plans, however. “I still have to figure out what I’m most passionate about. I’m fortunate to be exposed to a wide variety of fascinating things in D.C. that I should be able to figure that out in the next couple of years,” Petersen said. “But right now it’s looking like it’ll be some sort of quantitative political science or economics.”

No doubt, further research will be required.

Editor’s note: Tyler Petersen’s research was conducted with assistance from the Grants and Research Office’s Summer Housing Grant Program, Student Travel Grant Program, and Young Scholars Grant Program.

He was approached by a group of young men who struck up a conversation about the pants he was wearing. The group was very complimentary to him and began to take an apparent closer interest, pulling at the cuffs and examining the material. It was clear their motives were not to praise his fashion sensibility. As Rheinberger strategized his next move, it was too late. His pass­port had been taken and would be held hostage until he paid a ransom to get it back.

A situation like this might rattle the typical American traveling abroad, but Rheinberger remained cool. Promising payment, he coaxed the thieves back to a location near his hotel – and its security – where he could safely make an exchange. In the end, he lost a few dollars but ultimately got his passport back.

While the experience was far from enjoyable, it was one he was able to take in stride as a seasoned globe-trotter. Rheinberger has set foot in every country in the world – all 196 of them. And the nearly 40-year journey has taught him many lessons, not the least of which is how to get out of a sticky situation.

Rheinberger’s first curiosity with travel began when he was a child. He recalls long road trips with his parents while growing up during the ’50s and ’60s, a time when it was fashionable to travel by car and see the country. By the age of 18, he had visited 46 states.

“I really liked the momentum of the car. Everywhere I looked, there was something new to see,” he said. “I liked the idea of the unknown – the illusion of excitement visiting places I’d never seen before.”

But as he grew, Rheinberger understood there was so much more to see. “It’s like a dog chasing the car – if I ran and didn’t catch it, there was always something else.”

A planner from the start

As a student at St. Thomas in the late 1960s, Rheinberger spent a lot of time thinking about his future. He allowed himself to be exposed to the differing ideas of his classmates and professors; his own ideas began to develop as a result. Among them was the idea to complete his education – which he did in short order. He earned his undergraduate degree from St. Thomas in 33 months with a double major in history and political science.

As his ideas continued to grow, he created a list of life goals that if accomplished could lead him to a fulfilled life. It included everything from com­munity involvement to furthering his education. (Today, he holds six degrees, including an M.B.A. from St. Thomas.) It also included the goal of seeing the world through frequent travel, which he describes as one of his “cardinal desires in life.”

At first, Rheinberger simply aspired to see new places and experience new things. He didn’t set out to visit every country, but a friend helped open his mind to the possibility. On a whim, the pair rented a car and drove non­stop from St. Paul to Alaska and back in a week. “He was a good travel companion at the time because he had availability, a desire to see the world – and a credit card,” Rheinberger said. They continued to travel together and made their first trip across an ocean to Australia in 1978.

Even though he had been to Canada and Mexico, Rheinberger credits the Australia trip as his first true international experience. It also was the first trip in a yearlong schedule that brought him to three additional continents.

Six months after returning from Australia, Rheinberger em­barked on a whirlwind tour of western Europe. In December of that year, he took swings through South America and Africa. It was his first experience traveling alone, which soon became his modus ope­randi. In those early days, he made sure he took the time to soak in what he was experiencing. “When I was younger, there was a sense of wonderment with each new country,” he said of his first trip through Africa, where he took in sights such as Victoria Falls, Lake Tanganyika, the Great Pyramids and the Suez Canal.

In 1979, after taking a trip through the Soviet Union, it was time for a break. Rhienberger entered law school and, con­sequently, entered a time in his life when he would focus on building his career and starting a business. (He is a tax and estate planning attorney in Stillwater, Minn.) He didn’t leave the country again until a 1990 tour for the U.S. Army Reserves brought him back to Europe – the only trip he took for professional reasons, during which he was able to acquire his 107th country, Lichtenstein.

Every country has a story

Ask Rheinberger about his travel experiences on a philosophi­cal level and he tends to talk in metaphors about reaching for lofty goals and always coming up with new ideas. But ask him about a specific country he has visited and you will learn that each one has a story.

There is no shortage of anec­dotes, including how he got the best sleep of his life while traveling on the Trans-Siberian Railway or how he was approached by a wealthy-looking gen­tleman in an Ecuadoran restaurant with an offer to spend an evening with a pros­titute, an offer he respectfully declined.

Rheinberger also shares a harrowing story about a trip to Zaire, a country that he ranks as his worst to visit. “Zaire has the worst airport safeguards in the world – and that’s the least of its problems,” according to Rheinberger, who discovered when he arrived that there was a national strike in progress. “The airport is located 15 miles from town, but there is no transportation provided to get back and forth,” he said. To get around meant bribing corrupt military and government officials. After spending one night and nearly missing his opportunity to leave while getting harassed at an airport check-in, Rheinberger was happy to cross Zaire off his list.

Another lesser-traveled destination was reached on an ex­cursion to Antarctica. “If you have a group of people who claim they’ve been to Antarctica, you’ll know which one is telling the truth.” According to Rheinberger, when asked about the most memorable attribute of the icy continent, some might expect to hear about the water or the cold. “They’re lying. Because if you’ve ever been there, the most vivid memory you have is the smell.” Apparently, there are no pooper scoopers on Antarctica, and in a place where penguins have the run of the land, things tend to pile up over time.

Logistics

When choosing destinations, Rheinberger likes to focus on capital cities. “The capital is the cultural center of a country. You can see a lot in a short amount of time,” he said. “I also find that you get a real experience by staying in the city.”

By immersing himself in the capital cities, he allows him­self to experience what locals might feel, unlike what he refers to as the “National Geographic” perception, which tends to be a single person’s account of an individual moment that most people would never experience.

Rheinberger also finds that capital cities offer the best ac­commodations. When it comes to where he rests his head, he spares no expense. He stays at four- and five-star hotels whenever possible for several reasons. “You get what you pay for in a lot of ways,” he said. “I like to stay at well-known places because taxi drivers know where they are, they have the best security, they are usually centrally located and they almost always have good restaurants.”

When it comes to food, you might expect that he’s sampled some of the strangest delicacies the world has to offer. On the contrary, “I like burgers and fries, and you can get that in almost every country.” And when there are no other viable options, “There’s always a McDonald’s.”

But even American food can have its shortcomings in certain parts of the world. While visiting Bhutan, a country in the Himalaya Mountains, Rheinberger ordered a burger at a sup­posed high-end restaurant. Over time, he had learned to ask about the origins of food he was about to eat to avoid any diges­tive interruptions. Upon asking his server, he learned that all of the country’s beef came from India, where cows are allowed to die of natural causes before being exported. A red flag arose when he learned how long it took for the beef to be transported. “I wasn’t taking any chances on beef that had spent a week or more on a push cart coming up the mountains to Bhutan.”

Although there are a few downsides, Rheinberger mostly prefers to travel alone as it’s much easier to handle logistics of only one person, particularly toward the end of his “list” when he says visiting countries became much more mechanical.

“In the beginning, I had a lot more of a sense of wonder about the new places I was seeing,” he said. “It became more about cross­ing countries off my list toward the end. The differences between ‘good’ and ‘bad’ places became irrelevant.”

Travel tips from the expert

As someone who has spent so much time in airports and ho­tels, Rheinberger often is asked for travel tips. For anyone hoping to match his accomplishment, he lists several suggestions:

Try to be the first person in line to check in at the airport and the first person on the plane. “In some countries, government offi­cials can override your seating,” he said. “The first person to sit in a seat gets to keep it, even if there are two people assigned to the seat. Your carry-on luggage has to fit, too.”

When arriving in a foreign country, try to be the first person through customs. According to Rheinberger, “This guarantees a better shot at getting a taxi and helps you avoid any extortion by the remaining taxi drivers – if one exists at all.”

Do not rely on wake-up calls. “About one-third of them fail, regardless of hotel quality. You should always get one, but only count on it as a back-up.” Rheinberger doesn’t travel with an alarm clock, but has his own system: “Drink water before you go to bed, you’ll wake up eventually.”

While getting around in an unfamiliar place, don’t be afraid to ask questions of the locals, but use the rule of three. “Ask three people the same question, if at least two people have the same an­swer, that’s probably the right one,” he said.

 Never forget your ideas

According to Rheinberger, “St. Thomas is a dangerous place.”

And that’s coming from someone who has traveled to such per­ceived dangerous places as Afganistan, Yemen and Somalia, where, incidentally, he says he felt quite safe. “Because people are so con­cerned with where they’ll find their next meal that they don’t have the luxury to commit a crime.”

With regard to his St. Thomas experience, the “danger factor” is in the learning and sharing of ideas and where those ideas can lead you. In Rheinberger’s case, they led him around the world over the course of nearly 40 years. “St. Thomas is a cradle of ideas,” he said. “None of this would have happened if I hadn’t been involved when I was a student. I wouldn’t have had the tools.”

In November 2011, Rheinberger stepped into Somalia and, at that moment, his 196th country. What’s next for the man who spent much of his life traveling the world? Some pursuits are yet to be determined, but he is sure of one thing, “You always have to plan for tomorrow, you have to initiate it. Never forget your ideas.”

Read more from St. Thomas magazine

The Cool Talk series is sponsored by the university’s Murphy Institute for Catholic Thought, Law and Public Policy.

The series, which explores Catholic positions and other perspectives on provocative issues of law and policy, will focus this year on the challenges of religious freedom around the world and address topics such as anti-Sharia laws in the United States, religious freedom and progressive politics, and public education, vouchers and charter schools.

“There is much to be discussed about religious freedom at this point in our history – beyond the current U.S. flash points emerging from the controversy surrounding the health-care mandate,” said Dr. Don Briel, director of the Center for Catholic Studies at St. Thomas.

Bishop Charles Morerod

“It’s important to examine the many threats to religious liberty around the world so we can better understand what freedoms are at stake both here and abroad. It is timely, too, as we approach the 50th anniversary of one of the most significant documents of the Second Vatican Council – Dignitatus Humanae – the Declaration on Religious Freedom. The preparatory discussions for the document, promulgated by Pope Paul VI in 1965, began in 1962,” he said.

Speaking at the first lecture in this year’s series will be the Most Rev. Charles Morerod, 50, who since November has been bishop of the diocese of Fribourg, Lausanne and Geneva, Switzerland. He will speak on “Vatican II’s Declaration on Religious Freedom: The View from Europe.”

Prior to his appointment as a bishop in Switzerland, Morerod spent 15 years in Rome, most recently as rector of the Pontifical University of St. Thomas Aquinas, also called the Angelicum. He also has served as secretary general of the International Theological Commission and as a consultant to the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In June he was named to the Congregation for Catholic Education.

A member of the Dominican order and a native of Switzerland, Morerod was ordained a priest in 1988. He holds a doctorate in philosophy from the Catholic University of Toulouse and a doctorate in theology from the University of Fribourg. An editor of the journal “Nova et Vetera,” he has written on the doctrinal and philosophical aspects of ecumenism.

While serving at the Angelicum, Morerod was academic director of the Rome program for University of St. Thomas’ Catholic studies students.

For information about future programs in the series, including an Oct. 23 program on the dangers of anti-Sharia laws, visit the Terrence J. Murphy Institute website.

Application has been made for an “elimination of bias” continuing-legal-education credit.

Related “Hot Topics: Cool Talk” program: Sept. 25 lunch and forum

Bishop Charles Morerod, along with Father Reginald Whitt, O.P., a professor of law at St. Thomas, will discuss “Vatican II on Religious Freedom: European and American Perspectives” at a 12:30 to 1:30 p.m. luncheon program on Tuesday, Sept. 25, in Room 235 of the School of Law on St. Thomas’ Minneapolis campus.

The lunch and program are free and open to the public but registration is required. To register and for more information, visit the Terrence J. Murphy Institute website.

Proving the point that the best projects are those that can take advantage of unforeseen opportunities, the partnership was deepened substantially with the addition of Renee Buhr to the department’s faculty in 2008. Buhr’s appointment grew out of a 10-year review process, which determined that there was a need to more aggressively develop our capacity in the field of international relations and comparative politics. The result was the addition of two faculty members, Dr. Arijit Mazumdar, who specializes in the politics of South Asia, and Buhr, who brought with her an interest both in nationalities studies and post-Soviet countries.Since Buhr’s arrival, we have developed a number of research projects, at the core of which lie issues related to the politics and expressions of national identity, a notion widely assumed but one that can be conceptualized in many, and very different, ways. Some scholars adhere to a “civic” notion of identity that emphasizes loyalty to the state and its values; others ascribe to an ethnic- or language- based identity.Consider the case of the United States. For some, being a “real American” means accepting and acting upon core beliefs such as democracy, human rights, religious tolerance and so on. Others identify certain symbols that embody attributes central to their idea of the American character. These types of ‘civic nationalism’ are necessary for a state lacking a common ancestral heritage.

For other countries, however, it is ancestry, or at least the ability to claim a common ancestry, that makes the nation and ultimately legitimizes the actions of the state. “Primordialists” argue that it is the lure of ancient histories, customs, folkways and myths that allows the modern state to so powerfully affect the sentiments and actions of its citizens.Understanding Belarusian nationalism is much more than an interesting academic exercise. Not only is Belarus one of a number of states that comprise Russia’s “near abroad” while simultaneously resting on the border of the European Union, it, along with Ukraine, serves as a primary transitway for Russian gas supplies that, at least in the near-term, are crucial to satisfying western Europe’s energy appetites. Unrest occurring throughout the region, i.e., Georgia, Kyrgyzstan, and quite possibly Ukraine in the near future, and the dangers such unrest poses to U.S., European and Russian relations, offer some stark reminders as to why policymakers should take an interest not only in Belarus but in the many other post-Soviet states.¹For many, particularly for those who harbor the idea of a re-emergent greater Russia, the idea of Belarusian nationhood is fundamentally suspect. These skeptics argue that Belarusians are essentially brothers to Russians and Ukrainians and that the country lacks even the rudimentary elements of a primordial nation. They also point out that the borders of the state are largely the product of a Soviet nationalities policy that more often than not arbitrarily assigned ethnicities and territories. On the other hand, there are others who hope that Belarus will embrace its Western roots from the time of the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth, and join with the rest of “Europe” in opposition to its Russian neighbor.Neither of these outcomes seems very likely. Based in part upon two recent BSU administered surveys developed in partnership with Shadurski, we are of the opinion that despite the difficulty of identifying primordially grounded nationalist identifiers, i.e., language, religion, folk heroes and the like, there nonetheless is emerging a fairly pronounced civic nationalism that would find little to approve of in a foreign policy that tilts strongly either East or West.² Instead, a third way, or what Grigori Loffe refers to as a “creole” foreign policy would resonate most strongly with a population anxious to assert a strongly independent Belarusian presence and newly discovered sense of self. Whether the regime can sustain such a course in the face of a West still leery of authoritarianism and a Russia apparently determined to maintain dominance in its near-abroad represents perhaps the most difficult foreign and domestic policy challenge facing the regime.The possibility of an emergent civic nationalism also raises some very interesting questions about ethnic Belarusians living outside of the “mother country.” Unlike émigré populations from Belarus’ neighbors, most notably Ukrainians and Lithuanians, transplanted Belarusians have seldom demonstrated strong cultural or diasporic sensibilities. For instance, while there are a number of identifiably Belarusian enclaves in the United States, there is little evidence of extended ties either among the enclaves or with “the folks back home” except as it concerns specific familial relationships. It is reasonable to speculate, however, that the successful establishment of a Belarusian state will bring with it the one thing that most diasporas need, namely a place to link back to both practically and in their collective imagination. Particularly if the Belarusian authorities are skillful in managing their relations with this population, we might well see the emergence of a true Belarusian diaspora.As we constantly tell our students, a successful research project is an equal mix of luck and hard work combined with a willingness to take advantage of unexpected opportunities. Our work in and about Belarus, a small country rich in history and promise, represents in full measure all of these qualities.¹ This fall, Renee Buhr is teaching a topics course on The Politics of Post-Soviet States.² The results of the surveys are reported in two papers co-authored by Buhr, Shadurski and Hoffman: “Post-Soviet Nationalism and an Emergent Russia: the Case of Belarus,” presented at the International Studies Association-Midwest/Central Slavic conference (November 2009); and “Constructed and Primordial Identity on the Edge of Russia: Belarus, Ukraine, and Lithuania in Comparative Perspective,” presented at the Association for the Study of Nationalities conference (April 2010). Both of the papers are under review for publication in professional journals.

Read more from CAS Spotlight

In a two-week period filled with great stories, this one stands out for me, as it demonstrates the unique and equalizing nature of a national political convention. Congressional representatives (of both major parties), U.S. senators, former presidential candidates, former presidents and well-known journalists walk the same halls and go through the same security gates as delegates and guests from every state and territory. And thanks to the Washington Center’s Campaign 2008 National Republican Convention seminar and strong support from Dean Marisa Kelly and Associate Dean Terry Langan, 11 St. Thomas students and I also were walking those halls.

Priming for Prime Time

It was my privilege to be the faculty leader for an exceptional group of students: Stephen Arves, Joslyn Bolson, Michael Connell, Andrew Engen, Alison Garbe, Alison Goossens, Tom Harriman, Emily McGann, Tiffany Orth, Kyle Roskam and Challee Stefani. They joined 90 other students from 44 colleges and universities from 19 states and two other countries for an exciting and intensive two-week seminar hosted by Augsburg College. The Washington Center is the only national academic program for college students at the conventions, and the program provides an integrated academic and fieldwork experience to help students learn about the presidential nomination process through an on-site immersion experience.

Fieldwork placements began a few months before the convention, with students providing résumés and statements of interest to the Washington Center. Students were then assigned fieldwork that would allow them to be in the “right place at the right time” to observe or participate in the convention. University of St. Thomas students were placed with the following media organizations: CNN, CBN News, Univision, European Pressphoto Agency, Cox News, Roll Call, Cat Country, Tribune Broadcasting, and “The Daily Show.”

The academic integrity of the program was guided by a faculty director and a scholar-in-residence, along with 13 faculty leaders from across the country, who worked with students in small groups. Rep. Mickey Edwards, a former member of Congress with expertise in constitutional issues, served as faculty director, and Dr. Meena Bose, a professor at Hofstra University with expertise in presidential studies, served as scholar-in-residence. The format for the seminar typically included speakers and panels in the morning, small group meetings in the afternoon, followed by fieldwork and/or convention-related activities. Students heard from an impressive array of speakers with a variety of perspectives over these two weeks. Highlights included Rep. Tim Penny, Minnesota State Representatives Patrick Garofalo and Steve Simon, Secret Service Special Agent David O’Connor, Arianna Huffington of the Huffington Post and 2008 Libertarian Party presidential nominee Bob Barr.

Discussions both within the seminar and in our small groups were enhanced by the reality that the Democratic National Convention was taking place during the first week of our seminar, allowing us to analyze particular speeches and anticipate what the Republican party’s response might be the following week. In addition to participation in these sessions and small-group discussions, students also were required to keep a daily, structured, academic journal of their analysis of the day’s speakers as well as reflection and integration of assigned readings and fieldwork experiences. They also had to conduct a required number of interviews with convention delegates, elected public officials at various levels of government, media representatives and political consultants, all of which were effective training in both assertiveness and networking, as well as a great excuse to meet interesting people.

The first night I stood in awe watching these influential figures in our American political system talk within a few hundred feet of me. It was like they jumped out of the television screen and onto the stage before me. I walked within feet of Lieberman, Coleman, Giuliani, Huckabee, Bob Dole, Cindy McCain, and I also got a wave from Sarah Palin. I shook the hands of Mitt Romney and Newt Gingrich, and even exchanged a “thank you!” with John McCain himself!

I got my picture taken with Bob Schieffer, managed to jump up and down behind Wolf Blitzer during a live broadcast of CNN until my parents saw me, and I was stopped by the Secret Service so the 41st President, George H.W. Bush, could walk past.

My amazement soon turned to determination, however, as my glimpse at one piece of the election puzzle left me longing for more involvement. I’ve been telling my friends and family ever since that I am determined to become a delegate for the state of Minnesota and in four years be back at the RNC representing our state.  

 - ALISON GARBE, SENIOR, WHO WORKED WITH THE EUROPEAN PRESSPHOTO AGENCY AT THE RNC

 

For the Love of Politics

This experience provided all of us with opportunities to do things we wouldn’t normally get to do, such as have daily discussions about politics with a former member of Congress, attend a media party at the Guthrie Theater, and be on the floor of the convention for a presidential or vice-presidential nomination acceptance speech. It also was simply invigorating to talk politics all day, every day, for two weeks straight.

The seminar’s first speaker, Jo Ann Davidson, co-chair of the Republican National Committee and chair of the Committee on Arrangements for the convention, compared a political convention to being in a football stadium when your team is winning. That description stuck with me as I wandered around the Xcel Energy Center, soaking it all in.

Not every student who participated in this seminar was a Republican, of course, but even Democrats or Libertarians could appreciate the spectacular display of democratic participation that they were witnessing either inside and/or outside the Xcel Energy Center. For those of us who love politics, it is difficult to not be moved by being that close to the action. As one of my Democratic students wrote about being on the floor for McCain’s acceptance speech on the last night of the convention, “I don’t know exactly where I’ll end up, but I know that politics is the place for me. As all those balloons and confetti fell, I felt great contentment and excitement within my heart. I wouldn’t have wanted to be anywhere else.”

The first thing everyone asked me was, “Wait, you’re a Republican now?!” I, of course, set the record straight, “No, I am doing this for a class. I get credit for it, and I am looking at it as an excellent, once in a lifetime opportunity to attend a political convention of this magnitude right here at home.” And this opportunity did not disappoint. I got to meet a number of well known politicians, volunteer for CNN, which meant meeting Wolf Blitzer and Anderson Cooper, see the inner workings of a television show as it is airing live on television, and be surrounded by people who love politics.

I probably had a permanent cringe on my face the entire time, listening to the speeches on stage or the delegates around me talking, but I saw the entire experience as motivation – motivation to ensure that none of these people win in November, making sure that their policies are not continued through another Republican administration and motivation to work my butt off for Barack Obama.  

 – ANDREW ENGEN, SENIOR, WHO WORKED WITH CNN’S “LATE EDITION” AT THE RNC

Seeing my Students Shine

My favorite part of this convention experience was seeing my students shine. They were prepared, having done extensive background reading before the seminar to have a solid foundation for all of the new information to which they would soon be exposed. They were professional, exceeding my expectations in terms of their fieldwork and seminar participation. From quickly learning how to operate a mobile radio station from an instructor’s manual, to covering press conferences and helping to host events, to getting their own byline after one day of fieldwork, these students made the University of St. Thomas proud. I also appreciated how they looked out for each other, sharing information about additional fieldwork opportunities, credentials and access to the floor during convention speeches.

By the last night of the convention, they had every right to be exhausted, but a few of them even showed up at 4 a.m. the following day for fieldwork, even though they were under no obligation to do so, just because they were needed.

“Today I got to the news trailer around 8:30 a.m. and worked until about 10:30 p.m. For the record, I could have left at any time, but I chose to stay. I would have left earlier, but I just enjoyed being there so much and gaining practical experience,” wrote one student in his academic journal. My students understood what an amazing opportunity this was for them, and they made the most of every day and every experience.

Whether we look back on the 2008 Republican National Convention as our only convention or our first convention, it is an experience we will never forget. For all of us, it was a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to be part of a national political convention in an open election year, right in our own backyard. In the words of Gene Alpert, senior vice president of the Washington Center, “And then suddenly the convention is over, and we all go back to being pumpkins again.”

Read more from CAS Spotlight

You had an experience that few alumni do. What prompted you to take several days out of your busy schedule and become a student again?

As a member of the College of Arts and Sciences Board of Advisers, I came for the spring board meeting. Having lived in the Washington, D.C., area for the last 38 years, I knew I was not current with new developments at St. Thomas.

I also came to do professional due diligence on the university. My wife, Peggy, and I are endowing a scholarship for the study of liberal arts. We hope to encourage more interdisciplinary study. We wanted to make sure that we would receive good value for our investment. I also wanted to be sure my sense of St. Thomas was for real.

I perform due diligence on a financial investment before I recommend it to one of my clients. You do not take someone’s word for it; you go out and kick the tires, you look at the physical facilities and interview the employees. I came to two key conclusions. First, St. Thomas is an even better educational institution than I thought it was. Second, St. Thomas is more Catholic and less secular than when I graduated in 1965.

Wonderful. Can you tell me more about your interactions with students?

I visited on a Wednesday afternoon and from the start I was looking at the campus. There were some athletic events going on and I studied student interaction and body language. I could see serenity and happiness on their faces as they went about their activities. The campus is clean and beautiful and the facilities are excellent. I spoke with a student who said that she chose to attend St. Thomas based on her impressions of the friendly atmosphere on campus and the way students interacted with each other and with visitors on her first visit here.

Based on the subjects about which you told me you were interested, I arranged for you to attend six classes over two days. Some were classes designed for first-year students and others for seniors. What did you think?

It was all very revealing. I could see the differences between the freshmen and seniors in terms of their confidence and their interaction with each other. I went to each class early and observed the students interact with one another and, of course, the professors. Each class surpassed my expectations. I am very impressed by what I saw. The faculty care about the students and were obviously knowledgeable in their fields. It all made me feel comfortable about my decision to put our money into a scholarship for the study of liberal arts. In addition, it made me realize that I want to leave the fields of study eligible for the scholarship more open than I at first thought to allow for more interdisciplinary studies by the students.

On two different occasions you had lunch with groups of students: with members of the Foreign Affairs Club, and with students primarily majoring in English who were taking the Victorian Literature class.

Yes. They were very different groups but both provided great interchanges. And in both cases the students told me that, since they were going to be St. Thomas graduates, they were not worried about finding jobs and that they thought the community at large understood that the graduates of St. Thomas were special people. They just were comfortable with the image of being St. Thomas graduates.

Let’s go back to one of your earlier comments. You mentioned that St. Thomas is more Catholic than when you were a student.

I think a big part of Catholic education is learning how to defend the faith. You cannot teach students how to defend the faith unless you first expose them to opposing ideas that attack the faith and then they learn to defend the faith. Themes of morality and faith were present in all the classes I visited. Even in geography there was an undercurrent that we are stewards of God’s creation and that we need to keep that in mind while studying these issues. I observed that it was woven into all of the instructors’ presentations.

I believe a Catholic education leads a student from reason to faith through the humanities – its music, its art and its literature. You cannot move from one to the other without that discipline, and that is obvious in how the Catholic faith is practiced. The church, the music, the literature, the stained glass windows, the statuary, the liturgy – it’s all set up to take you to a higher level. And I believe that St. Thomas will ensure that the humanities continue as a major component of its Catholic teaching.

What else do you see as a critical part of education in the 21st century?

The problems we face today have become extremely complex. I believe that the path to solving many problems lies in an interdisciplinary approach. We need to teach students how to evaluate models of possible solutions.

Let’s go back to some things I have been reading and what they say about combining right-brain and left-brain thinking to solve complex problems. Generally, left-brain thinking is considered logical and businesslike, while right-brain thinking is considered creative. Some argue that left-brain thinking is increasingly being done by computers. They argue that, if we are going to move forward, we need to bring more right-brained thinking into developing new problem-solving models.

Left-brained people like symmetry. When they build their model, it will be laid out logically in a grid. Then a right-brained person will build a model and it will have allkinds of flair and be pastel. The left-brained people will reject it immediately, saying they do not like pastel no matter what the model might be capable of accomplishing. But they need to recognize the importance of going in and looking at the pastel model because it could contain elements that can be combined with the left-brain model that may actually lead to a solution to the problem.

We need to teach today’s students how to do this. With all of the issues we face today, students need to use all available resources. They need to have respect for each disciplinary perspective and work to bring left-brain thinking and right-brain thinking together. Developing that skill can take a lifetime of learning, but it is something that people should think about and move toward.

You have had a lot of experience in the world and have had the opportunity to come back and look at St. Thomas through the lens of all your experience. In light of that, do you have any other advice for current or future St. Thomas students?

Enjoy it, to start with. The most important thing Ilearned at St. Thomas was how to learn. It has helped me throughout my life. After my visit to the campus, I felt jealous. I wish I could be a freshman again and start over at St. Thomas. It would be nice to relive it. So while you are here, enjoy it. Appreciate the education you are getting. As your life goes on you will continue learning, both in formal settings and through life experience, but none of it will be as pleasant and enjoyable as it is now.

Read more from CAS Spotlight

We’ve certainly heard such statements by political candidates and by those already in public office. Do they really mean that? Equally important, do voters want to elect people who feel this way?

Most political scientists and political philosophers would say that such statements reveal a misunderstanding of the nature of law and public policy – that, in fact, law and public policy are the ways in which a society decides among, enshrines and enforces its values; thus, society decides whether killing or stealing, evading income taxes or snorting cocaine is wrong and should be punished using government resources.

Virtually all public policies, explicitly or implicitly, reflect the values of the officials who enact them. Whether those values come from religion, a moral philosophy or a secular world view, they guide public officials – for better or worse – in making the full range of public choices. And that is how it should be, assuming that those government officials are chosen by and reflect the will of the majority of the people.

What a candidate or office holder who hopes not to let values intrude on decision making probably means is something a bit different. That candidate is probably saying that, in a pluralistic society such as the United States, with constitutional protections of freedom of religion and separation of church and state, narrow and sectarian religious beliefs should not be imposed on those who do not adhere to them.

The candidate also may be reflecting another important value basic to our political system – that we should reserve the widest scope of liberty or freedom for the individual, so long as it doesn’t infringe upon the rights, liberty or freedom of others. So our candidate may be saying, “I hold dear individual liberty, and I believe that I shouldn’t impose my personal moral beliefs on others.” Again, laws do this all the time, so our candidate probably should add “when no one, or society, is harmed in the process.”

Of course, both these perspectives beg other questions. What one person sees as a narrow religious belief others will see as a universal moral principle; or, what one person sees as involving only personal choice may be viewed by others as causing harm to innocent victims or to society – gambling, prostitution, recreational drug use and abortion are some obvious examples.

The choices among candidates that citizens make also reflect their values and beliefs. In a recent massive survey of public opinion in the United States [1], the Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life found that 56 percent of the American public said religion was “very important in their lives” (and 82 percent said that it was at least “somewhat important.”) Similarly, 78 percent expressed a belief in absolute standards of right and wrong. It is not clear, however, that these figures mean that a large proportion of the electorate takes their religious faith with them to the ballot box.

Only 29 percent of those voicing belief in absolute standards of right and wrong say that these beliefs stem from religious teachings, a majority (52 percent) citing instead “practical experience and common sense.” And only 14 percent claim to rely on religious beliefs as a guide to political thinking.

Doubtless some of this stems from a desire to see oneself as an independent thinker and, perhaps, a typically American concern about the appropriateness of mixing church and state. More time to reflect (and perhaps different interview questions) might elicit greater appreciation for the deep and lasting roots of adult beliefs.In any case, the votes that voters cast are translated, through their elected officials, into public policies that enshrine some moral values (but not others) into law and will cause government to pursue some goals and ignore others. In the face of this reality, how does the conscientious voter decide?

The problem for the average voter when confronting a choice at the ballot box is that the issue positions that distinguish the two major political parties do not form coherent and opposing world views between which to choose.

The Democratic and Republican parties have retained their traditional postures regarding economic issues of regulation, taxes and government spending on social programs, but other issue dimensions have joined these as important distinguishing characteristics.

First, since the presidential election of 1964, the Republican Party has become the party of “racial conservatism,” reversing a longstanding situation in which the Republican Party had been at least as liberal on racial issues as the Democratic Party with its southern conservative wing; also, since Roe v. Wade in 1973, the Republican Party has become the conservative voice on a range of life issues, including abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research. And since the early 2000s, war and peace have become issues that divide the parties, although not always neatly.

While the issue dimensions that divide the parties all have obvious moral components, they do not necessarily hang together. There is certainly nothing illogical about supporting affirmative action for disadvantaged minorities and adopting a conservative position on stem cell research, while also supporting more government spending on poverty programs and environmental protection. But that voter is not going to see either political party as mirroring those views.

Conversely, today’s libertarian who thinks the government ought to stay out of all thoseareas will not find a comfortable home in either of the two major parties.

To see the problem, one need look no further than the list of critical issues that the United States Conference of Catholic Bishops urges Catholics and responsible citizens to consider in reaching a voting choice: defending innocent life by opposing abortion, euthanasia and stem cell research; avoiding war and promoting peace; opposing the death penalty; defending marriage and the family; ensuring health care, protecting Social Security; assuring adequate housing and food for the poor; and welcoming immigrants. [2]

While there are candidates who fit this profile of issue concerns, it is less likely that they hold the endorsement of either of the major political parties for statewide or national office. It is perhaps for these reasons that the number of voters without a political party affiliation has remained at a historically high level for the last 30 years, and increasing numbers of former partisans – of both parties – claim that they have not abandoned their party, but that their party has abandoned them.

In the immediate aftermath of the 2004 presidential election, the first cut of analysis based on exit polls claimed that so-called “values voters” had made a decisive difference in George W. Bush’s favor. A significant percentage of voters surveyed (around 20 percent) reported that “moral issues” were the most important factor influencing their vote, and these voters voted heavily for Bush.

Although this conclusion was softened considerably upon further analysis of the data, the idea remained that Bush’s margin of victory owed a great deal to a coterie of evangelical and other conservative Christians who had been brought to the polls by concerns over issues of sexual morality. This popular perception, in turn, provoked a certain amount of soul-searching on both sides of the political spectrum.

The Democrats, for their part, worried that their defense of privacy and individual choice on questions of personal morality had led Democratic candidates to be reluctant to use the language of values in other areas where it clearly shaped their positions, such as poverty and peace. In so doing, they had let the opposition, wrongly they felt, lay claim to the moral high ground. As a result, in the election cycles of 2006 and 2008, Democratic congressional and presidential candidates were far more willing to talk about matters of faith and values.

On the other side, some evangelical Christians expressed concern that they were being portrayed as fixated on sexual morality to the exclusion of other societal concerns. Early in the second Bush administration, representatives of evangelical churches pressed for greater attention to poverty, climate change and HIV/AIDS in Africa.

So what is the conscientious voter to do? As the Conference of Catholic Bishops advised in an even-handed way, voters should consider the full range of issues, take into account their relative priorities, factor in the personal convictions and commitments of the candidates, and use their own God-given capabilities of discernment and judgment in arriving at a voting decision. [3]

And whatever decision that is, remember that the best political decisions are those that reflect the values and vision of the voters about the kind of society they wish to live in and leave to future generations.

About the author
Nancy Zingale is professor emerita of political science at St. Thomas, where she also served as executive assistant to the president 1997-2006. In 1988, she was chosen Professor of the Year by her faculty colleagues. She is co-author of Political Behavior of the American Electorate (now in its 11th edition) and Partisan Realignment: Voters, Parties and Government in American History.

________________________________________________

[1] Statistics on Religion in America Report, U.S. Religious Landscape Survey, Pew Forum on Religion and Public Life, 2008, see religions.pewforum/org/reports

[2] Forming Consciences for Faithful Citizenship: A Call to Political Responsibility from the Catholic Bishops of the United States. USCCB, Washington, November 2007.

[3] Ibid.