With that fame came a move to commissions of a large scale, such as the 1997 Guggenheim Museum in Bilbao, Spain, the 2003 Disney Concert Hall in Los Angeles, and across the river in Minneapolis, the Frederick R. Weisman Art Museum, finished in 1993. These projects supplanted Gehry’s need to design domestic space. But in the summer of 2012, a Gehry-designed duplex became owner-occupied in New Orleans, a part of the actor Brad Pitt’s Make it Right Foundation’s project in the Hurricane Katrina-ravaged Lower Ninth Ward.

How do we connect Gehry’s Winton Guest House to the Make it Right House? What has Gehry changed, updated or invented in his domestic architecture in the last 25 years? This is the question I will be examining during my sabbatical next year.

After traveling to New Orleans several times during the last two years to lay the groundwork for this research, I realized that the city was a perfect fit for an architectural history graduate seminar at St. Thomas. And this spring, The Architecture of New Orleans course was born.

New Orleans has been called many things – the Crescent City, The Big Easy, The Birthplace of Jazz, NOLA, the City that Care Forgot. The city’s racial and ethnic makeups have created a variety of architecture found nowhere else in the United States. Settled by the French in the 18th century and controlled by Spain in 1763, New Orleans was also home to a large population of free people of color, as well as slaves.

With the arrival of the 19th century the American element of New Orleans grew with settlers from the Northeast sharing the city with immigrants from Germany, Ireland, Sicily and beyond. Each group has contributed to the architectural legacy of New Orleans in powerful ways, and students in my graduate art history seminar this spring are exploring this variety in their research with topics focusing on cemeteries, voodoo, New Urbanism in housing projects, food markets, public parks, hospitals, sacred spaces (including a contemporary Spanish Baptist church rebuilding after Katrina), colonial plantations, biophilic design, historic preservation, Pitt’s Make it Right Houses, and the connection between Walt Disney and the French Quarter.

The research provides a fabulous overview of the layers of New Orleanian architecture – strata that were made visible on a recent trip our class took to the Crescent City this past spring break.

Students found their own ways to New Orleans early in the week and researched their projects. We all gathered as a group on Thursday, March 28, at Jackson Square in the French Quarter for a walking tour of the Quarter, Central Business District and Warehouse District. I had scoped out the buildings on a previous visit and our tour required that each student present a five-minute on-the-street talk about their building as we progressed through the neighborhoods.

The students were expected to connect their presentations into our classroom discussions and also address the building as an art object. What did they see now that they were standing in front of it? There is no better way to understand the built environment than to be out in it: looking, touching and getting a feel for context and scale. I was thrilled to watch New Orleans come to life for the students.

Saturday morning found us in the Garden District at Lafayette Cemetery No. 1. The cemeteries of New Orleans, with their above ground tombs, are amazingly beautiful, and they clearly reflect the character of the city built largely just a few feet above sea level. After our cemetery visit, a little lagniappe (something extra) found us touring the adjacent neighborhood, stopping by Sandra Bullock and John Goodman’s grand Victorian-era homes.

On Friday, we were fortunate to visit the Lower Ninth Ward with John Williams, the executive architect of Brad Pitt’s Make it Right houses and a longtime New Orleans designer. Supported by funds from the Art History Department, we spent five hours on a bus tour with John. It was one of the greatest architectural experiences I have ever had, and I think my students felt the same.

The area is still, after almost eight years, coming back to life. The Make it Right Foundation hopes to build 150 homes in the neighborhood. But basic services such as grocery stores, schools and the like have not returned to the Lower Ninth. It’s still a very tough go for folks who have returned. Students were able to meet with residents, including John “Smitty” Smith and Ron Lewis at his “House of Dance and Feathers,” and learn their stories of evacuation and survival.

A duplex designed by Frank Gehry in New Orleans. (Photo by John Williams)

And it was here in the Lower Ninth where we encountered Gehry’s work. The pink and purple duplex, its hues selected by the homeowner, recalls the liveliness of New Orleans’ vernacular domestic shotgun houses and Creole cottages. It is built out of environmentally friendly materials and includes solar panels and other sustainable features. The variety of porches encourages engagement with neighbors and passersby.

Gehry believed in Pitt’s vision and wanted to make a house that responded to the “history, vernacular and climate of New Orleans,” as he stated on Make it Right’s blog.

The completion of the house is history in the making – a work by Gehry and a foundation that helped the hardest hit citizens of New Orleans when other entities were slow to do so. And now, the University of St. Thomas has a connection to both.

In 2001 and 2002, two German computer scientists became acquainted with each other over the Internet. One man, Armin Meiwes, had long harbored a desire, ever since childhood, to eat someone. He had been raised in a lonely and troubled family and had always craved a brother who would never leave him. This led him to fixate on cannibalism as the one sure way of internalizing that brother who would never, ever depart. But he could not cannibalize just anyone. His victim had to meet certain standards, be talkative, interested in becoming lifelong friends, and willing to give repeated, voluntary consent to making himself a sacrificial offering.

As luck would have it, there was someone out there who satisfied these exacting criteria. Bernd Brandes was an executive at Siemens Corp., but despite considerable professional accomplishments, had long desired annihilation. Ever since childhood, ever since his mother committed suicide when Bernd was 6 or 7, he had desired his own immolation, preferably in a cannibal feast.

After discovering one another on the Internet, they tested each other, made sure their resolve was fixed and certain. Armin had Bernd satisfy a series of requests. He had to sign a “willingness agreement.” He had to videotape his consent. He made his will, naming third parties, not Armin, as beneficiaries. This, in other words, was the law professor’s dream hypothetical case. It tested, in pure form, the limits of autonomous consent.

I set about investigating the case. As a legal scholar, I am someone strongly committed to having the facts speak for themselves. I believe that exacting historical records need to be developed in order to analyze a case properly. So, I plunged into the case.

I had studied German for a couple of years in graduate school and found myself resuscitating my German-language skills to read accounts of the case available only in German. I even read some of the German legal periodicals, immersing myself in the details of German law on assisted suicide.

It seems, in fact, that Armin and Bernd very nearly committed the perfect crime. Had Bernd committed suicide without Armin’s direct assistance – but with the intent of being eaten – this would have been legal. German law criminalizes only active euthanasia, and did not, at least at that time, criminalize cannibalism. At most, Armin would have been convicted of the misdemeanor offense of desecrating a corpse.

The plan called for Bernd to take an overdose of sleeping pills and alcohol. But when Bernd did not die of what should have been a lethal combination, Armin finished the job by stabbing him through the throat. It was this act that allowed the German courts to prosecute and finally to convict him.

Armin defended himself at trial by arguing the morality of his actions. He could not have done wrong, he claimed, because every step he took was done at the explicit consent of his “victim,” Bernd. The two men had made sure to videotape all of their actions on the evening they met to carry out their plan, so Armin had proof for his claims. In the end, the German trial court imposed a light sentence (Armin could have been paroled in as little as four years). But the appeals court – in Germany, the prosecution can appeal the length of sentence – mandated a second trial at which a life sentence was imposed.

The final part of my research is an analysis the nature and limits of consent. I focus especially on libertarian commentary on this case, which is extensive. In the end, while I believe the libertarians succeed in advancing some reasonable claims, I find myself rejecting their position.

In purely Christian terms, of course, we find consensual cannibalism troubling for its violation of human dignity. But on secular terms, one could use several neglected aspects of John Stuart Mill’s work to argue against such all-encompassing autonomy. Mill, after all, grounded his theory of liberty in a set of background considerations about civilization.

Civilization, to Mill, entailed all of the kindnesses and gentilities of Victorian England. It was a concept Mill contrasted with the “barbarian” Europe of Charlemagne’s time. We could not just tuck into one another at meal time. Second, Mill developed a set of substantive norms from a complex of ideas he called the “religion of humanity.” Mill stressed altruism, decency and a respect for others as elements of this faith he believed all people of good will could share. Eating one another simply fell outside the boundaries of civilized and ethical conduct.

Under Mill’s construct, not only was Armin properly convicted of the crime, but in the end he received the sentence he deserved.

John Tauer, Ph.D.

As the head men’s basketball coach at the University of St. Thomas, I feel blessed and honored to work with an amazing group of players and coaches. This past season, we had a 30-2 record, tied a school record for wins, won an unprecedented 8th consecutive MIAC championship, and advanced to the Division III Final Four for the third time in school history. More important than the records and statistics are the life lessons we aim to teach our players. Some of these lessons include:

• How we respond to failure and mistakes helps us grow, prepares us for adversity, and defines who we are.
• Controlling our emotions is an important skill in life, particularly in frustrating situations.
• We win as a team and lose as a team.
• Intrinsic motivation is better than extrinsic motivation. Approach-oriented motivation is better than avoidance motivation. Finding areas in life that allow us to be passionate and work well with others is invaluable.

In the Rutgers video footage, we see a coach showing his players that failure is not an option, and that mistakes will be punished both physically and verbally. Undoubtedly, players developed a fear of failure (and of their coach). Based on the video and interviews, it is clear Mike Rice’s behavior toward his players was consistently demeaning and aggressive toward his players. How and why were Mike Rice’s actions allowed to occur over time? Understanding the conditions which allowed this hostile environment to take place is important to prevent future situations similar to the one at Rutgers University. Let’s consider the situation from a number of different perspectives.

Why would a coach act like this? Learned Aggression
The research on aggression indicates there are both biological and environmental correlates of aggression. Without knowing Mike Rice’s DNA, it is a safe bet that he learned some of this behavior from other coaches. Rice was a longtime assistant coach, and it seems likely that at least one of his mentors engaged in similar behavior. In working to motivate his players, Coach Rice must have thought they required physical and mental abuse/fear in order to get them to play as hard as he wanted them to play. This approach flies in the face of the research on intrinsic motivation and long-term sustainable performance.

Why would players not turn on their coach? Obedience to Authority
Classic studies on obedience to authority conducted by Stanley Milgram at Yale University in the 1960s demonstrated how quickly and easily average people will obey an authority figure. In one version of Milgram’s study, 65 percent of participants shocked a stranger to a level that could have been fatal (no shocks were actually administered as the stranger was in a different room). The takeaway from this study was that authority figures can abuse their power, yet rarely will others stand up to the person in power.

Players on the Rutgers team undoubtedly disliked how they were treated in practice. However, for non-New Jersey residents, tuition, room and board at Rutgers at a cost of $37,805 per year (or $151,220 over four years), would be a large incentive to stay quiet and avoid risking a scholarship. Furthermore, blowing the whistle on Mike Rice could have led to an ugly situation that, depending on the outcome, could have led to the player leaving Rutgers and struggling to find another school at which to play basketball.

Why would the athletic director not fire the coach immediately upon seeing the video?
Athletic Director Pernetti saw the video yet chose not to fire Mike Rice; rather, he chose to suspend him for three games, fine him and instruct him to attend anger management classes. Pernetti may have thought he could help rehabilitate Rice, but Pernetti also may have been avoiding conflict, hoping to resolve the issue quietly and not draw attention to an athletic program that had more than its share of issues recently.

Why was the public so outraged?
When the video of Mike Rice throwing basketballs at players in practice hit the internet, public outcry was quick to follow. We have an image of how we hope coaches treat players, yet all too often the “Win at all costs” mindset seems to trump all. Why did videos like this not surface 10+ years ago? In part, because videos such as this would be more difficult to obtain and even more difficult to distribute so readily. Mike Rice is not the first coach to treat his players poorly, nor is he the first coach to use fear, vulgar language, and physical abuse as tactics to motivate his players.

Read John Feinstein’s book, A Season on the Brink about Bobby Knight at Indiana University in the 1980s and it is clear Mike Rice is not the first coach to treat his players poorly. Had there been videos of Bobby Knight doing the things Feinstein reported in his book, and an internet to spread those videos like wildfire, my hunch is Coach Knight may have had a more difficult time keeping his job as long as he did in Indiana. Furthermore, I am certain that coaches across the country engage in questionable actions as they seek to motivate, compel and push the right buttons to get their players to play hard and excel. There is certainly a fine line, as athletics are an emotional endeavor, and many coaches walk a tightrope between controlled passion and aggression and uncontrolled physical and mental outbursts. That line can be the difference between an intense, fiery coach such as Rick Pitino winning a national championship with Louisville and an intense, fiery coach such as Mike Rice being fired from Rutgers.

What is the greatest danger stemming from the Rutgers saga? The Fundamental Attribution Error
After the tragic terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, it was easy to think that if we captured Osama Bin Laden, the world would be safe again. The truly frightening reality was that there were likely thousands upon thousands of individuals who felt the same way Osama bin Laden did about America.

Along these same lines, it feels much cleaner if we believe that now that Mike Rice has been fired, we can go back to believing the “bad coach” is gone and only good ones remain. What is much more frightening is if there are hundreds, or thousands, of Mike Rices out there coaching college and high school sports. Mike Rice learned this behavior from somewhere. It seems unlikely that he is the only one of thousands of college coaches and tens of thousands of high school coaches to employ these types of coaching methods.

The Fundamental Attribution Error (FAE) occurs when we underestimate the power of a situation while simultaneously overestimating the role of one’s personality in discerning the causes of a behavior. In this case, we likely commit the FAE when we overlook the powerful win-at-all-costs mentality that, when combined with the ultracompetitive world of sports helps us understand that Mike Rice was likely innately aggressive as an individual, became more aggressive in part due to what he learned from other coaches , implemented an aggressive coaching style because he believed that behavior motivated players, and did all of this in part due to an environment that allowed and encouraged aggression.

The real shame of the Rutgers basketball saga will be if the public does not engage in a conversation that revisits the true goals of sports, the best practices for teaching and motivating student-athletes, and a broad view of the culture of sports, and why this culture may be a breeding ground for ultracompetitive fear-based motivation that undermines the very goals sports aims to teach. Until that time, unfortunately, the madness of sports will not be limited solely to the month of March.

John Tauer is an associate professor of psychology and head men’s basketball coach at St. Thomas. 

The agreement with the Cypriot government paves way for Cyprus to receive a €10 billion bailout. In return, Cyprus has agreed to downsize its large financial sector and undertake a macroeconomic adjustment program that will require fiscal consolidation, structural reforms and privatizations (among other concessions). In return, the ECB will continue to provide emergency liquidity assistance to Cyprus banks.

The most contentious bank levy, demanded earlier by the troika, has been completely scrapped. Deposits in all banks up to the deposit insurance limit of €100,000 will be protected. The second largest bank, Laiki Bank, will be resolved by splitting it into a good and a bad bank. Deposits up to €100,000 will be transferred to the good bank, which will be folded into Bank of Cyprus. Laiki Banks’ equity holders, bond holders and uninsured depositors will remain with the bad bank, which will be resolved. Bank of Cyprus also will be restructured and recapitalized.

View Larger Map

The problems at Cyprus banks have been known for some time. A major reason for this predicament is that Cyprus’ banks have suffered great losses due to write-downs on their Greek government bond holdings as a result of Greek debt restructuring last year. The two largest banks – Bank of Cyprus and Laiki Bank – reportedly have suffered losses of about €4 billion. Both the previous Cypriot government and the troika are equally culpable for kicking the can down the road, for perpetuating conditions that could force Cyprus to collapse and exit the European Union.

The economic, social and political implications of the proposed measures are enormous. For the first time, the Eurozone authorities have confirmed that when a member country falls into a banking crisis uninsured bank depositors might have to share losses along with other creditors. This likely creates fear among depositors and leads to a capital flight from the troubled nations such as Greece, Portugal, Italy and Spain into stronger countries. A freeze on uninsured deposits, restrictions on withdrawals and capital controls might prevent a big bank run in the short-term, but the damage to Cyprus’s economic model as an off-shore financial center is likely irrevocable.

Although there is no explicit tax on large deposits, uninsured depositors will suffer substantial losses – as much as 60 percent according to some estimates – since they have to share the losses resulting from the resolution of Laiki Bank and the restructuring of Bank of Cyprus. The uninsured depositors might receive shares as settlement for their lost deposits. Given that about one third of €68 billion bank deposits is from outside of the European Union, the Cyprus solution somewhat resembles the Icelandic solution where Icelandic banks defaulted on foreign depositors. But there is one important difference: Iceland is not part of the Eurozone.

The end result is not pretty. Cyprus has been shut out from bond markets for some time. The last time Cyprus issued long-term bonds, investors required a yield of 7 percent. The banking sector is on life support from the ECB through the emergency liquidity assistance program. In an economy where the banking sector is about eight times the size of the economy, a deep liquidity crisis will create a severe blow to the already fragile economy.

The European Union expects the real GDP to decline by 3.5 percent in 2013 and by another 1.3 percent in 2014. Bank and liquidity problems could further deteriorate growth by limiting funding for key business sectors such as tourism, financial services and shipping. Resulting business closures and layoffs will further increase the unemployment rate, which is currently almost 15 percent.

Cyprus has run a budget deficit in excess of 5 percent for the last four years and expects to run similar, if not more, deficits in the foreseeable future. Fiscal adjustments and structural reforms that will be part of the conditionality of the bailout program, and the expected downsizing of the large financial sector will further reduce growth and increase unemployment. All these have the potential to create more social unrest and weaken the position of the new government – which is barely a month old – creating political turbulence when a stable government is necessary for difficult economic reforms.

What is largely ignored in the current debate about Cyprus is its sovereign debt. This is because the debt is only about 84 percent of the GDP, a €18 billion economy with about €15 billion debt. This debt level is the second lowest among the crisis-hit countries, and compares favorably with nations such as Greece (153 percent), Italy (127 percent), Portugal (120 percent), and Ireland (117 percent). But the €10 billion bailout loan will increase debt to 140 percent of the GDP and put Cyprus just behind Greece. Such high level of debt for a smaller economy with increasingly negative growth and budget deficits leads to an inevitable conclusion: Cyprus will not be able to grow out of debt, and this level of debt is not sustainable.

So, what would the debt path for Cyprus look like? Although details of the rescue plan are not yet finalized, the purpose of the bailout is to support debt service payments and budgetary shortfalls. Assuming a three-year disbursement schedule of €4 billion in 2013, €3 billion in 2014, €3 billion in 2015, and the EU and IMF baseline growth, inflation and deficit projection, the debt path for Cyprus takes the form shown in this chart above.

Debt will continue to climb from the current 84 percent to 108 percent by the end of 2013, and to 149 percent by 2017. These debt projections will further worsen if one were to factor in growth declines due to macroeconomic adjustment program and the expected downsizing of the financial sector.

The Cyprus solution clearly leads to an exploding and unsustainable debt path. As in the case of Greece, if the IMF’s target sustainable debt level for Cyprus is 120 percent by 2020, then it will be impossible for Cyprus to achieve it under the forecasted macroeconomic scenario. By any means, 120 percent is not a sustainable level either. This leads to another inevitable conclusion: Cyprus will need a substantial reduction in debt stock through debt relief.

How much debt relief would Cyprus need? Debt stock will need to be trimmed by at least €6 billion to €9 billion, making the current debt-to-GDP ratio 50 percent. With the reduced debt load and the new debt added through the rescue plan, the projected macroeconomic scenario will increase Cyprus’s debt to 114 percent by 2017. With a carefully designed macroeconomic stabilization program that leaves room for growth, Cyprus might be able to show some promise of debt sustainability. Without a “big bath,” Cyprus is looking at decades of unsustainable debt overhang and additional future bailouts.

Lalith Samarakoon is professor and chair of the Department of Finance in the Opus College of Business. As a financial economist, Samarakoon has two decades of advisory experience in financial sector reforms and development, and public debt management. He teaches Global Finance Issues and Policy: Eurozone Debt Crisis.

The atmosphere was fairly charged at the time and reactions had been strong following the recent publication of The Ratzinger Report in which for perhaps the first time many American Catholics began to recognize both the clarity of Ratzinger’s convictions about the need for renewal in the Church and the subtlety of his theological insights which, despite the already defined caricature of ahistorical conservatism, could not easily be reduced to the language of politics.

Years later I spoke with one of those theology majors who was struck by the unexpectedness of Ratzinger’s emphases, especially his prophetic emphasis on the importance for the Church of the future of China.

Pope Benedict XVI shakes hands with director of Catholic Studies Don Briel. (Photo by Mike Ekern ’02)

I have seen Ratzinger occasionally since that first encounter, including a few times since his election as Pope Benedict XVI in 2005. In October 2010,  I had an opportunity to speak with him about our shared interest in the life and thought of John Henry Newman following a general audience. Again, unexpectedly, he reminded me that he was an alumnus of St. Thomas, having received an honorary doctorate from Father Dease in New York.

As I think of his legacy, I am reminded of his calm and prayerful expression of the papacy in a time of extraordinary turbulence, a time for which in some ways he was ill-equipped to respond but in other ways for which his papacy has been uniquely providential. Of course, his papacy will not escape the sad aftermath of the clerical abuse crisis, but the integrity of his own response to that crisis also is memorable.

As expected, he placed a strong emphasis on addressing the amnesia of European culture about its Christian roots, and in remarkably sophisticated presentations in London, Paris, Berlin and Rome he reminded secular governments about the essential role of faith in modern democratic assumptions and insisted that faith could not be reduced to a private principle and excluded from civic life. He forged unexpected relations with atheistic and agnostic public intellectuals like Marcello Pera and Jürgen Habermas, who testified to the dangers to the common good and to the human person in certain instrumental political developments in modern culture. As pope, his emphasis on the role of faith in the modern world led Ratzinger to a number of interreligious and ecumenical gestures despite his refusal to accept a lowest common denominator approach to interreligious dialogue.

In the end, the insight of the scholar pope that the new evangelization must proceed not on the grounds of disputation but in the invitation to love, Deus Caritas Est, shaped a new understanding of the vitality of orthodoxy, not as a safe middle between the extremes of traditionalists and progressives but as a vital alternative to their frozen fascination with political accounts of the Church.

Renouncing the papacy, so unconservative in obvious ways, is another example of the unexpectedness of this man, this pope, whose humility, whose life of prayer, whose deep appreciation of beauty in the Church and in the world, whose deep knowledge of the mystery, the profundity and the limits of the papal office, will finally be expressed in a retreat into contemplation and devotion.

As legacies go, Joseph Ratzinger is not easily ignored.

Don Briel is the director of the Center for Catholic Studies and Koch Chair in Catholic Studies.

Who needs ALS to speak dis ease when horribly afflicted men-children perpetrate such heinous acts? For me Sandy Hook is personal.

I love a woman who teaches music to little children. I gaze at her as our understanding of the full horror continues to unfold, and I realize that it was teachers like my Ev, locking down classrooms, telling the children they were loved so that if the killer came to them, love would still be their final moment, holding the horrific sights at bay for as long as they could, asking the children to close their eyes, to perhaps keep one last vestige of any innocence their 5- and 6- and 7- and 8-year-old lives deserved. I cannot imagine the haunting, terrifying dreams these incredibly strong and caring and competent teachers, women, will know in the coming years. We now know that the six women killed did everything they could to stop the killer. They were brave, and they were professional, and they placed themselves between children and evil in an attempt to save them.

As a newly retired dean of a school of education, I cannot help but see the faces of the young pre-service teachers we prepared for teaching careers. For them, this is a life choice, not a steppingstone. It is a calling, a voice that says to them that a commitment to children is a far greater thing than the salary and esteem of another profession. Each of them will receive training, information, practice in how to mitigate horror if it should come knocking. And with that in mind, they will commit to creating a loving environment where all children learn. While not mutually exclusive, the skill and artistry required is enormous.

And let me share that there were a few times in my life as a principal where I felt my own safety threatened. Dawn Hochsprung was the principal of a K-4 school, and if you have seen her Twitter account, you see a principal who believed in projecting her entire being in support of her kids and teachers, underscoring their successes, bucking them up to the next challenge, urging them to see the joy in learning, defining her work with passion and love. I feel I know this remarkable woman for I have been privileged to work with so many like her, educators who skillfully bring teachers and kids and parents into a fold where school is opportunity after opportunity, an engaging world of wonder, a place where hard work is appreciated. She gave her life on a day when I am sure that the challenge of the upcoming holidays and keeping the kids somehow engaged was foremost on her mind. Not in her wildest dreams would she have predicted the terrible events to transpire and what would be required of her.

The faith required of parents to trust the safety of their schools cannot help but be tested. To send your 6 year old off to school on a Friday, to never see her alive again would crush your soul. Anyone who is a parent knows the normal safety fears that we carry for our children. The loss of so many children is so unfathomable, so overwhelming, so undefinable, so wrong, so wrong. My sons are grown, and I still fear for them and their lovely women. To lose your young child in such horrible circumstances would be harder than anything. I cannot help it. The grief swirls through my soul.

I cannot leave the above without considering some very preliminary thoughts about what we should do. I am sure others will have far better ideas than me, but here is a beginning.

Remember the saying, “Guns don’t kill people, people do?” Let’s agree with the point and start a discussion about responsibility. When do we begin to take responsibility for the fact that there is no meaningful way to intervene on behalf of an “adult” with serious mental health issues that could lead to violence? I recognize the possibility of abuse here, but common sense and logic would lead us to conclude that there must be better ways. An 18 to 20 year old, troubled to the point of homicide, is not going to seek out help on his own. We need better ways to provide meaningful interventions.

The temptation will be to forget, to find ease in the blessed amnesia of denial. We will find ourselves wanting to blame, to marginalize, to distance ourselves from the perpetrator and the illness he manifested. We will never find resolution this way. It is time we embrace the reality that the mix of guns and mental illness is too complex for a single, once and for all solution. It is immature to think otherwise. We need dialogue about mental illness that is decidedly different. The ease of collective amnesia will only allow more and more manifestation of such events as Sandy Hook. We need the adults to show up.

And in the name of responsibility, whether you like it or not, we need an educator’s sense of propriety. That means we don’t get to marginalize others due to their challenges. They are our children, and we need to take responsibility for them, not distance ourselves as if it couldn’t happen to us. This means that all our children need us to claim them, not just the easy ones. Educators do not get to be selective, and neither should our society at large.

Only when we have this dialogue on mental health, can we begin to have a meaningful discussion about guns.

It will be tempting to go after the gun laws. For whatever reason, Americans own so many guns that the effect can only be cosmetic. I am not saying that we should not talk about what we want gun laws to do, but as an old dyed in the wool liberal, I already know it will be a lot of energy expended for little return. Gun ownership is legitimated by our laws. The estimate is that there are over 300 million guns in the US. The horse is out of the barn. But, we can certainly have much more meaningful requirements for owning a gun.

A Honda Civic can also be a lethal weapon in the wrong hands. Why don’t we require licenses for everyone, much like we do for driving, with background checks, and periodic refresher courses and checkups on safe storage and whether one still meets the licensing requirements of gun ownership? I am an adult with disabilities that preclude my driving safely. Just as my eligibility for a driver’s license should be re-evaluated against my ability, so too should we ask the same of gun owners.

And everyone – buyers and sellers – needs to meet the standards over and over again.

Finally, we need to recognize that many of the best solutions to guns and mental illness will be local. What works in Wyoming might not work in Minneapolis, and vice versa. This also means we need ongoing dialogue, constantly holding ourselves responsible to work the tensions between safety and security, individual freedom and social responsibility.

My heart is broken by the events in Newtown. I take this so personally as a teacher, a principal, a preparer of new teachers and principals, a father, a citizen. Platitudes will not help, and the only inappropriate response is to not engage in the dialogue with respect and truthfulness.

I will return to my blog next week with a seasonal thought, but today, I hug my wife and sons and daughters-in-law a little more tightly and thank God they are here and safe.

Bruce Kramer recently retired as the Dean of the College of Education, Leadership and Counseling. You can read his weekly reflections on living life with ALS at Dis Ease blog.

Resources are available to students, faculty and staff who want or need to talk about the tragedy.

When you hear this word as a St. Thomas community member what do you immediately think of?

Saint John’s University?

We all know about the competitiveness we have with Saint John’s in sports. What you might not think about when you hear UST and SJU in the same sentence however, are the ties that bind us together.

Many who work or study here at St. Thomas are Johnnies (or Bennies for that matter) like Terry Langan, dean of the College of Arts and Sciences or Mike Sullivan, associate professor of finance in the Opus College of Business. Art History graduate student Brady King is an alum of Saint John’s undergraduate studio art program. But what are our similarities?

We are both anchored in the Catholic intellectual tradition, a tradition we have brought to bear so strongly on higher education in the state of Minnesota and beyond. King also appreciates the quality of the faculty at both schools and the fact that everyone says hello to each other on campus. Although the rivalry with Saint John’s in sports is emotional, the respect between our two schools is profound.

Another important shared belief between St. Thomas and Saint John’s is the importance the arts have in a humanities-based education.  I have witnessed this first hand in two significant ways. First, for the past decade or so, I’ve been researching and writing about architect Marcel Breuer’s 1953 design for the Abbey church in Collegeville.

Since my first visit to central Minnesota I have been treated with the greatest kindness and respect. The Benedictine monks have always supported my work and in fact the completion of my book manuscript in the coming months is in large part due to and because of them. They share information, constantly find things in the depths of their archives, and always encourage me to get the project done.

Of course, it is not that there haven’t been interesting moments given that I am a Tommie. In the fall of 2011 the president of Saint John’s and the abbot of Saint John’s Abbey invited me to a fiftieth anniversary celebration of the completion of the Abbey church. Dinner was lovely and then we headed into a lecture hall for a roundtable discussion about Breuer’s work on the church.

As I was waiting to be introduced to the crowd, I grew just a little nervous because the Tommies had beaten the Johnnies in football on Palmer Field in O’Shaughnessy Stadium just three days prior by a score of 63-7! Yet, there were no boos from the crowd and only laughter when I told them (jokingly) that I was a little nervous to be on the stage at that moment.

The second collaboration has been going on around us for the past three months and showcases our mutual respect for the arts. “Stoked: Five Artists of Fire and Clay” is currently on display in the lobby gallery of the O’Shaughnessy Education Center on the St. Paul campus of St. Thomas.

Master potter Richard Bresnahan speaks with guests at the Stoked: Five Artists of Fire and Clay Exhibition Opening, Oct. 4, 2012 (Photo by Olga Ivanova)

We have Art History Department manager Sue Focke to thank for making this exhibition and a wonderful series of supporting events happen. Keenly aware of the artistic nature of this region, Focke had a vision to bring Saint John’s long-time artist in residence and potter Richard Bresnahan, and the work of his apprentices, to our campus, with the support of the department and the College of Arts and Sciences leadership.

Focke recalls that Bresnahan was thrilled at the opportunity, as he had always wanting to show his work on our campus.

Installing “Stoked” in early September was an excellent learning experience for our art history student exhibitions assistants, as Bresnahan’s installation team, led by Steven Lemke and Ryan Cutter, allowed them to be a part of the entire set up.

Graduate students from art history also assisted in publicity for the event, organized the keynote lecture and opening reception, and acted as docents during the many gatherings we’ve had in the OEC lobby gallery and beyond, including a Saint John’s alumni event held in the Anderson Student Center this fall.

At all of these events Bresnahan shared of his time generously, talking with students and other guests at the many receptions hosted on campus. In addition, Bresnahan invited Focke and myself to his pottery at Saint John’s for a tour and afternoon tea. The collaboration has been a great success and in my mind there is no doubt there will be more between the urban and rural Catholic cousins.  Saint John’s is home to a thriving studio art program that complements nicely with the art historical focus we have here at St. Thomas.

In every class I teach at St. Thomas, I spend a great deal of time talking about the Abbey church in Collegeville. There is never a sigh of disdain from my students when it shows up on the screen – they are genuinely interested in the visual power of the concrete church and bell banner and what it means to its Collegeville users.

I’m thrilled that both St. Thomas and Saint John’s are powerful entities in my life. For me they are rivals in the best sense – forces that compete in order to bring out the greater good in each other. From football to fine art, we are fortunate to share the relationship we have with the Johnnies.

I’ve been teaching in the London Business Semester, so I will miss working on the annual holiday spending survey we’ve conducted in the Twin Cities since 2002. But as you know, holiday traditions are ever present in our world.

Being based in London during the holiday season got me thinking about similarities – and differences – in our cultural and retail traditions.

While both London and the Twin Cities celebrate the birth of Christ, London in particular has a significant non-Christian population that doesn’t celebrate Christmas. The capitol city of Britain is, however, steeped in Christmas traditions. London is the home of George Fredric Handel, who composed “The Messiah” in 1741. And Charles Dickens published the timeless classic “A Christmas Carol” here in 1843. Both cities host annual stage productions of Dickens’ story, including the Guthrie Theater in Minneapolis, which will perform “A Christmas Carol” for the 38th consecutive year.

While outdoor Christmas decorations may be ubiquitous in Twin Cities’ neighborhoods, these very visible displays are generally limited to retailers and commercial areas in London. Christmas lights were illuminated on Oxford and Regents streets in central London on Nov. 5 this year, while lights on Nicollet Mall are still a few weeks off. Store windows are fully decorated by Nov. 1, but the Twin Cities has fewer displays that won’t be shown in full for several weeks. Citizens of both cities do, however, decorate the interior of their homes with Christmas trees, nativity scenes and holiday accents to celebrate the season.

How about the annual Christmas party? In London, pubs and restaurants begin soliciting Christmas party business in early September, while few in the Twin Cities begin planning these festive events until November (or later!). These parties are much more important in London and often focus on office, family and friends, while there are fewer and more work-focused parties in the Twin Cities. The attire for these holiday gatherings tends to be more formal in London than in the Twin Cities.

It would not be Christmas without a feast. Londoners typically celebrate Christmas dinner midday or early afternoon, whereas Twin Citians may celebrate Christmas Eve or midday on Christmas. The dinners are strikingly similar: Both are likely to feature a roast turkey – or possibly a goose in the case of Londoners – and roast beef or pork in the case of Twin Citians. Londoners enjoy sides of brussel sprouts, roast potatoes, cranberry sauce, nutty stuffing, pigs in a blanket, and pudding for dessert, while Twin Citians’ tastes include squash, root crop vegetables, mashed potatoes, gravy, cranberry sauce and pies for dessert.

In both metropolises, Christmas is spent in church on the eve or morning followed by dinner and family time. Londoners are likely to watch sports on the telly or play board games as a family, while Twin Citians often watch football on TV or go to movies together. Londoners continue the holidays by celebrating Boxing Day the day after Christmas, a holiday rooted in the tradition of giving to those less fortunate. Unfortunately, Boxing Day has progressively migrated away from this emphasis and toward going to Boxing Day sales (which have now expanded to Boxing Week). There is no equivalent post-Christmas holiday for the Twin Cities, but we share the sales-and-returns week between Christmas and New Year’s.

It’s no surprise that Christmas and holiday shopping is important to both cities. It creeps in earlier and more gradually in London starting with Super Thursday (Oct. 11 this year), which kicks off the season by introducing more than 100 hardback books targeted for Christmas sales. The Twin Cities traditionally kicks off the Christmas selling season on Black Friday (Nov. 23 this year), but many retail outlets are opening at 9 p.m. on Thanksgiving Day. Both cities have experienced “Christmas Creep,” where retailers begin selling Christmas goods earlier and earlier each year. Online shopping has only accelerated this phenomenon.

One major retail difference between these cities is the presence and importance of Christmas Markets in London and indeed throughout Europe. These markets are centrally located near high streets or major shopping areas and provide special Christmas offerings. They often combine sales of products with dining, beverages and entertainment. The Twin Cities has no equivalent. Christmas boutiques sell crafts and related Christmas items, but are single, widely located places.

Not surprisingly, both London and the Twin Cities celebrate Christmas in similar ways with faith, family, food and gifts. And increasingly, our shopping traditions are becoming more and more similar. Only time will tell if this convergence is a product of our transient nature or a melding of world cultures and traditions.

Editor’s note: Dave Brennan is a professor of marketing and co-director of the Institute for Retailing Excellence in the Opus College of Business. He conducts an annual holiday spending survey with his colleague Lorman Lundsten. 

Coincidentally, fellow philosopher Gordon Marino, a professor of philosophy and director of the Hong Kierkegaard Library at St. Olaf College, has written an editorial for the Pioneer Press about the challenge of being open-minded. While I tend to agree with his basic line of thought – that it is indeed more challenging than we tend to think to be open-minded – the philosopher in me also wondered about whether it was possible to be open-minded about being open-minded and whether that entailed the possibility of being close-minded. Of course, I realize that it also is possible to be close-minded about being open-minded – but that is a completely different matter.

Dr. Stephen Laumakis

I mention this because some of my colleagues at St. Thomas – especially those with liberal, Democratic and progressive leanings – tend to think that I am close-minded politically, if not universally, because I tend to hold views (at least for the sake of argument) that they find, well, unenlightened and mindless.

I think that they see themselves as independent, impartial and open-minded people who come to their conclusions based on good reasons and the facts. Yet, as Marino warns us, thinking impartially – with an open mind – is not as easy as we tend to think it is, precisely because it “requires an ability to acknowledge the views that we are attached to, as well as the willingness to be triply careful about dismissing arguments that might rub our cherished positions the wrong way.” So, I started wondering if I am or could be open-minded in that way. Here’s what I discovered.

For better or for worse, I think of myself philosophically as a closet Platonist and/or “recovering” Thomist (of the strict observance) – which simply means that I tend to think things have essences – a metaphysical principle that makes a thing be the kind of thing it is (i.e., the essence of a tree makes a tree be a tree; the essence of a dog makes a dog be a dog and not a cat or some other animal), and that our knowledge and actions with regard to them is and ought to be based on this metaphysical fact.

Recently, however, I’ve begun to have serious reservations about such an essentialist view because it seems to be out of harmony with my experience and how things seem to be in the world. Or at least with how many of my colleagues see things.

I’ve begun to wonder whether the Buddha may have been right about things lacking fixed essences (i.e., the denial of my essentialist view), and reality being a function of how we see it – or how things appear to us, at least in part, because of our own conceptual habits and frameworks and our tendency to see things in a karmically determined and influenced way.

Take Olympic competition. For the life of me, I simply cannot see (because of my own karma?) how any true competitor can feel good about “winning” a silver or bronze medal. Doesn’t that just mean that they were first or second loser? As far as I see things, the point – the essence, if you will – of any competition is victory (especially if you’re keeping score). Everyone other than the winner just needs to work harder and practice more, not be recognized with a prize for losing! Many of my colleagues think I’m wrong about this, but I just can’t see the point or truth of saying someone “won a silver or bronze medal.” In my mind (and in my neighborhood) that just means you were a loser.

Assuming – for the sake of being open-minded – that I might be wrong about Olympic medals and what the essence of competition is, led me to wonder about just what I think a marriage is (and even if it is the kind of thing that might have an essence). This is, of course, a different question from the ballot initiative Minnesota voters will face on Nov. 6 about whether a specific definition of marriage should be enshrined in the state constitution. I thought I knew what marriage was because I’ve been in one for the last 21 years. But some of my colleagues think I’m wrong about that too. Marriage, so they say, is essentially about love and commitment, and not the sex of the individuals who enter into it.

Lastly, let’s consider one of the ongoing partisan talking points for this cycle: Who gets credit for building things? I definitely know the Buddha was right about interdependent arising – that “things,” understood as processes, events and happenings, arise from causal interactions involving myriad other processes, events and happenings, and that simple atomistic and dyadic cause-effect talk is a colossal over-simplification and falsification. But like Saint Augustine, I’m willing to take the blame for my own mistakes. My real problem, I guess, is seeing how I could have made any in the first place.

All of this has led me to wonder that perhaps the real essence of being open-minded is being able to see that you might just be wrong even when you think that’s impossible! I doubt it – but I could be wrong – maybe.

Steve Laumakis is a professor of philosophy and director of the Aquinas Scholars Honors Program.

Dr. John Martens

News of the fragment was all rather subdued compared to the fanfare, sensationalism and television specials that often greet “new evidence” for early Christianity, usually released to the public around Easter or Christmas holidays for maximum impact. An example of such sensationalism emerged last Easter when there were reports of a discovery of an early Christian tomb in Jerusalem. (You can read my response to that announcement on my blog, Bible Junkies.)

Dr. King’s announcement (also released online – PDF), though, is quite measured in what this fragment can and cannot say about early Christianity.

Published here for the first time is a fragment of a fourth-century CE codex in Coptic containing a dialogue between Jesus and his disciples in which Jesus speaks of “my wife.” This is the only extant ancient text which explicitly portrays Jesus as referring to a wife. It does not, however, provide evidence that the historical Jesus was married, given the late date of the fragment and the probable date of original composition only in the second half of the second century.

King made one mistake, however, in her release of this fragment and that was in calling it “The Gospel of Jesus’ Wife.” Why is this a mistake? It is not a Gospel, it is a fragment (of something) and we do not know where it comes from or to what larger text it belongs. Perhaps, it is a gnostic Gospel and perhaps it is not.

Here is Dr. King’s English translation from Coptic (an ancient Egyptian Christian language) of the whole text:

1 ] “not [to] me. My mother gave to me li[fe…”
2 ] The disciples said to Jesus, “.[
3 ] deny. Mary is worthy of it35
4 ]……” Jesus said to them, “My wife . .[ [
5 ]… she will be able to be my disciple . . [
6 ] Let wicked people swell up … [
7] As for me, I dwell with her in order to . [
8] an image [

1 ] my moth[er
2 ] three [
3 ] … [
4 ] forth which … [
5 ] (illegible ink traces)
6 ] (illegible ink traces)

Finding fragments of ancient texts is not strange – think, for instance, of the Dead Sea Scrolls, many of which were in hundreds of pieces – but a fragment does not give one the whole story either. There is only a little bit of text from which to construct the whole of the argument. Is Jesus really speaking of a wife (physically) or is he speaking of a wife (spiritually), such as the Church? Only a more complete context can certify this for us.

Where was it found?
Certifying this fragment in general, however, is a big issue, and there is an even more profound issue: Many scholars now argue that this text is actually a modern forgery, taking Coptic words from the ancient Gospel of Thomas (from logia 29, 30, 101 and 114) and rearranging them on this fragment.

The scholars Francis Watson (Durham University) and Mark Goodacre (Duke University) both argue that this text borrows every word from the Gospel of Thomas. According to another New Testament scholar, Craig A. Evans, Harvard University will no longer publish King’s paper.

Dr. King knew that forgery was a possibility in her own paper, but the testing of the papyrus showed that it was ancient. Unfortunately, modern forgers can buy ancient papyrus and write on it. What makes this situation even more difficult is that King notes that the fragment belongs to a private collector who wishes to remain anonymous.

Does it say something new?
The evidence, therefore, points to a modern forgery, but this is not certain either. Let’s say it was real. Does the text tell us anything new or different from what we know about early Christianity? I suppose that the two words “my wife” from the mouth of Jesus would be new if we were certain that it referred to an actual woman who was his wife, but we are not certain that is the case.

Keep in mind, too, that even if it did say these words, the text is thought to emerge (if genuine) from a second century context. It would not be proof that Jesus was married. It would be proof that some later Christian group – gnostics or others – thought he was or wished he was married for theological reasons which are not clear to us.

Does the fragment challenge our understanding of Jesus?
If this fragment represented the belief that Jesus was married it would not truly challenge our understanding of Jesus for a simple reason: None of the earliest and best historical documents of Christianity portray Jesus as married. These documents are all in the New Testament, with the exception of the Gospel of Thomas, which also contains some early traditions of Jesus. But none of the canonical Gospels, or the Gospel of Thomas, present Jesus as married.

This fragment, even if authentic, does not provide such an early tradition. Some people say that all men in ancient Judaism had to be married, but this is not true. Apart from early Christians, we know of Jews, such as Essenes, Therapeutae and even rabbis, who remained celibate to devote themselves to God and study.

The textual experts seem to be suggesting – quite strongly – that this fragment of a (possible) Gospel is not genuine, but a modern forgery. Yet, even if it was genuine it does not give us early enough data to challenge the traditions concerning Jesus in the canonical Gospels and maintained by the Church.

The most it would tell us is that some unknown Christian group thought or wished that Jesus was married, but the best evidence is evidence we have known for centuries: According to the New Testament, no wife of Jesus is mentioned; however, he did have a lot of female disciples and was pretty close to his mother, too.

John Martens is an associate professor in the Theology Department, and is director of Master of Arts in Theology program at the St. Paul Seminary School of Divinity.

Most of us can agree that in the hyper-competitive world of international athletic competition – where every athlete is looking for an edge – sports must adhere to a strict standard of ethics and fair play by all. But the world of Anti-Doping testing and arbitration – those entities that are responsible for maintaining these competitive standards – represent a complex system that extends far beyond individual sports and borders.

After the 1998 Tour de France scandals, the first World Conference on Doping in Sport was convened, and there was a call for an independent international agency to “harmonize and marshal the global fight against doping in sport.”

As a result, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) was created to reinforce the ethical principles that are described in the Olympic Charter. With transparency and input from all stakeholders, the WADA developed the World Anti-Doping Code, which was adopted in 2003.

Every country now has a National Anti-Doping Organization (ADO) that is responsible for testing national athletes in- and out-of-competition, as well as athletes from other countries competing within that nation’s borders.

The ADOs also adjudicate anti-doping rules violations and provide anti-doping education. Here in the United States, that organization is the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA). Both the United States Olympic Committee (USOC) and the United States Anti-Doping Agency (USADA) are signatories to the World Anti-Doping Code, and are bound by all the terms. The intention of the adherence to the rules in the code is to make sure that it is effort and talent that determine who wins, nothing else.

There is also a separate independent legal system for Olympic sport known as the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) located in Lausanne, Switzerland that has been in existence for 30 years. The CAS has the “aim of ensuring the protection of the rights of the parties before the CAS and the absolute independence of this institution.”

When USADA makes a charge, the athlete has a choice to choose to accept the charge and face a suspension or ban, or challenge it before the American Arbitration Association/CAS.  In the United States, USADA has a record of 58 wins out of 60 cases.

The Armstrong Case

USADA charged Lance Armstrong with using the banned red blood cell booster erythropoietin (EPO), testosterone, blood transfusions and corticosteroids, trafficking, and administration to others. Even though Armstrong has been tested hundreds of times and never tested positive, USADA brought their case forward based on what is known as a “non-analytical positive,” where doping can be established “through admissions, third party testimony or other evidence.”

Armstrong claimed that USADA’s system was biased against him. Instead of accepting the choices offered by USADA, Armstrong tried to move his case outside the system and have it heard either in U.S. federal court or before the Union Cycliste Internationale (UCI), the international governing body of cycling.

UCI claimed that they had jurisdiction. USADA insisted that under the Code, they had jurisdiction.  Last week in Austin, Tex., U.S. District Judge Sam Sparks sided with USADA stating, “(E)ven if the court has jurisdiction over Armstrong’s remaining claims, the court finds they are best resolved through the well-established system of international arbitration, by those with expertise in the field, rather than by the unilateral edict of a single nation’s courts.”

If Armstrong was going to fight the charges, he had to go through AAA/CAS arbitration first, before filing an appeal to the CAS in Switzerland, and then on appeal to the Swiss courts before the US Federal Court would intervene.  Instead of going through the process demanded by USADA, Armstrong opted completely out saying, “There comes a point in every man’s life when he has to say, ‘Enough is enough.’ … For me, that time is now.”

In addition to a lifetime ban from cycling competition, USADA disqualified Armstrong from any and all competitive results obtained on and subsequent to Aug. 1, 1998, including forfeiture of any medals, titles, winnings, finishes, points and prizes. These actions include Armstrong’s Tour de France titles; however, questions have arisen whether USADA can do that.

UCI could possibly choose to appeal the case to the CAS.  UCI has told USADA that under Article 8.3 of the Code, UCI has a right to a complete, detailed report from USADA on the reasons for its findings against Armstrong before the UCI will make any decision. This detailed report could include a list of all witnesses, testimony and other evidence that they have against Armstrong.

International cycling has a long history of doping in the sport. The question now is if the USADA is successful in stripping Armstrong of the Tour de France titles who would be named as the winner?

The list is literally a rogues’ gallery. Alex Zulle runner-up in 1999 admitted to having taken EPO for the previous four years. Three time runner-up Jan Ullrich, as well as 2005 runner-up Ivan Basso, have been banned for doping and were implicated in the anti-doping “Operation Puerto” police investigation in Spain.

Perhaps, they may go the route of “The Asterisk” that is becoming more common in sport? For example, Bjarne Riis won the Tour in 1996, but in 2007, after the statute of limitations expired, Riis admitted that he used EPO when he won. In 2008, Philippe Sudres, media director for the Tour de France to Danish magazine Politiken said, “We cannot rewrite history. Therefore we recognise Bjarne Riis as the winner of the 1996 Tour de France. But with an asterisk”

Yet, when you look at the official Tour History Guide, Riis’ name is there, without the asterisk. History seems to be kind.

We do not know what will come next in Armstrong’s story, but we do know that the ending has yet to be written.

John Wendt is a member of the Ethics and Business Law Department in the Opus College of Business. He serves on both the Special Doping Panel of the American Arbitration Association and as a member of the International Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS). The CAS is an institution independent of any sports organization which provides for services in order to facilitate the settlement of sports-related disputes through arbitration or mediation. The CAS has only 300 arbitrators from 87 countries, chosen for their specialist knowledge of arbitration and sports law.