Reprinted below are the following WMUB radio commentaries:

"What's in a name?"

"With God all things are possible"

"Respond with peace, not war"

"Stay vigilant"

"Reading Newsweek"

"Thoughts on the `axis of evil'"

"Conservative week"

"On the Death of Stephen Jay Gould"

"To Tolerate or not to Tolerate Smoking"

"Buckeyes, Football and The War on Iraq"

"Traditions Never Die? Of Course they do!"

"In Defense of Ralph Nader"

WHAT'S IN A NAME? Aired 6 and 7 June, 2001

I am one of those married women who kept her name, in this case the name is Hey, spelled H-E-Y. This wasn't a difficult or particularly momentous decision for me. I thought about it and decided I'd rather remain Jeanne Hey than change it to my husband's surname. I probably WOULD have changed it if my name had been particularly odious or embarrassing. I know of a man whose name was Barf, and who only had the sense to change it after he became well known in his field. If my name were Barf, I would have changed it when I married. Similarly, if my husband had an especially beautiful name, like Buchanan, or Lavendar, or Darling or Saavedra, I probably would have changed it too. I'd love to go through life with a name like that. But my husband's name isn't better than mine and the name Hey is uncommon, a bit quirky and I'm kind of attached to it. It usually elicits a laugh and a joke from new acquaintances, such as "Hey Jeannie Hey! Hah Hah!" "Yeah, I never heard that one before," I say. I tell people that I will get the last laugh when a university is founded in my honor and I name it Hey U.

So when I married 10 years ago, I kept my last name. My husband made the same decision, by the way, and also kept his last name. Some family members and a few acquaintances insisted on calling me Mrs. and my husband's name, but these
were the exception. The two name system has worked well for us. It comes in handy at dinner time when the telemarketers call asking for Mr. Hey. We know instantly it's someone who doesn't know us. Professionally it can be helpful. University students who are in both our classes often don't know we're married and therefore don't ask me to take papers and messages home for him. Though I'm sure the fact that I appear in a few of my husband's slides from around the world have spurred rumors of an affair between us. 

Keeping my own name once brought about a real teaching moment. My first semester teaching coincided with Bill Clinton's run for office in 1992. Some students in my class complained that Hillary Clinton really went by the name of Hillary Rodham, and had only begun using Clinton during the presidential campaign. One male student declared that the fact that Hillary had kept her name was evidence that she was more committed to her career than to her marriage. In the interest of full disclosure, I told the class that I was married, that I had kept my name, and that I was more committed to my marriage than to anything else in my life. The student appeared a bit chagrined, but the most interesting part of this story was yet to come. The next day, a group of young women from the class came to see me in my office. They were shy about asking, but what they really wanted to know was HOW I had managed to keep my name. Above all, they wanted to know was my husband angry about it? I told them the truth - that he had been happy about my decision and the whole thing had been a minor issue for both of us. These students were imagining the possibility, perhaps for the first time, that they might be able to get away with keeping their names when they married. That experience taught me a lot about a teacher's position as a role model, albeit unwittingly, and about the enduring notion that men should have the last word about names within a marriage. 

I spent the first five years of my marriage with little thought to the name game. Then I became pregnant with my first son and the naming dilemma resurfaced. We decided early on not to hyphenate. My name doesn't hyphenate well. Pity the poor child named Hey-Smith or Hey-Anderson! We decided our child would carry Hey as a last name and my husband's surname as a middle name. Giving our baby my last name brought about two problems. First, it eliminated some of my favorite first names for boys. I wasn't going to burden my future son by naming him Clay Hey or Jay Hey. The second problem had to do with people's reactions. I knew what to expect because my brother and his wife had made the same
naming decision 10 years earlier and were met with a wave of criticism. "That child won't know who his family is!" "He will be confused about his parentage!" people cried, as if the support of two loving parents over a lifetime was insignificant when compared to the heartbreak of being given his mother's last name. Another criticism was that people would think the
child was "illegitimate," as if any child could not be legitimate. When our son was born, most people assumed he had my husband's last name. When they learned that his last name was mine, many projected an expression that seemed to say, "This has gone too far! Until now you were only making a decision for yourself, but now you're influencing an innocent child!" Five years later, my son's preschool teacher reports that he is very well adjusted and suffers no identity disorders.

Many people think that my naming choices for myself and my children are an attempt to make a feminist statement, and a radical one at that. And while feminism certainly made it possible for my husband and me to make these choices, for me it's never been about making a statement. Choosing names has been just one of the many decisions I've faced and made about my and my children's lives. When people look at me with a roll of the eyes that seems to say "Ohhh - you're one of those extremists," I want to say "It's no big deal." The names don't feel important compared to the daily work, love,
commitment, hardship and joy that make up my relationship with my husband and sons. They could be named Moe, Larry and Curly, or Huey, Louie and Duey for all the difference it would make in how I feel about them.

"With God All Things are Possible" Matthew 19, Mark 13 - aired 29 August 2001


Ohio is the only state in the Union to quote a biblical verse as its state motto, "With God all things are possible." Former Governor and current Senator George Voinivich, under whose leadership these words were engraved in bronze at the State Capitol, said that he did not intend the New Testament phrase to exclude non-Christians, but instead thought that it would be an inspiration to all Ohioans. My reaction to this sentiment was "how does a biblical verse inspire in a way that is non-Christian? Certainly Jesus was only talking about his God and father when he uttered that statement." But a Federal Appeals Court in Cincinnati said in June that as long as there was no mention of a specific god, the motto did not violate our Constitution's separation of Church and State. So where does this leave us? As long as you believe in SOME god, then all things are possible? I'm sure that Ohio's atheists would take issue with that, and I suspect a number of its Jews, Muslims and native Americans would take little inspiration from a motto with such a decidedly Christian genesis.

Aside from the Church/state separation issue, the motto is just so clearly untrue. The motto suggests that if you love and obey God enough, you can make anything happen. But we all know that the best people, even very God-loving ones, cannot stop the effects of disease, bring an end to poverty, prevent a computer crash, or get that nosy coworker to mind his own business. Miracles may indeed happen, but when a child is hoping for an A in school, or worrying that a car will strike her bicycle, only an irresponsible parent would teach her to pray that God intervene on her behalf, rather than to study hard and wear a helmet. So if the state is really interested in a motto that inspires, why not try something more realistic, like "With the love and support of your family and friends, most things are possible." Or "With perseverance and hard work, many things are possible." 

I got to wondering what Jesus meant when he said "With god all things are possible." I guessed that some townsfolk had witnessed a miracle, and, awestruck, asked "how did that water turn into wine?" or "how could a man be raised from the dead?" and that Jesus had answered "Well you know, with god all things are possible." So I consulted my little green New Testament that the Gideons had given me on campus. Imagine my surprise when I looked up the verse, found both in Matthew and in Mark. It's not about earthly miracles at all. Jesus is telling a man to abandon his possessions and to give to the poor if he wishes to enter heaven. He tells his disciples that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle than for a rich man to enter into the Kingdom of God." This gets the disciples worried, and wondering, well then who will be able to go to heaven? Jesus, in essence, tells them "don't worry if you can't understand it. But trust me, it can be done, because "with god, all things are possible."" Give up your riches, and not only will you survive, God will also smile upon you.

So let me get this straight. Governor, now senator Voinivich voted to give the wealthy a huge tax cut and to repeal estate taxes. The new tax system requires a cut in services to the nation's and to the world's poor. When Voinivich was governor, the courts repeatedly ordered the state to overturn the educational funding system because it put poor kids in the worst schools. This same Senator Voinivich hopes to inspire his constituents with a biblical verse telling us that the only way to get to heaven is to give up your riches to the poor? The state motto undermines the very policies that its Republican promoters support.

The motto is here to stay. The ACLU declined to take its suit against the motto to the Supreme Court, fearing that the high Court would create a precedent favoring Christian mottos in public places. From now on, whenever I see or hear the motto reminding me that "with god, all things are possible," I will also remember what Jesus meant when he said those words. I'm sure I'll also remember a decidedly secular, yet very true axiom taken from the pages of American theater: no matter what the tax code is, you can't take it with you.

RESPOND WITH PEACE, NOT WAR - aired 19 September 2001

I want to thank WMUB for its series of forums dedicated to last week's tragedy. Listening to our community's reactions gave an opportunity to work out my own feelings and helped me feel less isolated in this most frightening and shocking time. What most struck me about the people who called in was that so many did not join the chorus for swift military action against the terrorists or the countries where they live. Instead, they called for restraint, diplomacy and tolerance. Given that almost no political leader or national network dares to give voice to these sentiments, WMUB's coverage became all the more important in letting me know that I wasn't alone in my perspective.

It is impossible to understand or ever know what motivated these attacks. There is no justification for them, none. But we should remember that the actions of extremists are usually based on emotions shared by a wider community. Very few people blow up the headquarters of timber companies or put themselves in the path of logging trucks. Yet concern for our old growth forests and for the health of our environment is widespread. A very small minority commits violence against abortion clinics or goes as far as murdering doctors who perform abortions. Yet millions of Americans vehemently oppose abortion. The behavior of a few extremists, no matter how heinous, does not per se remove the merit of the argument they represent. Nor should it. Our society is stronger for the debates we have about the environment, abortion and many other issues, even when we revile any violence committed in the name of those debates.

So now we have a terrorist attack against the World Trade Center and the Pentagon. Again, there is no justification whatsoever for this carnage. But it behooves us to ask what the terrorists' anger was about, because it is no doubt shared by millions. It's a good guess that it has to do with two things: US foreign policy and the global distribution of wealth. President Bush is wrong when he says we were targeted for attack because we are a freedom-loving nation. It is precisely because the US has so often resorted to violence, human rights abuses, sponsoring brutal dictators, and tolerating corruption that many people in the world are angry with us. There's a strong feeling that the US is willing to subvert the freedom of others in order to secure its own. Second, the truly horrific distribution of wealth in this world is the elephant in the room of this tragedy. Few want to talk about it, but the grandeur of the World Trade Center and the concentration of wealth in the United States are symbols of a world divided between the ultra-rich and the miserably poor. We are shocked by the thousands killed in these attacks, yet we live daily with the reality that many more die each day from the slowly lethal effects of grinding poverty. And yes, Afghanistan is among the greatest sufferers. It's been said so many times that it's become cliché: there can be no conceivable justification for a world that gives huge riches to so few, while others go without even food and shelter.

President Bush has promised to "rid the world of the evil doers." He speaks repeatedly of retaliation and punishment against the terrorists. Indeed, they should be captured and brought to justice. As a global leader, the United States should set an example. It should take the high road and use all diplomatic and multilateral channels to investigate and prosecute this crime. The way in which we respond will set the tone for international relations for years to come. Let us be the ones to say no to this madness. Let us be the ones to say we will not escalate this violence. And let the United States pay keen attention to the global inequities and injustices that breed hatred and resentment in the first place. Without addressing these, the United States can only expect more violence against us.

Stay Vigilant - aired 13 November, 2001

The stakes surrounding the war in Afghanistan and the anthrax cases in the United States are so high that the media's coverage at times feels like an information carpet-bomb. The abundance of stories on the war and anthrax is appropriate, but nevertheless squeezes out coverage of issues of comparable magnitude. This is worrisome not only because we rely on the media to inform us about a wide spectrum of issues, but also because media attention is the principle means of keeping government honest. The Bush administration has taken advantage of public distraction to push through numerous anti-environmental policies. It wiped away with the stroke of a pen hard-won regulations that had been years in the making and that protected fragile ecosystems from the effects of industrial and residential development. The New York Times editorialized about this tragedy, but interestingly did not report it in a fashion that would garner much attention.

Closer to home, the Ohio House of Representatives has behaved in ways that would no doubt be the subject of national news if we were not in crisis-mode. The trend began earlier this year, when a Cincinnati Republican sponsored a bill to legalize concealed weapons in Ohio. The bill calls for the fewest restrictions possible under federal law. It would not require gun carriers to obtain permits or training, would not keep guns out of the hands of criminals with outstanding arrest warrants, and would not compel gun owners to lock up their guns in a house where children live. In the wake of the Cincinnati riots, such a proposal seemed unthinkable. Surely we can all agree that a silver lining during those days of unrest was that no one was killed in the riots. Yet the bill's sponsor, Tom Brinkman, argued that concealed weapons would have made the riots safer and less violent than they were. The idea that concealed weapons would be a positive addition to race riots would be laughable if it were not so terrifying.

In late October, the House passed a rule restricting local health boards' right to enact public-health rules. The bill was aimed at reversing anti-smoking edicts in Ohio, but will have the effect of restricting health boards' ability to enact other regulations as well. This is troublesome on two counts. First, it removes decision making power from people with expertise in public health. In the smoking case, the health boards' decisions were fully backed by research about the effects of second hand smoke. Second, in this era when we are worried about biological warfare, do we want to remove health boards' ability to enact quick measures designed to ensure our safety? The health board is an appointed body. Yet it is certainly better suited than the state legislature to make a decision about a quarantine or a school closing. When these decisions are in legislators' hands, we place them in the arena of politics, corporate campaign financing, and the ignorance that our elected officials too often show. When the stakes are as high as our public health, I prefer the experts.

Finally, the House passed a bill ensuring that Ohio will not recognize any same-sex marriages, as if the state's opposition to such unions were not already abundantly clear. This bill ensures that no marriage benefits can be enjoyed by same sex couples who were married legally elsewhere. The bill's supporters claim that this legislation is an important piece of the House's socially conservative agenda. While House Republicans celebrate their ideological victory, gay parents and partners go without health insurance, survivor's benefits and a whole host of other advantages married people like me take for granted. 

The September 11th tragedy led to a national outpouring of emotion and charitable giving. Millions saw it as their duty to try to lessen the terrible blow with words of kindness, acts of compassion, and dollars from their wallets. But we have another and no less important duty. And that is to stay vigilant in our oversight of government. That is what democracy requires. The constitutional framers established a system by which the public held elected leaders accountable. The tragedy did not wipe away Ohio's failing schools, neglected children, uninsured families or industrial pollution. It only made it harder to focus our leaders' attention on them. Let us remind them that we haven't forgotten.

Reading Newsweek - aired Jan 9, 2002

Thanks, I believe, to my WMUB membership subscription, I started receiving NEWSWEEK magazine some months ago. The year's last issue has a compelling account of the events of September 11th, as experienced by four different individuals. I could hardly put it down and will keep the issue to show to my children and grandchildren when they are grown. In stark contrast to this kind of reporting, however, is Newsweek's end-of-year "conventional wisdom" page. A number of years ago, Newsweek retooled its look to present the news in a way that was more hip, flashy, funny and presumably, profitable than its predecessor. This is why Newsweek cover pages, especially before September 11th, were as likely to be devoted to child brats and the Harry Potter movie as they were to the Middle East or poverty in America. I've nothing against either of those stories, but I find them unworthy of such attention in what purports to be the nation's leading NEWS magazine. The conventional wisdom, or CW feature, is a key part of Newsweek's current profile. Readers are not told how its anonymous author knows what the national sentiment is, but he or she weekly doles out a quick and witty sentence or two, supposedly summing up the American mood on any number of issues.

The year-end CW covers 40 people and topics, ranging from George Bush to Microsoft to Britney Spears. Some of the entries are cute, such as the CW's rating stocks this year as a loser. "I'd rather read my junkmail than my 401k statement," the CW opines. Me too, I nod. Others are predictable. No surprise that the CW labels Tim McVeigh a loser this year and the Broadway show The Producers a winner. I hardly needed a news magazine to tell me that. But other entries are troubling, because they reduce to a witty remark issues that are too complex and serious to make fun of. 

Take for example, the conventional wisdom on Afghanistan. This war-torn country earned a mixed rating this year. The CW said "Old conventional wisdom: burquas all around! New conventional wisdom: Kandahar wet T-shirt contest every week." Have not the women of Afghanistan suffered enough indignity by the Taliban to be spared such humiliating language by a leading journal in the Western world? Can we really reduce Afghanistan's experience this year to burquas and wet T-shirts?

Or try this one on Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld, who gets a thumbs up: "Kick-ass press briefings make him the sexiest man in the administration," the CW says. Rumsfeld went to college with my father, so I'm unlikely to find him sexy. But that's not my objection. Have you seen these supposedly magnificent press briefings? They are an affront to journalistic integrity. Rumsfeld has his Pentagon press corps so docile, so complacent, that they act more like his groupies than his interrogators. They giggle and share knowing eyes at his jokes. These so-called press briefings are better described as love-fests. A reporter's job is to hold our public servants accountable. Journalists and government officials are by definition antagonists. Yet Rumsfeld not only avoids any question he doesn't like, he charms the reporters into thinking it's not their place to ask. We know that government truth telling is one of the first casualties of war. Today we need reporters to be more vigilant and demanding than ever. But instead we have a leading News magazine hailing our Defense Secretary as "yummy Rummy."

Finally, what does the CW have to say about National Security adviser Condoleeza Rice, who was a crucial decision maker during the terrorist events and the war? She's "brainy, beautiful and eligible. Russel Crowe on line 2!" To reduce the former provost of Stanford, a highly respected scholar, and the first female and African American national security adviser to "brainy, beautiful and eligible" is to equate the importance of her looks and marital status to that of her achievements. What do professional women in the public eye have to do to get the press to ignore their looks and love lives? Of the forty entries in Newsweek's conventional wisdom column, only seven were women. Of those, four had their physical traits noted. Of the 22 men rated, only three had physical qualities mentioned, and those were Arafat's facial stubble, Rumsfeld's sexiness, and, predictably, a recommendation to Al Gore that he lose the beard.

I suspect that some listeners would like to tell me, "lighten up, it's just for fun." Perhaps they're right. But in response I make two points. First, Newsweek is a major magazine not only in this country. It is published and read widely around the world. Its whimsical treatment of important issues may not be taken so lightly, or even understood, by readers in foreign countries. The CW could easily be taken for disrespect. Indeed, were I a Muslim woman in the Middle East or Central Asia, I would certainly perceive it as such. Second, Newsweek can only publish so many pages. For every column inch taken by the CW, time, space and resources are removed from more serious coverage. That, and the fact that the conventional wisdom page is the one first read in doctors' offices, makes it very likely that the CW depiction of people and events will carry as much weight with readers as in-depth and nuanced reporting. In this age of intercultural tension, war, terrorism and poverty, we need greater understanding from our news magazines, not clever quips aimed at getting a laugh at the expense of others.

Thoughts on the Axis of Evil - aired 11 March 2002

In his State of the Union address, the President declared that the war on terrorism would extend towards the “axis of evil,” a supposed coalition of North Korea, Iran and Iraq.  In the following weeks, editorialists duly criticized the axis-of-evil concept. An axis implies an alliance. Clearly no alliance exists between sworn enemies Iran and Iraq and there is no evidence to suggest that either is working with North Korea. Similarly, if the axis of evil is part of the war on terrorism, why does it include three states whose connections to the September 11^th attacks are questionable at best?  We should remember that it was citizens of Pakistan and Saudi Arabia who have the strongest links to Al Qaeda and are guilty not only of September 11^th, but also of the recent murder of an American journalist.  Although these two states are non-democratic and serious human rights abusers, President Bush could not include them in the evil axis.  Saudi Arabia is a long-time oil exporter whose King Faad has been friendly with many White House occupants. Pakistan’s President Musharaf decided, after Sept 11^th, that it was wiser to join the US than to fight it.  So President Bush’s speech writers had to look elsewhere to find their axis of evil, even if it meant vilifying countries not linked to recent terrorism.  The administration’s unmasked selectivity reveals its double standards and sends the message that as long as you behave as a US ally, Washington will forgive your human rights abuses and keep you off the evil list.

The fallout from abroad was almost instantaneous.  The international community rejected the idea that the US might invade Iraq to topple Saddam Hussein.  The “axis of evil” speech in one day undid years of progress on US-Iranian relations.  Iran’s elected President Khatami, a reformer trying hard to inject some moderation into the Islamist state, had made sincere gestures towards warming relations between Tehran and Washington.  Yet Bush’s including Iran in the axis pushed Khatami to hold a large anti-American rally, and no doubt fortified Iranian clerics who oppose Khatami’s modernizing policies. Furthermore, South Koreans reacted with anger and fear that Bush might have endangered the fragile peace they share with North Koreans.

All of these problems put the Bush administration on the defensive.  National Security Adviser Condaleeza Rice went on television to explain that the axis of evil was not made up so much of terrorist supporters as of undemocratic states that export technology for weapons of mass destruction.  When it was pointed out that China plainly fit that definition, the Bush administration conceded that special accommodations had to be made for a country of China’s size.  Bush and his entourage spent much of their trip to Asia downplaying the impact of the “axis of evil” speech, claiming that there were no intentions to invade any place soon, and that even though the North Koreans are evil, we are willing to talk with them whenever they desire.  For me, the most bizarre moment of this episode came when President Bush, gazing across the Korean DMZ, was told of a North Korean museum that housed axes used to kill American servicemen in 1976.  Our commander in chief stated, “No wonder I think they’re evil,” almost as if he hadn’t understood his reasons before.

The fact that the axis of evil has fallen flat on its face in international circles has not daunted the Bush Administration’s resolve to continue its use.  Recently, Bush’s supporters revealed what the axis of evil is really about.  “It’s polling very well,” remarked David Brooks, a sentiment echoed by administration officials and friends on the punditry circuit.  Using the “axis of evil” as a guiding foreign policy principle is dangerous, internationally condemned, inaccurate and inflammatory. But so long as it’s polling well, I suppose we can expect to see the axis of evil as part of our lexicon for some time.

Conservative Week – aired 12 April 2002

On the Miami Campus, this has been “Conservative Week,” sponsored by the College Republicans.  I commend the group for its excellent public relations and organization.  The week’s highpoint was a campus visit by David Horowitz, a former left-wing activist turned conservative.  His specialty is pointing out the hypocrisy of academic liberals. Horowitz’s most recent coup was to take out an ad in campus newspapers in which he argued against the reparations movement, which calls for monetary compensation to African Americans for slavery.  Horowitz correctly guessed that campus editors would reject his ad.  Indeed, many newspapers refused to run it, giving Horowitz exactly what he wanted: a platform from which to demonstrate that the left, the supposed champion of civil rights, quashes free speech it finds objectionable.  For the record, I disagree with those who argued against printing the ad.  Remember, opposition to reparations is the norm, not some lunatic fringe notion.  Failure to print the mainstream position not only undermines free speech, but also indicates an unwillingness to listen to majority opinion. Opponents to Horowitz’s views should not have opposed their publication, but instead have bombarded newspapers with letters promoting reparations and correcting the misconceptions many Americans have about the movement’s proposals.

Conservative Week is organized around a series of causes, one theme per day. Monday was “Right to bear arms day. Remembering a basic right of all Americans.”  Opposition to gun control is an issue most conservatives support, so it makes sense to begin here. It should be noted, however, that America’s policemen, an ordinarily conservative group, consistently oppose laws aimed at making guns more available.

Tuesday was “Border patrol day. Increase homeland security through stronger borders.” Wednesday was “It’s your money day. Preserving your right to keep what you earn.”  Both of these appear to be attractive ideas in the abstract.  I just wonder with what funds the College Republicans hope to strengthen borders, not to mention pay for the public part of the public ivy education Miami offers, and fund a 21st Century military.  In the 1990s, the US achieved budget surpluses.  Now the Bush administration reports that we will return to deficit spending. Yet the College Republicans call for more tax cuts, which will lead to higher deficits.

Next we come to Thursday, “Support our heroes day.  Being American Means supporting our troops.”  Please tell me there are some conservatives who see the danger in the idea that “being American” means supporting any particular policy or group. Being American means enjoying our extraordinary privileges: the first being the right to think and express our views freely.  There are thousands, probably millions, in this country who do not support our war in Afghanistan nor the troops fighting it. Some are Quakers, who believe in strict pacifism. Some are Muslims, who fear the battle will escalate into a war against the Islamic World. Some are Bush-hating Democrats, who can’t support any policy implemented by a man they see as unelected and illegitimate.  Some no doubt woke up one morning and simply decided to oppose the war. The point is that in this country, you don’t have to justify your views to be American.  If anything, the suggestion that you do is un-American because it violates the very core of our constitution. 

Finally, Friday brings us to “Family values day, reinforcing the importance of family structure in American culture.”  Strong families are essential to children’s well being.  I attribute the vast majority of any successes I’ve enjoyed to my parents: the values, love, stability, safety, and commitment they have shown since the day I was born.  So as long as family values day is not a code word for opposition to single-parent families (like my sister’s), gay-couple families (like that of one of my son’s playmates), or divorced families (like the one I grew up in), I’m all in favor of this one.

On the Death of Stephen Jay Gould - aired 22 May 2002

The news of Stephen Jay Gould’s death devastated me, in part because it was so unexpected, but mostly because Gould was one of my heroes.  Cancer took the life of one of America’s most articulate, intelligent and good-humored intellectuals. That he was only 60 years old means that we were robbed of decades more of Gould’s incomparable contributions to public debate on everything from science to baseball to architecture.  I had hoped to rely on Gould’s insights the way I’ve relied on Daniel Shore’s for so many years.  Both men share a rare combination of historical perspective, a critical eye and an uncanny ability to elucidate complex phenomena for a popular audience.

How is it that a paleontologist and biologist came to influence thousands whose experience with physical and natural science ended at best, with an introductory college course?  The answer lies in Gould’s skill in writing and speaking to popular audiences. His award–winning book, The Panda’s Thumb, turned on my light bulb of understanding about evolution.  Part of the reason was that he explained evolution through a beautifully written account of what we think of as a panda’s thumb – the digit with which the panda grasps his bamboo meal.  Gould revealed that it was not a thumb at all, but a bone extension that through years of evolutionary progress came to work as a thumb for an animal that needed it in his dietary niche.  In The Mismeasure of Man, Gould provided a historical account of the misuse of science to justify racial prejudice through such seemingly laughable, and demonstrably flawed, methods as cranial measuring.  Gould’s account reveals the scary truth that many of the day’s most respected scientists were involved in this racist quackery.

The sheer volume of Gould’s writings is staggering. He published his magnum opus, The Structure of Evolutionary Theory, only last month.  As impressive as his writings were, it was Gould’s spoken word that most inspired me. I saw him speak twice, once in the early 1980s when he was gaunt during his first bout with cancer, and later to a filled and enormous auditorium at Ohio State. He reached every member of his audiences, which were filled with neophytes like myself and revered scientists with years of experience.  But it was in television appearances that Gould became perhaps best known to the American public. He was featured in Ken Burn’s 9-part documentary on baseball. I shall never forget Gould’s telling of his secretly listening to a baseball play-off game while sitting in a high school Latin class.  It was sheer comic joy.  Later he was interviewed for a PBS program on the debate about evolution vs. creation.  With clarity, eloquence, and grace that won my life-time admiration, Gould explained how evolutionary evidence was so strong as to make any debate over its authenticity an irritable distraction from scientific inquiry.  That’s a bold statement, especially in a country where 90 percent of the population believes in a higher being.  Indeed it’s a sentiment I would not dare to express in mixed company. Yet Gould was so matter-of-fact and convincing that he effectively quashed any response.

Stephen Jay Gould was an invaluable asset to our society because he was an extraordinarily articulate and public renaissance man. He could and did speak on politics, science, history, sports, music, the galaxy and any other topic. But unlike so many in our pundit-populated press, he spoke intelligently and with evidence on every topic he covered.  He never spoke down to his audience. In contrast, he brought us up, certainly not to his level, but to a higher level than the one we were on before listening to him.  In an age in which our heroes are all too often sports figures and actors, the accomplishments of a man whose fame stems from his life-long commitment to the arduous scientific method are all the more remarkable.  Stephen Jay Gould not only spent his life in the unglamorous world of data collection, theory and laboratories, he wrote it all up in a way that made that world accessible to the general public.  What a service! Who can replace him?  I fear no one.  But let us at least aspire to his ideal.

To tolerate or not to tolerate smoking - aired in June, 2003

Miami University dormitories are now smoke-free, a big change that got me thinking about smoking.  Everyone knows two fundamental truths about cigarettes: First, smoking is harmful to the health of smokers and those around them.  Second, even equipped with this knowledge, many people decide to smoke.  Public health campaigns succeeded in dramatically cutting smoking rates from where they were in the middle of the last century.  But a sizable minority of new smokers remains immune to health information, public pressure and the rising costs of tobacco.

So the essential question at hand is not if smoking is good or bad.  It is whether non-smokers should tolerate ambient smoke.  I am a non-smoker and have reason to side with my fellow clean-breathers on this issue.  I can smell a lit cigarette a mile away.  I avoid bars and restaurants without no smoking sections.  I myself was a low birthweight baby, and grew very slowly as an infant.  My earliest photograph shows me nestled in the crook of my mother’s arm, a lit cigarette just inches from my head.  I’ve always suspected that my mother’s smoking accounted for my small size and the fact that I suffered lung problems throughout childhood.  My three younger brothers, all born after my mom quit smoking, were all much more robust than I.  Years later, when my parents’ marriage began to disintegrate, both mom and dad resumed the bad habit after years of not smoking.  I became the most virulent anti-smoking activist on the planet, begging them to stop and throwing their cigarettes in the garbage.  No doubt, I was channeling my anger at their divorce into my passions about their smoking.  But for whatever reason, I equated smoking with pure evil.

But then I got an unanticipated lesson. When I was 16, I traveled to Bogota, Colombia for a year’s stay as a foreign exchange student.  Immersion in a new culture brought many challenges, and one of them was that EVERYBODY smoked.  Smoking was as mainstream as eating and I quickly learned that I had to abandon my “smokers are evil” mentality if I were to have any friends.  Not only did I get over my smoking bigotry, I learned to smoke myself.  I spent the next six or seven years as a social smoker. I never became so addicted that I could not quit, a fact I attribute to non-addictive genes rather to any personal fortitude.  Smoking was a crucial part of my maturation. I relaxed my opposition to the whole smoking enterprise and learned an important lesson about the pitfalls of judging people on a single criterion.

Ohio has one of the highest smoking rates in the nation. Of the top ten US cities with the most smokers, three are in Ohio.  This is a tragedy, for the smokers, their friends and families. I support public policies aimed at reducing smoking and making the workplace free of carcinogens. But I try to practice this philosophy in a way that distinguishes between the cigarette and the smoker.  Tolerating smoking in public places is one small way in which I can be the one to make the compromise for other people.  I also suspect that a generous spirit on the part of non-smokers is more effective than are increasingly stringent non-smoking rules.  I have never met a smoker who quit because of others’ harsh rules or nasty comments, though I imagine some exist.  But I know many smokers who quit because they understood the dangers and because they had the support of their friends and families.

There is another reason to be careful about anti-smoking policies, especially higher taxes on tabacco.  Smoking is class conscious.  Outside of college campuses, smoking predominates among working class people.  Most of the money from cigarette taxes thus comes from the pockets of those who can least afford it.  It’s easy to argue that low-income smokers should stop smoking and therefore avoid the tax.  But this forgets that smoking, besides being an addiction, is an element of American working class, as well as immigrant, culture. Choosing to smoke is not simply a personal decision that happens independent of social pressure, parental example or local custom.  Intended or not, a certain elitism is imbedded in anti-smoking campaigns and so-called sin taxes. 

So yes, we should do all we can to reduce smoking.  But let’s do it in a way that is humble, tolerant and cognizant of the fact that, like it or not, cigarettes are part of the American experience. And that means that smokers are part of the American family just as much as everyone else.

Buckeyes, Football and the War in Iraq - aired in January, 2003

Football season is over, which means I’m in trouble.  I never imagined myself as one submerged in the weekly endeavors on the gridiron.  But from early Fall to Sunday night’s superbowl, I was just that. I haven’t been just watching football, I’ve been following football.  I read about it. I email friends about it.  For goodness sakes, I even learned what a “secondary” was.  When the day came that I could distinguish a cornerback from a “wide-out,” I knew a seismic shift had occurred. I’d gone from a casual spectator to a true fanatic.  What effected such a change?  Two answers:  The Buckeyes and September 11^th.

It turns out that football, especially if you’re following a winning team, is a great way to avoid the worries and anxieties of every day life, exactly like those that have plagued me since September 11^th.

Certainly, the Ohio State team had something to do with my taking up this new habit. Had it not been so good, I might still be mired in dread of the future.  So for any of you who may have missed it, allow me briefly to outline the significance of the OSU national championship this year. The Buckeyes went undefeated, one of only two teams to do so in the regular season.  They beat reigning national champions and consensus bad guys the Miami Hurricanes in what was the most dramatic and exciting national championship every played.  The team had not won a national championship in 34 years.  The Bucks were an almost unheard-of 12 point underdogs to the Hurricanes.  And finally, despite going undefeated the whole season, the Buckeyes never received even one first place vote in any of the major polls.  So their victory overcame the lowest expectations imaginable, not only for the championship game, but for the entire season. 

            But a good football team does not a life change make.  That takes environmental determinants as well, and September 11^th provided them.  That tragedy shook me so completely that it seemed to create a hole in my spirit that begged to be plugged.  My defense mechanisms went to work to find suitable filler material.  Just at the right time, the OSU football team appeared on the scene, eager to pack my weeks with drama, suspense, and just enough blood and violence to assure me I was engaged in something at least as important as mortal combat.

            Here’s how it works:  Concerned about impending war? Presto! Get out the tape of the Michigan game.  Depressed because my children may not live to a ripe age? Chill out!  Buy tickets to the Illinois game and drive them to Champagne to see it.  Reading about war deaths in Afghanistan? No problem! Put that news rag down and pick up Sports Illustrated. What’s this?  Some sports writers still don’t think Ohio State deserves a spot in the national championship after going 13 and 0? This is an outrage! Maybe I’ll organize a march on Washington.

I’ve tried to make the magic last. After the college season ended, I dragged my family to Columbus to attend an Ohio Stadium rally in support of our troops, er I mean football players.  We sat for hours in freezing cold just to get a glimpse of the team and another opportunity to yell “Go Bucks!” to deaf ears.  When that ended, I turned to the NFL play-offs. Having grown up near Philadelphia, I saw at least three weeks’ opportunity for further life avoidance in the Eagles playoff-run.  But they lost, leaving me with two unpromising superbowl candidates.  Tampa Bay and Oakland?  Not only have I never been to either place, I have absolutely no connection to either place.  What to do?  Wait, it’s the Tampa Bay Bucaneers.  Go Bucks!  My father calls to say that my brother will probably get shipped to the Persian Gulf.  Later dad – the Bucs are playing in the superbowl! 

But now the seasons, college and pro, are REALLY over. So what will I do?  Whereas my office door is typically covered with clippoings about world politics, visitors now find pictures of the Buckeye players engaged in chest-bumping glee.  Sports news fades fast, and I’ll soon be under pressure to replace those photos.  Earlier this week, I turned on the TV in hopes of finding an alternative that will allow me to maintain my blissful state.  Oh! The State of the Union address.  Let’s see…. What can I find here?  Bad economy, uninsured Americans, expectations of more terrorism, tax cuts for the rich….  Wait! George! You didn’t even MENTION the Buckeyes national championship! This is disgraceful. I think I’ll organize a letter writing campaign.  If I’m ambitious enough, that might carry me through the war on Iraq.

Traditions Never Die? Of Course they Do!

I find myself bemused by the persistence of T-Shirts promoting the Redskins nickname for Miami University sports teams.  If you live or work in Oxford , you know the ones I mean:  On the front they sport an image of a nearly naked Native American, dancing and wielding a tomahawk.  The shirts proclaim that “traditions never die,” and “Redskins Forever.”  I see them most often on undergraduates.  I suppose I thought that the pro-Redskin fervor, at least on campus, would die out with the last class here during the “Redskins” era, which ended in 1996.

I urge any pro-redskins constituency to improve its advertising.  Traditions never die?  Come on!  Thankfully, traditions die all the time.  When my mother started college in 1950, she had to wear a very silly beanie for her entire first semester. I was glad that tradition had died by the time I arrived at the same school.  Many fraternities and sororities had hazing traditions that included criminal behavior and real physical injury, not to mention unspeakable emotional pain and humiliation.  Those traditions are being killed all over our country.  I say good riddance.  So-called “tradition” demanded that women change their names upon marriage and quit their jobs upon pregnancy.  Examples abound of outrageous abuses perpetuated by people’s adherence to a twisted notion of tradition.  It is one of the 20^th Century’s great achievements that it saw the collapse of some of these most notorious practices.

So let’s do away with the idea that because “Redskin” was a tradition, it should continue.  So what could the T-shirt say instead?  The most common sentiment in support of the nickname is that it honors our institution’s Native American ties, and, above all, that it is used as a term of respect, not derision.  So perhaps a new batch of T-shirts could say “Redskins Forever: Hey, we mean it as a term of esteem!”  The back of the shirt might add, “Get off of your politically correct horse already!”

I believe those who say they use “Redskins” in a way that honors Native Americans.  But people’s intent isn’t enough to justify the use of a term with such decidedly racist origins.  Remember, it was the white conquerors who imposed the label on native peoples.  It was used by bounty hunters who collected rewards for how many red skins they brought to the authorities.  There’s simply no way to dignify the term.

Furthermore, talk is cheap.  It’s easy to say you mean respect, but which actions support that?  Are you working to incorporate the Miami Nation’s history into university life?  Forget history, what are you doing to work for the betterment of the Miami Nation today?  Using the “Redskins” nickname is a false honor for the Miami .  It suggests that the tribe is a thing of the past, merely our forebears as occupants of this beautiful and fertile land.  But the Miami are alive, working, raising their families, and celebrating their culture, although most are in Oklahoma , a long distance from their ancestral home.

I asked Daryl Baldwin, a Miami tribe member who works on campus, about his reaction to the T-shirt.  He is decidedly against the “Redskins” nickname, but also surprisingly compassionate.  Baldwin began with a simple truth that too many ignore: “it is impossible for the mascot as a university tradition and the Miami Tribe as a culturally distinct people to represent each other,” he wrote.  He continued,  “Maybe it’s because Americans need to feel good about the fact that their ancestors stole this land and subjugated its Native People through acts of genocide.  Maybe through these sports activities, Native People, represented by mascots and teams, can finally have some dignity, even though it is just a football game.  Maybe this subconsciously rectifies the atrocities of the past for some of these fans.” 

Now there’s an irony for you.  Here is a Native American who has been told time and again that fans use the “Redskins” term out of respect, a claim that rings hollow to him.  He concludes that the term persists so that Whites can assuage our own guilt about our ancestors’ role in the genocide of the Native tribes.  I doubt many “Redskins” supporters would imagine that their fervor would be thus interpreted.  They should take some time to think about it, and talk with Daryl Baldwin and other tribal members before they put that T-shirt back on.

In Defense of Ralph Nader – aired 1 November 2004

Ralph Nader’s run for the presidency is in sore shape.  Instead of starring in campaign rallies, he’s been reduced to suing states for ballot access. Ohio is just the latest of eleven states in which Nader has lost legal battles. He is virtually invisible in the national media.  Earlier in the campaign when he was invited on Meet the Press and similar shows, interviewers habitually avoided Nader’s policy proposals and instead hacked away at the spoiler charge.  Although Nader did his best to insert policy ideas into these conversations, he was drowned out by pundits who cared more about the horse race than about the issues.  The effect of all this is sad: Nader has gone from the country’s best known crusader for consumer rights to one of the country’s best known butt of jokes.

I’ll say now that I will not vote for Ralph Nader. I’m too afraid of another Bush term to chance it. But I simply can’t muster the anger that I see steaming from the ears of many progressives when they speak of their old hero Ralph. Why not?  Because Nader is right.  Every one of his arguments rings with honesty and truth. 

The principal complaint is that Nader kept Gore out of the White House, and will do the same to John Kerry.  Denied the Nader option, voters in 2000 would have voted for the Democrat.  In the current close election, Nader might again force a Bush victory by siphoning off Kerry votes.  What is Nader’s response?  Simply this: If the Democrats lose the election, we should blame them for not having a stronger message, not Ralph Nader who dares to launch a candidacy.  Who can argue with this logic?  Denying Nader his opportunity to run not only leaves Kerry off the hook with progressive voters, it also removes a choice for those same voters and for those who disapprove of the two major candidates.  It’s Kerry’s job to win the election, not bully other participants out of the race. If Kerry’s the better man, let him win on his own merits.

A second argument is that Nader does not deserve a place at the presidential debates, not only because it might undermine Kerry, but because Nader simply isn’t a viable candidate.  Nader’s response? That the Democrats and Republicans have hijacked the debate process.  What was once managed by the non-Partisan League of Women Voters is now super-controlled by the Presidential Debate Commission, run exclusively by the two major parties.  I sense some serious fox guarding the chicken house issues here, yet Nader takes more criticism for wanting in the debates than the major parties do for keeping him out.  The current debate structure removes real competition from the two major parties and leaves the Commission to squabble over frivolities such as podium vs. table, sit vs. stand, and gloves vs. bare knuckles.

Let’s contrast the recent presidential debates with those of Democratic contenders for the nomination back in the Spring.  Those included candidates with no real hope of winning the nomination, much less the presidency. People like Al Sharpton, Carol Mosely Braun and Dennis Kucinich.  Yet their participation immensely enhanced those debates and our national policy conversations. The primary democrats disagreed over big issues, such as whether to end the war in Iraq now, whether to have a national health care system and whether to repeal NAFTA and the WTO. Those debates demonstrated more diversity of views than those between Bush and Kerry.  So I see Nader’s point when he says that choosing between the Democrats and the Republicans is akin to a race between Tweedle Dee and Tweedle Dum.  Perhaps a poor choice of words but his point is well taken: the two main parties simply don’t represent much difference, especially on economic issues.  A multi-party system would represent America ’s diverse electorate much better. Nader is right.

Finally, the word that emerges in every story about Ralph Nader is ego.  The argument goes that Nader simply can’t put aside his oversized sense of self importance to do what’s good for the country.  This attack is not only mean-spirited, but based on no evidence.  Let’s remember why Ralph Nader is well known in the first place. Because he’s spent over forty years working tirelessly to protect consumers. Think “Public Citizen,” “The Environmental Protection Agency,” The Occupational Safety and Health Administration,” and “The consumer product safety administration” just for starters.  All of these are the fruits of Nader’s labors over the years.  The man never married, works 18-hour days, and almost never takes a vacation, all for his work to protect American citizens.  He’s exactly the kind of person I like to see running for office.

Yes, the Supreme Court and other critical issues swing me to voting for Kerry on Tuesday.  But I won’t go so far as to say that a true American whose ideas, work ethic and integrity put the current candidates to shame should not be permitted to run.