U.S. Senate Candidate Chris Coons (DE '83) was interviewed on NPR today. Click here to listen.

When Harry Truman was president, security was a broad concept.  It implied not just a strong military, but also a strong economy, strong morale at home, and strong alliances based on shared threat.  After World War II, President Truman and his able foreign policy corps created a security structure that would buttress world stability for the good of America.  They had the vision to see that America was safer in a world that was more peaceful, more just, and more prosperous.  And they articulated that vision of enlightened self-interest to the American people, explaining why it was in America’s security interest to support the unprecedented foreign aid of the Marshall Plan, reduced protectionism that spurred trade and revived the world economy, and binding alliances such as NATO.

In recent decades, this broad understanding of global security has been dismantled.  Conservative think-tanks teach that national security equals military strength alone.  Liberal pundits want an America so humble that we retreat from global responsibilities, leaving countries like flood-soaked (and nuclear-armed) Pakistan to their own devices.  From both sides of the political spectrum, we pursue narrow self-interest over enlightened self-interest, and are surprised that we reap resentment, anger, and distrust.

When I was finishing a D. Phil in England, supported by my Truman Scholarship, I saw firsthand how these twin strands of policy could tighten into a noose that would harm America – and the world.  Doing dissertation research in Indonesia, the world’s largest Muslim nation, I saw how anti-Americanism plummeted after our tsunami assistance – and how America’s right wing was forcing politicians into cutting such aid and supporting simplistic militarized security measures.  While working in Albania, I saw the gratitude that had come from years of American support for their human rights – most recently through the war in Kosovo.  And yet from the left came cries of hubris if America intervened to assist the lives of the marginalized, poor, and oppressed.

We founded the Truman National Security Project to create a strong voice for Americans who supported a third way in foreign policy.  We wanted to articulate a strong, smart, and principled set of policies that harkened back to the wise worldview of President Truman while meeting the challenges of the 21st century.

Five years later, the Truman Project and its sister organization, the Truman Educational Institute, have become the nation’s largest organizations training progressive leaders in national security.  Each year, we offer courses for more than 200 Congressional staff, scores of political candidates, and hundreds of progressive political consultants and activists who may never have considered security issues before.  Our flagship Truman Fellowship trains a handpicked cohort of future leaders.  Over 100 Truman Fellows now serve in the Obama Administration and in Congress, ranging from special assistants to National Security Advisor General Jim Jones, General David Petraeus, and Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and speechwriters for President Obama, to on-the-ground military officers and USAID leaders in Afghanistan.

Our trainings emphasize hard moral and policy questions: for instance, a recent scenario on what to do about Iran’s nuclear weapons program was co-created with Harvard University’s Graham Allison, and moderated by leading Iran experts.  Those we train are inspired by personal meetings and mentorship from security leaders such as Homland Security Secretary Janet Napolitano (NM ’77), General Petraeus, and Anthony Lake.  We provide deep training in effective communication, drawn from cutting-edge psychological research.  And we position those we train to impact the public conversation, by placing them in the media, in advocacy campaigns, and in the political sphere.

A crucial part of our effort is to reconnect foreign policy leaders with the military.  In a democracy, civilians must lead the military.  But as the left became estranged from our fighting forces following Vietnam, it left a legacy of separateness that harmed our ability to understand what our military could, and could not, do.  That hurts policy.  Thucydides said that “The society that separates its scholars from its warriors will have its thinking done by cowards and its fighting by fools.”   By bringing together rising policy-makers under 40 with their military peers, we hope to overturn such a damning indictment.

We also work to bridge the gap between foreign policy makers and politicians.  For decades, foreign policy thinkers have disdained American politics.  The political process removes so much nuance from tough foreign policy questions that to engage in politics was seen by many as a betrayal of their policy wisdom.  But in a democracy, policy is made through politics.  We help rising foreign policy leaders under 40 become comfortable with the political sphere, and able to communicate their policy case in language that resonates politically – not just to the illuminati of Beltway Washington!

One of our most recent projects in this sphere has been in the area of climate change and energy.  Our addiction to oil has poured billions of dollars into the coffers of countries arrayed against us – such as Iran and Russia.  It also filters into terrorist networks. In the words of former Director of Central Intelligence R. James Woolsey, our oil addiction has created the first time since the Civil War that we are funding both sides of a conflict. Meanwhile, climate change is a threat multiplier, sparking famines and floods and exacerbating migration in the poorest parts of the world, creating uprooted populations ripe for riot and radicalism.

But the issues of energy and climate had become partisan.  Half our polarized country saw them as left-wing issues, rather than looking at the policy facts.  The Truman Project has mobilized more than 700 veterans in our OperationFree program (watch video here) to speak out on the national security need to reduce climate change while freeing America from oil dependence.  They have spoken in more than 200 cities across America, and have been hosted twice at the White House.  Their efforts to lobby Congress for action – from supporting a cap on carbon, to working for higher fuel efficiency standards – are changing the terms of this debate, and helping everyday Americans to understand the security need to move to a new energy future.

As President Truman said, “America was not built on fear. America was built on courage, on imagination and an unbeatable determination to do the job at hand.”  We hope through the work of the Truman Project to create a new generation of leaders who can help America stay great, and the world to be ever more peaceful and just.

Rachel Kleinfeld (AK '97) is the CEO and Co-Founder of the Truman National Security Project and Truman Educational Institute.

Janine Davidson, Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense, and Aron Ketchel, Truman Fellow

Gayle Smith, Senior Director at the National Security Council, with Phil Carter, Truman Fellow

Truman Fellows at the annual conference

It’s already been a decade since I was a Truman Scholar.  In some ways, it seems like only yesterday that I was in at the Summer Institute in Washington, DC for the program, where my eyes were opened to many new things.  And that was just in the George Washington University dorm.  In other ways, it seems like I’ve traveled a long road from the 21 year old college student I was then to the 32 year old San Diego City Councilmember I am now.

I have known since middle school that I had an interest in government and public service.  At that young age, I didn’t know all that much about government or what it could mean for my future.  A youth leadership program in San Diego helped provide a foundation of knowledge, and the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Program gave me the incredible gift of experiential learning throughout the program and as an intern at the White House for First Lady Hillary Rodham Clinton.

As Truman Scholars, we all know about the program and took away something a little different from it.  For me, the biggest takeaway was a renewed sense that I was on the right path.  I studied history and political science and worked as an intern in the local office of California State Assemblymember Susan Davis.  The year I graduated from college, Susan unseated an incumbent to win a seat in the U.S. House of Representatives, and I was proud to serve in her San Diego office as a Community Representative for her first term and as her District Director for her next three terms. 

Through my work as a congressional staffer, community activist and a City Housing Commissioner, I had the opportunity to meet hundreds of exemplary San Diego neighbors, and many of them suggested that I run for a City Council seat that was going to be open due to term limits.  After a lot of soul-searching, days worth of discussions with family and friends (including some fellow Truman Scholars), and a fair amount of MTV to distract me, I decided to go for it.  I recall one of the first doors I knocked on when canvassing for myself was an older man who informed me that he is a very conservative Republican.  He asked me only one question: “Who is your favorite President?”  My answer was the only one a Truman Scholar could give: Harry Truman.  The man jumped for joy, hugged me and let me place one of my signs in his yard.  The Truman Scholarship was still paying off all these years later!

Thankfully, the folks who suggested I run for office weren’t the only ones who thought I was qualified, and I won my race and was inaugurated at the end of 2008.  Naturally, I quickly placed a portrait of President Truman in my office.

While serving in public office during the worst economic climate in 70 years is not ideal, I can say without hesitation that I love my job.  In the short 20 months I have been in office, I have worked with my colleagues to advance my goals of improving public safety, increase infrastructure funding and build more affordable housing for San Diego families.  My daily objective is to help people and to make San Diego a better place. 

Certainly the work is not without its downsides.  It is impossible to adequately address the needs of the eighth largest city in the United States.  No matter how I vote on an issue, there is always some individual or group that is disappointed.  Most of all, I have been surprised by the lack of anonymity that comes with this kind of public service.  I thought only wonks like Truman Scholars knew who their local elected officials were!  Turns out, most people closely track the actions of their City Councilmembers and are not shy to give their two cents whether it is at the grocery store, the dry cleaner, or the gym locker room.   It’s led me to explain to folks that this is not a job but a lifestyle.

On the most difficult of days, I often think back to my experiences with the 1999 Truman Scholars at William Jewell College.  I recall the optimism and sincerity of purpose all of us share for professions in public service.   It renews my commitment to this lifestyle to think of the great work that my fellow Trumans are doing around the world.  I remain grateful for the opportunities the Truman Scholarship provided for me and the chance to live out my dream of a career in public service.

Todd Gloria (CA ‘99) is a San Diego City Councilmember.

When I became a Truman Scholar back in 1989, my vision of a career in public service was narrow:  I would work on policy issues in Washington, DC, then run for office and serve my society.  When politics started to seem bitter and ugly, I kind of gave up and joined the private sector.  As a private equity investor for 16 years, I came to believe more in the power of markets than the power of government.  But the pull of social justice issues kept me engaged, and as an engaged citizen, I also recognized the limitations of the market and its frequent misuse and destructive effects.  Business accounts for more than 75 percent of our nation's GDP.  What if this power could be harnessed to serve a higher purpose than the accumulation of personal wealth?

It was this question that made me decide to leave Wall Street and to co-found the nonprofit organization, B Lab, an organization dedicated to using the power of business to solve social and environmental problems.

Today, there is a critical mass of entrepreneurs, investors, consumers, workers, and policymakers seeking to create social and environmental impact through business. However, they face two systemic obstacles: 1) the absence of transparent standards which allow all of us to support “good companies” not just good marketing, and 2) the legal concept of shareholder primacy which makes it difficult for corporations to include employee, community, and environmental interests in decision making.

To address these problems, B Lab works on three interrelated initiatives:

• Building a community of Certified B Corporations that meet high performance and accountability standards
• Developing public policies that support for-profit social innovation
• Driving investment capital to this community of good businesses so that they can grow and increase their impact

Following is a little more info on each of these initiatives.

Certified B Corporations

Progress requires that we educate the public and business community that there is more to business than just financial profit. B Corporations meet rigorous standards of social and environmental performance, legally expand their corporate responsibilities to include consideration of the interests of workers, community, and the environment, and build collective voice through the unifying B Corporation brand. As of July 2010, there are more than 320 Certified B Corporations from more than 50 industries working for positive change.  Each of us, in all of our roles in life, have a responsibility to support this transformation in the way we view business. We must demand a more comprehensive approach to profit.

Policy

B Lab has two policy initiatives: 1) create benefit corporations in all 50 states and 2) promote tax, procurement, and investment incentives for businesses that create benefit for society as well as shareholders. Unlike traditional corporations, benefit corporations must create a material positive impact on society and the environment; consider how decisions affect workers, community and the environment; and publicly report their social and environmental performance using established third- party standards. We have seen recent success in our policy efforts at the municipal, state, and federal level. In 2010, Maryland and Vermont passed legislation to recognize benefit corporations. By 2011, seven other states may follow. Last year we achieved the first tax break for certified sustainable businesses in the city of Philadelphia, which will accelerate the growth of sustainable business. It is our hope that this policy will spread to other cities and reach the federal level.

Capital

Finally, to create real change, we must drive capital to businesses that provide a return on a triple bottom line performance.  We have developed the Global Impact Investing Rating System (GIIRS), which acts as an independent, third party assessment of the social and environmental impact of companies and funds. This ratings approach is similar to Morningstar investment rankings or S&P credit risk ratings. There are twenty-five private equity and venture capital funds, representing approximately $2 billion in assets, that have become GIIRS Pioneer Fund Managers and to have their funds and underlying portfolio companies rated in 2010. Using GIIRS, it will be possible to drive investment towards positive enterprise and strengthen this new sector of the economy.

A Call to Action

Despite these great accomplishments, there is a generation’s worth of work to be done. By harnessing the scale and talent of our business community and looking beyond short-term profit, we can rebuild local living economies, restore the environment, alleviate poverty, and create better working environments. Corporations that are purpose-driven and benefit all stakeholders, not just shareholders, are the key to a better, more sustainable future.

This brings me full circle to my Truman Scholarship and public service.  The social and environmental problems we face today require the kind of social innovation and rapid change that will only come from business and government working together to remove impediments and change the rules of the game.  I invite all of my fellow Truman Scholars, with their vast experience and leadership in both the public and private sectors, to reach out and offer their expertise. We need to leverage all our resources if we are to see systemic change.  There is so much important work to be done; now is the time to do it.

Andrew Kassoy (NY ’89) co-founded B Lab.

Contributed by A. Scott Henderson (FL ’82)

Regardless of what the philosopher George Santayana said, the past is often doomed to be repeated whether we remember it or not.  This is especially true for policy debates.  Recent discussions concerning the military’s ban against openly gay, lesbian, and bisexual service members underscore this point.

Enacted in December of 1993, the “Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell” (DADT) policy was a compromise between the Clinton administration and Congress over the president’s desire to allow gays and lesbians to serve in the armed forces.  DADT prohibits military officials from ferreting out or identifying closeted gay, lesbian, or bisexual personnel (“don’t ask”), while enjoining the latter—under threat of discharge—from being open about their sexual orientation (“don’t tell”).  Data from a variety of sources, including the Servicemembers Legal Defense Network, indicate that over 13,000 troops have been discharged under DADT (see http://www.sldn.org/pages/about-dadt).

Efforts to repeal DADT gained momentum with the election of President Barack Obama in 2008, who publicly opposed the policy.  In early 2010, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates announced that the Pentagon would conduct a study to assess the impact of ending DADT, and in May of that same year the U.S. House of Representatives added a provision to the Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year 2011 that would repeal DADT.

The most vocal critics of DADT’s repeal have been the Veterans of Foreign Wars (VFW) and the American Legion.  The VFW believes that permitting gays and lesbians to openly serve would undermine the “morale, good order and discipline, and unit cohesion that are the essence of military capability” (see http://www.vfw.org/index.cfm?fa=caphill.levele&eid=4192).  Similarly, the American Legion has warned that a repeal of DADT would endanger “national security” and “unit cohesion” (see http://clarencehill.legion.org/2010/05/the-american-legion-to-congress-dont-repeal-dont-ask-dont-tell/).  In short, both organizations stress the corrosive effect that gay and lesbian soldiers would have on heterosexual ones.

Supporters of DADT’s repeal are quick to note that these are some of the same arguments that were used against integrating the armed services along racial and gender lines.  But the déjà vu aspect of current policy debates does not end there.  To see why, we need to travel back to early-1950s America (President Harry Truman’s second term).  In addition to the anti-communist hysteria that swept the country during those years, there was a witch-hunt aimed at federal employees who were homosexuals.  This “lavender scare”—to borrow the apt title from historian David K. Johnson’s excellent book on the subject—foreshadowed subsequent rationales used by policymakers and elected officials to deny gays and lesbians equal rights.

“Employment of Homosexuals and Other Sex Perverts in Government” was perhaps the lavender scare’s most telling and disturbing document.  This report was issued in 1950 by an ad-hoc subcommittee of the United States Senate that was chaired by North Carolina Democrat Clyde Hoey.  For Hoey and his fellow committee members, employing homosexuals in the federal government was primarily a security problem (homosexuals were especially vulnerable to blackmail, or so the argument ran).

But committee members also listed other reasons for barring homosexuals from government employment.  Engaging in homosexual acts reflected “emotional instability” and led to weakened “moral fiber,” qualities that would poison the workplace.  Moreover, because homosexuals tended to “gather other perverts” around them, their numbers would multiply as soon as a few got their feet in the door.  Once employed, they would “attempt to entice normal individuals,” especially “young and impressionable people,” to participate in “perverted practices.”  As the report chillingly concluded, “One homosexual can pollute a government office.”  In 1953, Eisenhower heeded those admonitions by signing an executive order disqualifying from federal service any individual who practiced “sexual perversion.”

The Chairman of the U.S. Civil Service Commission, John W. Macy Jr., would echo the contamination metaphor several years later.  In a 1966 State Department newsletter, Macy argued that the employment ban should be maintained because of the “apprehension” and “revulsion” that homosexuals would cause “other [heterosexual] employees to feel,” as well as the umbrage they would generate if the public had to interact with a “known or admitted sexual deviate.”  Ultimately, these disruptions would cause a diminishment of “service efficiency.”

As Gregory B. Lewis has shown in his insightful examination of the topic in the Public Administration Review, supporters of the ban emphasized how the mere presence of homosexuals would trigger the prejudices of others.  However, instead of addressing the causes of intolerance, they believed it was better, or at least easier, to simply eliminate its presumed catalyst (which would be like making a playground off-limits to children who wore glasses because their appearance sparked the anger of bullies).  The ban enacted by Eisenhower’s executive order would not be phased out until 1975.

This brings us back full circle to current debates over repealing DADT.  If we replace “military service” with “civilian service,” it is as if we have returned to the 1950s and 1960s.  Like that era, it is not the competence of gays and lesbians that is currently being questioned, but an essential characteristic—their sexual orientation.  Because others (mainly heterosexual men) are deemed incapable of dealing with this characteristic, military officials demand that it be expunged whenever it appears—for instance, several dozen Arabic translators have been discharged since 1998 for being gay.  To put it another way, just as the Department of Homeland Security has a “red level” to indicate a severe risk of terrorist attack, the military’s DADT policy functions as an alarm against those who are a putative threat to our personal and collective well-being.

Regrettably, pleas for military or civilian “cohesion” are often based on simplistic and misleading us-vs.-them dichotomies.  Whether we shout “Wir sind ein Volk!”  (“We are one people!”) or decorously affirm our support of “traditional family values,” we often do so at the expense of denying others their humanity.  We should keep this in mind as we continue to debate the future of DADT and similar policies.

A. Scott Henderson (FL ’82) is an Associate Professor of Education at Furman University.

On the evening of July 21, after years of strenuous training, five Seattle-area Truman Scholars took on 22 other teams in a grueling 24-hole mini-golf tournament.  The tournament was a fundraiser for Treehouse, a Seattle organization focused on supporting foster children.  Though no official results have been seen, rumors abound that the Trumans were the highest-scoring team in history.  (Team members hope that no one remembers that high scores are not desirable in golf...)  Captain Bradley Bowen (MT '04) fearlessly led David Rubenstein (OR '06), Kristin Kan (TX '04), Allison Rank (OH '03), and Michele Buckley (CO '06) through the twists and turns of the course.  The MVP award, however, goes to Kristin, who knocked in the team's only hole-in-one.  

Everyone in Seattle is already looking forward to future fun, community-focused activities!

David Rubenstein (OR '06), Bradley Bowen (MT '04), Michele Buckley (CO '06), Kristin Kan (TX '04), and Allison Rank (OH '03).

The team getting ready for one of the challenges.

The Truman Summer Institute (SI), held annually in Washington, DC, and initiated in 1991, provides Truman scholars with an intentional community environment in the summer following their senior year of undergrad. The 10-week program includes seminars, presentations, workshops and an eight-week internship with a public service organization. Scholars participate in public policy seminars for the first week and various days throughout the summer. Events include a day on Capitol Hill sponsored by the John C. Stennis Center for Public Service Leadership and a workshop on arts and Public service with the Liz Lerman Dance Exchange. Scholars also live communally on the George Washington University campus. But the highlight of the summer has to be the Tuesday night presentations – scholar-led speeches on any topic of their choosing.

Presentations have included a range of topics, from an analysis of Foucault's viewpoints on the prison system by Meg Beyer (GA '09) to an exploration the social implications of Lady Gaga in pop culture by Adam Amir (FL '09). Hometown pride is a popular topic choice. Jennie Hatch (ME '09) delivered a virtual guide to the Maine Lobster Bake, which left many mouths watering; Amy Nichols (OR '09) introduced us to the nuances of Pittsburghese. Some scholars have taken this opportunity to showcase little-known feats and talents: at 16, Ellie Emery (CT '09) completed a 58-day, 700-mile trek across the Canadian tundra; Patrick Reimherr (UT '09), accompanied by Alex Merkovic-Orenstein (FL '09) and Adam Amir (FL '09), wrote and performed a song about the “Truman Blues.”

We wouldn't be Truman Scholars if we didn't broach important social issues. Several scholars presented on very serious topics. Olimar Maisonet-Guzman (PR '09), presented on international water conflicts because she wanted to share one of the two things in her life that she takes seriously, the other being fencing. Jenny Lamb (CO '09) revealed the complexity of agricultural development in East Africa. 

Reynaldo Fuentes (WY '09) sums up his feelings about the summer. “Whether we are inspired by the speech of a lifelong public servant or debating controversial political issues over homemade dinner, the summer's experiences will last us a lifetime.”

Aerica Shimizu-Banks (WA '09) graduated from Seattle University this Spring with a degree in Environmental Studies and Public Affairs. Her interests include policy-making, environmental justice, and handmade greeting cards. 

Alex Merkovic-Orenstein (FL '09), Patrick Reimherr (UT '09), and Adam Amir (FL '09) (left to right)

“If you want to stick your nose under the tent, don’t be surprised
if somebody grabs both of your ears and drags you in.”

For the third piece in this series, Ernest Calderón (AZ ’77), a prominent Arizona lawyer and current president of the Arizona Board of Regents, was interviewed by Christopher Sopher (VA ’10), undergraduate student at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill.

Calderón has worked as a lawyer for more than 25 years in both private and public practice. He served as President of the State Bar of Arizona and in 2002 was named “National Latino Lawyer of the Year” by the National Hispanic Bar Association. He has been appointed to public service roles by seven Arizona governors from both political parties and worked on issues from juvenile justice to early childhood education. He was appointed by former Arizona Governor Janet Napolitano (NM ’77) to the Arizona Board of Regents, which oversees the state’s public university system. Since July 2009 he has served as the board’s president, leading its work on college access and affordability. Calderón graduated from Northern Arizona University and the University of Arizona law school.

Sopher is an undergraduate and Morehead-Cain Scholar at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, where he studies public policy. He helped start the national college mentoring organization Strive for College, and founded and ran its chapter at UNC. He spent the 2008 year working for the Obama for America campaign. He blogs about youth issues at www.youngerthinking.com.

How do you navigate political party? You’re a Democrat, so if a Republican asks you to serve in a public role, how do you decide whether you want to do that?

For me, the thought process is: the greater good is neither Republican nor Democrat. The greater good is whatever the right thing to do is. If I have a Republican governor that comes to me and says that they have a particular task force they want me to lead, or a particular job they’d like me to help them with, I ask myself: “Who’s this going to benefit?” If it’s going to benefit the public, then I’m willing to do it, even over the objection of people in my own party. I really believe my duty as a citizen and certainly as a Truman Scholar is to try to make life better for the citizenry, so if I can contribute to a solution, then it’s my duty.

Applying that idea to your current role as president of the Arizona Board of Regents, what were your starting goals?

We focused on accessibility and affordability issues. And we’ve made a pretty good cut at it.

So access and cost are the key issues right now?

Greater access was my theme. Cost is a component of that. Geographic location is another; cyberspace accessibility was another. We strove every possible way to ensure that, for example, people in the military who had taken courses in the military would now receive credit in our university systems for those courses. We put together “3 + 1” programs where we jointly admit students their freshman year along with a community college.  They complete the first two years at the community college. The third year they complete at the community college but we control the curriculum. The fourth year they go to the four-year university at the full rate but they are guaranteed matriculation at the end of that year. So essentially they spend three years of community college tuition and one year of university tuition and they get a bachelor’s degree. That reduces the cost of higher education by about 60 percent.

That’s been successful?

So far, yes. We started on my watch this year and so far it’s been very successful.

We were also talking about more online outreach. Our universities now are probably at the forefront of the country, probably in the top 25 universities in online courses. So if you live on the reservation someplace and you can’t afford to travel to Flagstaff or Tucson or Phoenix, many courses are online now. All you need is Internet access. We’ve even helped with that, trying to provide more Internet access to those places on the reservations that don’t have Internet access.

And we’re doing a comprehensive effort to ensure that we have more branch campuses located geographically around the state. As it is now, we have Arizona State University, which has 68,000 students in Tempe. We have the University of Arizona, which has about 35,000 students in Tucson, and we have Northern Arizona University which has about 22,000 students in Flagstaff. But there’s a whole lot of Arizona in between those places. So we’re going to try to ensure that we set up branch campuses, either in conjunction with an existing community college or just freestanding. In the case of NAU, we went ahead and created a campus in a city library in Prescott Valley, Arizona. We got the community college to join as well, so if you live in that rural area, all you have to do is go to the city library and you can take community college courses, a university course. You can even apply for some limited Bachelor’s degree programs and complete your entire education there, which would make it very affordable.

On affordability, I feel safe saying a sizable number of Truman Scholars are concerned about this issue in one way or another: as current or former students, as parents, as people with loans, as parents of kids who will be taking loans. In your experience, what are the obstacles and some of the possible solutions to bringing down the cost of higher education?

The things I just mentioned are tremendously important. The geographic location changes allow you to go to school without moving away and having to pay room and board and that sort of thing. Online courses do the same thing. And the “3 + 1” program knocks about 60 percent off [a student’s] education costs. So those are significant by themselves.

And they were not easy to do. There’s a variety of people who like to hang on to past traditions. And anything other than “desk time” in one of our established physical locations is seen by them as being “less,” when in this new world it really means “more.” We’ve got to see more state and federal aid to higher education. Arizona is 48th in the country for state student financial aid. State student financial aid is very, very important. If you look at Georgia and you look at Arkansas, they both have stellar programs of student financial aid. Those are the sort of models we need to move toward.

Another thing we need to do to make school more affordable is to eliminate the remedial work that our universities are doing. We have a lot of students that come to the universities unprepared for university studies. They might have sailed through high school, but somebody did them a disservice by not adequately preparing them for college. So one thing we can do is bolster our K-12 system so that students are taught more rigorously, they have higher standards.

So what would you ask people reading this interview—the average or the interested person—to do to address some of these needs?

The average person should get involved politically Whether they run for office, help a neighbor run for office, or just get involved in candidate debates, they need to support legislative candidates that are willing to place education, particularly higher education, on the front burner. I think we’ve seen a trend in the country where you’ve seen a greater amount of support over the last two decades go to corrections than to higher education. It was probably needed in the corrections area, but now I think it’s time for the pendulum to swing the other way and invest in education.

The only way legislators will invest in education is if they find you and your neighbor calling and saying, “Hey, I’d like you to support our universities and our education. Why are you cutting taxes when my seventh grader’s middle school doesn’t have adequate supplies?”

Let’s shift gears. You’ve had a very long career in law in many capacities: private, public, government. What advice would you offer other Truman Scholars interested in law, about where the leverage points are in the legal profession, about how they can make the greatest public service contribution?

If the person is already a law student, the advice I’d give them is something I wish had been given to me. That is: when you come out of law school, get a job, even if it’s for a brief period—one year—where you actually have to try a case. Where you actually have to present a set of facts to a jury, you have to persuade a jury, you have to get a judge to rule on things. The reason I say that is you learn a lot about human nature when you try a case. You learn about what motivates people, you learn a lot about what turns people off. You learn to distill down a complex set of facts into something that the jury can absorb and determine what to do. Along with that, once you’ve tried a case, if you become an advocate of any sort, you have no fear anymore of something going to trial.

You’d be amazed at the liberation you have when somebody says to you, “Well, we’re going to try to block your homeless shelter and take you to court over it.” When they told me that when I was working on trying to get a homeless shelter built in Phoenix, I said, “That’s great. Let’s go to a jury.” And they said, “What are you talking about?” And I said, “Well, if you want to file a lawsuit to try and stop us, go ahead. But my first words to a jury are going to be, ‘What you do to the least of my brethren you do to me.’ And we’re trying to take care of the least of our brethren.” As soon as they heard that, they relented. Now I wouldn’t have been able to do that had I not faced a jury before.

So spend a year in the public defender’s office or the county attorney’s office. Or find a law firm that’ll teach you how to try a case, and do that. Then after that you’ve got the fundamentals down. You have seen Armageddon.

Now let’s say you’re not a law student. I would ask myself, what is my passion? Some people go to law school because they want a job that pays well. There’s nothing wrong with that, but you can be very miserable in life and be well-paid. Try to find something in law that really gets you passionate about life. If you find that, the law will be very interesting for you, very vibrant, and less tedious.

And what was that thing for you?

I grew up in segregated housing. I’m Hispanic—they called us the “Mexicans”—and where I grew up we had to live in a certain place. The company owned all the housing—it was a copper mining company—and so the Mexicans had to live in a certain place, and the two black families had to live next door to each other, and the Native Americans—Apaches, Navajo— had to live in a certain place. And I grew up thinking, “this isn’t fair. We’re being judged by the color of our skin.”

So I gravitated to those parts of the law where I can help, particularly in education. I see myself as an equal opportunity person to—either through the law or civic activities—inject myself when I see somebody’s not being treated fairly.

So I’ll ask the obligatory Arizona question about fairness: SB 1070 [the Arizona immigration enforcement law of recent attention]. What is going on, where do you think that is headed?

SB 1070 is incredibly popular here in Arizona. I think that shows there’s a great deal of frustration with the Obama administration for not doing something about it. The Obama administration promised that in year one, they would pursue immigration reform. It never happened. It still hasn’t happened. So what you’ve seen is an overreaction in Arizona to the fact that we have an immigration problem. We have immigrants who are here, hardworking, good people, but they are putting a strain on our infrastructure—health care, city services, whatever. There’s also a very small percentage of immigrants who are here in the criminal element. They victimize everybody, particularly fellow Hispanics. And then you have a segment of our community in Arizona—a small, vocal community—who just don’t like these people because they look different. And when you add all those things together, you have the perfect storm.

That’s what prompted Senate Bill 1070. Twenty-five percent of Hispanics in Arizona support SB 1070. Twenty-five percent. So that tells you that even the Hispanic community thinks that the system is broken. The federal government’s going to try to enjoin the application of the statute, and we’ll see if they’re successful. But ultimately the President of the United States and the Congress have to come up with some immigration reform. We’ve got to allow those hardworking immigrations who are here to become legal. They’re paying taxes already, so let’s get them to pay more taxes, just like everyone else. And then we need to have real stern punishment for the criminal element that comes over. None of that is happening. That’s why 1070 was passed.

You’ve spent your entire career in Arizona. I know many younger Truman Scholars feel conflicted about that. They want to stay in their home states and do public service work, but they also feel this draw to Washington or other major cities. What advice would you give Scholars making those decisions?

Go with your heart. As you get older, it’s more difficult to get to Washington. You’ll have a mortgage, you’ll have family commitments. So if there is somebody that really loves Washington, then consider trying to get a job there early in your career. You have to remember that Washington draws the best and the brightest, and you might be the head of a government agency or a county attorney in Iowa, but when you get to Washington you’re probably three or four steps below that, because there are other people who got there before you. So if you’re willing to work your way up slowly, Washington is a great incubator. Sooner or later, though, you don’t become effective in Washington unless you have left Washington at some point, and gone to your home community and served.

What advice would you give Truman Scholars who are interested in education: policy, administration, higher education?

Now’s the time. If you’re interested in education policy, our country is at a crossroads. We have declining financial resources for it. I would have people get involved, if they like K-12 education, by attending school board meetings. Find the parent groups who are organizing about school sites and management and that sort of thing. If there is a local department of education, contact them and find out what task forces are going on. Attend the meetings. If you know a politician who can appoint you, get appointed to a task force or committee to attack a problem.

If you’re interested in higher education, contact the Board of Trustees or Board of Regents and say you’d like to be involved. I’ve received many people and plugged them in wherever I could. It’s an open door. Higher education policy is an open door for two reasons. Right now we’re at a crossroads, and things are ripe for change. Second, education is a very open system in this country. If you want to stick your nose under the tent, don’t be surprised if somebody grabs both of your ears and drags you in.

If you would like to conduct an interview or write a feature for the Truman Scholars Blog, please contact news@trumanscholars.org. 

On a balmy June evening in Washington, DC, more than 40 Truman Scholars from all classes (1977-2010) descended on the Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, DC for a Meet-and-Greet event to swap stories, make new pals, and spill the beans about Madeleine Albright's latest brooch acquisition. We were delighted that Trumans from 1977-2009 were able to join us for a terrific Happy Hour hosted by Christine Curella (NJ '07) and Caitie Whelan (ME '07), featuring Truman Foundation Executive Secretary Fred Slabach (MS '77) and Truman Scholars Association President Pooja Agarwal (MO '05). Even an amateur eavesdropper could tell from the bear hugs and guffawing that Trumans are professionals when it comes to having a good time. We certainly hope you can join us for our next DC bash!

Te-Ping Chen (CA '06) and Michael Gale (WV '02)

Christine Curella (hostest with the mostest; NJ '07), Pooja Agarwal (TSA President; MO '05), Julie Curti (WI '06), David Zipper (NC '99), and Frederick Slabach (Truman Foundation Executive Secretary; MS '77). 

The pin collection of former Secretary of State Madeleine Albright - current President of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation - will be on display at the Smithsonian Castle through September. See below for two events open to the public.

From The Washington Post's Reliable Source Blog:

What has Madeleine Albright been wearing while her famous pin collection is touring the country? "Pity pins -- because people feel sorry for me," said the former secretary of state.

Albright's signature accessory -- some precious gems, most costume pieces -- were collected together last year for her book, "Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat's Jewel Box," and a two-year traveling show. The exhibit of 200 pins opens Friday at the Smithsonian Castle; Albright previewed it for reporters Tuesday.

With her jewelry on the road, friends and fans have given her all sorts of replacements. "I've signed books for people wearing pins and I'd say, 'Gee, that's a really nice pin.' Then they take it off and give it to me, so I don't say that anymore." 

What happens to the collection when the tour ends? The 73-year-old, wearing a "V" for Victory and two World War II vintage pins, said she's just starting to think about the question: "The only person who's connected the dots on this is my youngest granddaughter, who said, 'Who's going to get all this stuff?' I'm trying to figure out who really would like it and how this would all work." 

Book Signing

Sunday, July 25; 2 to 4 p.m.

Secretary Albright will sign copies of her book, Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box, in the Commons (West Wing) of the Smithsonian Castle. Copies of the book may be preordered by calling the Castle store at (202) 633-0030 from 10 a.m. to 5 p.m. daily. Books may be picked up one week before the event. Smithsonian members will receive a discount. 

Discussion with Secretary Albright

Tuesday, Sept. 14; noon

The Smithsonian Associates will present an on-stage discussion with Secretary Albright to discuss "Read My Pins: The Madeleine Albright Collection.” A book signing will follow the event. Complete program information will be posted on The Smithsonian Associates website in July.

Read more about the collection and events.

Last month (May 27-30, 2010), more than two dozen Scholars traveled to Missouri from around the country to take part in the 2010 Truman Scholars Reunion Weekend & 20th Anniversary Celebration of Truman Scholars Leadership Week.

This Reunion was an opportunity to strengthen the Truman Scholar community, celebrate our paths to public service, and honor the legacy of President Truman.

It was especially heartening for me to see that this event attracted Scholars from the inaugural class of 1977 all the way through the most recent class of 2009. I know this was particularly special for the 2010 Truman Scholars, who had an opportunity to meet those who came before them to answer President Truman’s call to public service.

Before the Reunion, we looked forward to exploring President Truman's legacy as an inspiration for each of us to renew, refresh, and recommit ourselves to public service. It is clear from our conversations among one another during and after the Reunion Weekend that this is certainly the case. As always happens when Truman Scholars get together, we inspire one another to service.

I hope events like this inspire you – whether you attended the Reunion in Missouri, the “Satellite Reunion” in London, another event in recent months, or if you just stay connected through the listserv and social media – to connect or reconnect with the Truman community.

For starters, it has been exciting to hear from many Scholars that they are applying for the Truman Scholars Association Board of Directors, and I hope many more of you will apply before the June 21 deadline. For the many Scholars who will be in Washington, DC this summer, I will join Fred Slabach (MS ’77), Executive Secretary of the Harry. S. Truman Scholarship Foundation, at a Truman Scholar Meet-and-Greet at Old Ebbitt Grill in Washington, DC on June 29, and we hope many of you will attend.

If you can’t be present at an upcoming event, there is much you can do with a few minutes of your time: please update your profile information, subscribe to our online listserve, join a TSA Regional Club, offer to mentor a younger Scholar, or help organize events much like the Reunion Weekend nationally, regionally, and virtually. For more information, please visit www.trumanscholars.org.

It is an exciting time for Truman Scholars, no matter where we live and no matter when we were selected. I hope you will take advantage of all this community has to offer!

Pooja K. Agarwal (MO ’05) is President of the TSA Board of Directors.

Truman Scholars from 1996 to 2009 classes gathered in London on May 22, 2010 to kick off the coming Truman Scholars Reunion Weekend festivities with an overseas “satellite” get-together.  In the days preceding the official Truman Scholars Reunion in conjunction with the 20th anniversary of the Truman Scholars Leadership Week (TSLW) in Missouri, Scholars studying and working throughout the United Kingdom met on the sunniest day London has seen in a while to explore the Churchill Museum and Cabinet War Rooms. 

At the Cabinet War Rooms, an historic underground complex that housed a British government command center throughout WWII, the Churchill Museum’s Director of Learning Simon Thomson discussed Prime Minister Winston Churchill's and President Harry Truman's lives and leadership styles.  As tourists walked by, we sat behind the museum glass in the Chiefs of Staffs’ Conference Room, where Churchill’s military subordinates deliberated their most critical wartime decisions.  

From Westminster, we proceeded to East London’s Old Truman Brewery, formerly the Black Eagle brewery complex and now one of London's hubs of creativity, energy, community and economic development.  Truman Scholars – and honorary Trumans alike – enjoyed soaking up the sun and paying homage to Uncle Harry less formally over lunch and drinks.

The Scholars in attendance included: Brian Babcock-Lumish (MD '01), Terry Babcock-Lumish (PA '96), Alex Dewar (OR '05), Becky McCauley (WV '06), Alex Merkovic-Orenstein (FL '09), Monica Mukerjee (MI '07), Trudy Rebert (PA '06), Andrew Sellers (CO '04), and Miles Taylor (IN '09). Many thanks to Terry (PA '96) and Brian (MD '01) Babcock-Lumish for organizing this fantastic event!

Becky McCauley (WV-06), currently a Ph.D. candidate in Geosciences and Astrobiology at The Pennsylvania State University and conveniently in Coventry for two weeks to conduct research. 

Registration for the upcoming Truman Scholars Reunion Weekend has been extended through May 18, or until capacity is reached, due to a special event.

The historic Harry S. Truman Home National Historic Site in Independence, Missouri, has been closed for renovations for several months. It is due to reopen during the Reunion Weekend, and the National Parks Service has graciously offered to open the home to Truman Scholars prior to the public opening. Because of the significant interest from Scholars in visiting the Truman Home, we are able to extend registration.

Interested Scholars should register as soon as possible - there are fewer than 10 spots remaining.

Almost 45,000 people came to Copenhagen last December to be a part of the United Nations Climate Change negotiations. Among them were more than a few Truman Scholars. Whether as government representatives, researchers at universities, or leaders of advocacy groups, we continued a long history of international Truman public service in the fight to stop climate change.

The two of us came as leaders of the youth-run sustainable development policy organization SustainUS. Jennie co-leads SustainUS's Agents of Change program, which brought more than 25 U.S. youth to participate in the Copenhagen talks, and Kyle chairs the organization and served as our official Head of Delegation in Copenhagen. SustainUS has advocated for a fair and binding science-based climate treaty for several years at the UN meetings. This was not the first UN climate negotiation for either of us, but it was easily the biggest.

While deeply concerned by the outcomes in Copenhagen, we were excited to be a part of the growing international climate movement, represented by the tens of thousands who tried to participate in the talks (we made it in, but many were locked out due to overcapacity in the negotiating halls), and the more than 100,000 who marched outside in Copenhagen’s streets. We were also thrilled to help lead the development of the international youth climate movement, which brought more than 1,500 young people from over 100 countries to participate in the negotiations, and last year secured formal UN recognition as a civil society participant. SustainUS helped to facilitate the training and coordination of some of the estimated 500 U.S. youth who came, including almost 200 inside the meeting and more than 300 in the streets.

We were also thrilled to be a part of the diverse Truman presence in Copenhagen. Paul Bodnar (CA ‘98) and Clare Sierawski (PA ‘04) serve on the State Department’s climate negotiating team. Scott Moore (KY ‘07) came with Oxford University’s Environmental Change Institute, and Emily McGlynn (PA ‘08), supported by SustainUS accreditation, attended as part of her work as a winner of the German government’s Transatlantic Renewable Energy Fellowship.

Many other Trumans have lent their talents to the international climate change effort, including some we probably don’t even know about (sorry!). Both Scott and Kelly Greenman (FL ‘08) were SustainUS delegates to the Bali negotiations in 2007, where the path to Copenhagen was agreed on. Michael Gale (WV ‘02), who now serves on SustainUS's Board of Directors, participated in the 2005 Montreal negotiations, essentially helping to start what would later become the international youth climate movement. Before that, Joy Hecht (MA ‘78) co-authored an influential paper in 1998 on the Kyoto Protocol and biodiversity conservation that SustainUS still references in its forest policy work today. And we learned just last month in the Class Notes section of this blog that Tom Burack (NH ‘80), Commissioner for the State of New Hampshire’s Department of Environmental Services, chaired the Climate Change Policy Task Force established by the Governor to develop a Climate Action Plan (CAP) for his state, and now chairs the NH Energy and Climate Collaborative.

Climate change didn’t end in Copenhagen. Neither, we suspect, will Truman Scholars’ efforts toward its solutions – internationally in UN climate negotiations, locally in our communities, and everywhere in between. Humbled by the legacy we’re now a part of, we look forward to seeing new Scholars apply the same passion and ingenuity toward this global struggle that made them Trumans in the first place.

Kyle Gracey (PA ‘05) is Chair of SustainUS and Master's student at the University of Chicago, and Jennifer Hatch (ME ‘09) is Agents of Change Coordinator of SustainUS and a senior at Wellesley College.

The SustainUS Copenhagen delegation - Kyle and Jennie 2nd row, 2nd and 4th from left

Preparing for a State Department meeting - Jennie and Kyle 1st row, far left and far right

Most Americans know that President Truman was faced with the difficult decision about whether or not to use atomic power during World War II.  But what most don’t know is that after the war, Truman asked our veterans to play leadership roles in their communities as civilians.  At the end of World War II, President Truman sent a letter to all honorably discharged WWII veterans with this message:

“To you who answered the call of your country and served in its Armed Forces to bring about the total defeat of the enemy, I extend the heartfelt thanks of a grateful Nation.  As some of the Nation’s finest, you undertook the most severe task one can be called upon to perform.  Because you demonstrated the fortitude, resourcefulness, and calm judgment necessary to carry out that task, we now look to you for leadership and example in further exalting our country in peace.” 

As both a wartime President and a World War I veteran, Truman recognized the need to challenge our nation’s veterans.  

Through my own military experiences, I also saw the need to not only tell our veterans “thank you,” but also “we still need you”. After I returned from service in Iraq as a Navy SEAL, I visited with wounded Marines at Bethesda Naval Hospital in Maryland. Even though their wounds had cut their time in the military short, each Marine expressed an unwavering desire to continue serving his country.  I noticed that many people were offering things to wounded veterans, but I knew it was essential to ask something of them.  After visiting Bethesda, I used my combat pay to start The Mission Continues so that we could challenge our veterans to serve again.

The Mission Continues offers competitive fellowships to engage wounded and disabled veterans who have served since 9/11 in service here at home.  These veterans draw from leadership skills honed on the battlefield to now benefit their communities. A typical Fellowship lasts 14 weeks, during which the Fellow receives a living stipend so he or she can serve full-time at a local charitable organization.  Each Fellow provides a tangible good such as mentoring at-risk children, organizing veterans support groups, or helping the disabled enjoy the outdoors again. 

In addition to our Fellowship program we encourage veterans from all eras and citizens of all backgrounds to complete service projects in their communities.  Last month, we had our largest service campaign to date during National Volunteer Week.  Over a 9-day period, nearly 700 volunteers and supporters participated in 29 projects across the nation, dedicating 2,000 hours of service.  Veterans and citizens served side by side, preparing lunches for homeless veterans, beautifying war memorials, and serving as buddies for the Special Olympics.  

I attended a service project in honor of Lt. Daniel Riordan, who lost his life in Iraq in June 2007.  Nearly 60 volunteers, both veterans and civilians, gathered at the Soldiers Memorial in downtown St. Louis to landscape and beautify the grounds.  Dan’s family was in attendance, but so were many others – most who didn’t know Lt. Riordan but wanted to serve their community while honoring Dan at the same time.  It was incredible to see our nation’s veterans answering the call to service in their communities.

Volunteers and staff have shared similar experiences from the projects they attended throughout the country. Among the stories shared were a third grade student learning to dig a hole from an Army veteran while planting a tree on his school grounds, Iraq and Afghanistan Veterans working alongside those who served in Vietnam, and wounded and disabled veterans receiving fitness training.  National Volunteer Week has come and gone, but the idea of continued service has not. 

Much as Truman challenged our veterans to be leaders in their communities, I encourage you to think about our returning veterans and the incredible service they still are able to give to our country.  We should not only tell them “thank you” for their service, but also “we still need you.”

Eric Greitens (MO '95) is Chairman and CEO of The Mission Continues and a Senior Fellow at the Truman School of Public Affairs at the University of Missouri.

On the heels of the recent Truman Scholar meet-and-greets around the country, Scholars have continued to gather. 

On April 1, a group of six Washington, DC-area Truman Scholars met for lunch. Those present ranged from the second year the Scholarship was awarded, 1978, to the second-to-last year, 2009. 

Dan Sichel (MI '81) of the Federal Reserve Board offered a summary of what happened in the United States financial crisis of 2007-2008 from the perspective of the Fed, and led a discussion.

If you are interested in organizing an informal Truman Scholar gathering in your community, and you would like help identifying local area Scholars, please contact Anthony Shop at reunions@trumanscholars.org.

For the second piece in this series, Jeffrey Toobin (NY ’80), noted legal analyst and bestselling author, was interviewed by Anthony Vitarelli (NJ ’04), law clerk to Judge Thomas B. Griffith of the United States Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit. 

Toobin serves as senior legal analysis for CNN and as a staff writer for The New Yorker, where he has covered legal affairs since 1993. A prolific writer, Toobin has authored numerous acclaimed essays and books. His latest, The Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court, earned the 2008 J. Anthony Lukas Prize for Nonfiction from the Columbia Graduate School of Journalism and the Nieman Foundation for Journalism at Harvard University. Toobin graduated from HarvardCollege and Harvard Law School. 

Vitarelli recently graduated from Yale Law School, where he was editor-in-chief of The Yale Law Journal. He will join the Criminal Division of the Justice Department in the fall of 2010. 

Interview with
Jeffrey Toobin (NY ’80), Noted Legal Analyst and Best-selling Author
By Anthony Vitarelli (NJ ’04), Law Clerk
April 12, 2010 

Anthony Vitarelli: Do you view the judicial confirmation process as a one-way ratchet of partisanship, or do you think there is a way that a President—either this President or one in the future—and members of the Senate could make the judicial confirmation process more civil? 

Jeffrey Toobin: I don’t think partisanship is necessarily a bad thing. These are important issues and important disputes. There is aWashington phenomenon that people think disagreement is inherently bad. I don’t buy that at all. 

Sure, if Barack Obama nominated a Republican to be on the Supreme Court, that would eliminate the fight and the partisanship. But one reason we have elections is so the President can put people who are ideologically simpatico on the Supreme Court. Barack Obama, like every other President, plans on doing that. Now, it may be more or less difficult to get this person confirmed, but I certainly don’t think he should back away because there may be some unpleasantness. 

Vitarelli: Let me probe that a little more. It seems that in the last few years—you could trace it back either to Justice Thomas’s confirmation hearings or some would point to the filibuster of Miguel Estrada—that there are some nominations that seem like they would not have been so discordant a few decades ago. Now, for instance, many circuit court nominees are getting a lot more attention than they would have in the past. It seems the rhetoric has continued to ratchet up, especially in light of anonymous holds that can be placed on nominees. 

Toobin: I think it’s true that circuit court nominations have been more closely scrutinized in recent decades. But there have been a lot of Supreme Court nomination fights since the beginning of the Republic, [such as] in 1920. There were Haynsworth and Carswell under Nixon, Robert Bork under Reagan, and then Thomas. 

In fact, the last several nominations have been fairly civil. Yes, I think we have passed the day when—like Justice Stevens—nominees get confirmed 98 to nothing. But, was there ever any real chance that Sonia Sotomayor was not going to be confirmed? I don’t think so. 

Vitarelli: Since you mentioned Justice Stevens, I’m curious what your thoughts are on what has made Justice Stevens effective at garnering majorities in cases like Hamdan and Boumediene? If this President were seeking to replicate that aspect of Justice Stevens's temperament, what would he look for in a nominee's career to date? 

Toobin: One of the myths of Supreme Court confirmations, or Supreme Court appointments, is that there are very good predictive tests of how people will turn out as justices. I mean, look at Justice Stevens. Justice Stevens started out on the bench as kind of a lone eccentric and turned into a tremendous consensus builder. Through the course of all his decades, there were a couple of different kinds of justices that he was. 

Obviously, it would be best not to nominate a reclusive scholar, but it is hard to predict what kind of personality would move the very small electorate that is the Supreme Court, especially when you’re largely talking about only one persuadable target. That’s really guesswork. Any nominee that is nominated in 2010 is likely to serve with many justices whose identities we don’t even know yet. All this talk about the kind of personality you want is really guesswork at best. 

Vitarelli: In terms of the current careers that potential nominees have, the last nine have been sitting judges on circuit courts. How has that fact helped or hurt the Court as an institution? What advice would you give to the President on this point? 

Toobin: I think Obama is right that it is time to end the circuit judge monopoly on the Supreme Court. Historically, the justices have not all come from the appellate court bench. Personally, I don’t think the Supreme Court should be the top step on the civil service ladder for judges – it’s a different job than other kinds of judges. And it’s no coincidence that the court that decided Brown vs. Board of Educationdidn’t have one person on it that had ever been a judge on any court before that. I think judges with legislative, executive, and business experience would be very good. 

Vitarelli: Do you think that the fact that 2010 is an election year will affect which person the President nominates for the Court? 

Toobin: I don’t think so. We operate in a 24-hour, 365-day political and news cycle. So I don’t think 2010 is much more politically incendiary than 2009 was. Democrats and Republicans fight all the time, that’s just the world we live in. And I don’t think it matters much. 

Vitarelli: What do you think the biggest issue facing the federal judiciary as an institution is now? Certainly, the issue of a stalled judicial pay raise has created some concerns, particularly in light of judges like Michael Luttig, David Levi, and Michael McConnell leaving the bench. Do you perceive any other challenges facing the judiciary as an institution right now? 

Toobin: I think it’s terrible that they’re paid so little, but I wouldn’t call it the biggest challenge of all. Most American political issues wind up in court. The issues that divide us politically will be the biggest ones that divide us legally, as well. 

Vitarelli: Shifting gears, I’m curious about your experience working for Lawrence Walsh on the Iran-Contra investigation, the topic of your book Opening Arguments. Did that deter you from being a career lawyer, or did that enhance your interest in becoming a journalist? 

Toobin: My decision to be a journalist was an affirmative decision to embrace journalism, not a negative decision to reject law practice. I loved working for Walsh. I was very privileged to do that, and I learned a lot. 

Vitarelli: How did your experience as an Assistant U.S. Attorney [in the Eastern District of New York] influence the way you cover trials, and criminal prosecutions in particular? 

Toobin: I think it’s a big influence. Trying a case is a very particular skill. You operate within a specific legal and cultural framework, and you have specifically defined goals. Journalists have a different framework and different goals. I think journalists are often frustrated when trials don’t seek to explore the facts of a situation. That’s not what they’re about. Criminal trials are about proving someone’s guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or failing to do that. In addition to helping me understand the specific rules of evidence and all the other kinds of rules that trials operate by, just understanding the mindset of trial lawyers is very important. 

Vitarelli: What advice would you give to young attorneys just graduating from law school now? Do you perceive the legal world as a different world from when you graduated law school? 

Toobin: Of course it is a different place. But, I think law school breeds in people a very narrow sense of what’s possible and what’s successful. You hang around with law students and you think the job with the biggest law firm at the highest starting salary is necessarily the best. Grown-up life doesn’t work that way. People get other sorts of rewards from their work—non-financial rewards. There are ways to make money, if that’s what you’re interested in, that are different and perhaps better than being a lawyer. Being open to a variety of possibilities, including not going to law school at all, is the best thing you can do. 

If you would like to conduct an interview or write a feature for the Truman Scholars Blog, please contact TSA@trumanscholars.org.

At the New York finalist dinner last month, Scholars moved around to each table, swapping places and plates, to get a chance to talk with each finalist and wish them luck. The event embodied the spirit of the late Brooks Burdette (GA ’81), who co-hosted the first finalist dinner more than a decade ago as a means to reconnect Scholars and help finalists to relax before the big day of interviews. At a dinner that wasn’t quite the same without Brooks’ presence, we was remembered with a moving toast, and the continuation of his efforts to strengthen the Truman Scholar community.

The late Brooks Burdette (GA '81)

The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation requests nominations and applications for positions as Senior Scholars at TSLW 2010.

Senior Scholars are required to attend the entire Truman Scholars Leadership Week (May 24 through May 30, 2010) and make themselves available to the new Trumans in both formal and informal capacities.  Senior Scholars serve as role models for the recently selected Scholars and introduce them to new and different ways of service. Senior Scholars conduct presentations on a variety of topics during TSLW - both personal and professional. Senior Scholars work with a small group of new Trumans on a policy topic with which the Senior Scholar has some expertise, and help the Scholars to understand the complexities of issues and the contributions all political ideologies can offer to the search for solutions.

Senior Scholars should have completed a graduate school program at least one year prior to TSLW (exceptions may be made for students currently in medical residency or finishing PhD programs). Seniors should currently be working in public service and be able to commit to the entire week.  Senior Scholars can come from any discipline - as the best cohort is one that has a mix of disciplines represented.

Nominations and applications should detail the candidate's educational, professional and personal experiences that the candidate feels would be appropriate to share with the Scholars. These materials also should explain why the candidate would be a good Senior Scholar and whether the candidate has any prior experience in either a teaching or counseling environment.

Please email this information to Fred Slabach (fslabach@truman.gov) no later than February 15, 2010. We will consider nominations and applications as they arrive.

The Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation requests nominations and applications for the 2010 Stevens Award.

The Stevens Award was established in 1999 by the Board of Trustees of the Harry S. Truman Scholarship Foundation in honor of the late U.S. District Court Judge, Joseph E. Stevens, Jr.  Judge Stevens was from Kansas City and was the former Chairman of the Foundation Board of Trustees.

The Stevens Award is granted annually to a Truman Scholar attorney who has made significant contributions in the public sector and who has provided extraordinary service to the Foundation.  The Stevens Award is presented in a ceremony at U.S. Supreme Court in Washington, D.C. in June.

Nominations and applications should include a brief biographical sketch of the candidate and a letter outlining the candidate's contributions to the public sector and to the Foundation.

All nominations and applications for the Staats Award should be forwarded to Executive Secretary Slabach at fslabach@truman.gov by February 15, 2010.