By Jason Saul (IL ’89)

The primary sources of revenue for nonprofits are all in irreversible decline: The federal government is broke, states are running budget deficits that total $140-billion, the charitable tax deduction is in jeopardy, and giving has seen the deepest declines ever recorded.  The Chronicle of Philanthropy reported in its Philanthropy 400 in October, donations to the nation’s biggest charities dropped 11 percent last year. What’s more, contributions to foundations fell 8 percent in 2009, following an almost 20 percent drop the year before.

Truman Scholars working in the nonprofit sector, I challenge you to think about how we might address this issue. Here’s what I think:

We are facing the end of fundraising. Lobbying harder and asking for larger donations will not cut it any more. I offer that perhaps the reason that all seems like too much of a struggle for too little money is that we’re focusing on seeking money from the wrong places and in the wrong way.

For too long in the world of philanthropy, there has been a substantial disconnect between supply and demand. Nonprofits “supply” social impact (research, services, advocacy, etc.), but the “consumers” of that impact (the beneficiaries) are often the least able to pay. As a result, foundations, donors, and governments are the ones that set the demand for these services, using their best judgment to choose which organizations should get financed and which should not.

Consumers spend $227-billion annually for goods and services related to health, the environment, social justice, and sustainable living. Corporations spend billions on environmental sustainability, social responsibility, and volunteerism and other efforts to keep employees loyal and motivated. Governments spend more than ever on education and health care results not just because they are social entitlements but also because they affect our nation’s economic competitiveness. Investors have allocated $2.71-trillion to socially screened mutual funds, pensions, and other impact investments. Those dollars mean there’s no reason to focus just on the $300-billion in charitable contributions but to look at the quest for money in a whole new way.

The fact is that today social change is no longer something that operates outside of the economy. As a result, neither do nonprofits.

In my latest book, The End of Fundraising, I help nonprofits figure out how to capture, market, and sell “high value” outcomes—the outcomes most relevant to actually solving social problems.

I submit that to solve social problems, nonprofits must take more entrepreneurial, innovative, and systemic approaches to their work. This means that groups can’t just keep doing what they are doing and hope that someone will finance it.

If people are really “buying impact,” not just giving money to programs, then nonprofits need to devise better strategies to produce those results. That requires a whole new toolkit: public-private partnerships, new technologies, new incentives, and cutting-edge approaches to creating change.

It’s time for all of us to think about new ways to forge social outcomes into economic currency. It is time for the nonprofit world to tap into the engine of the economy, not just the fumes.

Jason Saul (IL ’89) is the author of The End of Fundraising, published this month by Jossey-Bass. He is chief executive of Mission Measurement, a Chicago consulting company that helps nonprofits, corporations, and government agencies figure out whether they are making a difference to society. He is also the founder of the nonprofit Center for What Works.

By Russell Dallen (MS' 83)

New York held an awesome dinner organized by Samuel Roe (NJ '01), Kunal Malhotra (VA '06), Adam Amir (FL '09), and Russell Dallen (MS '83) for the Finalists and Truman Alums in the area on the Upper East Side of Manhattan on March 22. We are pleased to report that we had over 30 people - including all of the finalists - and we all had a great time renewing old friendships and making new ones.

By Adam Harbison (AL ’07)

William W. Mercer (MT ’84) served in the US Department of Justice for twenty years in Montana and Washington, D.C. In Montana, he served as United States Attorney from 2001 through 2009 and as Assistant US Attorney from 1994 to 2001. He was responsible for natural resources litigation, prosecution of criminal cases, and appellate practice on behalf of the United States. From June 2005 through July 2007, Bill served Acting Associate Attorney General and Principal Associate Deputy Attorney General. As Acting Associate Attorney General, he served as the third-ranking official in the US Department of Justice under President George W. Bush and had oversight responsibilities for five litigating divisions (Antitrust, Civil, Civil Rights, Environment and Natural Resources and Tax) with criminal and civil cases. A native Montanan, Bill was a 1984 Truman from the University of Montana. He received his MPA from the Kennedy School at Harvard University in 1988 and his JD from George Mason University in 1993. Today, Bill is an attorney practicing energy, environment, and natural resources law at Holland & Hart in Billings, Montana. He is a recipient of the Truman Foundation's two prestigious alumni awards, the Elmer B. Staats Award and the Judge Joseph E. Stevens, Jr. Award.

Growing up in rural Montana, Bill Mercer became interested in public service at a young age. As a child, his father was elected and served in the Montana state legislature, which is what first piqued his interest in politics and public policy issues. Throughout high school and college, he pursued student leadership positions, including Boys Nation and student government. Even though he attended the University of Montana, he was privileged to get early experience in Washington, DC through his activities, and this is what really led him to start following national politics. Bill believes that winning the Truman Scholarship was a huge development in his life. He had always intended to go to law school in Montana, but the financial advantages that the Truman presented allowed him to consider other opportunities. He eventually decided to pursue a MPA from the Kennedy School at Harvard University. While at Harvard, his academic advisor was Dick Thornburgh, who served as Governor of Pennsylvania from 1979 to 1987.

Upon finishing his studies at Harvard, Bill was selected as a Presidential Management Intern (now known as the Presidential Management Fellowship) to served two years working at the US Department of Treasury. Meanwhile, his former advisor was appointed by President George H. W. Bush to serve as Attorney General. Bill was then able to move over to the Department of Justice, where he stayed through the transition period to the Clinton Administration. When his father became ill in 1994, Bill was anxious to get back home to Montana as soon as possible. Meanwhile, his experience at the Justice Department helped him secure a position for the US Attorney’s Office in the state. After serving for several years, he was appointed by President George W. Bush to serve as the US Attorney for Montana and later as the Acting Associate Attorney General, the 3^rd highest ranking position at DOJ.

Reflecting on his more than twenty years of service with the Justice Department, Bill is convinced that the ability to evaluate a program’s impact is an essential skill for anyone entering public service, especially in government. He thinks that the quantitative skill sets that are developed in graduate programs are essential for analyzing the effectiveness and efficiency of programs that have been allocated public funding in order to determine if a program is accomplishing its goals, is having unintended consequences, or is failing. Bill said he was initially surprised to find that this kind of impact evaluation was not utilized to the degree that he would have expected at the federal level within agencies. Over time, he realized that there is not a strong audience for such an independent evaluation as you have federal agencies, elected officials, and organizations that receive federal funding that would not be in favor of seeing headlines in a local newspaper proclaiming that a federal grant or earmark has had no effects on a key issue or problem.

Looking at the general political ideologies, he made a personal observation of why this issue does not gain prominence with either Republicans or Democrats. Bill said, “Conservatives often believe that much of federal spending is illegitimate in the first place, and an impact analysis would be a risk if it showed a program was really successful in reaching goals and building collaborative efforts.” On other hand, he said, “There are lots of people who identify as liberals who believe that all government spending is good and that there is not a need to quantify benefits comparing narrow or extensive spending on programs.” Under his political observation, conservatives would run the risk of being attacked for not supporting the funding of programs that really make a difference and liberals run the risk of being challenged for supporting frivolous spending when it comes to ineffective programs. Moreover, Bill believes that there is no champion of this practice within agencies. He feels that program evaluation should be essential to government, but the culture of resisting change at federal agencies makes this a huge problem that needs attention.

As Montana is a very rural state, Bill Mercer believed that his work as the US Attorney could be used to improve the quality of life for rural Montanans. He cited the methamphetamine problem as an issue of major importance. During his time in DC, he noticed the lack of a concentration of people from rural states when he would attend DOJ or interagency meetings. In the 1990s, Congressional and DOJ drug policy efforts were mainly targeting crack cocaine enforcement and prosecutions. However, meth use was becoming a huge problem in the rural West and South but got almost no attention from Washington, DC. Meanwhile, meth was tearing apart the fabric of rural communities with increased crime, drug overdoses, and related problems, including drug endangered children and the environmental hazards associated with meth labs. Bill stated, “There was just no resonance for meth as an issue in DC.” Instead, rural states had to take the lead on driving the promotion of the problem and developing solutions. In Montana, he worked both on prosecuting offenders and providing public awareness on the dangers of the highly addictive drug. Bill believes that this is still a major problem for rural areas and that people should be cautious of saying that we have beat meth. According to his experience, the best way to continue dealing with methamphetamine abuse is to keep the focus on prevention and education with young people.

Montana has a huge Native American population with seven reservations. Bill put together extensive public outreach efforts with the Native American community around the issues of public safely. He said, “While I don’t always agree with the current administration, I am glad to see they are still focused on public safety in Indian Country.” He also expressed a belief that the quality of the environment is the most important reason why people live in rural areas. They may make less money but have a higher quality of life and really love nature and being outdoors. For the sake of rural citizens, the protection of the environment must be a priority. Bill was very involved in the prosecution of environmental crimes in Montana, and during his tenure, his office handled considerably more cases in this area than most other states did. He feels strongly that people must know that if they destroy wetlands or violate Clean Air act there are consequences to be paid. “Our national treasures are based in rural areas, so it is important to protect the environment there,” he said.

When asked about how things have changed since he was first selected as a Truman, Bill immediately pointed to the financial value of the scholarship. With the Truman Scholarship and other limited funding sources, Bill managed to complete his undergraduate, graduate and law degrees with only $5,000 of debt. Twenty years later, he (and all Truman Scholars) has seen the cost of higher education skyrocket and now sees the challenges that younger Truman Scholars face as they weigh the consequences of taking on lots of student debt and how it can make public service a difficult financial decision. However, Bill said, “For those who have been privileged enough to win the Truman, the real benefit is the alumni network of people that can be drawn upon from around the country.”

Bill has been involved with the Truman Foundation for a long time as a Senior Scholar at TSLW from 1992-1996, as a founding member of TSA, and as a winner of both of the Foundation’s alumni awards. He stresses that the Truman community provides a vital service as scholars can talk to people about what they are currently doing or would like to be doing in the future. “The Truman network is a community of common and diverse interests with a strong knowledge base that can be a tremendous resource for everyone,” he said. Like many Trumans, Bill is excited by the prospect of the community’s first US Senator Chris Coons, especially given his integration within the Truman community. As Trumans, Bill believes it is important that we all take advantage of our opportunities to be better by engaging with each other to shed light on important issues.

As a piece of final advice for Scholars, Bill recalled times in the life of the Truman Foundation where scholars were told in regards to Presidential appointments that there are not that many and you cannot build your career around that. He certainly did not imagine himself being recommended by his Senator to President George W. Bush to serve as US Attorney, and he said the odds for a rural US Attorney to be appointed to a senior DOJ position would have not been likely at all. He stressed, “There are definitely opportunities for federal appointments in DC and in the states, just as there are great nonprofit leadership opportunities.” Scholars should have an idea of their career goals and never lose sight of what they want to achieve. Even for young scholars, he definitely does not think it is wise to say there are things that are off limits. For Bill, there are just too many examples of people having a strategic vision, and even if it does not exactly turn out the way they envisioned, there are always exciting opportunities to pursue.

Phillip Adam Harbison (AL ’07) is a graduate of The University of Alabama. He also is a 2010 George Mitchell Scholar and just recently completed a MSc in Rural Development from Queen’s University Belfast in Northern Ireland. Formerly employed at the Appalachian Regional Commission, Adam recently joined the office of Representative David McKinley (R-WV) as legislative assistant/projects coordinator.

By Amber Herman (TN’ 06)

For this interview, Lisette Nieves (NY ’90), who at the time of the interview served as Founding Executive Director for Year Up NY, was interviewed by Amber Herman (TN ’06), Federal Partner Relations Management for Year Up National Capital Region.

Lisette Nieves (NY ’90) has been appointed the Belle Zeller Distinguished Visiting Professor in Public Policy at the City University of New York and is Social Entrepreneur-in-Residence at the Blue Ridge Foundation, a leading nonprofit incubator.  Most recently, Ms. Nieves served as the founding Executive Director for Year Up NY, a leading workforce and education program for disconnected young adults, where she took the site from a $250,000 seed grant to a $7 million operation in five years. Prior to that position, Ms. Nieves served as Chief of Staff at the Department of Youth and Community Development for the City of New York, Director of Grants Management and Compliance at the Upper Manhattan Empowerment Zone, and Senior Program Officer for the Corporation for National Service. Throughout her career, Ms. Nieves has also served as a consultant to nonprofit organizations in strategic planning, program development and management.  She is the Vice-Chair of New York City’s Panel for Education Policy, a trustee of the New York State Teachers’ Retirement System, a member of the Year Up National Board, a board member for the Fund of the City of New York, and a member of the Woodrow Wilson School Advisory Council.  She was the winner of a 2008 Robin Hood Hero Award and a 2011 El Diario Mujeres Destacada Award.  Ms. Nieves received her MPA from the Woodrow Wilson School at Princeton University, her BA in political science and philosophy from Brooklyn College, and was a Rhodes Scholar and Truman Scholar.

Amber Herman (TN’ 06) serves as the Federal Partner Relations Manager for Year Up National Capital Region. Formally, Amber served the US Department of Agriculture as the Acting Deputy Director for the Center for Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnerships and as a program analyst for the Office of Strategic Initiatives, Partnerships and Outreach at the USDA Food and Nutrition Service. Upon graduation, Amber served as a National Hunger Fellow with the Congressional Hunger Center. Amber is a 2006 scholar and graduated from Iowa State University with a degree in public service and administration in agriculture.

Have you always felt called to public service?

I grew up in a family that did not think twice about helping someone in need.  We often had someone staying with us that was going through a rough time.  Also, I went to a public high school that was about learning by doing and that included a strong community service component.  For example, in my senior year, I did service one day a week and attended class the other four days. This early exposure to service contributed to my desire to delay college for one year and serve with the City Volunteer Corp, which was one of the few urban corps in the country at that time and became the model for City Year.

What issue did you write your Truman Scholar application essays on?

I believe I wrote about homelessness and HIV/AIDS.  At that time I was very engaged in raising awareness about AIDS and HIV and also including more physical manifestations in the definition so that we women could be represented and access needed resources.  At the time, there was so much misinformation being published by The New York Times and people were dying and leaving behind families. I was acutely aware of how policies were creating social, moral, political and economic impact.  

You are a Rhodes Scholar. Tell me about your experience?

My experience at Oxford was in stark contrast to my time at Brooklyn College. I came from a poor, working class background and was accustomed to first generation collegiate peers who attended the local city or state university and worked many jobs while attending classes. The Oxford cohort represented a very different class, whose parents had college degrees and an understood the nuances of accessing the best of the education system. For me, the experience was a lesson in class segregation but also one of what issues can truly bring diverse classes and races together.

After earning your degree at Oxford, why did you choose to work in public service?

When I graduated from Oxford, I weighed a few offers. Although I have nothing against the private sector and recognize its value in the economy, I wanted to be part of a movement. I had an opportunity to serve on the start-up team for AmeriCorps. Of course, it meant I got paid the least of my Rhodes Scholar peers. However, I was able to live and work in DC and be part of a social movement to engage citizens in helping transform their communities.  It was an exciting time to be part of a team working on real solutions.

Looking back on your career, do you see any trends?

Every job I had was either a start-up or a turnaround. When I look at a job description, I look for the opportunity not yet written on the page. I take joy in building something new that didn’t exist before. I like being part of a vision and making it come to life. I have been blessed with jobs that have impact. I strongly believe that public service jobs are as competitive as the private sector. However, in public service people are willing to make trade-offs since there is such a great social return in working in a mission-driven organization.

What career advice do you have for other Truman Scholars?

You create the opportunities that you want to see happen. Your reputation and everyone you come across can become a critical person in your future. Do not let life just happen to you – instead lead it. We are not passive recipients in our lives – we are the ones that help drive the direction and provide opportunity for others.

As an Executive Director, what advice do you have to other Trumans managers?

It is not always about the content of your work but how you get things done. Relationships matter. You have to be committed to encouraging talent to thrive. The change you want to make is not about you but a team of people you have working along side of you. If you have a gift to inspire and build, then seeking out other talented people and spending time cultivating relationships and talent is the best gift you can give to yourself and your mission.   

What inspires you to take on a new challenge?

I love what I do and am blessed with a role that has impact on people’s lives. I never want to be the founder that is so tied to the organization that no one else can see themselves in that role. Emotionally it is hard to leave behind something that you created and built but there are other opportunities to take advantage of. There is also value in stopping to reflect, write and coach others.

How do you make value choices that impact your career?

I ask “what are your values and how do you want to represent them? Do you want to represent them through family, volunteer work, professional life or all three?” For me, what gives me happiness and fulfillment in being engaged in the transformation of lives and being part of a movement for equity. I will not compromise my values, but I have made trade-off’s in other areas.

What is the next chapter for Lisette?

I am my best when I am fully 100% engaged and my work compliments my life. I am my best when I have people around me that are dedicated to changing lives. For now that means I will spend more time with family as well as more time working on equity issues from the influence/policy perspective. I have accepted a two-year full-time appointment to be the Belle Zeller Distinguished Visiting Professor in Public Policy at the City University of New York (CUNY).  Under this position, I will be teaching as well as providing two city-wide lectures a year.  Also, I have accepted a federal appointment on an education commission looking at the academic issues for Latinos.  Lastly, starting next month, I will continue to support leadership in the nonprofit sector as a “Social Entrepreneur in Residence” at the Blue Ridge Foundation working with our great colleagues in the field.

By Tomiko Brown-Nagin (SC ’91)

As an elementary school student, I planned to serve the public as a civil rights lawyer.  I was born in Edgefield County, South Carolina, a place of racial extremes and the home of the plantation rich and poor.  U.S. Senator Strom Thurmond—known for his record-long filibuster against the Civil Rights Act of 1964—James Longstreet, the Confederate General—and Governor Ben Tillman, the architect of Jim Crow laws—also hailed from Edgefield County. Within this context, my keen interest in civil rights took root.

Happily, the Truman Foundation awarded me a Harry S. Truman scholarship. It pleased me to be associated with the president who desegregated the U.S. Armed Forces and campaigned on a platform that endorsed civil rights.  I intended to use the Truman scholarship to defray the costs associated with law school.

Over the years and for a variety of reasons, however, my career goals changed, and my conception of public service broadened. I did obtain a law degree and have devoted time to civil rights practice.  But the chief way that I now honor Truman’s commitment to equality—and pursue my own abiding interest in the subject—is through scholarship on constitutional law and history.  

This past month, I published Courage to Dissent: Atlanta and the Long History of the Civil Rights Movement (Oxford University, 2011).  Courage to Dissent moves the historical lens away from familiar actors of the civil rights era such as the legendary lawyer, Thurgood Marshall, who famously prevailed in Brown v. Board of Education, and the inner workings of U.S. Supreme Court.  The book shifts the focus to lesser-known, but no less important, lawyers and grassroots activists.  It discusses the careers of attorneys on the political Right and the Left—called “pragmatic” and “movement lawyers”—who sometimes disagreed with Thurgood Marshall’s conception of equality. These lawyers and their clients sought something different from, or more complicated than, “integration.”  The book argues that these figures shaped constitutional law and the path of civil rights in powerful, yet unacknowledged or largely forgotten, ways.

Courage to Dissent adds to the pantheon of historic public interest lawyers three pioneering lawyers from distinct eras.  A.T. Walden, one of the South’s first African- American lawyers and the elder statesman of civil rights, courageously challenged barriers to black voting. But, the book shows, Walden never fully embraced Marshall’s school desegregation strategy.  Donald Hollowell, a skilled legal craftsman and ally of student activists during the 1960s, earned the title “Mr. Civil Rights” for his clever tactics. He also mentored a new generation of activists. Howard Moore, Jr., Hollowell’s protégé, represented clients in three social movements.  He labored for the civil rights, anti-poverty, and peace movements, changing his practice as the concept of “equal rights” evolved during the 1960s and 1970s.   

Each of these attorneys—like so many other African America men across time who sought opportunity and hoped to prove entitlement to first-class citizenship—served in the U.S. Army.  Their experiences in the armed forces tell us much about racial change and stasis in postwar America. Walden, who attended a segregated officers’ training school, served the Army with distinction during a tour of duty in WWI-era France. He rose to the rank of captain.  Hollowell served in an all-black “Buffalo Soldier” regiment during the 1930s; during WWII, after fighting in the European theater, Hollowell also rose to the rank of captain.  Moore, the youngest of the three attorneys, served in the U.S. Army, as well.  But Moore served during the 1950s, in a desegregated armed forces—the army that Harry S Truman built.  Moore served on desegregated posts at Ft. Jackson, South Carolina and Ft. Gordon, Georgia—apparent oases of equity surrounded by segregation.  Nevertheless, like Walden and Hollowell before him, Moore experienced instances of discrimination—both before and after he mustered out of the Army. Hence, whatever the era, each man’s experiences as an African-American solider fortified his pursuit of equality through law.

In his own way, these unsung lawyers—Walden, Hollowell, and Moore—veterans of the Army and soldiers for freedom—together with cooperative members of the Court, Congress, and the Executive Branch, such as President Truman—remade the social and legal orders. Local people, banished from citizenship, nevertheless gave new meaning to the U.S. Constitution. These architects of a more perfect union teach us a lesson about human agency that should endure: it speaks to the issues of our times.

Tomiko Brown-Nagin (SC ’91) is Justice Thurgood Marshall Distinguished Professor of Law & Professor of History at the University of Virginia.

By Cara Vallente-Compton (NM '10)

I am a senior at the University of New Mexico, graduating in May.  Last spring I was honored to be selected as one of two Truman Scholars from the great state of New Mexico.  As a non-traditional student I have been very active on the UNM campus in reaching out to other older students and raising awareness of the special needs and talents of this increasing population of students. In the fall I represented the Association of Non-Traditional Students, as Vice-President of the organization, as a candidate for Homecoming Queen.  Last week the administration's PR department asked me if I would be willing to be interviewed by KOAT for a segment they were doing about non-traditional students, and of course I said yes.

I am 42, happily married to Charles Compton, the love of my life.  We have four small children at home, and I am the birth mother of a wonderful young man in New York who is a junior at SUNY Albany.  I am planning to attend UNM School of Law in the fall.

Watch the full video online: http://www.koat.com/video/27194996/detail.html

John Kroger (CA' 87) is the Attorney General of Oregon. He has devoted his entire life to public service as a United States Marine, federal prosecutor, public policy expert, and professor. As a federal criminal prosecutor, John won major cases against mafia killers, drug kingpins and corrupt government officials. He helped prosecute crooked Enron executives and served on the emergency response team to the 9/11 terrorist attack on the World Trade Center. John wrote about his experiences as a prosecutor in his book Convictions, which won the Oregon Book Award in 2009. He received his bachelor's and master's degrees in philosophy from Yale University and his law degree with honors from Harvard Law School.

Caitlin Schoenfelder (OR ’08) is currently a Princeton in Latin America fellow working for Convivencia Educativa, A.C., an NGO that specializes in teacher on-site coaching to restructure classrooms and transform instructional practice in marginalized public schools in Mexico. Last year she worked for DC Public Schools Chancellor Michelle Rhee as an advocate for families with children in special education. Caitlin graduated Phi Beta Kappa from Whitman College in 2009 with a major in Politics and a minor in Latin American Studies.

CS: Why did you originally commit yourself to public service? Have your reasons for committing to public service changed throughout the course of your career?

JK: My commitment to public service has never changed. As you can tell from my career path, I’m constantly assessing how I can do the most good. My ideas about what kind of public service would be most productive for me to do has changed over time. The reason I do public service has a lot to do with my time in the Marine Corps. I must have been vaguely patriotic and committed to public service when I enlisted – but I don’t really remember. What I do remember, though, is coming out of three years in the Marines with an extremely deep commitment to public service. The Marine Corps tells you ever single day that your country is more important than yourself. I mean, right now everyday in Afghanistan and Iraq Marines are giving up their lives to protect our country. That is something the Marine Corps tells you everyday: that your country is more important than your own selfish interests, and that you should be willing to give up everything to serve your country – including the ultimate sacrifice. So I left the Marine Corps with the belief that we’re each given one life and that we need to make the most of it. I thought that the way I could do the most good with the life I have is by committing to public service.

CS: Did your time in the Marines also influence your decision to focus on criminal law and become a federal prosecutor?

JK: No, not really. When I got out of college I was considering becoming a high school teacher or going into politics because they were the two things that I thought would be really useful. [I decided to go into politics because] I really believe that you make positive social change through politics. After college I actually decided to go work on Capitol Hill for Senator Chuck Schumer who was a congressman then, and then for Speaker of the House Thomas Foley, and then for Bill Clinton on his ’92 campaign. It was interesting. I enjoyed all those jobs and I learned a lot. When I left politics I wanted a very concrete job with very real, measurable results where I knew I was doing something good for the public interest every single day. And that is why I became a prosecutor. Being a prosecutor is a great job. When you convict a murderer you go home at the end of the day knowing you took someone really dangerous off the streets and you don’t have any doubts about whether you are doing something really valuable. You know you are. What pushed me to being a prosecutor is that I’m really not a fan of violence. I spent a lot of my time as a prosecutor fighting violent crimes. For me that is an important statement, that in our society violence is not how we resolve our disputes.

CS: Why did you eventually decide to teach? Did being a career lawyer deter you?

JK: It was a combination of things. One is that I really believe in teaching. I never have any doubts that when I’m spending my time teaching I’m making a positive impact on our community. Part of it was that I was really burned out with being a prosecutor. I was working 70 to 80 hours a week year after year in very intense cases — I was a mafia prosecutor in New York. When you’re in a job like that you just don’t have any time to think. You don’t have time to think about the big picture. You don’t have time to really assess your career to think about whether you’re doing what you think is important. Going into teaching – in addition to being important in its own right – was personally a time to sort of recharge my batteries, and to get a little more critical self-reflection on my own career and whether I was living up to my own values or not. I can already see that being Attorney General is a very intense job and that after doing this for a certain number of years it will be great to go back to teaching again to sort of think about the big picture…. For me teaching is extraordinarily rewarding. If I can produce more thoughtful ethical lawyers who are really deeply committed to fighting for justice that is just priceless and tangible as a contribution to our society.

CS: Changing the subject a bit, I’m interested in hearing more about your time as a federal prosecutor. Did you ever have to deal with moral ambiguities? And if so, what did you do professionally as well as personally to resolve these ambiguities?

JK: It is funny you ask that – and maybe this motivated the question – but I have written an entire book about the moral ambiguities of my life as a federal prosecutor. My book, Convictions, which was published in 2008 and won the Oregon book award in 2009, is all about the moral quandaries and difficult positions that one finds oneself in as a federal prosecutor. I took the job thinking that it would be really ethically straightforward. You know, there are the “bad guys” and you put them in prison. It turned out that the job was actually an ethical minefield. Sometimes it’s very difficult to find out what actually happened. Sometimes you think you know what happened in a case and it turns out the witness was lying to you. You are given immense power and to use that responsibly and ethically is a great challenge. Another part of the reason I took the years to teach was to think about and write about those questions.

CS: I did read a review of your book and the title struck me: Convictions: A Prosecutor’s Battles Against Mafia Killers, Drug Kingpins, and Enron Thieves. What were some of the main differences in prosecuting corporate executives and street criminals?

JK: The simple thing to say is that it’s easier to prosecute the mafia than a company like Enron because the mafia members know they’re criminals. The mafia is pretty rational when they’re investigated and charged with a crime. They are pretty rational about making a decision to plead guilty or not. They sort of look at all the evidence and they have no problem going into court and admitting to being a crook – in fact they like to think of themselves as criminals. Most white-collar defendants don’t view themselves as criminals in any way. They’re shocked at being treated like criminals. Whether it makes sense or not, they fight very aggressively. They often have millions of dollars to pay for very high-end legal defense. And it’s difficult to convince them to plead guilty because they have a very hard time admitting publicly that they did anything wrong. With Enron we started the case with roughly 10-12 million documents to look at and originally we had a team of five prosecutors. Five prosecutors trying to look at, examine, and assess 10-12 million documents is an immense challenge. White-collar cases are very hard. Quite honestly, I prefer violence cases to white-collar cases as a prosecutor.

CS: I’m currently living in Mexico and the drug war is the biggest policy issue affecting every level of government here. Based on your experience prosecuting major drug cartel leaders, I’d love to hear what sort of policy advice you might have regarding the current “war on drugs”?

JK: The Mexican government really needs to get its arms around corruption within its own government to be able to protect its judges and to make sure its prosecutors and police are not corrupt. The United States has put Mexico in a very difficult position. We are the drug market that fuels their drug wars. That is just a fact. We have not done a good job in the United States decreasing our demand for illegal drugs. My experience is that you can prosecute drug cartels, you can disrupt drug cartels, but as long as the market is still there someone will always pop up to meet that market demand. Narcotics are a commodity just like sugar, tobacco, or anything else. If there is a demand, someone will meet it with a supply. In the long term, Mexico will have a very hard time weeding out the drug trade unless the United States has a better national strategy for decreasing its demand for drugs. I think the Mexican government is correctly and reasonably frustrated that it is our guns and our demand that fuels the trouble that it has to deal with.

CS: What inspired you to sit down and begin writing about your experiences as a prosecutor?

JK: Initially it was that I just had fascinating stories to tell. I was a mafia prosecutor in New York and I had these crazy stories of what it was like to prosecute the mob… As I kept writing it became a way for me to put my own career under an ethical microscope and really relive what I had spent six years doing and try and learn from it. The book is filled with the lessons I learned as a prosecutor, but most of those lessons weren’t immediately clear to me. They were lessons learned by reflecting and writing about that experience. So I’m a huge fan of having enough time in your life to have time to reflect in a self-critical way. The book was a really important vehicle to do that.

CS: From the law school classrooms of Lewis and Clark, why did you decide that running for Attorney General in 2008 was your next career step?

JK: Hardy Myers, who was my predecessor, had served 12 years so I knew that he was going to step down. I’m very familiar with what AGs do and I knew it was both a position that I was very well prepared for and also a position where I could do an incredible amount of good if I ran and won. I had very specific goals when I ran for the office. They are the same issues I’ve worked on my entire career, which are: fighting crime, protecting the environment, and helping consumers. So it was the perfect opportunity to accomplish a lot of the things that I hold very dear. And, frankly, as a law professor I am constantly telling students to go into public service so it was a “put your money where your mouth is” kind of moment. My students said, well why don’t you run for that! And so there was also a sense of practicing what you preach.

CS: What do you consider your biggest accomplishments so far as Attorney General?

JK: First of all, when I got into office we had no attorneys investigating mortgage fraud and we’re obviously in the biggest mortgage crisis in our country’s history. So, we created a new mortgage fraud task force, which is in part putting some people behind bars, but also investigating and closing down, or banning from doing business in Oregon, some unethical foreclosure relief companies. I’m happy with that as an achievement. We created Oregon’s first environmental crimes enforcement unit. So we’re taking on polluters and charging them with crimes. For me, if you’re not properly enforcing environmental laws you’re not going to be able to properly protect the environment. We’ve also been very aggressive about consumer protection. We’ve taken legal action against a very large number of America’s biggest companies – big Wall Street firms, big pharmaceutical companies. We’re trying to hold them accountable for breaking the law. I think we’ve done a great job in that area.

CS: Have there been unexpected challenges you’ve encountered in this position?

JK: There has really only been one surprise. I’ve increased investigation and prosecution of official misconduct by government officials by somewhere between 400 and 500 percent over my predecessor. We’ve removed a judge from office. We’ve removed prosecuted a couple of sheriffs. We’ve charged a sitting elected district attorney with crimes. The biggest surprise for me is that we spend a considerable amount of time investigating people within government who aren’t living up to expectations.

CS: There are a lot of Trumans who go to law school – and even more who consider it. What advice would you give to Trumans considering law school?

JK: I think law school is a great preparation for a career in public service … I think there are two things really powerful about it. One is that it gives you a very specific set of skills that you can use in the public interest and that is valuable – whether you are a prosecutor, a defense attorney, a judge or a legislator. Second, it gives you a lot of flexibility. If you value public service and you’re an education expert, at a certain point you’re only going to be able to get jobs as an education expert. Careers are so long now that you really can have a 40 to 45 or 50-year career. Having the flexibility to move around and do different things in public service is great. I really liked being a prosecutor. But I also like the flexibility of having other options of public service that aren’t just that

CS: Has your concept of justice, or relationship towards justice, shifted over the course of your career – from the time you were studying philosophy at Yale to now serving as Oregon’s Attorney General?

JK: I don’t think it has changed, I think it has deepened. I started studying justice as a philosophical concern back in college before I knew I was going to be a lawyer. And a lot of my work in philosophy as a college student has really influenced my career. My ideas about justice first started taking hold reading Immanuel Kant, John Stuart Mill, and John Rawls in college. I teach all those texts now. I’m still an adjunct law professor and teach one night a week and I focus on theories of justice. So I don’t think there has been a radical shift, but I think I see justice as being both more important and harder to achieve the longer I work at it.

Ravi Gupta (NY '04), Founding Director of Nashville Prep Charter School, was featured in the Nashville Scene's 2011 People Issue.

Excerpt:

"For Gupta, the thrill of education reform is not unlike the thrill of the campaign. He canvasses North Nashville neighborhoods and strategizes their efforts with the fervor of an activist — one who took Obama's message to build more and better schools to heart.

"If this were a sporting contest, you'd think that we were losing," Gupta says of the state of education. Though he chose social entrepreneurialism over law, his background certainly helps.

"Law is about the ability to frame an argument," he says. "Because at the end of the day, a charter school is really an argument — to the city, to the parents, to the people who fund the school. Right now, our school system is antiquated and based off a lot of old assumptions. Kids used to have to go home and farm, and we're not doing that as much anymore, especially in urban areas. So we can afford to spend a little longer now and catch our kids up on some key skills."

Read the full article.

Kendra Key (AL '09) was named one of "America's Most Daring Young Black Activists" by Campus Progress:

"A 2010 graduate of the University of Alabama, Kendra Key, ran for student body president, a position that has long been held by a white student. Though Key narrowly lost the race, she brought attention to black representation in student government at her school. Key was also awarded a Truman Scholarship and now works in Washington, D.C. for Rep. Terri Sewell (D-Ala.)."

Read the full article.

by James Gibson (AL '02)

Birmingham, Alabama is the setting for the latest Truman Scholar success story.

The Birmingham News recently published a piece on John Joseph (AL '00) and Global Grad, his innovative startup that draws on his experiences as a teacher and in education policy to provide a “step-by-step plan for personal, academic, and professional success in college” and helps students stand out from all the other future college graduates. John (full disclosure: a personal friend of mine) is an accomplished person who stepped away from a promising career in law and development to craft Global Grad. He is committed to this venture because, as we all know, it has been the case for some time now that a college degree alone is no longer enough to guarantee postgraduate educational or career options. 

There is a crucial need for Global Grad, both in Alabama and nationally, and in making it happen John is truly living up to the “change agent” label the Foundation bestowed on him 11 years ago.

The web site is www.globalgrad.com, and you can find Global Grad on Facebook as well. John can be reached directly at johnj@globalgrad.com. Please don’t hesitate to contact him, and to circulate the article and links widely – to parents, educators, or just anyone who may be interested in the next great innovation in undergraduate education: http://blog.al.com/businessnews/2011/02/birmingham_entrepreneur_john_j.html.

James Gibson (AL '02) is an attorney in Washington, DC.