TextbookX.com thanks all students entering our past scholarship contests. Our winners were judged on such merits as the clarity of their argument, the quality of their writing, and the organizational structure of their essays overall. All scholarship award winners are listed on this page, starting with the winners from our most recent contest.

Fall 2009 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

Should there be a death penalty? Defend your position practically, philosophically or ethically.

Fall 2009 Winner: Daniel Canal	Fall 2009 Runner-Up: Ashley Gavitt	Fall 2009 Runner-Up: Annie Quach
Daniel is a graduate student studying Literature at CSU Stanislaus - to that end, most of his hobbies are literary. He enjoys reading across genres, writing across genres, and one day hopes to teach across genres, too. Mostly in the area of English, though - it's taken all his effort just to get that one right.	Ashley is a student at Hofstra University in Long Island, New York.	Annie is a second-year graduate student at the University of Houston College of Optometry and UT alum. After graduation, she would love to open her own practice and be active in protecting the vision and well-being of all her patients. In her free time, Annie enjoys her family, Texas weather, and good ol' homecooking.

WINNER Daniel Canal, California State University Stanislaus
Influential Book: Angels in America by Tony Kushner    

ISBN: 9781559362313



The existence of a state-enforced death penalty asserts public law over private life, and the only path available through capital punishment is an irreversible one: a person executed for any crime in the United States cannot be exonerated by new evidence, cannot work off debts to society, and cannot operate as a citizen under any further conditions. The death penalty punishes absolutely that which is measured least clearly: the value of a human life. By supposing to know under which conditions a human being may be tried and killed, state law infringes upon all other conditions of American life because it must assert the same control in all arenas. That the government can be given enough power to execute its citizens invites the exercise of less prominent and no less contentious commands. If the government asserts it knows how best to preserve the sanctity of human life, it must also be equipped to assess topics such as religion and private morality. I contend that it is not. The ability to dictate life can rightly be called the ultimate power, and with this power wielded over them no public can profess to be free.

Capital punishment is enforced in an attempt to mold public opinion and morality, and this goal in itself seems logical enough. In essence a death-penalty informs a society that some crimes are so destructively heinous that they will not be tolerated. But the process by which this message is delivered refutes the entire law; it asserts that killing is wrong and cannot be carried out by anyone except the state in cases where an example must be made. The crime most punishable by the death-penalty, homicide, cannot truly be remedied at a systemic level by executing its perpetrators; it only removes them and reasserts the already-ignored rule of law. For any type of true rehabilitation to occur, both at the individual and public level, inmates should be forced to labor in equal proportion to their transgression; otherwise the cost of trying, jailing, and rehabilitating criminals falls entirely to an already burdened public. The death penalty guarantees that the condemned will force these costs on the community.

Many direct arguments for the death penalty rest on the assertion that the dead cannot kill again, and while this is true, capital punishment creates fertile ground for reverberating psychic wounds that infect the very social fabric we live in. Consider, for example, a man executed for killing another person. The family of the victim may feel great relief when he is finally put to death, and perhaps a renewed faith in our justice system, but when we consider the family of the condemned things become less rosy. Regardless if the criminal was rightfully accused, his family may feel anger, resentment, or denigration by simple association with the executed inmate. The likely case, that they loved their family member as much as the victim’s family loved theirs, leaves room for bitter grudges. If even some small part of his testimony is mishandled, the criminal’s relations may find themselves violently angry at the government, public, or victim’s family. If these feelings resulting from the execution are not immediately and properly addressed, the state will have invited the private rebellion of an entirely new group of people, one who disregards the death penalty and thus guarantees its further ineffectiveness.

As it stands, the death penalty serves as a last-ditch warning to those who might commit the most horrendous crime. But that is the only function it serves. Functional capital punishment programs require millions of dollars each year to maintain though at best they can only hope to operate as warning systems. The death penalty cannot actually prevent or educate against the crimes it condemns. In his drama "Angels in America", playwright Tony Kushner constructs a tale of wayward souls living on the fringes of society in Reagan-era America, and even the angels themselves confusedly ponder the true direction of humanity. God has abandoned the world, and the Principality [Angel] of Australia proclaims, “It is a Conundrum. We cannot solve Conundrums, if only He would return, I do not know whether We have erred in transporting these dubious Inventions…If We refer to His Codex of Procedure, I cannot recall which page.” Like these angels, Americans lack sufficient knowledge of free will to determine the justice of the death penalty, but rather than await the vindication of our shared humanity, we have gone and followed our retributive gut.

RUNNER UP Ashley Gavitt, Hofstra University
Influential Book: Debating the Death Penalty by Hugo Bedau    

ISBN: 9780195169836



America, a just nation, has wrestled with the question of the morality of the death penalty ever since the justice system was first established. For me and those similarly opposed to the enforcement of the death penalty, there is no question that it should be uniformly abolished in this modern country.

The most practical and sound argument for the abolishment of the death penalty is the flawed and imperfect justice system. It can be said that the accused in this country are given too many courtesies, but we claim that the accused is innocent until proven guilty. Unfortunately, however, regardless of the so-called search for justice, accused men and women who are incapable of paying for their legal counsel are appointed attorneys who are overloaded, overworked, underpaid, and, in some cases, completely incompetent. To prove the fallibility of the justice system, there have been a number of men exonerated from the crimes they were convicted of and sentenced to the death penalty for committing. As a country which makes a point of stressing human rights and the rights of individuals, the United States of America has not taken into account the enormous failure of the justice system to provide justice for these wronged innocents. Many of them were the ones saddled with incompetent attorneys who were known and proved to have failed to put any effort into their clients’ cases; some were accused of sleeping in court and failing to cross-examine witnesses or call any for the defense while others were disbarred either prior to the trial or after its end, as recounted in Hugo Bedau’s "Debating the Death Penalty."

In addition to the failures of the justice system, the country declares that capital punishment is a greater deterrent to crime than life without parole, but it is a statistically proven fact that that is not the case at all. Defenders of the death penalty may argue that the death of the criminal gives the victim’s family a sense of closure and retribution. However, the law was not created to soothe the ruffled emotions of distraught families. The purposes of the trial are to determine the guilt of the accused, sentence them to a sufficient punishment that will deter others from committing the same crime, and, depending on the case, encourage them to be rehabilitated.

The arbitrariness of the employment of the death penalty is grossly astonishing. Unfortunately in this modern-day age, prejudice and racism do come into account in death penalty cases. People of color and/or of limited means are more likely to be sentenced to death, but the randomness is even more alarming than just that. The prosecutors attending the cases are given the choice whether or not to seek the death penalty and therefore, regardless of the number of murders committed annually in a given year, the quantity of the accused sentenced to death can vary drastically from region to region according to Bedau.

The inescapable truth is that there are many questions that one must ask before making a decision about the righteousness of the death penalty. Do society and the lawmakers have the right to pass such an eternal sentence on criminals? How are we to punish murderers with murder, but not rapists with rape and so on? How are we to call for these murders without the assurance that the condemned are guilty and not simply victims of a flawed justice system? One particular man personally and professionally plagued with these disturbing questions was a former governor of Illinois, George Ryan, who declared in his speech entitled “I Must Act” that, faced with all the facts and experience his position had afforded him, he could not reasonably condone the continuance of the death penalty. For whatever weight my words and beliefs might hold, I maintain my conviction that the death penalty should be abolished.

RUNNER UP Annie Quach, University of Houston College of Optometry
Influential Book: A Lesson Before Dying by Ernest J. Gaines    

ISBN: 9780375702709



"You'll see that it'll take more than five and a half months to wipe away--peel--scrape away the ignorance that has been plastered and replastered over those brains in the past three hundred years. You'll see." -A Lesson Before Dying

We all die. It may be an expected death, or a tragic death. We may mourn, or we may find peace upon passing. Ernest Gaines’ "A Lesson Before Dying" depicts a young man who finds understanding in his execution even though he was unrightfully found guilty. He was judged during a time of extreme racial prejudice not upon his actions, but upon the color of his skin and for being a black man in a white man's world. This wrongful execution, however, was set more than sixty years ago during an era in which the world was being transformed. It took three hundred years for us to now reside in a democracy under an African American president and where same sex couples are able to wed. Had these notions been proposed sixty-odd years ago, public lynching would have been practically inevitable. So while the death penalty may not be promoted and advocated by the masses, in today’s transformed world it proves to be the most practical means of punishment that coincides with our movement towards change.

Without the death penalty we are just convicting men to life in prison. And for what reason? What good will our allocated resources provide these men? A word like execution seems dated and brings images of guillotines and electric chairs, but we follow our commitment to preventing cruel and unusual punishment by allowing people sentenced to death to not feel any pain at all via the administration of injections. With the knowledge of their date of impeding death, these men will have the option of finding peace before execution like the young man in Gaines’ book. So putting these men to death allows them to discover their own redemption. The pressure of knowing the exact date of your last breath may convince these convicts to evaluate their actions. Allowing these men to live a comfortable life in jail will simply give some men the opportunity to forget the vile deed and relish in their ability to live. Other men may live with decades of agony and guilt upon their heads: a punishment I would deem cruel and unusual.

How can death be practical, people may ask? Death by all means is inevitable. If a criminal worthy of capital punishment were put to death months after his heinous act, it would mean no more to society than if he were to die a natural death as an old, decrepit man in a penitentiary. The convicted perpetrator adds nothing to the greater good, and actually further impairs society by the added cost of sustaining his life. In a time when the nation is suffering from the one of the worse economic downfalls, we must not use our resources to pay for the lives of these criminals. The death penalty takes these men out of our jails, and leaves the resources available for other means, may it be to rehabilitate the lives of other convicts or to aid in healthcare reform.

As Gandhi stated, “An eye for an eye will make the world go blind.” But when the courts, jurors, and evidence have concluded beyond a doubt that a man deserves death; so be it. So be his death, so that others can attempt to struggle for life with the resources that society will save. We must think practically, and try to help those that are working to benefit society and deemed worthy to live, rather than those who have sold their lives away.

Fall 2008 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

What should be done, if anything, to stop nuclear proliferation?

Fall 2008 Winner: Maxwell Minckler	Fall 2008 Runner-Up: Francisco Javier Rivera Serrat	Fall 2008 Runner-Up: Deborah Barr
Maxwell is a junior at Lafayette College, where he is a double-major in English and Philosophy. His hobbies include music, especially jazz and classical. After graduating, Maxwell intends to pursue graduate studies at Oxford College in England.	Francisco is a senior at Boston University, pursuing a degree in International Relations. After graduation, he would like to continue his studies in security and international law before finding work in the nuclear nonproliferation and national security fields. Francisco also enjoys conducting, singing, and composing orchestral music.	Deborah, a second-year graduate student at East Carolina University, is studying Health Education and Promotion, with a concentration in Worksite Health Promotion. Outside of her studies, Deborah enjoys Jazzercise, reading, sewing.

WINNER Maxwell Minckler, Lafayette College
Influential Book: A Canticle for Leibowitz by Walter Miller Jr.    

ISBN: 9780060892999



As a deterrent the essential value of nuclear weapons cannot be denied. We have subsisted for the last 30 years in a global environment of relative peace compared with the larger, multinational, often multi-continental conflicts of the past. Mutually Assured Destruction has, as of now, virtually ended all-out war between superpowers. If, as MAD proponents maintain, the justification for the creation and maintenance of nuclear arsenals is in fact deterrence, then continued proliferation on a military level constitutes a significant misallocation of resources and an unnecessary augmenting of the already sufficient destructive power of our current global stockpiles - effectively kicking a long-dead (and probably glowing) horse. The term ‘overkill’, coupled with the paranoia of nuclear holocaust that has road blocked the development of peaceful nuclear technologies, thus takes on a double meaning; an overkill of deterrent, and, should nuclear war ever occur, an overkill of the denizens of planet Earth as well.

Walter Miller Jr.’s novel A Canticle for Leibowitz prophesizes the foreboding potentialities of a nuclear holocaust while levying a deeply cynical and cyclical attitude toward mankind’s self-destructive nature. The book likens scientific and intellectual development to a kind of cancerous obsession our species is afflicted with, that inevitably carries us past the brink of our own destruction. To Miller, the human race is fundamentally enslaved by a pursuit of knowledge that supplants morality, conscience, and personal accountability with the hunger of scientific advancement. Thus our fate is as a civilizational phoenix doomed to self-destruction, self-revision, and repetition through, Miller holds, nuclear destruction.

Yet I find fault with this reasoning on a fundamental and pragmatic level. If mankind is indeed bound to the self-destructive pursuit of knowledge, how does lamenting and castigating that tendency help in the slightest? I posit instead that the solution to our thirst is an acceleration of the pursuit of technology, a fueling of the fire in the pursuit of ethical responsibility and comprehensive grasp of the science we play with. Our intellectual tide is only dangerous if we allow it to carry us beyond an ethical grasp of its consequences. Bemoaning our seat on that ride, however, which deters us from getting hold of our own reins, may be the truly dangerous move. The effects of unleashing our nuclear arsenal on the planet would be terrible, yes, but could only occur in the absence of the kind of comprehensive understanding I here emphasize. Only by pushing ahead and expanding our understanding of nuclear energy can we control it, and only by despairing in our situation might that situation overtake us.

The fear of nuclear technology mentioned above is based primarily on the military uses of that technology. If by nuclear proliferation, however, we emphasize its non-military development, a branch of science omitted in Walter Miller Jr.’s novel, then we must reconsider the issue. In the global pursuit of alternate power sources that grips us with ever increasing urgency, few dispute the supreme generative capability of nuclear power. Wind, solar, water, coal, and petroleum-based energy sources pale in comparison to the staggering amount of power nuclear energy provides. Nuclear power wins hands down on the ‘clean-emissions/low Co2’ component of the global warming ‘hot’ topic, while new methods of nuclear fission and new types of fissionable materials are reducing the amount of waste, and increasing power plant efficiency. Generation III Reactors sporting these developments are also less prone to meltdown, less consumptive of resources, and have longer operating life-spans. These developments, which are continuing to reduce the negative effects of nuclear technology, have only been possible because of that very drive for scientific development demonized by Miller.

The paranoia surrounding nuclear energy that has festered over the last thirty years is due mainly to the parallel fear of weapons-grade nuclear resources, and of the runaway potential of scientific pursuit. Yet these fears, in light of the nature of human development highlighted in A Canticle for Leibowitz, prove wholly detrimental. We need instead to continue the already momentous advances in nuclear energy witnessed over the past few decades and launch public awareness campaigns designed to divorce the fear of nuclear weapons from the reality of the benefits of nuclear energy. Turning back the technological clock is impossible, while turning it forward is not only likely, it’s inevitable. Nuclear power is here to stay, and provided that its proliferation for military reasons has served its purpose, proliferation for energy and power generation become the lone, justifiable, and indeed pivotal outlet for nuclear development.

RUNNER UP Francisco Javier Rivera Serrat, Boston University
Influential Book: U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Confronting Today by George Bunn and Christopher F. Chyba, eds.    

ISBN: 9780815713654



In a joint op-ed article supporting U.S. ratification of the Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, three European heads of state declared that, “we have to face the stark truth that nuclear proliferation remains the major threat to world safety.” Indeed, the acquisition of nuclear capabilities and warfare by states with a destructive agenda, or the possibility of terrorist groups gaining access to such weapons or the means to make them, represents the single most important challenge to global security and stability of our time. The success with which the proliferation network of Dr. Abdul Qadeer Khan managed to surreptitiously acquire weapons-usable material and technology and sell it to Libya, North Korea and possibly Iran is a stark reminder of the danger posed by unscrupulous individuals armed with fissile material and know-how. The episode also highlighted the overemphasis in state-directed enrichment programs, as opposed to fissile material simply bought from proliferation rings, that has characterized most arms control efforts.

In “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Policy: Confronting Today’s Threats” (George Bunn and Christopher F. Chyba, eds.) the contributors offer a broad perspective of the challenges posed by nuclear proliferation in the twenty-first century and an assessment of current U.S. policy. One of the most interesting points emphasized by the authors is that nuclear proliferation has both a supply and demand aspect, and, therefore, in order for a non-proliferation agenda to be effective, it must factor in both components of the equation. In broad terms, the authors assert that addressing the supply aspect entails a tightened exports control regime that applies equally to developed and developing countries. On the other hand, an understanding of the security concerns of individual countries is essential to address the demand side of the threat.

A sound policy to combat the spread of nuclear proliferation will also take into account these variables. Success can only be attained through the adoption and implementation of a multi-faceted approach that includes a renewed commitment to the safety and rapid elimination of stockpiles of fissile material; a strong diplomatic effort supported by cooperative surveillance and energized by universal compliance; and responsible citizen behavior, evidenced by the critical contribution of the private sector.

The theft and smuggling of weapons-usable material by terrorist groups or proliferators poses the biggest danger to states and the world population, and, therefore, rapid pre-emptive measures must be adopted and enforced with urgency. In averting the risk of theft of fissile material, it should be a priority of the international community to eliminate the stockpiles of highly-enriched uranium and plutonium left over from the Cold War, particularly in Russia, and to increase the physical security of nuclear material in both developed and developing countries.

With the prospects of a major global expansion of the nuclear industry, the challenge of securing nuclear materials and facilities will increase, and so will the difficulty of detecting weapons proliferation. The risk, however, can be reduced by shifting to low-enriched uranium reactors, an initiative set in motion by the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) but in dire need of a reinvigorated commitment.

International diplomatic efforts will consist of two main components. On the one hand, if the security concerns of states are well understood, a dialogue measures aimed at alleviating such concerns can be devised. In the face of alternative approaches to dealing with security challenges it is possible that these states will relinquish the nuclear option. This is true even more for states that do not see themselves as facing the challenge of a nuclear neighbor. On the other hand, a strengthening of the international institutions that advance the goals of nuclear proliferation can only be possible within a non-discriminatory normative framework.

Finally, in recognition of the rapid expansion of the nuclear industry, a successful non-proliferation regime will have to be supported by the private sector, through the adoption of an international code of conduct and the fostering of good business practices. The cooperation of the nuclear industry will prove critical in the fight against proliferation rings.

Undoubtedly, the threat of a nuclear holocaust poses a major challenge to governments and citizens in all corners of the world. An effective approach to counter this challenge will have to acknowledge the multiple variables of the problem, and will have to tackle all of them. In the face of global terrorism, “nuclear proliferation remains the major threat to world safety.” That remark, more true today than ever, was pronounced in 1999 - two years before 9/11.

RUNNER UP Deborah Barr, East Carolina University
Influential Book: Bomb Scare: History and Future of Nuclear Weapons by Joseph Cirincione    

ISBN: 9780231135108



According to Greek mythology, the first woman, Pandora, possessed a mysterious box that she was forbidden to open under any circumstance. However, overtaken by her own curiosity, Pandora opened the box and finally learned what it contained: all the world's evils. Pandora tried to close the lid, but it was too late: all the world's evils had escaped (except for Hope, which remained inside the box). As a result, evil spread throughout the entire world.

The atomic bomb, though real, is similar to Pandora’s mythological box. The creators of the atomic bomb deliberately designed a formidable weapon, capable of inflicting widespread devastation. Like Pandora, they remained curious about the potential of nuclear weapons. In 1945 President Truman made the fateful decision to bomb Hiroshima and Nagasaki, unleashing forever the horrific truth about nuclear weapons. It is estimated that these two explosions killed about 340,000 people. Many people died instantly; others died slowly due to radiation, sickness, and burns. Like Pandora, humans suffered as a result of their own curiosity about nuclear weapons. The invention of nuclear technology opened a new chapter in human history, which would turn out to be just as fatal, tragic, and irreversible as Pandora's decision to open the box.

More than sixty years later, the world is still holding its breath. We know what has happened, and we know what could happen. The desire to stop nuclear proliferation is mankind’s desperate wish to wrestle the lid back onto the box.

Is nuclear proliferation inevitable? Should we even try to stop it? In his excellent book, Bomb Scare: The History and Future of Nuclear Weapons, Joseph Cirincione defines two major perspectives on nuclear proliferation. He writes, “Nuclear optimists contend that nuclear weapons are beneficial, that their presence enhances international stability and that their spread is inevitable. Nuclear pessimists warn that nuclear arsenals create instability, that the risk of nuclear weapon use - either by intention or accident - is too great to accept, and that there is nothing inevitable about nuclear proliferation.”

Cirincione’s book solidified my position as a nuclear pessimist. I think every effort must be made to stop nuclear proliferation - and regarding this, I’m an optimist: I think it can be done. Pandora’s mythological box offers us another, ultimately more important, insight. After the contents of her box were scattered to the four winds, Pandora discovered that there was still one thing left in the box. It was Hope.

For us, Hope is reasonable because, thus far, efforts to stem nuclear proliferation have worked. Since the Nuclear Nonproliferation Treaty was enacted in 1970, more nations have abandoned nuclear weapons than have embraced them. In the 1960s, 23 nations had or wanted nuclear weapons. Today only eight nations have them: the United States, the United Kingdom, China, France, India, Russia, Pakistan, and Israel. North Korea may be a ninth nation. A tenth nation, Iran, is suspected of developing nuclear weapons under the guise of pursuing nuclear energy.

Hope is also justified because, to date, 183 nations have made a commitment never to acquire nuclear weapons. In addition, five of the eight nuclear nations are committed to reducing, and eventually, eliminating their weapons. But tt is too soon to start the party, however, as a new threat has now appeared on the world’s horizon, complicating everything.

While rational, responsible nations are making huge strides toward eliminating the nuclear threat, the sobering fact is that irrational actors (viz. terrorists) want to propel us toward a nuclear 9/11. It is no secret that terrorists are actively seeking nuclear warheads. Cirincione and others report that Osama bin Laden has even declared it a “religious duty” to do so. One of the best arguments for nonproliferation is reducing the opportunities for theft of nuclear warheads by irrational actors, such as terrorists.

Perhaps the shared threat of terrorism will unite the whole world around the common goal of nuclear nonproliferation. With radical terrorists as our mutual enemy, worldwide nonproliferation looks like more of a “no brainer” than ever. It will take multi-national vigilance to protect existing nuclear facilities around the world. Currently, security is less than optimal in many locations, especially in Russia. As a worldwide community we should also insist that nations no longer maintain warheads on hair-trigger alert (ready to launch in 15 minutes). The risk of any nation being duped with false intelligence is too great to justify continuing this protocol (both Russia and America currently have thousands of weapons at hair-trigger status). As long as national leaders, scientists, and individual citizens actually believe that nuclear weapons convey status and power upon their country, nuclear nonproliferation efforts must continue. And they will continue, inspired by Hope.

Fall 2007 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

What responsibility, if any, do countries have in preventing environmental damage?

Fall 2007 Winner: Mariani Yanti	Fall 2007 Runner-Up: Stephanie Crist	Fall 2007 Runner-Up: David Perez
Mariani is a senior at Capella University, where she studies Organizational Management. Outside of her academic interests, Mariani enjoys cooking, sewing & decorating. After graduation, Mariani plans to work for the government in her native Indonesia.	Stephanie is currently a sophomore at Herzing college, where she studies Business Administration. Her interests also include politics, autism, writing, social responsibility, and parenting. After graduation she plans to start her own business.	David is a first-year graudate student at Goddard College, where he studies Literature and Creative Writing. After obtaining his graduate degree, David plans to write poetry and short stories, and enter into the film business.

WINNER Mariani Yanti, Capella University
Influential Book: Cities and the Environment : New Approaches for Ec by Edited by Takashi Inoguchi, Edward Newman, & Glen    

ISBN: 9789280810233



National governments are local, not global, representing their own national populations, not all humanity. Their environmental responsibilities therefore arise in practice from the interests of their national populations, not those of all mankind. Moreover, unique national political systems have their own ways of aggregating the needs and desires of diverse interest groups to articulate the “national interest” with regard to the environment. Unfortunately, national policies can responsibly serve the global welfare only when political institutions aggregate the desires of sub-national interest groups in such a way as to require global environmental responsibility in the national interest. We who think it a moral imperative to save the global environment must accept a responsibility to make environmentalism consistent with locally defined national interests.

Cities and the Environment (Takashi Inoguchi, Edward Newman and Glen Paoletto, eds.) points out that the dynamics of preventing environmental damage are different in different countries. In developing countries economic priorities often compete with environmental values while in developed countries a lack of “political will” often obstructs environmental progress. I still remember when as a little girl in Indonesia I watched my mother collect glass bottles we had used, and sell them to a local garbage picker who in turn resold them at a profit to a bigger dealer. I didn’t think of that as recycling though it was clearly good for the environment; to us it was merely a monetary transaction. Recycling per se is not really a priority for many people in developing countries but income is, and that priority can encourage recycling. In developed countries, the authors tell us, “political will” is lacking. What the authors call “political will” results from the aggregation of interests including the oil, auto, coal and other industries whose local interests often are not consistent with global environmental welfare. Given that we live for better or worse in a nation-state system, it behooves global environmental advocates to formulate policy proposals rendering global environmentalism more consistent with these local interests.

Policy approaches to the environment need to be country-specific. The most effective environmental approach in a country like Indonesia will be different from that in a developed country such as the United States. Unlike the US, Indonesia is a developing country with abundant rainforests where illegal logging is rampant, generating large revenues at the cost of floods in the rainy season, droughts and fire in the dry season, and air pollution (from fires) that spreads to neighboring countries Singapore and Malaysia. There are laws regulating logging but they are not well enforced. Cities and the Environment notes the urgency of logging regulation enforcement because “regulation” means nothing without government enforcement. It also cites the more general need to develop and implement a coherent policy and practice framework and put it in action together with a comprehensive educational program to elevate people’s awareness of the local consequences of environmental problems. Doing so would create an eco-friendly society. This “eco-societies” concept addresses the global environment by encouraging global thinking and local action.

The “eco-societies” concept views every individual as responsible for environmental damage. Each individual can make a difference by using energy efficiently: using green products, recycling, and being willing to change his or her lifestyle by sacrificing some habitual comforts and conveniences. To encourage such sacrifice is the challenge government must address by educating and raising people’s awareness of their local interests in global ecology. Implementation of this “eco-societies” concept requires participation of all societal actors and institutions: local & national governments, universities, researchers, NGOs and international organizations, because the “eco-societies” approach addresses not only environmental issues but also economic, social, and political interests. For example, achieving a “low-energy society” requires not just societal attitudes conducive to energy conservation but also local and international political promotion of technological innovation and emission controls. Countries can work together to find affordable yet locally palatable alternative energy solutions consistent with international environmental agreements. The conduct of one nation could produce global ecological destruction, and because we share the same earth we do have moral obligations to one another, but those obligations will be met only in conjunction with each nation’s fulfillment of its own self-defined national interests. It is the responsibility of national governments to find policies that satisfy both global and local interests. This is doubtless harder than meeting only one of these sets of obligations, but it is reality. While all of us must meet our local needs, in the words of Benjamin Franklin, "We must hang together, gentlemen...else, we shall most assuredly hang separately."

RUNNER UP Stephanie Crist, Herzing College - Online Campus
Influential Book: Business: A Changing World by O. C. Ferrell, Geoffrey Hirt, & Linda Ferrell    

ISBN: 9780072973587



"Environmental Responsibility: Balancing Utilization and Preservation"

Environmental issues often slide into rutted debates. To avoid futility, it is necessary to broach the subject from a point of compromise. The environment is a global concern, yet responsibility for its care lies with individuals. Utilization and preservation must be balanced to meet the needs of current and future generations. Governments of all shapes and sizes wield considerable power in shaping that balance. Only by de-polarizing the issue can true progress be made.

The environment is a shared resource. We share the land that grows our food, the water we drink, the air we breathe, and the multitude of living things that surrounds us. Some environmental issues may be confined to a single nation, or even a single individual. Yet the environment itself is dynamic and inter-connected. Our care or negligence merges together with that of other nations to determine the health and usefulness of the entire planet.

It may seem reasonable for governments to bear the brunt of environmental responsibility. Yet, it is the individual who decides. Consider the Mississippi River. Many Americans would claim it is ours alone: our locks, our bridges, our levies, our water, our fish, and our fowl. Nobody else has a say in it, right? Yet, Canadian tributaries – and any pollutants they carry – feed our mighty river. The water courses through many states, carrying more and more accumulated pollutants straight to the sea. From the fisherman who drowns his beer cans, to the housewife who discards batteries in the trash; from the business manager that dumps toxins, to the city official that flushes untreated sewage; we all make decisions that affect not only our fellow countrymen, but the entire world. The pollutants flow from the Mississippi, into the Gulf of Mexico, and on out into the oceans we share.

The extent of environmental damage puts a spotlight on preservation, but proper utilization is equally important. These two human needs require a precarious balance. We must utilize the environment for human survival and prosperity; we must preserve the environment for human health and enrichment. By recognizing both as valid human needs, a point of compromise can be reached.

In recognizing this balance, we also acknowledge that these needs are not mutually exclusive. “Water pollution results from dumping toxic chemicals and raw sewage into rivers and oceans,” (Ferrell, Hirt, & Ferrell, 2006). Both are examples of improper utilization that prevents preservation. Yet, strict preservation would leave many cities and industrial parks without a water supply. In order to preserve the river environment for people and wildlife, appropriate utilization measures need to be enacted. Luckily, human beings are an ingenious lot. Numerous inventors have already provided us with appropriate measures. Through conscientious effort, we can utilize our surroundings, while preserving the health, beauty, and variety of our natural environment.

Conscientious application of governing tools provides each country’s government with the means to balance utilization and preservation. Legislators and regulators must recognize and consider environmental effects when making decisions. Designating wildlife preserves and national parks retains precious national treasures. Maintaining communal properties, like our river systems, is also a governmental responsibility. Restoring, preserving, and utilizing our natural resources requires governmental oversight, funding, and planning, as well as citizen and business cooperation.

A country’s environmental responsibility consists of the responsibilities of all its members – citizens, business owners and operators, and government officials alike. Together, sustainable utilization and effective preservation becomes possible. Each country should invest in education, awareness, and research – and act on this investment. Each country’s environmental issues are unique, yet these issues are simultaneously global. Working together to expand our knowledge, our understanding, and our vision, the countries of the world can determine appropriate methods of utilization and preservation to meet global needs. Like every citizen adds to a country’s responsibility, each country shares a portion of the global responsibility for a healthy environment.

“Society is demanding that water supplies be clean and healthful to reduce the potential danger from these substances,” (Ferrell, Hirt, & Ferrell, 2006). That pressure is the catalyst for effective change. Each country needs to consider how to improve its own utilization and preservation methods, and the wealthier countries need to assist others to affect appropriate change. Every individual affects the environment; by working cooperatively we can ensure our global environment is kept healthy while benefiting each country as its needs demand.

RUNNER UP David Perez, Goddard College
Influential Book: Manufacturing Consent by Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky    

ISBN: 9780375714498



“A Fragile Honesty: Environmental Responsibility In The Mass Media Age”

In 1963 New York’s utility company announced plans to build a power plant on Storm King Mountain. Fearing destruction of the wilderness immortalized in American art and literature, a group of locals lead by attorney Stephan Duggan formed the Scenic Hudson Preservation Conference and after a ten-year legal battle became the first conservation organization able to sue to protect the public interest. Key to their success was a citation of the Federal Power Act of 1920, which states that the Federal Power Commission must consider all factors of “interest to the public”, including its valuation of the environment (FPA Federal Power Commission). Thus, the first legal precedent for environmental protection was set. The case underscores a political constant central to the environmental movement: government is responsible for the environment, at least to the extent that an informed populace expresses their interest in its protection.

Since the Scenic Hudson victory the question of environmental protection has increasingly become merged with the question of information availability. On October 23, 2007, Center for Disease Control Director Julie Gerberding authored a testimony to the US Senate on the health risks of global warming. White House officials edited the document to four from an original fourteen pages before submitting it for congressional review (Democracy Now). This is just one example of how governments, knowing the extent to which strict environmental policy depends on public opinion, sway perception of the issues through misinformation.

In their book “Manufacturing Consent”, Edward S. Herman and Noam Chomsky discuss the ways in which government and mass media interests align to control the dissemination of information. These stem from the Media’s need to keep research costs down while providing information the public considers reliable. Media comes to take the accuracy of government sources for granted. Government, in turn, gears its public relations content to the Media’s needs. As such, governmental bureaucracies “gain special access by their contribution to reducing the media’s costs of acquiring the raw materials of, and producing news” (22). The book then describes a pattern to the relation: “The large entities that provide this subsidy become ‘routine’ news sources and have privileged access to the gates” (22). This conflict of interest not only allows the government to spread misinformation, but would seem to be endemic to our systems of governance and media. Its presence necessitates a certain vigilance on the part of government not to permit public relations to devolve into active omission of the truth. However, if the case of the Julie Gerberding testimony is any indication, this is currently not the case.

A second conflict of interest exists between the government and the plunderers of the environment themselves. During the 1990’s the US government levied over $320 million in fines to 38 companies for violations of environmental law (Mokhiber). It is clear from the sheer frequency of such violations that it is often more cost-effective for companies to pay moderate fines than to alter their practices. The government has the power to increase these fines on polluters and write stronger restrictions into corporate charters but has yet to do so. A kind of equilibrium has been established whereby the government exacts that amount of restitution that at once permits the corporate offender to continue with their normal operations while allowing itself to offer as a public token examples of its environmental responsibility.

Currently 59 percent of Americans consider global warming to be a “very serious” problem (AP). To date 12 states have passed Clean Car Legislation (Cha). The people have stated their position but the government has not upheld its responsibilities to be forthcoming with scientific realities and to act in the public’s expressed interest. The fact that it has fallen short of these responsibilities is not only a blow against the environment but raises serious doubts about the health of our democracy.

Spring 2007 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

What is the Future of the Printed Book?

Spring 2007 Winner: William Spaulding	Spring 2007 Runner-Up: Nicholas Helmholdt	Spring 2007 Runner-Up: Stephanie Reed
William, a first-year graduate student at Columbia University in New York City, is pursuing his degree as a Nurse Anesthesia Nurse Practitioner. Originally from Fort Collins, CO, William plans on a career in Anesthesia and Pain Management. Outside of school, his interests include hiking, camping, cooking, movies, and reading.	Nicholas recently graduated from Lansing Community College in Michigan, and is now attending Cornell University in Ithaca, NY. He plans on majoring in Applied Research in Human Environment and Design, with the goal of rehabilitating old buildings. Nicholas’ non-academic interests include travel, blogging, reading fiction, and good coffee.	Stephanie is a rising first year graduate student at the London School of Economics in the U.K. She graduated from William & Mary College in Virginia with a B.A. in International Relations and French, and will study Environment and Development at LSE. A native of Virginia, Stephanie enjoys running, hiking, the symphony, volunteering, and cultural exchange.

WINNER William Spaulding, Columbia University
Influential Book: Paradigms Lost by William Sonn    

ISBN: 9780810852624



In the late 15th century, everyone blamed Johannes Gutenberg for imperiling the printed book. When he refined his technique for mechanical printing using moveable type, critics asserted, Gutenberg not only took the art and style out of bookmaking, he took the spirit out of the book. It was an episode that reflects a pattern that has been repeated throughout the history of the printed word. With each advance in the way media were produced, not only did politics shift, but public perception of the future of the printed word was also affected, and each time critics predicted the demise of the printed word. Yet, on reflection, each advance in production and dissemination of print media has only ever benefited the printed word.



In his analysis of the history of print media, “Paradigms Lost: The Life and Deaths of the Printed Word”, William Sonn describes four episodes in Western history that exemplify such changes to the production of print media. Of Gutenberg’s method, Sonn remarks, “So it was that in the last half of the 15th century an abrupt new communications tool lobbed scores of ideas into unfamiliar environments. Human memory seemed to expand.” When the means of production left the hands of princes and monks for the hands of professionals, the public gained freer access to ideas and philosophies. “For thousands of years, our rulers enforced order through the limited numbers of people who created and copied knowledge.” Now ideas and innovations could be distributed without the prior scrutiny of governments who previously decided what was to be produced. Yet critics complained about the reduced quality of the work. Many decried the death of the art of bookmaking and copying.



Similarly, as advances in the automation of printing technologies came about in the early part of the 19th century, another shift in the control of the means of production developed. Sonn quotes historians of print that the advent of the steam press, “was nothing less than ‘the beginning of modern printing’”. With automation came faster printing, requiring less labor. The ease of use of the new machines also required less skill. As the publishers and press owners took control of the means of production from the unions and guilds, influence of the laborers was diminished. By the end of the 19th century, “Printing, now almost entirely divorced from the selecting and selling of creative work, was becoming a business of heavy machinery.” Decisions of what would be produced were to be made by those who could afford the technology. Again came the cry that quality would suffer and lead to the demise of the printed word.



In the mid to late 20th century, the addition of computer technology to control the automated machines meant the further democratization of print media. Thenceforth, a competent typist could sit at a computer terminal, replacing a staff of typesetters, and set the type for an entire newspaper or periodical. As computer technology advanced, entire printing jobs could be completed by any layperson who could afford a personal computer and printer. Professionals bemoaned the product of the amateur printer and again predicted the death of the printed word.



Today, the ubiquity of information on the Internet and the ease of access to it might also lead one to the idea that the future of the printed word is bleak. As Sonn remarks, “Microsoft predicted 90 percent of all books would appear in electronic, as opposed to paper form, by the year 2020.” Yet, even with the pervasiveness of current portable electronics and wireless technology, there is nothing more reliable, portable, and easy to use as a book on paper. Books on paper are less expensive and more accessible than electronic devices. Books on paper can be read almost anywhere – even in the bath – while electronic devices must be used more selectively. Furthermore, information stored as print on paper can be more easily accessed and translated than information encoded electronically. There is no lexicon or Rosetta Stone by which future readers can translate information stored on a hard drive. To read such information, one needs a special device.



Some see the degeneration and impending death of the printed book in our current electronic age. However, history has proved that with each advance in the way the printed media are produced and distributed, even while the nature of the printed word has changed, its preponderance has only ever increased. History will show that reports of the demise of the printed book are greatly exaggerated.

RUNNER UP Nicholas Helmholdt, Lansing Community College
Influential Book: Journey Under the Sea - Choose Your Own Adventure by R.A. Montgomery    

ISBN: 9781933390949



Turning ahead 23 pages crushed my submarine and ended my adventure before I could encounter the great mysteries of the deep. So I turned back 23 pages, chose differently, and continued on my voyage. My elementary school carried the Choose Your Adventure series of children’s books, and I loved reading them. My young mind didn’t realize that “real fiction” didn’t operate in the same way. Still, the thrill of becoming a part of the action was undeniable.



At the same time, my teacher Mrs. MacGee taught me about HyperCard, a program that allowed me to build my own worlds of user-defined narratives. The wildly successful computer game MYST was developed from the same program. Each “card” acted like a view on a set that you (the protagonist) navigated as a part of the story. In order to complete the story a series of puzzles and riddles needed to be surpassed. Growing up around digital media and reader-centered fiction, I realized that the observer was being transformed into a participant.



Nevertheless I understood that narrative is expected to be linear and its path is the unalterable property of its author. As I outgrew the Choose Your Own Adventure novels, I forgot how enjoyable the crooked plots were and how they engaged me in the progress of the protagonist. In retrospect, these novels only gave the illusion of choice, since the author still had complete control over the finer points of the story. Still, my understanding of HyperCard grew into an ability to compose web pages using hypertext. (Almost all early web pages were formatted in the HyperText Markup Language, html.)



The root ‘hyper’ as a suffix indicates a form “over, above, or beyond” its application to the written word in linking texts. This simple difference from standard texts makes a dramatic difference for the reader. Linked text is not necessarily electronic: the Talmud (with its commentaries and references surrounding the sacred verses), Christopher Alexander’s “Pattern Language” (where each pattern references complimentary patterns), and many reference books (which use arrows and other typography to indicate internal links), are all physical implementations of proto-hypertext.



The process of printing is by definition flexible. The first mechanical printing presses precipitated the first uses of page numbers and tables of contents, two indexes that were unknown in manually transcribed works. The technology transformed oral accounts into codified, searchable documents. In 2007 we face a global society of readers and authors. Technology enables anybody with Internet access to contribute to conversations on any topic within the imagination’s grasp.



Websites like Ficlets are pioneering this multi-author approach. Anybody who so desires can add a sequel or prequel to an existing piece of short fiction (entries are limited to 1024 characters). This approach allows narratives to branch out to an unheard-of degree. It’s too new to say if this collaborative and open project represents the direction of new publications. However, a few popular publications now thrive on the idea of reader-contributed content, such as Found Magazine and Post Secret. By opening the doors to the concept of truly global communication, publishers will find a wealth of ideas and perspectives. Publications that result from a style of collaboration that is horizontal and instantaneous will truly display the wealth of knowledge and imagination our world possesses.



The trends of hyperlinking and collaboration are hardly isolated. The influence of information technology is changing the way that everybody learns about their world. The printed book has been a powerful tool for delivering information, compelling stories, and reference materials. Now the Internet allows people to appreciate the affects of non-linear text and multiple authors, but these trends are not exclusive to electronic media.



The printed book, as an emblem of knowledge collection and creative prowess, will remain a critical tool for delivering information: It is durable and portable in a way that electronic media is not. The printed book will remain a point of distribution, but not necessarily a point of access.

RUNNER UP Stephanie Reed, William & Mary College
Influential Book: Every Book Its Reader by Nicolas Basbanes    

ISBN: 9780060593247



The age-old conflict between ancients and moderns has extended beyond the content of literature to its frame. With the dramatic rise of electronic media in recent decades, many bibliophiles fear for the future of the printed book. Books and manuscripts have been the conduit of knowledge for centuries, providing a material record of society. The printing press unleashed a torrent of written material, leading to a decline in oral transmission. But today, books have become the outdated technology: paper-based records have a shelf life. Subject to the elements, books decay over time whereas hard drives and the Internet combine to create an infinite, virtual library. For bibliophiles, visions of curling up in an easy chair with a good book are threatened by sterile images of sitting in front of a glowing screen. Jonathan Swift’s phrase, “battle of the books” takes on new significance in this modern context. However, there is a future for the printed book in spite of rapidly evolving technology.



The sensory experience of reading a printed book is irreplaceable. Despite the convenience and rising popularity of electronic media, there is still a niche for printed material. In a basic sense, printed material is unique and even decorative. Beyond this superficial level, the act of reading a tangible book is an interactive exercise, marked by color, texture, sound and even odor. An e-book cannot duplicate the sensation of turning a musty page. A reader may even scrawl in the margins of a “traditional” manuscript, adding her own thoughts alongside those of the author. The reviewing function of word processors permits editing, but loses the semi-permanent, individual character of handwriting. A printed book is therefore unique—a window to a sensory experience.



While the pleasure of reading amongst adult bibliophiles furnishes a strong argument for the staying power of the printed book, printed media also play an important role in child development. For children, handling books is the first step to reading. Before understanding the linkage between words and content, children are attracted by the sensory experience of reading. The act of turning pages or playing with pop-up books gives a tactile aspect to reading that entertains young children. Furthermore, a child’s introduction to the written word often begins with story time amongst loved ones. Thus, the introduction to the world of printed media is tied to the sound of a parent’s voice and a physical connection with the reader. Indeed, such positive associations with books lead to a love of reading.



The bibliophiles of the world ensure a future for the printed book; reading printed material is a distinctive experience that cannot be duplicated by newer technology. However, Canadian author Robert Fulford once proclaimed that the printed book may become "an outdated shrine, a place only for occasional worship." Indeed, the act of reading printed books seems to correlate with literary reading. A 2004 study by the National Endowment for Arts reveals that less than half of the adult population reads literature--for the first time in modern history. This undeniable turning point in the literary world may be attributed to electronic media. Nonetheless, the drop in literary reading indicates that the culture war is not between print and electronic media, but really over the future of reading itself.

Fall 2006 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

What role, if any, should entertainment celebrities play in American public life?

Fall 2006 Winner: Nicolas Saint Lary	Fall 2006 Runner-Up: Makena Walsh	Fall 2006 Runner-Up: Pin-Quan Ng
Nicolas, a first-year graduate student at City College in New York City, is pursuing his M.F.A. in Creative Writing. Originally from Olavarria, Argentina, Nicolas plans on a career as a playwright or fiction writer. Outside of school, his interests include tango crooning, European backpacking, and sailing.	Makena is a sophomore English major from Midway, Utah, and plans on attending law school after his graduation from the University of Oregon in Eugene. Makena’s non-academic interests include snowboarding, reading, writing, and rapping.	Pin-Quan is a freshman at Columbia University in New York City. He is currently double-majoring in Economics and Political Science. A native of Singapore, Pin-Quan enjoys jazz, musical theater, and men’s fashion.

WINNER Nicolas Saint Lary, CUNY - City College
Influential Book: Escape From Freedom by Erich Fromm    

ISBN: 9780805031492



In a recent Associated Press article on the frightening predictions for the ballooning budget deficit made by officials at the General Accounting Office – the U.S. government’s own internal auditor – an accountant keen to the intricacies of this dry and unglamorous subject said the following: “There’s no sexiness to it.” She then suggests recruiting a “trusted celebrity – maybe Oprah” to “sell” the urgent need for deficit reduction and fiscal restraint.

The accountant’s comment sheds light on what is perhaps the most important role of celebrities in the public life of a democracy: their ability, usually through charisma, command of the public’s trust and well-honed (at least sometimes) forensic skills to articulate in simple, recognizable and digestible terms answers to questions of public policy that are in reality so complex, esoteric and subtle that only a few can understand them in their fullest dimension. The burgeoning U.S. government deficit and how it may some day -- perhaps even tomorrow -- unleash a catastrophic economic depression is just one good example. There are others: the relationship between what exits a car’s tailpipe and the rapidly melting polar icecaps, and the war in Iraq and our nation’s security – to name a few. The problem, however, is that our democratic political system theoretically calls on everyone to be able to reason through and weigh competing arguments while drawing on vast, almost limitless sources of information. In practice, of course, this ideal is impossible to achieve. So celebrities are brought in to serve as a type of link between the expert few and the inexpert many, in the hopes that the ship of state will be guided through the shoals -- ultimately by the wisest few but all the while through the apparatus of popular sovereignty. Celebrity spokesmen, at least in a democracy, are necessary and inevitable.

The most famous example of the role of celebrity in America is perhaps that of the celebrity president, Ronald Reagan – the former actor. Marshalling all the charm, wit and glibness of his tradecraft, he convinced many of the wisdom of reducing the state’s role in the economy by claiming he was “getting government off people’s back”; continued the policy of containment and deterrence by reiterating his, “peace through strength” credo; and steadfastly opposed Communism by branding the Soviet Union an “Evil Empire” and exhorting Soviet premier Mikhail Gorbachev to “tear down [the Berlin Wall].” Regardless of the merits of Reagan’s policies, one must agree he provided the nation with clear and understandable rationales at a critical time when such rationales were desperately sought. In other words, he provided effective leadership by virtually marrying expert opinion with popular will. Celebrities are not the only ones capable of being “great communicators”, but they’ve almost always turned out to be whenever thrust into public life.

But there is something ominous in this country’s recent demonstrated desire to relinquish the responsibility of communicating with the public to celebrities. Celebrities are not necessarily people who have done good for society; rather, they are simply people who have mastered the art of mass appeal. They have achieved this goal by appealing to the lowest common denominator, a tactic in turn achieved through the unreflective resort to over-simplified and reductive arguments. Over-reliance on celebrities, in particular when such over-reliance becomes habit, leads to public discourse that is in itself oversimplified and perhaps even dangerously wrongheaded. At the beginning of this nation’s history, many of the founding fathers, most notably Thomas Jefferson, thought that an educated populace and a free press were indispensable for the survival of the republic. Democracy, if it was to flourish, rested on the collective wisdom of the many, and it could only avoid self-inflicted ruin through the individual intelligence of each and every one of its participants. One wonders then whether the celebrity’s enhanced profile in public life constitutes an abandonment of such principles. The last century’s experience with the seductions of totalitarianism, with its substitution of endless iterations of icons and slogans for rational discourse, provides the starkest outcome of such an enhanced role of the celebrity in public life. Erich Fromm, the German philosopher and psychologist whose book, "Escape From Freedom" provides an extensive and objective inquiry into how and why his countrymen turned to fascism, makes the following observation: “The right to express our thoughts…means something only if we are able to have thoughts of our own.”

RUNNER UP Makena Walsh, University of Oregon
Influential Book: Society of the Spectacle by Guy Debord    

ISBN: 9780942299793



Celebrities, and America’s obsession with them, are a manifestation of the practice of illusory reality and self-deception now widely employed by American culture. The notoriety of the entertainer and the almost religious fervor of their most dedicated adherents is a symptom of self-imposed dissatisfaction with one’s own predicament. The ideal role of these iconic figures of commercialism should be a complete re-evaluation of their worth, which, once understood for what it is, would equal complete obscurity from the public sphere.

Celebrities are walking advertisements, not only for the products they endorse, but also for the very idea of the American Dream of venture capitalism. They are the status quo’s evidence of meritocracy, proof that a young and unknown Brad Pitt can quit his studies and move to Hollywood, wear a giant chicken costume for El Pollo Loco one day, and then be discovered the next as the newest phenomenon in the entertainment industry. The absurdity of celebrity itself is almost equal to the plausibility of becoming one - less likely even than making a living from professional sports, but even more arbitrary.

Where does America’s obsession with celebrities stem from? They are at once the root of the problem of our own insecurities and the illusory answer to that very dilemma. Celebrities are the most powerful form of escapism from the dissatisfaction of one’s own life; they are the very standard by which one’s own life is deemed unworthy. We love celebrities because we wish we were them, for no other reason than we accept the majority’s opinion (as reflected by the media) that they are the ideal we should strive for. If the celebrity is rejected as the standard of ideals, one must accept their own traits not as compared with a false advertising idol, but as objective tools used in achieving one’s goals and desires.

In his book “Society of the Spectacle,” French philosopher Guy Debord refers to the system that makes this type of human worship possible as one aspect of the “spectacle”. For Debord, the celebrity is a microcosm of the apparatus he participates in, a synecdoche inseparable from the system that allows him to exist: the whole spectacle itself. Our society’s obsession with its stars is a part of the transparent culture of materials and their purported value. Star worship is a religion of self-deception, one requiring its participants to continually deceive themselves into believing the next product they purchase will be the capstone on their hodgepodge of useless materials, enabling them to finally start living a meaningful existence. Or, equal in irrationality, that one will eventually be catapulted to the forefront of stardom and become society’s model for emulation.

Debord explains celebrities’ roles as a quick fix to a problem they themselves are creating: “Behind the glitter of spectacular distractions, a tendency toward banalization dominates modern society the world over, even where the more advanced forms of commodity consumption have seemingly multiplied the variety of roles and objects to choose from. Stars — spectacular representations of living human beings — project this general banality into images of permitted roles.”

The truth is the unreality of the ideal of celebrity. Inherently, all participants in celebrity worship know this. Every new drug-related escapade, every failed romantic relationship, every bout with depression is consumed voraciously by the populace, whose idolatry for celebrity finds its parallel only in its even greater desire to see their gods exhibit natural human traits. On an unconscious level, all fans of entertainers know they are participating in a sad and hollow practice, detrimental to their view of their own egos. Thus, when a celebrity displays human attributes that are seen as mistakes when manifested by individuals supposedly above such degradations, the mob dry-washes their hands and licks their lips in anticipation, grateful for some small example of their own validation in a system that allows precious little.

RUNNER UP Pin-Quan Ng, Columbia University
Influential Book: The End of Poverty by Jeffrey Sachs    

ISBN: 9781594200458



One of the star professors at my college is Jeffrey Sachs, who is the director of the Earth Institute and has been ranked as one of the world's most influential people by Time Magazine. He is best known for his work in economics and sustainable development, and in his recent bestselling book on the subject, “The End of Poverty” he sets out a comprehensive blueprint for the elimination of world poverty. While Prof. Sachs' book stands on its own merits as a solution to one of the great problems of our time, his approach to publicity is unique among his peers in academia and the policy world: celebrity involvement.

Prof. Sachs, while a celebrity in his own right, is close to several Hollywood stars and famous musicians: Bono wrote the introduction to the book, Angelina Jolie accompanied him to Africa, and Madonna formed a partnership with him on development programs in Africa. This celebrity involvement is key to Prof. Sachs' strategy, who has said, “[celebrity involvement] is not about charity. It is about urging us to practical action. Bono, Angelina Jolie, and Madonna are urging us to take up real solutions.” Entertainment celebrities have the potential to draw attention to causes that would otherwise be invisible to the public eye, and build popular support for the government policies that advance these causes. Rather than casually dismiss celebrities as uninformed or irrelevant to the public debate, Prof. Sachs sees them as key partners to be brought on board.

Much like the royalty and aristocracy of an earlier era, entertainment celebrities are highly visible household figures that command public and media attention, even about the petty details of their private lives. Whether this culture of celebrity obsession is justified or not, their popularity is nonetheless a great opportunity to build public awareness of social issues, given the state of political apathy among Americans. Rather than gossip about the latest relationships of various celebrities, we might instead focus on the causes that most inspire them.

Consider Hollywood star Michael J. Fox, who suffers from Parkinson's disease and has campaigned for political candidates that support stem-cell research, which offers the greatest prospects for a cure. Former heavyweight boxing champion Muhammad Ali, who also suffers from Parkinson's disease, has testified with Fox before Congress on the need for more funding for stem-cell research. Similarly, Richard Gere and Sharon Stone have been influential in increasing public awareness of AIDS relief and research. Their popular appeal has made the plight of those who suffer from debilitating conditions and diseases more real to America, and by increasing awareness of these issues, they have contributed much to their causes, and made progress in developing a favorable regulatory environment for research and development.

Yet not all celebrity involvement in public affairs has been constructive as a force in support of a just cause. Often, the reverse is true: celebrities ride on waves of popular discontent, increasing their popularity by catering to a politically-minded audience. These often degenerate into partisan politics: Consider Eminem's strongly anti-Bush video 'Mosh', released just before the 2004 Presidential election. On the other side of the political spectrum are celebrities that use their popular appeal to go into politics themselves, notably Governor of California Arnold Schwarzenegger. Whether this trend is positive or negative depends on your political preferences, but one thing is clear: celebrities have tremendous influence over popular sentiments, and can use their power for good or for ill.

With that power comes great responsibility. Prof. Sachs' blueprint to ending world poverty relies on the support of all the major countries to contribute financial resources to build sustainable institutions, and effective policies to allow developing countries to break out of the poverty trap. That support will only materialize if the general public is behind it – and celebrities have a key role to play in creating this popular consensus. Let us hope they rise to the challenge.

Spring 2006 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

How, if at all, would American society change if the current legal right to abortion is either severely restricted or eliminated?

Spring 2006 Winner: Shannon Raj	Spring 2006 Runner-Up: Phillip Honenberger	Spring 2006 Runner-Up: Victoria Longoria
Shannon, an in-coming senior at UCLA, is a double major in Political Science and Economics. After graduation she plans on pursuing a career in international trade law. A Northern California native, Shannon loves playing soccer, watching funny movies, and taking dance classes.	Phillip is currently working on an MA in philosophy at Temple University in Philadelphia. He is a self- described coffee aficionado who enjoys listening to music ranging from classical to rap, traveling, and generally being athletic.	Victoria is a junior majoring in Legal Studies at Kaplan University, with plans to continue on to law school after graduation. Her interests include dance, painting, and swimming.

WINNER Shannon Raj, UCLA
Influential Book: On Liberty by John Stuart Mill    

ISBN: 9780140432077



“The only freedom which deserves the name is that of pursuing our own good in our own way. Each is the proper guardian of his own health, whether bodily, or mental or spiritual. Mankind are greater gainers by suffering each other to live as seems good to themselves, than by compelling each to live as seems good to the rest.”-John Stuart Mill, “On Liberty”

People often define the debate over abortion as being over reproductive rights, sexual behavior, the beginning of life, and a woman’s ability to make decisions regarding her own body. While these issues are an intrinsic part of the discussion, it is actually a debate over much more. The issue of abortion is one that prompts us to delineate, specifically, how deeply a government may intrude upon the personal decisions of individuals. It is an issue that demands we define the limitations of our government and the extent of our freedoms, and for this reason the decision to either restrict or eliminate the current legal right to abortion would have profound effects that would resonate through the very fabric of American society.

If the right to abortion were restricted, it would set a precedent that the government, an institution powered by “the majority,” may make personal decisions for all. Should a majority make moral decisions that will intrude upon the private lives of individuals? If we answer yes, that a government has the authority and the jurisdiction over rights previously held to be the private decisions of individuals, then consider the consequences.

We would be looking at an America in which the government may take the moral stance of a majority, and make it binding for all citizens. If this were the case, perhaps the majority may take a moral stance on other subjects, like restricting the right to divorce. It wouldn’t be much of a stretch: if we restrict the right to abortion as morally unacceptable, we could also restrict the right to divorce as morally unacceptable for couples with young children. It is the same case of the government making personal decisions for individuals, of legislating more deeply into personal lives, albeit for the alleged public good.

And if we allow our government to restrict our right to abortion or divorce in the name of promoting the public good, perhaps it may restrict our right to education on controversial subjects. After all, if the government may intervene in our private lives enough to decide whether we can have abortions, perhaps it should be able to decide whether we should receive contraception education, drug education, sex education, or education on “dangerous” ideas, beliefs, and theories. After all, it would be in the name of morality, in the name of the public good.

And then, perhaps we will allow the government to intervene in limiting certain types of art, certain types of music, perhaps books --- ones that promote the wrong sorts of ideas, dangerous, destabilizing, or immoral ideas. In the name of morality, in the name of the public good, we would ask the government to save us from ourselves, and legislate for us what we can and cannot watch, hear and read.

Before long, we would find that in the name of the public good, we will have created an America that finds its government with the authority to restrict our freedom of expression, our freedom of opinion, our freedom of marriage, our freedom of the press, and our freedom to do what we believe is best for our bodies and our personal lives. I believe that the debate over abortion is not over sexuality, or even reproduction. It is a debate over how deeply we want to allow our government to penetrate into the personal decisions and liberties that we cherish as Americans: decisions that, although they may be debated and decided with the public good in mind, are effectively decisions that the government has no place in making.

Instead, I would argue that the public good is best served by allowing private individuals to make private decisions. The very premise of our great nation is that of a country based on the concept of freedom, of liberty, and of the ability of citizens to choose: to choose our leader, our legislators, what we believe, and what we think is best for ourselves. And I would argue that an America that takes the liberty of making these personal decisions away from the individuals of its society would not truly be an America at all.

RUNNER UP Phillip Honenberger, Temple University
Influential Book: Power/Knowledge by Michel Foucault    

ISBN: 9780394739540



Twenty years ago the French philosopher and social theorist Michel Foucault wrote that, "One cannot confine oneself to analyzing the State apparatus alone if one wants to grasp the mechanisms of power in their detail and complexity." Foucault's point is that power relations develop and are maintained by individuals within society, rather than being imposed from above upon a populace. On this model, lawmaking should be understood as the codification of already existing social practices and norms. Wherever lawmakers attempt to be more radical, they usually condemn their own mandates to a status of irrelevance. Legal developments are thus a part of social trends and power relations, rather than their harbinger.

Foucault's point about the social rather than legal structure of power relations is especially relevant to the analysis of political struggles over the right to abortion in the United States. If American women's right to abortion were severely restricted or eliminated in the near future, it is unlikely that this purely legal change would significantly affect the rate of abortions performed in the United States. The social practice of abortion would continue relatively unaltered. Lawyers would develop strategies for evading the new law, and doctors and nurses would find ways of filling out the official documents to mask or otherwise excuse the continuation of these practices. While the precise degree to which abortion would have to go "underground" is difficult to estimate, one can be certain that the practice will continue relatively unphased.

Perhaps the most noticeable effects of such a law would be the loss of a significant rallying point for the American right, especially the politically-charged religious groups that have recently devoted so much time and energy to the pro-life cause. When such groups can no longer justify meeting on a Saturday afternoon to protest at the nearest abortion clinic, they will either (a) lose the political momentum that made anti-abortion legislation a possibility, or (b) continue their battle with Enemy #1 by hunting abortion down even in its new "underground" manifestation.

These considerations suggest that the most virulent strains of the anti-abortion movement are best explained not by reference to abortion but rather by reference to power. The fact that the issue has been the topic of such debate derives from its relationship to sexual morality, religious traditions and gender. The extent to which abortion is effectively demonized is the extent to which adherents of particular religious traditions-- especially American Christianity, in both its Catholic and its Protestant varieties-- can maintain the moral high ground against the representatives of "secular pluralism" (including leftist intellectuals) and thus shift the political focus away from typically pluralistic political and moral concerns (such as: poverty in the third world, the openness of borders, respect for non-Christian traditions both at home and abroad, and so on), which this Nixonian moral majority finds threatening to its traditional cultural and economic hegemony. The smallness of true concern for human life among anti-abortion activists is apparent in the fact that they've chosen abortion rather than third-world hunger and disease as their political rallying point, despite the fact that incidents of death by way of the latter far outweigh instances of abortion in the United States.

On a Foucaultian analysis, the anti-abortion movement appears as a strategy for denying power to non-Christians and women and returning it to Christian men. This explains why members of the anti-abortion movement usually also (a) support complete abstinence before marriage, (b) oppose birth-control and (c) oppose sex-education in schools. The anti-abortion movement is not about abortion, it is about power. But, as Foucault has taught us, power cannot be legislated into effect.

RUNNER UP Victoria Longoria, Kaplan University
Influential Book: Frankenstein by Mary Shelley    

ISBN: 9780809593378



A mother sways her baby to slumber, rocks a cradle and, as the adage goes, rules the world. Right-wingers enter, poised to strip her reproductive rights, thereby revoking decades of economic, social, and political progress made by and for American women. Absurd? On the contrary, it is a cultural war already being waged: a battle to eradicate women’s consent from the “creation equation” by restricting or eliminating abortion. Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein correlates the “absence” of women in procreation with unwanted life and the nascent of monstrosity. Her tale shows that undesired life clamors to familial demise and postures a pariah whose loveless background will lead to violent retaliation against society. “Monstrosity,” however, goes beyond progeny of unwanted pregnancy. Monstrosity embodies female disempowerment and consequential societal dependency.

Between 1960 and 1995 the percentage of employed women aged 25-64 in America increased from 42% to 71.5%. Women now constitute the majority of university students, and careers delay marriage and motherhood. Clearly, women play an increasingly important role in the nation’s economy and leadership. Women’s advancements, largely enabled by assured reproductive rights, are, in fact, reweaving America’s social fabric. But, juxtapose women’s progress with a powerful minority of reactionary legislators on a fast-track to usurp rights established in Roe vs. Wade, and feminist contributions to the social fabric unravel. Restricted reproductive choice robs women of physical autonomy and societal recognition.

Shelley inherited her feminist mother’s (Mary Wollstonecraft) views on women’s rights to education, work, and to hold public office. Yet, between the ages seventeen and twenty-one Shelley was constantly in a state of procreation: pregnant, confined, or nursing. Aware, as are women today, that progressive pursuits can be thwarted by pregnancy, Shelley’s novel (written when she was nineteen) reflects remorse for her own life being interrupted by childrearing. Restricted or banned abortion will likewise forcibly redirect contemporary women’s efforts to establish themselves in society. Meanwhile, men’s decision-making abilities will remain unfettered, to society’s detriment.

Note that Dr. Victor Frankenstein’s lust to create life without women required that he sever ties with his mother and betrothed, Elizabeth - thereby denigrating the women to mere “letter correspondents”, rather than live entities. Isolation from the social and procreative balance of masculine and feminine throws Victor Frankenstein and his Adam-like offspring into disequilibrium. Victor and "child" seek to right the scales by murderous means. Comparatively, the social and political climate can be gauged by how vehemently the pendulum swings to equilibrate. While Victor’s instability resulted in violence, restricted or banned abortion will lead to feminist backlash.

As the lover and future mother of Victor’s legitimate children, Elizabeth’s death at the hands of the monster metaphorically embraces female disempowerment - and “death” is upon us as well. In April 2001 the U.S. House of Representatives passed the Unborn Victims of Violence Act, making it illegal to harm an embryo or fetus. Though several states had already ratified similar laws, the Act diverted in that it defined life from the moment of conception. A six-celled blastocyst is given equal status to that of the woman. Such legislation thereby renders unwanted pregnancy punishable. Future legislation further limiting a woman’s reproductive rights will reduce her status to less than Frankenstein’s “correspondents.” Lower still, she will become a “vessel.”

Frankenstein’s monster acknowledged that, “the possessions most esteemed by [society are] high and unsullied descent united with riches.” Correlatively, indigent and minority women will be disproportionately demoted to “vessel” status, as was the case in the 1976 Hyde Amendment, which eliminated abortion for Medicaid benefits. Regarding a subsequent amendment challenge, Justice Thurgood Marshall noted that, “Poor women will [be] brutally . . . coerce[d] to bear children whom society will scorn.” Like Shelley’s villagers, society will shun unplanned “creatures” whose care costs three Medicaid dollars, versus one dollar equally spent on family planning.

This illogic will continue. Just as Shelley’s monster attempted to assuage alienation by imploring Frankenstein to “birth” him a mate,” teen parents often beget teen parents, prompting generations of socially dependent pariahs.

Restricted reproductive rights promote social malignance by producing disempowered women and progeny. Stating that, “I will do everything in my power to restrict abortion,” President George W. Bush demonstrates that, perhaps, the true monstrosity is an executive and legislative branch bent on reversing social progress.

Fall 2005 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

When, if ever, does a person have the right to end his or her own life?

WINNER Wesley Jenkins, Georgetown University
Influential Book: Johnny Got His Gun by Dalton Trumbo    

ISBN: 9780553274325



"When Life Transcends Living: An Argument for Physician-Assisted Suicide"

“He couldn't live like this because he would go crazy. But he couldn't die because he couldn't kill himself. If he could only breathe he could die...Except that he wasn't breathing. His lungs were pumping air, but he couldn't stop them from doing it. He couldn't live and he couldn't die.” -Johnny Got His Gun

Dalton Trumbo’s controversial Johnny Got His Gun offers a disturbing picture of a World War I soldier left blind, deaf, and limbless, whose own life ultimately becomes his prison. With his final plea for life-ending mercy denied by hospital personnel, Joe Bonham effectively becomes a member of the living dead, neither connected to the world nor able to escape it.

Physician-assisted suicide is by no means a desirable notion. It signifies the end of a life that may have continued for weeks, months, even years had there not been an intervention. It may be argued that the distress of and possible coercion by family and friends, the question of the medical field’s integrity, and the difficulty in determining who is truly suffering would make allowing voluntary euthanasia far too treacherous. In many cases, however, it may be the most humane and noble course of action.

The ability to make informed decisions regarding one’s own welfare is a quintessential aspect of being human. It is generally agreed that every adult is automatically equipped with certain rights, such as the right to live. But a right does not necessarily imply a duty. American citizens, for instance, are granted the right to bear arms by the Second Amendment to the Constitution, though many choose not to possess a gun. Therefore, it does not follow that, because a person has the right to life, he/she lacks the right to end that life. Considering the weight that property rights hold in the United States, it would seem unreasonable that a man could choose, within reason, to do as he pleases with his material possessions, but not with his own body, perhaps the only thing he indisputably owns.

The distinction must be made, however, between physician-assisted euthanasia and individually-performed suicide which, despite their shared outcome, are appreciably different in that the former brings in medical consultants who may offer a more objective view of the situation. Emphasis here is placed on the presence of a physical malady to justify suicide because psychological crises most often have a possibility of being remedied, while some diseases and the like may not. Physical condition may often be tied with mental state, though, which is the reason for measures that reduce the risk of abuse. It is imperative that the patient persistently and independently request euthanasia over several weeks and be deemed by two or more physicians to be beyond hope for an acceptable existence.

The question then becomes, “what constitutes an unendurable situation?” Surely there is no clear-cut answer. But distinguishing between those who merit aid in dying and those who are temporarily depressed, for instance, is vital in establishing the morality of euthanasia. There is fear among the opposition that permitting euthanasia will lead to a reduction in respect for human life, the so-called 'slippery slope' argument. In actuality, performing euthanasia on those patients who meet certain requirements heightens regard for the sanctity of life. It indicates that we, as a society, value life so highly that we refuse to allow it to degrade to a minimal level when its possessor wishes that it not be permitted to do so.

Still, even for those patients lucid enough to seriously consider suicide, the needs of those around them may lead to euthanasia on inappropriate grounds. Considering that more than 40 million Americans lack health insurance, the conflict between the desire to live and guilt over the money required to do so is an issue that must be taken into account. It may be necessary, then, for more liberal euthanasia laws to go hand in hand with an advance in health insurance for the economically underprivileged.

Thomas Nagel proposed that, “Life is worth living even when the bad elements of experience are plentiful, and the good ones too meager to outweigh the bad.” But the concept of life may, in fact, transcend even living. For a once autonomous person to unnecessarily die without self-respect is unmindful to the individual’s life leading up to that point. While negative experiences are said to strengthen character, there exists a point beyond which no person should be forced to live if he or she feels incapable.

RUNNER UP Tristan Johnson, University of Texas at Austin
Influential Book: Arthur Schopenhauer: Essays and Aphorisms by Arthur Schopenhauer    

ISBN: 9780140442274



"The Right Suicide"

It’s a long way down to your concrete ending. But you’ve done and endured everything wrong in life and want out. So you jump. But as you fall and the ant-sized people get larger you begin to worry, “Will these people judge me? Have I just done something terribly wrong?” Before you hit bottom, let us assuage your worries.

Is suicide wrong? Arthur Schopenhauer rightly urges us to allow our moral feelings to decide the matter. If we feel that there is something blameworthy in a person’s suicide, we will be compelled by this feeling to judge his or her action as immoral. But Schopenhauer thinks that we feel nothing but pity, sorrow, and possibly admiration for the departed. If he’s right, then suicide is not wrong. But is he right? Is there nothing blameworthy in suicide itself? Let’s look.

Suppose a madman holds a father and his child captive. The father can kill himself or do nothing, but in either case, his child dies. Or, the father may endure lifelong torture, saving his child. We’re tempted to blame the father if he does nothing or commits suicide. But this would be premature, for we must consider the father’s state of mind.

Schopenhauer observes, “It will generally be found that where the terrors of life come to outweigh the terrors of death a man will put an end to his life.” Today we say that when the stresses of life outweigh a person’s coping resources suicide becomes a serious option. Does our father have the coping resources to deal with lifelong torture or the death of his child? If not, then he cannot be blamed, for ‘ought’ implies ‘can’. If he ought to deal with lifelong torture or his child’s death, then it must be possible for him to do so.

Suppose our father has adequate coping resources but kills himself anyway. Is his suicide wrong? Most say “yes”: he let his child die. Of course, had he chosen to do nothing we would blame him for this very same thing—letting his child die. But if suicide itself is wrong, then we should blame him not once but twice: once for letting his child die and once for killing himself. If suicide itself is wrong, then there must be something extra we blame him for when he commits suicide. But what is this something extra?

It’s but a phantom. Suppose the madman tells the father that in order to save his child he must commit suicide. If the father complies, has he not done something entirely praiseworthy? Even the Christian—Schopenhauer’s main opponent—won’t feel that the man who jumps on a grenade to save his friend is in the slightest blameworthy, anymore than he feels that the “Son of God” who jumps on a cross to save his “sheep” is in the slightest blameworthy. But if there were something blameworthy in the father’s case, then there would be something blameworthy in these cases as well. But my intuition, and hopefully my jumper’s, is that there is nothing at all blameworthy in these cases.

So suicide isn’t inherently wrong. But can we exercise this right whenever we want? No! We can exercise this right only when it doesn't infringe on another’s right to life. This is because the right to life is more fundamental than the right to die. To see this, imagine conjoined twins who are such that if one dies the other will too. Imagine further that one twin is in constant, unbearable pain and hates life, while the other is in constant euphoria and loves life. Does the one in pain have the right to kill herself, or is she obligated to endure lifelong agony, to keep her sister alive? Does the euphoric twin have the right to stay alive, or is she obligated to end the suffering of her sister by suicide? There is a decisive asymmetry here; we can will our death once alive but we cannot will existence once dead. This asymmetry indicates that the right to life is more fundamental than the right to commit suicide.

So you can relax as you fall. You’ve done nothing wrong. Suicide is your right. Just try to avoid others on your way down, and out.

RUNNER UP Kimberly Early, University of Wisconsin Whitewater
Influential Book: The Holy Bible: New International Version by Zondervan Press    

ISBN: 9780310929680



Cesare Pavese was an Italian Poet, critic, novelist and translator who once said, “No one ever lacks a good reason for suicide.” He was not alone in his sentiment. No life is left untouched by the effects of the ill human condition. No one is free from pain, loss or grief. No one can escape the turmoil caught between life’s first breath and death’s final gasp.

Certain images come to mind: the resolute emissary, choosing to take his own life rather than betray his country unwillingly; the abandoned teenager, left with nothing but misery and a handgun; the inconsolable father, struck with the loss of his wife and family in a disaster, weeping uncontrollably in the front seat of his sedan parked in a closed garage. These moments of hopelessness are familiar, because we all can relate. Pain is the thread that weaves through society and binds us together, it urges us to help when there is suffering; it moves us.

If this is true that “no one ever lacks a good reason for suicide,” then what is to keep us together, to keep the world from ending? What is to keep us from destroying ourselves?

There is only one book that can claim any responsibility for saving my life eight years ago. There is only one that gives my life, anyone’s life, enough purpose and reason to be sustained beyond the limits of agony and depression, torture and torment: the Bible.

Some two thousand years ago, a Jewish man by the name of Paul was known for his role in the persecution of Christians. Later, he faced the God of those he killed, and was converted. He was imprisoned, like those he had imprisoned. He was persecuted, like those he had persecuted. And then he was executed for his beliefs. But during his life, he wrote about redemption, salvation, God’s purpose, love, and Jesus Christ in his letters to fellow believers and non-believers alike. He presented a very controversial view of human life and rights. In a letter to the church of Corinth, he wrote, “Do you not know that your body is a temple of the Holy Spirit, who is in you, whom you have received from God? You are not your own; you were bought at a price. Therefore honor God with your body.”

Were my life truly my own, I would have full rights to end it whenever I pleased. Had I created my own life, I could destroy it. But my argument is firmly rooted in the belief that my life is more than a mere possession, something I can write off or destroy at will. My life carries more weight, more value; I belong to God, not myself. I believe no one has the right to end his or her own life, because no one can claim full ownership of his or her own life.

I realize that in today’s society, this belief system is no longer valued as it once was. I realize the Bible is no longer seen as truth, but rather, opinion. I understand I am part of a small population that still finds value in something greater than oneself. But, it was this belief system that kept me from committing suicide a little under a decade ago. The knowledge of a greater god than my own consciousness holding the rights to my seemingly worthless life kept me afloat.

It doesn’t take faith to see that one cannot justly claim sole custody of one’s own life. Suicide is not a solution or a right because suicide is not the death of a hopeless individual, it’s the birth of a hopeless community. The pain of death is not bound in the final breath or kept in the fatal wound. It permeates from death to life: the life abandoned by the individual. The family and the community is left with the guilt and grief common to suicide victims. They are left with all the questions and doubt. They are left with what their dead could not face.

Perhaps no one ever lacks a good reason for suicide; but no one ever lacks a stronger reason for living.

Spring 2005 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

How has the technology of the past 20 years affected the relationship between the individual and society?

WINNER Erica Young, Boston College
Influential Book: The Wealth of Nations by Adam Smith    

ISBN: 9780679424734



Over the past 20 years, technology has borne great advances upon society. Some of the most notable of these advances have been in the fields of industry, medicine, computers, and the environment. Some of the positive externalities of these technological advances include an augmentation in efficiency, in the quality and duration of human life, and in all of the benefits that stem from a society with increasingly free-flowing information. Essentially, by enhancing human life, efficiency, and open information, the effects of technology have infiltrated global politics and policy with an understanding that what is in the best interest of the individual is in the best interest for the society.

The efficiency gains of technology benefit states’ economies while simultaneously emphasizing the importance of the individual’s opportunity, thus increasing the importance of individual incentives. The result has been an often ground-breaking phenomenon, where it has become increasing evident that what is best for the individual is in fact best for the society. This conception has led to the breakdown of communism and the creation of regional and bi-lateral trade agreements, all seeking to enhance states’ economies through the proliferation of individuals’ rights and incentives. This proliferation has led to an increased emphasis on the humanities.

Because social turmoil only hinders national progress, societies have realized that there must be an end to discrimination, and they have consequently taken steps toward the implementation of guaranteed equal rights. It is now accepted that in order to maximize the gains from technology, societies must maximize the conditions and environment of the individuals within the society. This has initiated the breakdown of the caste system in India, the introduction of democracy to Eastern Europe, and the end to occupational discrimination in the United States.

In addition to its success in the humanities, technology has led to significant environmental improvements. An outcome of the “meshing” of individuals’ and society’s interests has been the development of an accountable society that puts much emphasis on the creation of policies that cater to individuals’ well-being. This concept is proven through the increase in the government’s tendency to limit pollution through command-and-control, taxes, subsidies, permit programs, and other incentive-based strategies. At the same time, firms’ technological advances have allowed them to reduce their marginal pollution abatement curves, which has led to a decrease in the “efficient” level of pollution emissions into society. Thus, technology has provided for a way that firms’ and private interests coincide with those of society and the individual.

The technology of the past 20 years has proven Adam Smith’s theory of the “invisible hand,” as presented in The Wealth of Nations almost 200 years ago: When individuals are provided with free-market economic incentives, they will maximize their own welfare, which will in turn lead to the maximization of society’s welfare. Recent technological progress has made society open its eyes to this realization by presenting first-hand the social benefits of information, individual incentives, and increased social progress. The result has been the implementation of environmental and social policies that reflect the idea that what is best for the individual is also best for the society. Technology has thus led to an enhanced relationship between society and the individual, where policy objectives are catered to the latter, with the end-result of benefiting the former as well.

RUNNER UP Michael Wasserman, Columbia University
Influential Book: The Death and Life of Great American Cities by Jane Jacobs    

ISBN: 9780679741954



Jane Jacobs analyzes the societal influence of various environments as part of her essay compilation, The Death and Life of Great American Cities. Since this work was published in 1961, human ingenuity has devised a highly versatile medium of communication known as the Internet, which continuously influences the roles between the individual and society. Some real-time interactive environments of the Internet can be studied in Jacobs’ fashion to pin down their true effects on society as it exists in the digital realm.

Jacobs notes that properly-constructed communities have characteristic public spaces that provide a “sidewalk life.” An example is the typical city street filled with residential property and local businesses, where people perform their trivial daily tasks amidst strangers and acquaintances. The long-term experience in such surroundings is highly significant, as “the sum of such casual public contact at a local level… is a feeling for the public identity of people, a web of public respect and trust, and a resource in time of personal or neighborhood need.” According to Jacobs, this positive setting inevitably facilitates each resident to lead a vibrant private life, retain a comfortable public presence, and share in a communal sense of respectful decency.

Ingredients of this ‘public life’ can be found in several types of online communities. Excellent examples are the Internet Relay Chat (IRC) communities and its parallels such as Direct Connect, where millions of people use a text-based interface to connect to servers located around the globe, each of which varies in user capacity and traffic. The critical parallel to be drawn here is that these lines of communication, like city streets and their local enterprises, are open to anyone. Consequently, strangers and all types of familiars gather with no constraints on their amount of interaction. Each user is free to conduct their activities without a responsibility to speak upon personal terms, but with the simultaneous abilities to take part in the public chat or even engage in one-on-one exchanges with others. A similar example community is the world of online gaming, where players throughout the globe can compete and partake in recreation without any extensive responsibility to one another. One noticeable feature of these arenas is that users are not committed to divulge information to their peers. Hence people aren’t prone to judge others by appearance, race, religion, nationality, or any other trait, unless they are deliberately given due reason by another user. This is an idealization of what Jacobs considers a good community, which balances its individuals’ privacy and their simultaneous desire for “differing degrees of contact, enjoyment, or help from the people around.”

Jacobs looks beyond ideal communities and notes that in unsafe urban projects, people never develop the universal trust critical to public life; furthermore, planned suburban residential communities tend to formalize any instances of public life. She argues that such areas fail to promote the natural social development of its inhabitants, as there is no open forum for comfortably conducting the daily affairs of a public life.

These flawed communities are paralleled by those that exist within the World Wide Web. Here, many websites require individuals to register vital information to take part in rather limited environments. These communities also often fail to support open public communication between the users. Furthermore, trust amongst organizations and individuals on the Web has significantly diminished as devious organizations barrage users with advertisements, adware and spyware, and even sell their information to other equally horrendous establishments. Malevolent users spread viruses and spam, and Internet-based chat rooms have repeatedly been called out on the menacing nature of their users. Jacobs explains that families establish barriers for self-protection in such environments, and this is similarly the case with users on the Internet. Most users cower from interaction as they explore the Web, afraid of committing themselves to potentially dangerous or simply overbearing active participation. FTP communities and their counterparts provide strikingly similar environments.

Overall, the many varied realms of the Internet reflect those exhibited in reality, although properly constructed software can seemingly yield far more idealistic results than any neighborhood block. Without immediate physical presence, individuals are freer to publicly exhibit themselves within a community exactly as they see fit.

RUNNER UP Sebastian Kurian, University of Pennsylvania
Influential Book: Bowling Alone by Robert Putnam    

ISBN: 9780743203043



Over the past 20 years we have seen tremendous change in technology. With changes in production techniques and costs, computers and cell phones have become so popular we forget what life was like before them. Households no longer watch network television to get caught up on what is happening in politics or the world, but rather turn to the Internet and the dozens of cable television networks. Today more information is made more readily available to us through more resources than ever before. All this change leads to an important question: What impact does this technology have on our society?

In his much-discussed and debated work Bowling Alone: The Collapse and Revival of American Community, Robert Putnam argues that changes in society have led to a decrease in social capital in the United States. He defines social capital as the connections individuals have with one another. While he places the blame for this collapse of social capital on many factors, two factors are of particular interest: television and the Internet. Television, particularly cable television, and the Internet have taken on a much greater role in our society over the past twenty years. Putnam believes that individuals who spend more time watching television spend less time on activities that create social bonds. With the rise of the Internet people now communicate more via instant messenger and email rather than face-to-face and by other traditional modes of communication. His statistics have shown that these and many other factors have led to a decline in individuals’ participation in the civic arena. Yet has cable television and the Internet really adversely affected the relationship between the individual and society to such great extent?

Unlike Robert Putnam, I would argue that technology has actually helped strengthen the relationship between the individual and society. The recent tsunami tragedy illustrates this point. With the presence of cable television millions of Americans saw footage and heard heartbreaking stories of the deadly waves that struck countries in the Indian Ocean. Former Presidents George Bush and Bill Clinton pleaded for donations on almost every cable channel. With cable television’s 24/7 coverage, the event was made more visible and Americans felt more in touch with those who were suffering. Internet websites made making donations to the victims a simple click away. In fact, private donations in the United States have gone well above $1 billion to date. Technology has brought tragedies and sufferings around the world closer to home and has led Americans to become more aware of what is happening in society.

Technology has also reshaped the very civic arena that Putnam argues has been hurt by its rise. The 2004 election was hotly contested, and voter turnout was very high by U.S. standards. This rise in voter turnout can in part be attributed to technology. The Internet allowed groups like MoveOn.Org to coax more and more Americans into donating money to political causes. Both the Republican National Committee and Democratic National Committee relied heavily on email to mobilize their voters and volunteers. Blogs entered the English lexicon as average Americans had the opportunity to share their political views and engage in meaningful debate. The Internet has fundamentally changed the way the American electoral system functions and perhaps it can be the key to resurrecting civic engagement and creating a more democratic society.

People may blame cable television for the decline in attention spans or the Internet for a lack of interest in writing actual letters. However, the fact remains that these technological mediums have brought individuals more in tune with society, and it is said that knowledge is power. Through the technologies of the past few decades, individuals have access to more knowledge than ever before, and that knowledge will give them the power to change society both here in America and around the world.

Fall 2004 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

What role, if any, do the media play in shaping American political opinion?

WINNER Stefan Kirk, Indiana University School of Law - Indianapolis
Influential Book: Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them by Al Franken    

ISBN: 9780452285217



The current debate between both liberal and conservative pundits revolves around the media’s perceived bias toward either party’s agenda. Al Franken’s book Lies and the Lying Liars Who Tell Them: A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right highlights the argument and provides a rebutting opinion to the political Right’s argument that the American media are biased toward a liberal ideology. However, neither party truly seems to understand what the media machine’s real difficulty has become and therefore suffers a bias mostly promoted by self-interest or self-fulfilling prophecies. While fringe media outlets may use intentionally biased reporting, the mainstream media seem to suffer from a different malaise. Little by little the mainstream media have created a system of reporting which favors shock over substance. While the bias of the media’s coverage may be a question of the chicken and the egg, the beginning of a bias matters very little as it is the result which is destructive. Bias in media reporting fuels a political climate where the voting public increasingly turns to sources which confirm their pre-existing views and creates a spiral of inaccuracy and uninformed political dialogue.

Increasingly dependant upon advertising dollars, the media have favored stories which may have little substance, or are patently biased but draw big audiences. This fuels debates over a single point of a particular topic, but may overlook the origins of the problems, the actions which produced the debate, or the history of the competing interests. If the American public is only given a brief overview of either the history or the competing interests for any problem, the public develops a myopic view of the event. This becomes a significant problem when people discount factual evidence which is counter to their current beliefs or knowledge (as is the common tendency), and demand more of the news or knowledge which fulfills their pre-existing beliefs. This is the spiral of inaccuracy which results from the public demand and an attempt to meet the demand in order to generate profit. The resulting news coverage is inaccurate and results in a world view that may be inaccurate.

As a recent example, during coverage before the Iraq war, the mainstream media covered much of the Bush Administration’s attempts to convince the world that military action was necessary. By highlighting the weapons of mass destruction argument and in many cases adopting the phraseology of the administration in an effort to provide coverage which would draw a majority of viewers, the American public was given a pro-war message by the media whether or not such a message was intended. Counter to the pro-war argument were many sources in both the world body and academia who openly questioned the outcome and the basis of the war, but media coverage of these competing ideas was rarely introduced, and was routinely ignored. By favoring coverage which the American public preferred, the media helped ensure that the normal bias for favoring self-confirming information overcame what little objections were reported. The result formed an inaccurate view of the Iraq situation which was later proven to be false and continues to be of great political and societal consequence.

Additional examples are prevalent everywhere as Americans turn more and more to specific news outlets for information which support their ideological or political ideas. Instead of striving for a journalism standard of unbiased reporting, many media sources have attempted to gain market share by promoting and reporting information in a biased manner. This is both economically beneficial to the media interests which follow such a path and currently popular with much of the American public; again, a cycle which is self-perpetuating. As a result, by controlling what information is available to the American public, the media control the American political climate. While the influence of which entity is responsible for spiral of inaccuracy may be debatable, the results are not in doubt, as media focus continues to drive much of the current political debate.

RUNNER UP Jason Fulmore, University of Alabama at Birmingham
Influential Book: A People's History of the United States by Howard Zinn    

ISBN: 9780060528379



In an interview earlier this year with NBC’s Tim Russert, President George W. Bush pointedly reminded Americans that he is a “war president.” In fact, he used the phrase “war on terror” 14 times. And it’s no wonder, because politicians have become quite adept at using the national media to frame political events to their advantage. Some critics argue that the media are just helpless pawns, stuck in commercial machinery that discourages the investigative spirit of Woodward and Bernstein. Other, more cynical observers assert that media outlets are abusing their freedom of speech and history of objective storytelling to craft messages aimed at swaying voters to one political persuasion or another. I believe the truth lies somewhere in the murky middle. What is clear, though, is the media play a very influential role in shaping American political opinion.

I am reminded of one of my favorite books - Howard Zinn’s A People’s History of the United States. Zinn makes the case that much of what young people are taught about our history is removed, if not absent from, the truth of these events. Take, for instance, one history book currently approved for use in Georgia high schools. It skips from American colonization to Reconstruction with scant reference to slavery. History, it seems, is subject to interpretation and the interpretation usually comes from the victor – or at least the majority rulers.

In the same way that this textbook shapes young students’ minds about their “history,” the media shape Americans’ opinions about political issues. Studies show that most voters get the bulk of their information from one or two sources. For younger voters, that source is increasingly the entertainment media – i.e. Jon Stewart’s “The Daily Show” on Comedy Central – a fact decried by many observers, including Stewart. Even older and presumably more sophisticated consumers of political coverage are challenged by choices as divergent as FOX News and Air America. Compare the presidential campaign coverage on these two networks and one might assume they’re covering completely different events.

I would assert, though, that this is not necessarily a bad thing. In the pre-cable, pre-Internet days of three major television networks, voters had a limited choice of sources for information about their political candidates and issues. But cable and the Internet are increasingly democratizing the media, giving voice to divergent views that might have been hushed before. It is true that large radio and televisions networks still command the resources to be a major force in shaping public opinion; but it is also true that the near abandonment of quality local news coverage handicaps voters seeking to form opinions about local political issues. Still, in much the same way that Zinn turns American history on its head, new media have opened a door to greater understanding of the political process. It’s there for the taking and, as with any democracy, it requires a certain level of personal responsibility.

RUNNER UP Claudia Leung, Macalester College
Influential Book: The Problem of the Media by Robert W. McChesney    

ISBN: 9781583671054



The First Amendment has been debated in the legal and media production systems throughout American history. In the media today, the debates over the intention and interpretation of the free press clause are especially prevalent, as progressives claim that the quality of journalism erodes as it attempts to appeal to larger and larger audiences by claiming to be objective. The role of the media in America has regressed from a highly politicized, diverse informative system in the 1700’s to the provider of an abundance of useless "infotainment" today. Robert W. McChesney in The Problem of the Media links this change to the shift from a progressive interpretation of the First Amendment's press clause to a commercialist one, and shows that the most democratic approach to the production and distribution of political information lies in the hands of the American public.

The free press clause of the First Amendment says, "Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." In the commercialist interpretation, leaders of the corporate media are left to form the structure and content of the news based on only one source of input: the demands of consumers. This is not sufficient to produce viewpoints in the media that accurately reflect the full range of public political opinion since the market sees its consumers as "moronic citizens who demand such fare and reward those who provide it." This cycle is arguably exacerbated by the media's tendency to promote poor quality material.

Although education has the potential to cultivate the intellect of the next generation, many of the proponents of the commercial interpretation are opposed to the improvement of the education system. This antagonism towards the development of public interest in quality media demonstrates the presence of corporate hegemony over the production of media. Commercial media advocates might argue against this claim, reasoning that government is just as unfit a determinant of media production as is the free market. Although the press system was once benefited by government support through subsidies, the overarching politics of the incumbent administration have the potential to shut differing opinions out.

This sets up a basis for understanding the progressive interpretation of the free press clause in the First Amendment, and for the argument for the implementation of a third agent of media production, separate from the government and corporate media. As McChesney states, "According to the progressive perspective… the right to a free press is a social right to a diverse and effective press system enjoyed by all Americans." This can be accomplished through two steps. The first is sheer pluralism of perspectives in the press. The other would be for individual presses to openly announce their political position within the spectrum, so that the diversity of opinion is clear to the public. The first press "was highly partisan and integrally linked to the political process," and editors were treated as the political figures they were, so that politically-minded literate Americans were aware of the agendas behind every piece of news they ingested.

However, such blatant admission of partiality and openness to new perspectives is not conducive to the way that a partisan government or commercial media would like to exert its influence. By retaining the façade that the media are not biased, and that the government and commercial media have no relation, the media ensure that the general populace is not aware of the diversity within American politics, which leads to the disintegration of the democratic process. The inadequacy of either government or commercialist forces in forming a more perfect media suggests the need for a third, publicly-driven method of media regulation and production. This is arguably the view that is most aligned with Constitutional framers James Madison and Thomas Jefferson, who both understood and wrote about the "distinct social function of the free press."

With the understanding that such thought influenced the framers of the Constitution, it is easy to conclude that the political and ideological foundations of the First Amendment are progressive. As the parallels between the situation in the mid-1800’s and the climate of today emerge, it becomes clear that the precedent for social change has been set for us: a progressive interpretation of the media's role in our society, and establishing the means and motive in the American public to take the fight for a truly free press into their own hands.

Spring 2004 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

What is a Nation?

WINNER Anne Chmilewski, UC Berkeley
Influential Book: Hans Brinker or the Silver Skates by Mary Mapes Dodge    

ISBN: 9780812533422



A nation was once a race of people, bound by blood, drawing its boundaries and proving its honor by warfare, and reporting to a leader directly empowered by a god. Today, many nations would be loath to define themselves by these criteria. Nations who consider themselves “progressive” have adopted increasingly vague definitions of “nationhood” to accommodate the ever-broadening diversity of both their citizens and their functions as states.

Accompanying the loss of a clear definition for “nation” seems to be a loss of faith that such a definition even exists. Postmodernism rears its ugly head like another cell phone tower in the middle of a field. If we can’t define “nation,” does it even exist? When we define nations, we invariably relapse into applying definitions that painfully exclude people, distinguishing among races, religions, or incomes. Because “nation” is such a complex abstraction, no amount of purely academic exercise can discover a conclusive, helpful definition. Data may be collected by thousands of researchers from millions of citizens, but the only result will be an overwhelming mess of contrary opinions. Every dictionary, from those written in hieroglyphics to those written in html, may be consulted and studied in detail, but efforts will be to no avail.

We need to look elsewhere for an answer. I suggest that the deepest understanding of “nation” comes from an abstract feeling- a dream, a wish, longing, or mourning. A nation, present in the feelings and actions of its people, is illustrated by Mary Dodge in her portrayal of nineteenth-century Holland called Hans Brinker, or the Silver Skates. Dodge paints a picture of a nation united not only by picturesque frozen canals carrying citizens on skates from one end of the country to the other, but also by a confidence in mankind’s abilities that comes from a centuries-long victory over the waters pushing against the dikes of a land that would, without them, be ocean floor.

The strength of the characters’ belief in their nation is apparent in three actions, the first of which is the characters’ storytelling of Holland’s history. Instead of making fun of historical figures in cartoons, older generations know these figures like family and younger generations look up to them as role models. Some stories are not of war heroes, but of persons of extraordinary generosity or talent in the arts or science. The children in the novel share stories about famous Dutch artists in their leisure time.

Secondly, the nation values certain ideals that span across boundaries. Poor and wealthy alike pride themselves on frugality, innovation, and cleanliness. In the story, the most popular children are the ones who most exhibit these traits, breaking from the stereotypical popular children, who are cruel and spoiled.

Thirdly, the Dutch believe strongly in meritocracy, yet maintain a strong unity. This results from a belief that contribution to society should be rewarded as the highest accomplishment, no matter what a person’s background. The great prize of the silver skates is awarded to the race winner, without regard to other criteria. A wealthy boy and a poor girl win the prize, and the community envelopes both winners in congratulations.

For contemporary nations to model themselves after tiny and homogenous nineteenth-century Holland is no solution to our dilemma. Contemporary readers can find truth in the willingness of each person, even a small child, to save the nation from destruction by the wilderness, as in the legend of the small boy who plugged a hole in the dike with his finger. And perhaps this is the closest we will come to an answer—what most defines a “nation” is the alliance of humans against natural and sometimes supernatural challenges. Across the world we stand, from amber waves of grain to the Great Wall of China, one unified human nation.

RUNNER UP Matthew Greenblatt, Yale University
Influential Book: The Persian Wars by Herodotus    

ISBN: 9780140446388



For Herodotus, national identity was inexorably linked with language and culture, as described in his history The Persian Wars. In this work, Herodotus recounts that the Athenians cited common language and associated cultural elements that sewed the scattered Greek city-states into a common nation as rationale that precluded an alliance with Xerxes and his invading Persian army.

However, this conception of language as a common bond is problematic, as Greek at the time of Herodotus was fragmented by local variations in both spoken and written usage. As a modern analogy, China hides a vast heterogeneity beneath a unified national identity. Chinese has hundreds to thousands of dialects, and China is home to approximately 60 ethnic minorities possessing cultures and traditions distinct from the Han majority. In both the Chinese and Greek examples, then, the question is, “How can language and culture be the mainstays of national identity when they are so heterogeneous?”

The answer lies in the distinction between oneself and the national self - between personal and national identity. National identity is a game of persuasion in which we are constantly being convinced to participate. Nations woo us with strength of culture, tradition, and history, and flatter us that our participation enriches the whole. A common language is the medium and culture is the content of this courtship. A nation appeals to us through strength of its own character, not through its similarity to ourselves. Without this appeal, the increasing pluralism of our own country would be impossible.

The nature of this relationship between the individual and the state means that national identity is in constant flux. Events, both political and cultural, can strengthen or weaken the argument for unity. History and culture not only speak to us on behalf of a national identity, but they speak to that identity itself, persuading it to shift and struggle to contain their contradictions and ambiguities. When local culture and politics change so rapidly that national identity cannot shift to accommodate them, the local identity escapes the national body and begins a separate dialogue with local peoples, a dialogue that, if persuasive enough, leads to secession, either politically or culturally. Such was the case during the series of secessions leading to the American Civil War, or the shift in Spartan identity that lead to the Peloponnesian Wars.

Thus, a successful national identity must be malleable enough to be reshaped and bent to cover the whole of its people, constantly re-incorporating new cultural and political growth into that identity to maintain its relevance. Pertinence, not similarity to ourselves, is the primary allure of a nation. If the tradition and language used as the avenues of persuasion lose their impact, then we become liable to substitute and nurture local character to replace an absent national one.

Perhaps for Herodotus' Athenians, a simple claim of linguistic and cultural similarity was enough to convince the Spartans of their good intentions through a common identity. However, the rise of nations that encompass a mix of ethnicities and cultures undermines similarity as the foundation for nationhood. Instead, what emerges is a dialogue, in which a nation appeals to us through language and culture, struggling to keep its appeal by continually redefining itself through that culture. In such a system, diversity itself can become a key point to persuasion, and difference can replace similarity as a common ground.

RUNNER UP Leah Miller, AIU Online
Influential Book: Spoken Here: Travels Among Threatened Languages by Mark Abley    

ISBN: 9780618236497



A nation – the word and concept may not seem to be as meaningful to us today as it has been in the past. Previously, a nation defined everything about an individual: where they lived, what language they spoke, what clothes they wore, and what food they ate. Now these lines are blurred with the world becoming increasingly global and immigration and emigration occurring in every country. One can be ethnically from one nation, reside in another, and hold citizenship in yet a third.

In order to achieve identity within a group, at least two out of three commonalities of territory, language, and history must exist, according to Mark Abley in his study, Spoken Here: Travels Among Threatened Languages. Many constituents of nations no longer can claim more than one or two of those identifiers, resulting in a loosening of a person’s identification with any group, especially if it is political and not ethnic. Political divisions of nations have been and are almost always artificial delineations; people consider themselves a member of whatever group they share the most basic of human experiences with, and language is a large component of that.

As English becomes the global language of business, other nationalities and ethnicities face a weakening in their traditional national ties. Language is so basic and so influential on culture that its loss can cause confusion and rootlessness. Language influences the very way that people think, and as more and more people speak the same language as their first or second tongue, the more they assimilate into a more homogenous mélange.

All of the various political, ethnic, and commercial influences tying countries together today into ever-shifting partnerships make the concept of nationhood very nebulous. I think we can only define a nation as the participants themselves intend; we cannot truly identify a nation from our textbook notions, and political descriptions are too arbitrary. Only the nation itself can identify its parameters, and its constituents determine that validity.

Fall 2003 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

Is America's role in the world contributing to the enhancement of general human welfare?

WINNER Jennifer Uhlich, Mills College, (CA)
Influential Book: The Use and Abuse of History by Friedrich Nietzsche    

ISBN: 9780452006997



One of the United States’ largest exports is a peculiar form of memory, and considering how it has shaped American culture, it will prove most harmful to the world. As Nietzsche states in his The Use and Abuse of History, a culture needs a balance of history in order to evolve. For Nietzsche, German culture was overwhelmed by history, able to see it only as a static record of what had been done. Instead, German culture needed an awareness of the past that informed and inspired, encouraging men to greater achievement.

In the United States, we suffer from the opposite problem. It was for Nietzsche a scenario he only touched upon, as if it were so extreme it did not warrant exploration. We are a culture that is excessively monumental: we forego context and fact in favor of a cinematic gloss that distorts what little historical awareness we have. Polls of large cross-sections of the population show that few Americans can say when the Civil War occurred, name more than a handful of presidents, or even recall the events of the Gulf War. In American culture, George Washington sells cars at your local dealership, and Civil War soldiers sport the healthy glow and capped teeth of popular actors. We remember that we put a man on the moon, but we do not remember why, and we see no reason to go back.

Without historical awareness, we have become a culture immersed in a static present. We want our food right away, we throw away our clothing at the slightest tear or fading, we carry phones and computers with us to prevent even a moment’s isolation. Our technological development produces fewer and fewer innovative designs; most of what we consider innovative is simply altering an existing design so that newer materials can be incorporated. Our arts are little more than products, items to be purchased to ally their owner with a specific trend and thrown away once a new variant has been produced; the phrase “critically acclaimed,” which earmarks a cultural product as having struck a high note of achievement, is in most cases a death knell for the financial success of that product and its artist.

This culture of amnesia has turned the U.S. into a political bully and an environmental threat, a wealthy 8-year-old prone to tantrums and utterly selfish. As the world’s only superpower, the United States is also the world’s only late capitalist economy, chipping away at the vestiges of its socialist underpinnings to become a purely market-driven society. In such abundance, with no want left untended to, the only thing American culture has left to sell is itself. We export ourselves to the world as the model of freedom, success, and happiness, but it is an empty image, and the people who buy the image buy the emptiness as well. The rest of the world should take note, lest their cultures too be reduced to re-enactments and labels. Too much has already been lost.

RUNNER UP Lisa Knox, Berkley (CA)
Influential Book: Why We Can't Wait by Martin Luther King, Jr.    

ISBN: 9780451527530



Until I started college, all I knew about Martin Luther King, Jr. was that he had a dream. Every February, without fail, my history teachers would trot out that famous March on Washington speech. As they told it,(and as I believed it,) King represented the great American Dream; he believed in the American ideals of freedom and democracy, and made the country live up to them.

My first semester of college, that image changed. Reading his "Letter From a Birmingham Jail" in his book Why We Can't Wait, I was shocked to discover a different King; one who was disillusioned with the failure of America to live up to its promises, and who felt that Americans could not be depended upon to support a just and moral cause.

Moreover, I learned that he was right. In my American History textbook, I read about Jefferson's slave ownership, Jackson's crusade against Native Americans, and Reagan's funding of Nicaraguan terrorists. In a class on Latin America, I heard about US support for Pinochet's 1973 coup against Chile's democratically elected president. My Comparative Politics professor detailed US complicity in South African apartheid, Palestinian repression and sweatshops in Southeast Asia. Time and time again, I saw, America has failed to live up to the ideals of democracy, freedom and egalitarianism it espouses; from Chile to Vietnam(and, most recently, the 2002 Venezuelan coup,) America has too often used its rhetoric of morality to mask self-interest.

Yet, in that same Letter, King also expresses a conviction that these very ideals that America has failed to realize will in the end be triumphant. "We will win our freedom," he writes, "because the sacred heritage of our nation and the eternal will of God are embodied in our echoing demands." When the Founding Fathers wrote that "all men are created equal, and they are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable rights," they may have been speaking metaphorically, but the doctrine of equality and liberty they created has become accepted around the world.

That ideology, ultimately, is America's greatest contribution to humanity. America will be a purveyor of democracy and justice not by its own design, but because the rest of the world is demanding we live up to the moral code we have so long ignored. They demanded it in the

United Nations, and they demanded it in the streets when millions marched against an American invasion of Iraq. And, like King, they will continue to demand it until America lives up to its sacred heritage.

RUNNER UP Wesley Bishop, City College, Gainesville (FL)
Influential Book: THE NEW REALITIES by Peter F. Drucker    

ISBN: 9780887306174



Must the peoples of the world be reliant on the beneficence of nations? Prior to the advent of a world economy and all that entails, the answer would be yes. But increasingly, as pointed out in The New Realities by Peter Drucker, the answer is becoming no. As new paradigms in government, society, economics, and business develop, emphasis will shift from the nation-state society to the individual as citizen of the world society. The newly developing paradigm challenges the relevance of the question, "Is America's role in the world contributing to the enhancement of general human welfare?"

Salvation by society has increasingly proven to be a dismal failure everywhere it has been attempted. Utopia by legislation is counter-productive, and too often becomes anathema to its prescribed goals. Government as benefactor is by nature unwieldy and misguided by virtue of competing political interests and experiential ineptitude. The trend in the United States and other developed countries is towards privatization and localization, problem solving at the cause. Ultimately, these solutions rest upon the individual citizen. As it turns out, we really are our "brothers' (and sisters') keepers," and have been all along. No longer can we expect government to provide heaven on earth for us; each and every one of us is responsible for creating a little slice of heaven for the sake of every living creature on the planet.

This new reality manifests in the world community at large, much like the proverbial flap of a butterfly's wings that creates a storm thousands of miles away. It is not "America", or "Germany" or "Arabia" or "Egypt" or "China" that enhances human welfare. It is the accomplishments of individual people of talent, grace and mercy, wherever they may live, that enhance the general human welfare of the world. Nations might stake claim on such achievements as national treasures, but in the final analysis those treasures are the gift of the artist, and the citizens of the world are the recipients.

The new paradigm of the sovereign individual is here. Nations and governments will not disappear, but they are fast losing their potency and predominance. Business already must deal with the new reality, and where business, trade and money go, governments are sure to follow.

Spring 2003 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

When is war justified?

WINNER Nicole Sta. Maria, Middlebury College
Influential Book: War Without Mercy: Race and by John W. Dower    

ISBN: 9780394751726



The countless innovations we have seen in the twentieth century--new technology, new weaponry, and new ways of thinking--have been profoundly influenced by our experiences with large-scale armed conflict. Indeed, war has been a stark presence and a persistent companion for humanity, avidly recorded and carefully scrutinized. Its complexities are evident in the various revisions made on historical accounts; the causes involved have been endlessly debated, and the totality of its consequences remains in dispute. What seems certain, however, is that in war, justification is a powerful motivation for everyone concerned. Whenever nations enter into armed conflict, they convince themselves that they are in the right: that the death and destruction visited upon the enemy is deserved. To think otherwise is to undermine the effort--no soldiers would willingly step onto the battlefield, nor would ordinary citizens condone war, if the reasons for which they fight appear groundless. The question, then, is: when is war justified?

John Dower’s detailed book, “War Without Mercy”, suggests that the answer is never. Dower focused on the issue of race and its effects on the prosecution of the Pacific War. The seemingly fundamental, but ultimately ambiguous, disparity between the opposing sides was manipulated in order to stimulate enthusiastic support for the war effort. The division of race distorted and dehumanized the enemy, creating a propaganda machine that was embraced for its apparent justification of the war: the very identity of the nation was threatened and had to be defended. Moreover, racially-charged propaganda provided exculpation for the atrocities committed on and off the battleground, and even for attacks on non-military targets. But Dower, surprisingly, further asserted that race could be credited for improving the process of peace and reconstruction that followed the war’s devastation. The ambiguity of the perceived difference between both sides allowed the propaganda machine to shift according to the demands of peacetime. The immediate postwar period saw messages of optimism and collaboration, where before there were only virulent attacks on the enemy. In both cases, race was a central theme. But how can the very thing that justified the war be turned around so easily for the cause of war’s antithesis? Simply put, there was no such justification.

An act is not justified if it is founded upon ignorance, and Dower showed that during the Pacific War, both sides knew little about the other aside from what propaganda fed them. Yet the themes presented in Dower’s book extend beyond any single war. We have seen, time and again, that war means death, disease, and deprivation--only the magnitude changes. We have seen that during war, the potential for depravity is highest, amplified by corrosive emotions and a rigid separation of “us” versus “them”. Ultimately, war is an expression of division, and for division to exist at all, we must first be willing to set aside our common humanity. We must create labels for what we see as our differences: race, nationality, religion, ideology, ethnicity, and more. When we think of our “enemies”, we must overlook the fact that they, like us, have families, friends, and lives of their own. When we destroy their homes, we must turn a blind eye to the reality that it could just as easily have been the opposite, that we could have been the ones deprived of shelter. Thus, when we support war, we sacrifice truth and exchange it for convenient oversights and rationalizations. The measures to which we are driven by war can only be described as heinous. As an act that is sustained by ignorance and is to blame for the loss of millions of lives, war should be condemned, not justified.

We are the species most conscious of its role in the world; therefore, we have a responsibility to learn from our past in order to build a good future. That means we must be aware of the nuances within our history--we must read between the lines. Beyond Dower’s insights and descriptions is a call for making the right choices. Let us forsake ignorance, and know each other. Let us reconcile our disparities rather than create conflict. Let us contain our tendencies for aggression and confrontation, and instead develop the values of negotiation and cooperation. Let us cultivate our potential for peace, not our capacity for war. Let us search for solutions, not justifications. When we have learned the right lessons and made the right decisions, then the whole of humanity will have gained a victory.

RUNNER UP Celena Janton, University of Arizona
Influential Book: NIV Study Bible by Kenneth L. Barker    

ISBN: 9780310927099



I stood gazing at the bright restaurant menu on the wall, trying to decide between a Big Mac and a double cheeseburger, when I noticed her stare.

The woman didn't turn away when I met her eyes. Instead, she glared at me. What I had done to cause her to look at me with such hatred? As I continued to compare the two sandwiches, the woman continued to stare. I smoothed my camouflaged pants (a nervous habit) and asked, "Can I help you, ma'am?"

Her grin seemed to drip of sarcasm but she didn't say anything right away. She finally stopped staring at me and paid the cashier for her sandwich. As she walked past me she said, "You're nothing but baby killers, all of you."

I could feel the mixed tears of sadness and anger rise in my throat. "Sometimes," I said, "war is justified."

The woman stopped and turned to ask me, "When is war ever justified?"

Before I could begin to form an answer, she was gone.

I sat and ate my cheeseburger alone, hardly noticing which sandwich I had ended up with, wondering with each bite if what I had said was true. I wore the uniform, I believed in my president, I loved my country, but did I really agree with what I had told that woman? Was war ever really justified?

I thought of the Bible, the Book I can't help turning to when I'm faced with deep questions. Obviously, God viewed war as justifiable. After all, He led His chosen people into battle time and again as displayed in the words of the Old Testament. In the end, thousands of years later, all of the good to come would outweigh all of the devastation; many people would be saved. Sometimes, though, it is hard to justify something as sad as war when the final conclusion and knowledge of success will take so long in coming.

I glanced out the window at the RV store across the street. I always notice their flag which is probably the largest in all of Tucson, Arizona. It was then that I realized how much I loved my flag and my country, so much that it tore me apart to know that there were those who believed I was disgracing that flag by my support of the military as an airman. My flag...

There were those who hated it as much as I loved it. I thought of the suicide bombers who were willing to sacrifice their lives in an effort to destroy everything I believed in. How could my eyes not mist? America was a land of freedom and liberty, a place of deliverance from oppression. I thought of the millions of people who were desperately trying to come here to live. They wanted a visa, perhaps, more than they wanted food and water. I thought of the people, and the children among them, in the Middle East who lived daily among war and terror. Why couldn't everyone know the freedom and peace that I knew?

Later that day, I watched the news and added many pictures to the photo album in my memory. I think of them today:

An Army soldier in Basra is giving candy to children and letting them look through his binoculars.

Iraqi people are lining the streets, cheering and smiling, rushing to the first soldier they see to hug and kiss him.

They are waving American flags.

An Iraqi man is pulling down a poster of Saddam Hussein as others applaud.

I think of these and other images like them that remain in my mind's eye. What would it be like to be one of the Allied soldiers who helped to liberate the Iraqi people? Some will argue that we didn't go to Iraq with that goal in mind. But, does that matter? Not to me. I almost wish I were there to begin to feel what those soldiers must have… I wouldn’t complain if I were told I had an assignment to the Middle East to go and help repair Iraq. Maybe I even want to go, to support my flag and what it stands for, to stand by my President and my nation. Sometimes, I know, war is justified. There is a bigger picture. Sometimes, just as revealed in the Book I always turn to, a nation and many people can be saved. And others, too, can begin to taste freedom where there was once only famine.

RUNNER UP Amanda Tait, ASUMH
Influential Book: The Trial and Death of Socrates by Plato    

ISBN: 9780486270661



Know Thyself

"Know thyself" was a precept advocated by the philosopher Socrates. Since Socrates was a teacher and not a writer, one must look to his contemporaries for further enlightenment. The Trial and Death of Socrates, by Plato, discusses in part Socrates’ philosophy about knowing oneself.



In ancient Greece, the principle of self-knowledge was essential in one’s scholarly pursuit of an ideal life. Socrates’ profound admonition was inscribed at the site of the Oracle at Delphi. Delphi was considered the omphalos or the center of the world. Statesmen and other prominent citizens would travel extraordinary distances to seek prophetic guidance pertaining to the affairs of state or personal matters. Unfortunately the Oracle was known to give somewhat cryptic advice that was often tragically misinterpreted.

Today the civilized leaders of the world make similar pilgrimages to the United Nations under the pretext of seeking peaceful solutions to world conflict. These statesmen seek approval from a higher authority as the universally accepted prerequisite to making a formal declaration of war. Modern advances in communication make it possible for most of the world’s citizens to listen to each nation's appointed representative give cryptic justification for the prudence of war as a solution to world turmoil.

Educated members of society throughout the centuries have learned that history repeats itself and humankind seldom learns from its mistakes. Ritualistically, nations still engage in wars and seek validation for their actions. The prevalent belief is that The Creator supports his chosen people in times of war as well as in times of peace. The “chosen ones” take up arms in defense of their beliefs, their families and their countries. If validation does not come from mortal authorities vindication ultimately will come from divine authority.

Both ancient philosophers and modern theologians have addressed humanity’s need to justify war. Niccolo Machiavelli (1469-1527), an Italian politician and political thinker of his time, perceived war as part of the human experience. Man, he stipulated, has always been inclined to go to war and the reason for this behavior was that man has always been weak and somewhat stupid in these matters. Machiavelli believed that “malign fate” was always forcing man to arm himself against the adversary even in times of peace.

Mahatma Gandhi astutely identified seven deadly sins that plague the modern world. The fatal formula for man’s inhumanity to man includes wealth without work, pleasure without conscience, knowledge without character, business without morality, science without humanity, worship without sacrifice and politics without principle. As long as such practices are condoned by the prosperous nations of the world it should be no mystery why there is no world peace and there is always justification for war.

When is war justified? Since men are historically stupid in such matters, as Machiavelli stipulates, a “green light” by the majority of voters in any nation could never be a mandate for war. Heads of States, motivated by “politics without principle,” as Gandhi decrees, are discredited by their spurious motives. How can a judge scrutinize another’s actions when that judge is incapable of scrutinizing his own actions? The thought of justifying war is preposterous.

I believe there is hope. Today, if the majority of the citizens of the world are ignorant, they are ignorant by choice. We can awaken to the fact that war is the statesman’s panacea to internal criticism. We can awaken to the fact that the electorate can be convinced that war is justified when that electorate focuses solely on foreign policy rather than domestic policy. Due to the recent war in Iraq the Iraqis are free from the treacheries of the “Butcher of Baghdad”. Therefore it is inconsequential that eighteen desperate illegal immigrants were abandoned along a Texas highway and consequently suffocated in the back of a truck trailer driven by a United States citizen.

Yes, justification is easily camouflaged if mankind continues to choose ignorance instead of knowledge or pleasure without conscience. When any individual condones any evil practice within the boundaries of one’s conscience or one’s country, that individual personally sanctions war. Knowledge of oneself requires knowledge with character rather than knowledge devoid of character. The simple admonition inscribed at the oracle continues to elude us. We continue to be perplexed by the obvious.

Fall 2002 TextbookX.com Scholarship Question:

Does science leave room for faith? Does faith leave room for science?

WINNER Ramy Arnaout, Harvard Medical School
Influential Book: The Evolution of Cooperation by Robert Axelrod    

ISBN: 9780465021215



Over the years we have set up a zero-sum rivalry between science and faith. We have cast them as competing empires, vying for the fealty of hearts and minds like Cold War adversaries. When we ask whether or not one leaves room for the other, we are implying as much. It is as if we were debating the merits of rollback or the domino theory, asking if the presence of the one is tolerable within the other’s sovereign sphere. It is quite a martial view to hold, bleak with portents of struggle and strife. But is there any other choice?

The Cold War allusions are meant to honor Robert Axelrod, the Michigan sociologist whose work from the 1970s suggests that the answer is yes. Axelrod was interested in politics, not philosophy; it was the era of mutually assured destruction, and the problem of zero-sum games was made more immediate by the threat of nuclear annihilation. Using game theory, he asked if there were realistic alternatives to the superpowers’ hell-bent competition. Was it possible for two players, both acting on their own selfish interests and without central authority, to cooperate instead of compete? His conclusions--distilled into a winsome little book called "The Evolution of Cooperation"--were a revelation to me, and not just for the hope they inspired. First, they reconciled the "soft" and "hard" sciences by showing that even behavior could be studied analytically. And second, they introduced with a flourish the paradigms of competition and cooperation, which apply far beyond his book to problems of philosophy.

We treat science and faith as rivals, but in truth more unites than divides them, and what divides them is mostly preconception. To start with, both refer to modes of thought as well as bodies of knowledge. Science as a mode of thought depends on standard rules of reasoning and proof; science the body of knowledge is the hierarchy these rules let us build. To its adherents, this hierarchy is a tower of smooth lines, clean angles, and solid architecture, a beacon that radiates credibility and confidence. But this bright vision is a illusion at its shimmering foundations, where the cornerstone credits Euclid. In 1931 Goedel showed that there are things in science that can never be proven from within it; hence Euclid’s tower, for all its glory, to the limits of today’s crude understanding, is built on faith. Second, the tower is too big to see in its entirety, and it will never be finished. Accordingly, we each see only part of it and take its full glory on hearsay, and we assume scientific explanations even when we have no evidence of them. The reverse we would call superstition, but this too is faith.

For its part faith shares much with science. Like science, faith the mode of thought is an explanatory model that attempts to explain truth: in history, nature, and behavior and morals, as well as the divine. Like the unfinished tower, it allows for the existence of something more than what is known or seen. The body of knowledge of faith constitutes a set of laws, limited in number, from which we use reason, however unsuccessfully, to derive codes of behavior. This is true for Talmudic writ, Catholic canon, or Sharia law. Hence both faith and science are born of unproven laws and reasoned consequences. Is there room for science in faith, or faith in science? If, stripped down and washed up, the two look awfully similar, it is because at heart they are eternally and inextricably intertwined. According to Axelrod, these similarities are sufficient for the natural evolution cooperation. All that lacks is time.

Of course, this argument begs the question of why rivalry between science and faith exists in the first place. It seems to me the answer is in part semantic, and in part a disparity of strength. It is not actually a rivalry between science and faith, but rather between the hard and the soft sciences, and the former, being more developed, are the stronger. For when we cheer science, we are really cheering physics and engineering; and when we laud faith, we are really singing the praises of values and social behavior. Most of us would look askance at the suggestion that there is the same kind of science in behavior as there is in engineering, but nevertheless there is; the proof is in Axelrod’s book. It is just a new science, waiting to be discovered.

RUNNER UP Cynthia Gragnani, Howard University
Influential Book: Christianity and Evolution by Pierre Teilhard de Chardin    

ISBN: 9780156177405



Historically, science and religion have been opposed to one another, and the opposition has been both political and conceptual. Very early in its history Christianity was preoccupied with maintaining the purity of its traditions. Those early Christian communities soon recognized the need to control and limit the proliferation of sects if their doctrines were not to be contaminated. This effort to control eventually led to the rejections of differing viewpoints as heresies, which were vigorously denounced and persecuted.

While much of the concern with heresy had to do with doctrinal differences among groups of self-professed Christians, anyone who claimed to represent another "truth" shortly became suspect. The word science comes from a Latin word meaning to know. The Church's authority depended upon its monopoly of knowledge. As long as scientists confined their interest to matters of the physical universe, they were free, for the most part, to go about their business without interference from ecclesiastical authority.

Both science and religion sought the same aim, namely, the expansion of knowledge, but differed in how they sought to go about it. Religious authorities initially took a limiting position that everything worth knowing was accessible through the Scriptures, while science came to rely on controlled observation, or empirical study, as its method.

Initially, the position of the Church was simply an extension of the original concern with preserving purity of doctrine. Scientists saw this as a sacrifice of truth in the interests of authority, and as soon as scientists were politically strong enough, they took a stand against what they saw as ignorance and superstition, and the battle was joined.

The authority of the Church was weakened by factional disputes that first produced the schism between the Greek Orthodox and the Roman Catholic churches and eventually led to the Protestant Reformation. Science meanwhile continued to flourish. Radical new insights into nature did not come from organized religion but from the vigorous new methods of inquiry. Eventually a pragmatic society came, if not to discount the Church entirely, at least to relegate it to the sidelines as a significant player in the continuing march of material progress.

Despite the powerful inroads that science has made by virtue of its very real material accomplishments, organized religion seems almost miraculously to have survived. This survival is attributed to the persistence of ignorance by its detractors, but the most devoted Darwinian must raise the question as to whether its survival may not be based on legitimate social function. Although Christianity as an institution has survived only two thousand years, it is an extension of a belief system that extends additional millennia backward in time. Despite incredible technological advance, we are still confronted with the great and terrible fact of personal death. Religion offers a hope of survival, and science does not.

One of the reasons that science has not addressed these issues is the basic model it has followed. The early contributions of scientists were in terms of a deterministic model of the universe strongly influence by Newtonian physics. Physics itself has moved beyond this model while other fields have not. Physics has advanced to conceptualize objects more subtle than those things that we immediately experience.

Certain branches of science still base their rejection of religion on antiquated concepts that have now been supplanted by newer concepts and models. Theoretical physics now possesses the framework to test certain theological concepts empirically. When concepts become testable, they become verifiable. If they are not verified, they at least become susceptible of modification to the point at which they can be fitted into the corpus of science. In brief, the great opponent of religion, science, is now in a position to verify some of the very ideas that it once dismissed as superstitious. Regrettably, the branch of science that is most antagonistic to religion, psychology, is largely unaware of changes presently taking place in the theory of knowledge from which science proceeds.

The theoretical base from which experiments might follow is in place. Confirmation will be in terms of physical events, so the implications for theology will probably remain essentially out of the grasp of laymen for some time to come. It is probably fair to say that the great proofs of theological arguments are more likely to come from physicists than from theologians. Theologians may actually have to become scientifically literate to follow these developments, but it will be worth it.

RUNNER UP Colleen Keating, Covenant Theological Seminary
Influential Book: Personal Knowledge by Michael Polanyi    

ISBN: 9780226672885



The idea that science and faith are competing spheres of human activity is a false dichotomy, rooted in the presupposition that the two involve separate and exclusive kinds of knowing. For years, as a Christian who is the daughter of an engineer, I struggled to reconcile the two, or to uncover which one is dependent upon the other. It was only recently, after reading Michael Polanyi’s Personal Knowledge, that I began to understand more clearly how faith and science are aspects of the whole project of human knowing. To segment them is to misunderstand both, and handicap the possibility of deeper knowing.

The typical understanding of science is that it is “objective,” in comparison to the “subjective” experience of faith. However, neither blanket statement is entirely true. All human knowing enjoys the ambiguity of personal skill and intuition. In order to recognize pattern and to extrapolate possibility from a set of particulars, there must be a human subject who draws upon past experience and other intangible assumptions to make an assertion about truth. Whether that person is doing spectral analysis or reading the Torah, they are involved in an attempt to get closer to reality. The way we move towards reality is through standing upon ideas and experiences which we assimilate and lean upon unconsciously. Einstein and Newton’s theories, as well as Calvin and Luther’s theologies, form frameworks for our approach to life.

What does this have to do with science and faith? Both are entirely human projects, whether we use complicated tools such as supercomputers, or crumbling parchment. Both require personal judgments from morally responsible participants. Both are driving at reality, from different perspectives, perhaps, but with the same tools.

Considering the fact that all knowing requires human manipulation of tools should cause us to rethink our definition of “hard” and “soft” sciences, and perhaps even the term “science” itself. The distinguishing factor between religion and science is the breaking in of revelation into our perception of reality, through holy writ. Yet traditional Christianity has affirmed the concept of “natural revelation,” God’s self-revelation in the physical world. In this sense, the line between religion and science blurs further: knowing in this sense is like worship.

We are still left with the question of what we are to do when the perspectives on the same reality seem to contradict. Can we legitimately use one to jettison the other? How can they sharpen each other and guide us to a truer picture of our world? I can only speak to the nexus of Christianity and scholarship; other religions with very different assumptions about God’s revelation and human life may still have overlapping concerns, but I cannot responsibly speak to those. Christian scholars have the duty to be consistent with their religious commitments, but simultaneously to be aware that what constitutes the crux of their commitment may need to be modified by their scholarship. Their beliefs will regulate their search for theories, in the same way that the Catholic Church at first rejected the Copernican revolution. But unlike the Catholic Church’s opposition to Copernicus, a Christian scholar should be aware that the Bible is not a scientific textbook. In the same way that the myth of complete objectivity cripples scientific research, a naïve biblicism cripples theological growth. If the Bible is truly God’s word, it still is not necessarily an objective, self-interpreting set of beliefs. As in every human attempt to know, biblical interpretation is fraught with difficulty and growth.

And that is the realization that will allow science and faith to live together peaceably in this world: that human knowledge is difficult and always has room for growth. If we can step back from our false assumption that science is objective and faith is subjective, and if we can examine the way that our variously held beliefs interact, we can enter into a dialogue with each other (and with our own self) that brings us closer to reality.

RUNNER UP Durant Abernethy, Vanderbilt University
Influential Book: The Structure of Scientific Revolutions by Thomas S. Kuhn    

ISBN: 9780226458083



Soon after the introduction of Darwin’s natural selection theory in 1859, evolutionary theory was applied to the human race. This landmark theory is commonly misinterpreted as a refutation of the “creation” doctrines of many religions. Some religious people believe science is trying to supplant their deity. However, science does not bar the existence of faith-based religious beliefs. The historical interaction of science and religion illustrates their complementary relationship, but faith must adapt to prevailing scientific theory that strongly challenges current religious doctrines.

Faith, science and reason are three interconnected, spheres of thought which embody all ideas throughout human existence. Faith is an exercise of our will to believe. Science is attempted understanding through acceptance of theories that best explain phenomena. Reason is the pursuit of explanations through logic.

The conflict between faith and science is most conspicuous using a religious interpretation of the word \"faith;” therefore, I will focus on the interaction between western religions and science. Science and religion conflict when a premise that religion has espoused is later invalidated or made obsolete by science.

One of the landmark conflicts between religion and science was in 1613 when Galileo corroborated and proved Copernicus’ theory of a heliocentric system, which was contrary to religious beliefs of the time. For centuries, humanity believed itself and earth to be the center of the universe, so this large and divisive paradigm shift in the scientific realm (Kuhn) had significant effects in the religious realm. The scientific realm quickly adopted heliocentric theory. As evidence mounted, religions realized they could no longer recognize the obsolete and discarded geocentric theory, so they reconciled themselves with science by shifting to heliocentric theory.

Darwin’s natural selection theory fueled another conflict between science and religion. In the 13th century, Thomas Aquinas introduced his natural law theory, which argued that the universe was ordered teleologically, or that every action in the universe has a purpose or goal. The application of evolutionary theory to the human race strongly challenged the natural law theory because evolution is the result of natural selection’s preference for beneficial random mutations. According to natural law theory, there can be no random occurrences because everything is the result of teleological natural processes. However, natural law theory was not completely abandoned. Some religions compromised by narrowing and generalizing natural law theory to reconcile it with evolutionary theory.

The origin of the universe is another battleground between science and religion. Many religions use the "uncaused cause” to argue for the existence of a supernatural deity that created the universe. If the history of the human race were traced to the first humans, reason necessitates the existence of an uncaused supernatural being that acted as the first cause. This "uncaused cause" is the supernatural being to which most religions attribute the creation of the universe. Recent discoveries about the structure of the universe have engendered scientific explanations for the origin of the universe, such as the Big Bang Theory, that make no reference to a supernatural deity. However, as the scientific understanding of our universe improves, it has become increasingly difficult for scientists to claim that the structure of the universe is simply the result of chance, such as Big Bang theory. The supposition of an intelligent designer is a growing sentiment among scientists because the universe is so ordered it almost necessitates creation by a divine mathematician.

Shifts to new paradigms and theories can always be expected to be slow and controversial (Kuhn), so we should not expect religions to abandon time-honored doctrines immediately following challenging scientific discoveries. Religions’ history of adapting to prevailing scientific theory does not imply inferiority or incompatibility; instead it affirms the complementary relationship between faith and science. Science can explain the processes of our physical reality, but only faith can provide and explain an intangible force driving these processes. However, rational religions’ ability to explain this driving force depends heavily on science’s ability to understand nature. Therefore, a belief about reality will be most common and strongest when faith, science and reason are in agreement about that belief. However, that agreement does not establish infallibility because an accepted theory is nothing more than our choice to believe in that theory. Religions risk invalidation or obsolescence of any adopted theory or doctrine that may become subject to inquiry, as scientific capabilities improve. Therefore, religions must remain willing to compromise with science as it continues to develop its understanding of our physical reality.

Kuhn, Thomas S. The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago: Chicago UP, 11/1996.

RUNNER UP Samantha Katz, Brandeis University
Influential Book: The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco    

ISBN: 9780156001311



The aims of both science and faith are so opposed that to reconcile them would require almost impossible concessions from the two sides. The pursuit of science does not seem to leave room for the pursuit of faith; rather it seems to hold a constant war of attrition with the mystical and spiritual aspects of the world. Science can be viewed and defined as a search for knowledge in any form, a determination to strip away any veils that may obscure our quest for certainty and understanding. It is not confined merely to the tactile discoveries of the laboratory, or to the abstract realm of mathematical formulas and logic. It is instead a yearning for knowledge which may arise within any discipline, to further the sum of human wisdom and annihilate any lasting mysteries or illusions.

In contrast, the existence and survival of faith depends on those same mysteries and uncertainties. By shedding light into all the myriad twists of the world and of human consciousness, science would at the same time destroy the capacity of humans to trust in something for which they have no proof. At its most essential, faith is the belief in something for which you lack knowledge, an acceptance of the limitations of humans to understand and explain everything. This goes beyond the boundaries of individual religions or doctrines into something elemental within each person. Faith is our ability to trust in our own ignorance, to trust in the existence of something beyond our conception, a universal inextinguishable mystery. To preserve faith, one must also preserve this uncertainty.

These conflicting themes are clearly presented in Umberto Eco's The Name of the Rose. The setting is that of a medieval monastery, containing a famous library of books which have the power to challenge the existing beliefs of the church. To protect the spiritual mysteries of the world from being exposed and doubted, monks are driven to murder and the destruction of scholarly knowledge and discovery. The most important and potentially influential work is that of a lost book of Aristotle; to prevent the spread of the book’s scientific argument, the library is burned and all the knowledge is destroyed. Science is bound by its very nature to present an opposition to faith, to try to contest and eradicate with cold reason the very things that belief depends on. Eco shows sympathy for neither side, viewing one as a “lust for knowledge. Knowledge for its own sake…it is sterile and has nothing to do with love” (Eco, 395). Yet those who descend into evil to keep these mysteries shrouded safe from the clinical destroying light of logic offend as well by “loving their truth so lewdly” (Eco, 491). In the ongoing controversy between science and faith, evil is committed and viewed as an essential course of action.

This is perhaps the substantial consequence of the attrition between the supporters of two camps. Every scientific discovery pushes back human faith, by presenting a proven truth in the place of a believed one. The search for knowledge above all things leads inevitably to a refusal to accept the human limitations so crucial to maintaining faith. The ultimate goal of science is to achieve complete knowledge and understanding, but to do so is to deny the existence of mysticism in the universe. To claim all knowledge is to refuse to accept any mystery or allow it to remain veiled to our eyes. As Eco demonstrates, to protect the pursuit of certainty or the lack thereof, men will regress to their darkest recesses, intuitively sensing that for one to prevail is for the other to surrender completely to obliteration.