Civic Engagement Today: A Commentary on the Demise of ACORN, the Growth of the Tea Parties, and the College Civic Engagement

Let's start with the good news. According to the recently published 2010 Civic Health Assessment by the National Conference on Citizenship , nearly 60% of Americans have reached out in 2008 and 2009 to help their neighbors and approximately 16% do so every day. Also 75% of us discuss political affairs with family and friends at least once a month. This news is good because it reflects greater attention by citizens into public affairs, even in a long recession. After all, we hope that greater attention means greater involvement, which means a polis holding their government and its leaders more accountable and responsible. However, the favorable news has a dark cloud. While the Assessment reflects increases in volunteering and other forms of citizen involvement, there are important disparities in who is engaged. The following are some disparities about which I am most concerned: a. High school graduates are twice as likely to engage in organizations and to vote than those who have not graduated high school and college graduates are even more likely to be engaged. These statistics are consistent with other statistics that this blogger has read, namely that those with more education are more likely to involve themselves in civic life than those with less education. This problem is not uniquely a function of educational levels, but is often a function of opportunity. Those with greater education levels are more likely to have jobs that value outside philanthropic and social commitments. Executives, for instance, are encouraged to serve on boards of non-profits and community associations. Their work may be seen as good will on behalf of the businesses they represent. Non-executives are rarely valued for any activities done outside of work, and hourly employees are only paid for time spent doing the specific activity for which they have been hired. Hourly employees are, by definition, not paid for any time off the clock, even if the activity greatly advances the objectives of the employer. The effect of these disparities is a society which values the opinions of executives more than non-executives -- and apparently rates of engagement indicate that this may in fact have a real effect on engagement patterns. b. Rural residents are 10% more likely than urban residents to be engaged in neighborly activity. This finding seems counter-intuitive and frankly surprising. One would think that urban folks would be more inclined to see their lives and well-being as interdependent with the well-being of others because of their physical proximity to other urban folks. For instance, a rural individual may not be physically or financially affected by the fact that his neighbor's house has burned down whereas an urban individual whose neighbor's house is burning is more likely to be physically connected with that neighbor either by a common wall, or some sort of shared infrastructure. c. Those who assume community leadership roles are five to seven times more likely to be involved in other civic engagement projects than those who are not members of any group. This is reflected in the fact that only 3% of Americans have attended a rally, protest, or march between 2008 and 2009. In other words, many tend to fit in the category of being hyper involved or minimally involved, thus creating a situation where community associations intended to represent entire communities only represent the loudest and most involved of those communities. I observed this trend when I was more heavily involved in grass roots community organizing. I observed that it was easy to engage those who were interested in leadership roles, but hard to engage those who were well-suited to be foot soldiers in the organizations for which I was recruiting. In other words, they seemed to agree with the purpose of the organization, wanted similar results, but were unable to get involved either because they were too busy with work and family commitments, or didn't see themselves as able to contribute to the organization. In this same time period as that of the study, America has seen the demise of ACORN and the growth of "tea party" organizations. ACORN was a 400,000 member organization that advocated for low-to-moderate income communities. This advocacy sometimes involves issues involving specific communities such as addressing particular bad landlords, and other times it involved larger systemic problems like health care and predatory lending. Although some ACORN chapters appear to remain through open re-branding, thousands of members will are now left without a powerful community association unless they are able to take the initiative to rebuild. Meanwhile, over this same period of time has been a grown of tea party protests where members advocate against what they see as wasteful government spending and excessive taxation. A quick online search as to number of American involved in the tea parties give an impression that a similar number of Americans are involved in the tea parties as were involved in ACORN. Some liberals are likely frustrated over the simultaneous growth of the Tea Party movement and death of ACORN because this confluence of events will likely favor conservative political objectives. However, civic engagement advocates should be concerned about this same matter regardless of personal ideological perspective. ACORN members and the Tea Part movement members are similar in that they come to rallies to endorse politicians and a political agenda that match the perceived self-interest of the members. However, unlike the tea party movement, which appears exclusively focused on electoral politics, and national issues, the local ACORN organizations were known for trying to hold local businesses responsible for their business practices in the neighborhoods in which they lived. Also, ACORN also created non-profits to facilitate home purchasing, obtaining fair loans, and other financial matters that can sometimes be out of reach of poor persons. Furthermore, the stated goals of ACORN included training low income individuals to get involved in community decision-making, and often in politics. Thus, ACORN served a role that went beyond narrow legislative priorities. Although the tea party movement might develop into such an ACORN-style movement, at this moment, its objectives appear targeted at the enactment of legislation rather than the expansion of the political and social process. The decline of ACORN-style organizations and the growth of tea-party style organizing may be reflected in our 2010 Assessment. As mentioned above, the Assessment seems to suggest that a small number of those involved are seeking leadership roles, which makes it hard for local matters to get tackled. Also, the Assessment found that individuals over age 65 are much more engaged than younger folks and those between the ages of 16 and 30 tend to be directed online. In my opinion, this also directs the dialogue nationally rather than locally. Those over 65 years of age are more likely than younger folks to be focused on social security, health care, and other welfare type benefits that they may need. These matters are handled on the national level, not the neighborhood level. As one's online community is not limited by geography, it is not surprising that those between 16 and 30 might not be directed at community-based activism,but might be more interested in national-based activism. Although I hope I am wrong, I am afraid that this contrast reflects some of scary trends discussed in Robert Putnam's masterpiece, Bowling Alone. In Bowling Alone, Putnam characterized a steady decline of in-person social intercourse, undermining the individual's sense of and loyalty to community, not to mention a decrease in the ability of citizens to collaborate with neighbors on social and communal problems. Alternatively put, people can't collaborate with their neighbors on community problems if they are not communicating with their neighbors to know that such problems exist. Thus, although the 2010 Civic Health Assessment gives us general hope that in person social intercourse may be increasing, we are also concerned that the in person social discourse is being directed in ways that do not necessarily advance the needs of the communities in which the social discourse is occurring.

Advisory to the Pro Se Litigant #2: How Do I Determine if Civil Litigation is An Appropriate Means With Which to Resolve a Problem

· Courts Resolve Disputes Only Where There Are Disputes Involving Federal State or Local Law Courts, as part of the judicial branch of our federal and state governments, are charged with deciding disputes under Local, State and Federal law. They determine whether the individual or group being sued, [known as the defendant(s)] has violated the law the individual or group bringing the suit [known as the plaintiff(s)] claims. Often individuals and groups have moral, ethical and religious disputes that do not involve Local, State and Federal law. Courts will refuse to hear disputes that are not governed by applicable Local, State, or Federal Law. · Judges are required to interpret and apply Local, State, and Federal Law, not their own beliefs, ethics, or morals. Judges are not allowed to impose their own morality, ethics, values, or sense of righteousness on litigants. Further, litigants are not asked to try to convince courts of their ethics, values, or sense of righteousness. Instead, courts interpret the law. What does it mean to interpret the law? The word interpret means to: explain or tell the meaning of something. In the context of courts, this is usually limited to (1) determining what laws apply to a given situation or dispute; (2) determining how those laws apply to and govern the particular situation or dispute.

Advisory to the Pro Se Litigant: #1: What is Civil Litigation and Criminal Litigation?

Civil Litigation generally includes all disputes that are formally submitted to a court, where one person (or group of persons or corporation) claims that another person (or group of persons or corporation) violated the law in a way that caused harm. In almost all cases, civil litigation is between two individuals, groups of individuals, or businesses. Governments also engage in civil litigation, both as plaintiffs, and defendants, when they are involved in disputes that do not qualify as criminal litigation. The objective of civil litigation is to make the harmed party/parties whole (make the parties whole =where the party or parties would have been absent the harm). Criminal Litigation generally includes disputes where a government is seeking to punish an individual or group of individuals for harms they caused society. The classic example is that of a murder where although there might be some form of retribution as part of the punishment, the objective is not necessarily to make the harmed party whole (which is impossible in the case of murder), but to punish the wrongdoer. Also, unlike civil litigation which is between individuals or groups, criminal litigation is brought by the government against the alleged wrongdoers.

Idea: National Museum of (American) Law

For all of us who live in the Washington DC area, the Smithsonian museums reflect the diverse range of things Americans think about. A walk through the area of town that houses the Smithsonian Museums is a walk through through a reflection of the greatest thoughts and triumphs of humankind. Included in the Smithsonian are museums dedicated to great art, history, and nature. I suspect that over the course of the many years that Americans have been traveling to Washington to explore the museums, those trips have inspired people to explore new fields and advance their own education.

To me, it is striking that there is no National Museum of American Law. Although law gets a mention in all the museums that cover American history, there is no museum where one can dedicate oneself to understanding the role of law in society as a whole, and American society specifically.

I write here to propose the establishment of a National Museum of (American) Law to advance the knowledge and appreciation among the general public of law itself, and American law specifically.

My most recent inspiration for this post came from my visit to the museum of Crime and Punishment. There, there visitor walks through world history of the adjudication and punishment of crime (and alleged crime), with panels specifically discussing those infamous criminals and crimes that are still the subjects of coversations among many Americans, like Al Capone. The attendees to that musuem walk away with a (albeit superficial) idea of the history of crime in the world and the history of how civilized society has addressed crime.

As law is not merely a subject of esoteric discussion, but a real aspect of all American lives, it is important that a museum of American law go beyond appreciating world history, or the history of American law. My vision would be that each attendee see their own potential for impacting American democracy, whether it be directly participating in town meetings or involvement in advocacy organizations at the local, state, or national levels. And frankly, history is full of stories where individuals of no particular stature make drastic effect on the law in the scope of speaking on behalf of his or her rights or business needs.

For instance, I imagine an exhibit where attendees are invited to consider the proper form of government for a theoretical new country, much as the founders of this nation had to do. In this exhibit, one would walk through the the basic forms of government that made up the ancient world, walking through world history. I imagine each panel could include an description of a form of government and examples of where that government was instituted, and an image of the kind of legislative issue that is unique to that government system. Perhaps a picture and a story reflecting how constitutional decisions were made. Other exhibits could focus more closely on ways in which common citizens engage with the law. Ways in which the law affects them at school, work, housing, community associational decisions, and even their engagement with religious institutions. Frankly, any subject matter that makes up a unit of study in a school of law is necessarily worthy of consideration in a museum of law because any subject of dispute in law derives from substantive disputes in society to which American can relate. Even the esoteric subject of intellectual property comes to life when one considers the musician who wishes to profit from his music or the painter who wants to negotiate with his boss for rights to the paintings he does while at work. Even the subject of international law comes alive when one considers their desire to sell his American made wares in a store in Canada. Other exhibits could consider the moral questions that serve as the source of law. Examples include classic questions of whether it is right to harm a few individuals for the good of the whole society (utilitarianism) and whether one has the right to city services like fire service if he or she doesn't pay required taxes. This last question is often asked as an esoteric question but became very real when on or around October 5, 2010, a family in Tennessee lost their home when the fire department refused to extinquish a fire in their home due to the fact that the family failed to pay their fire service fee. See: http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_upshot/20101005/pl_yblog_upshot/rural-tennessee-fire-sparks-conservative-ideological-debate. There may be numerous ethical stories like these that pose dynamic legal questions, and thus may be used to demonstrate the role of law in society. The ideas in this essay require more thought. However, I write this in hope to advance the dialogue of how best to engage all Americans in the legal world that affects them so. I further desire that any audience to such a museum be inspired to engage in their own study and investigation into the laws that affect them, and thus feel empowered to advocate for their alteration to the extent appropriate.

Lawyers: Are We Prepared to Practice and Serve (those in need)?

Earlier this month the American Bar Institute, the American Bar Association, and the Association for Continuing Legal Education published a final report from its October 2009 Critical Issues Summit entitled “Equipping Our Lawyers: Law School Education, Continuing Legal Education, and Legal Practice in the 21st Century.” It may be found at: http://www.equippingourlawyers.org/docs/final%20report.pdf. The purpose of the summit was for CLE professionals, law school deans and faculty members, law practitioners, bar leaders, judges, mandatory CLE administrators, and law firm educators to evaluate whether lawyers are provided the adequate resources necessary to address the legal needs of the society in which we work. Otherwise asked is the question of whether lawyers are adequately trained to address the legal needs of society. I was pleased to find that the final report contained a full section on increasing access, and the role of lawyers in making that happen. Specifically, it states that lawyers have a professional responsibility to serve the underserved, and to begin nurturing that obligation in law schools. Also important was that the report implored the local legal communities to collaborate to assist newly admitted lawyers to develop the skills that help them to provide effective legal services to underserved communities. This finding recognizes a crucial aspect of the disparity in legal assistance between wealthy communities and low-income communities. Wealthy individual and larger businesses are not getting better legal services solely because they have more money. It’s more complex. Because wealthy individuals have more money to spend on legal services, they create a marketplace. Thus, lawyers train themselves to develop expertise in the legal areas, not merely because they can serve wealthy individuals, but because they are more likely to have full time paying work if they specialize in areas where there are plenty of paying clients. For instance, lawyers can not develop a practice specializing in tenant rights or the rights to secure government services for low income persons unless they also know how to obtain grant money or a job with an organization knowledgeable at receiving grant money. Accordingly, because wealthy individuals and larger businesses can afford more legal attention, and thus provide a marketplace, law students and young lawyers are trained to meet that need. Thus, young lawyers find themselves without knowledge and training on areas of the law that affect low to moderate income people. Economists explain this phenomenon by the term “supply and demand.” Thus, focusing at the educational level assures that there is a supply of lawyers able to meet the demand for their legal services. It is worth noting another institutional aspect of the legal field that impacts why low to moderate income people are not usually served by the legal community. Law students are trained to, un-ideologically, serve their clients’ legal interests. They are trained to avoid, and in fact implored against, imparting their own values and ethics on their clients. Additionally, most professional responsibility curriculums discuss ethical advertising, but do not focus at all on using ethical considerations in determining which fields to service. In other words, for the most part, there is no place in the law school curriculum where the average student is asked to evaluate society’s legal services against society’s legal needs. In my experience and in the experiences of those with whom I have spoken, law school professors act as if it is a given that absent discrete pro bono obligations, one has responsibility towards their paying clients and has no professional obligation to lower their fee for those who cannot afford to pay a full fee. In other words, it is simply presumed that one works for those who pay, and one stops working when those who did pay, stop paying. Thus, law students often graduate without any sense that they have a professional responsibility to anyone other than the paying client. Therefore, the inclusion of training new and young lawyers, in the skills necessary to assist communities not being fully served, can drastically expand the options for service. It is a known fact that the legal community is not yet adequately addressing the legal needs of the larger community. In 2005, the Legal Services Corporation published a study, “Documenting the Justice Gap in America – the Current Unmet Civil Legal Needs of Low-Income Americans,” in which the Corporation reported that the Legal Services Corporation, due to needs and lack of resources, was turning away one eligible client for every one it helped. It also found that over 80% of the legal needs of low-income Americans were going unmet, as did the American Boar Association in a 1994 survey. The Legal Services Corporation survey found that the primary unmet legal needs fell in the following categories of topics: consumer, education, employment, family, juvenile, health, and housing. This problem is not limited to the poorest of households. In 1995, Mark D. Killian, in the Florida Bar News, wrote that 79.5% of all Florida households have no access to the legal system, noting that this is not limited to those individuals who are poor or moderate income. Many other states share similar problems, and have published their own statistics to prove it.

Some Inspiration for Law Day -- from India

This past Saturday (May 1) was "Law Day." Pursuant to 36 USC 113 (1958), the statute instituting law day, the purpose is to appreciate liberties and loyalty to the United States -- and "(1) rededication to the ideals of equality and justice under the law in their relations with each other and with other countries; and (2) for the cultivation of the respect for law that is so vital to the democratic way of life."

One can get an impression about a society’s ideals by looking at what events and holidays are commemorated or celebrated. Although the enforcement of Law Day does not come along with the kind of community activities and public programming that one may associate with Martin Luther King, Jr. Day or Christmas, the institution of the day and the repeated proclamations by a series of US Presidents, encouraging involvement in Law Day activities, indicate the extent to which our society’s goals include equality, justice, respect for the law, and a democratic way of life.

Law Day was instituted in 1958. President Eisenhower signed a proclamation that specified the day as a day to remember “with pride and vigilantly guard the great heritage of liberty, justice and equality under law which our forefathers bequeathed to us.”

He further proclaimed “it is our moral and civic obligation as free men and as Americans to preserve and strengthen that great heritage.” Although Law Day was signed into law, several presidents, including our most recent (Clinton, Bush, and Obama) have issued proclamations endorsing or repeating the ideas proclaimed by President Eisenhower.

The key to making Law Day meaningful is to determine how best to strengthen the heritage of our legal system, the ideals of equality and justice, and the democratic way of life. Most of the articles in this blog have leave me wondering “what can we do” about the problem of legal literacy and civic engagement. One can easily imagine the democratically and legally engaged society, but we rarely see activities today that advance the cause.

Like the United States, India is a large nation where many are unaware of their rights, and further unaware of how to act on them. Concerned about this, the bar associations in India have begun to create and endorse some very innovative ideas. These ideas inspire me that a change of course is very possible.

On April 28, 2010, the Times of India published an article “Legal Literacy Chariot Launched in Dharwad.” A similar article was published in The Hindu. The articles discuss a campaign to educate those in rural disconnected areas, about the legal system upon which they live. Rural Indians’ primary legal needs involve disputes over public utility services, proper policing, and social welfare.

Thus, the legal literacy chariot provides lectures to the people on these subjects, human rights, and consumer rights. As these programs are very new, we presume results are not yet available. Justice Elipe Dharma is quoted in another article stating that inaugurating a legal literacy and awareness camp in Chennai, India says that access to legal aid and legal advice is crucial to making effective legal institutions. India’s legal literacy push is not limited to poor rural communities.

In Haryna, between one thousand and 1500 schools and colleges have within them newly formed legal literacy clubs using creative educational techniques such as writing, poetry, and paintings. Many of these club members are trained to spot legal issues in their community and introduce those in need with legal aid. Additionally are instituted legal literacy camps to apprise women of their legal rights, such as protection from domestic violence and sexual harassment.

To me, the concept of advancing legal literacy clubs seems to me to be a great way to advance the culture of respect for the law and the democratic way of life.

The democratic way of life suffers most when citizens do not believe their problems can be resolved through established legal channels, or that they have no access to the powers-that-be to advance needed changes. With legal literacy clubs, a population of young people is empowered to identify legal needs and to educate those in need about potential legal remedies and options.

Furthermore, social contract theory teaches us that when those with legal problems are aware that legal resolutions are available and functional, they are far more likely to resort to safe and legal means than those like to cause great social harm, like those of gangs or the mafia.

From the news articles in The Hindu, I have the impression that the school-based legal literacy clubs were formed primarily to address the technical problem of outreach to those needing legal help. However, I suspect that the social benefits are incalculable. Although I can't speak for India, in many communities in the United States of America, teenagers face very little social pressure to do good, only to do bad and involve themselves in behavior that is harmful to themselves and others.

Thus, mere visions of ethics, morality and justice are left to compete with the immediate gratification available from other sources. Legal literacy clubs, on the other hand, if done correctly, would likely provide an opportunity for legal literacy to be “the cool thing to do,” creating social pressure to be part of a generation of youth who are far more likely to advance civic society and justice than create damage to it.

Legal Literacy Day -- an Idea Worth Promulgating

I was inspired to read the following address at supremecourtofindia.nic.in/new_links/NLLD.pdf. I am not particularly familiar with legal literacy day in India -- or anywhere else for that mattter--and so I can't speak to whether the day is effective. However, to the extent that such a commemoration here might have the effect of creating educational opportunities for communities in need, I must wholeheartedly endorse the activities that would lead to citizens' familiarity with their rights and responsibilities. The following essay succinctly articulates the need to advance legal literacy in the general public in India, and I think the general arguments apply no less in the United States of America. ADDRESS ON THE OCCASION OF NATIONAL LEGAL LITERACY DAY ON 9th NOVEMBER, 2006 Y.K. Sabharwal, Chief Justice of India The growing number of issues and problems that plague societies today has given rise to the many causes that demand support from the people of the country. Be it the environment, poverty, literacy or public health, each cause is clamoring for public attention – and in an effort to get such attention, governments and organizations have come together to devote a particular day to a particular cause so that awareness may be raised regarding those issues. We have an Earth day to increase environmental awareness, we have an International Women’s day to increase genderrelated awareness and similarly we have a Human Rights day, a World AIDS day, a World No Tobacco day and many, many others. Today is Legal Literacy day and it is only right that we take some time out of our busy schedules to talk about legal literacy – what it is, why it is important, and how we can promote it. In order to understand the relevance of legal literacy it is necessary to first fully comprehend the legal goals of our country. Once these legal goals become clear, legal literacy can be given a definite direction. For what the legal goals are, let us only see, what is laid down in the preamble of our constitution. It commits the nation to justice and to equality. However, these goals of justice and equality aren’t purely legal terms by which only the laws and courts of the country must abide. Under the constitution, they demand a larger commitment. The preamble mandates not only of justice in its legal sense, but social, economic and political justice and equality of status and opportunity. Undoubtedly, the country has made tremendous progress and development but, at the same time, we all have to bear in mind that despite the guarantee of such high ideals and despite the provision of a truly comprehensive constitution to assist in achieving these ideals, we seem to have fallen short of many of our goals towards a large section of the society. We are still a country where millions of people live in conditions of poverty, with millions living in conditions where they are without the most basic of their needs fulfilled. Unfortunately, this class is far away from achieving many of the ideals laid down in our constitution. And it is not only the constitution. A number of statutory provisions have been made allowing for social welfare schemes and other legislative measures to alleviate the vast deprivation in our society. Yet, these programs too often have been unable to reach those most in need. It is my firm belief that laws or legal institutions will not be completely effective as an instrumentality geared to deal with issues of poverty or deprivations unless we first strengthen the mechanism of legal aid and advice. So where exactly does legal literacy step in? The answer is simple. If legal literacy means making people aware of their rights, then by making the people literate, we would essentially be taking the first step in empowering them to fight for their rights. Our society is filled with various categories of persons whose rights are violated on a daily basis and these persons are unable to take any action to remedy this situation simply because they aren’t even aware that they are assured certain rights. Particularly at risk are various vulnerable groups including the Schedules Castes and Scheduled Tribes, women, children and the disabled. These groups include those who have either historically been oppressed and denied mainstream opportunities or those who by their specific conditions cannot function as the mainstream does. Here is where the role of legal literacy is crucial. I truly believe that legal literacy is the core basis of the rule of law and essential for the survival of our constitutional democracy. Indeed, our entire justice delivery system is based on the presumption that all people are aware of their rights and are able to approach the concerned institution. I cannot stress enough the importance of education – it is perhaps the single-most empowering tool in any aspect of life for every person and the law is no exception. Indeed, most often it happens that the poor, the deprived or the exploited of the country remain poor and deprived and are unable to seek redress simply because they are not aware of the rights they are guaranteed and the remedies that are available. Legal literacy helps break this vicious circle by providing a way out for such people. It enables the deprived or disadvantaged sections of society to recognize violations of their rights and effectively challenge such violations. While it is true that education cannot single-handedly achieve this goal, education is essential to provide the necessary impetus for their achievement. It is important to remember in this regard, that legal literacy cannot simply be understood as creating awareness regarding the rights of the people, for any efforts towards legal literacy necessarily involves a broader approach. When we say legal literacy, we do mean an awareness of rights, but such awareness must go hand-in-hand with awareness regarding the remedies, the relevant institutions and the procedure required to obtain that remedy. The point of legal literacy is to familiarize the weaker sections of society with their rights, their scope and also provide them with information required for the assertion of such rights so that they may be able to take action and bring about a change in their circumstances. It is only when such comprehensive education is given, that legal literacy can be said to have been meaningful. Once the deprived are made legally literate in this manner, we can confidently believe that we are one step closer to achieving the goals that our constitution has laid out for us. This is because an improvement in legal literacy will translate into the improvement of the financial status of the people, which in turn takes us closer to social justice and equality of opportunity. For example, when a worker is made aware that he or she is entitled to a minimum wage, and is also informed of the appropriate forum for the remedy and that he or she is entitled to free legal aid, the battle of that person will be half-fought already. However, for legal literacy to be truly effective, information about the law must be spread in a simplified form. The first impediment that would be faced in this regard is with respect to language. The legal language of the country is primarily English – even our constitution is in English. How then can we expect those who do not speak or understand the language to be aware of their right to life or right to equality or any other right. Another aspect of the matter is the criticism that legal language is overly complicated and even those familiar with the language are often uncertain as to the meaning of many provisions. To ensure effective legal literacy, it is essential that the legal provisions – including legislations, rules, notifications – which guarantee certain rights must be simplified and translated into the language of the common man. The advantage in this regard is that there is no formal dissemination of information required. Anyone with an understanding of the law and the knowledge of remedial process and the ability to convey it to the person can be just as effective. Thus, all these factors must be taken into account while spreading awareness regarding legal rights and remedies. Another factor which plays an important role in the legal literacy mission, in addition to awareness amongst the people, is the perception that people have regarding legal institutions. It is necessary that people not only be aware of their rights and remedies, they must believe that the enforcement of such rights is possible and that they will get adequate remedies within a reasonable time, on a reasonable expense or no expense. Public perception of the legal institution is crucial in determining the success of such institutions. There is a direct proportionate relationship between the faith the people have in an institution and the success of that institution. Therefore, it is necessary for the success of legal literacy that people must have faith in these institutions, if they are to rely on them for the enforcement of their rights. A lot more is required to be done by all organs to tackle the problem of time and expense. There does seem to be some marginal improvement in this direction but we still have a long way to go. Yet, another factor which will definitely play an important role in the years to come regarding the public faith in institutional mechanism is the Right to Information Act. Armed with the knowledge that certain information can always be acquired, it will help the institutions to command public faith and the public in turn can quite confidently believe that the institution is acting bona fide. However, the achievement of legal literacy is not an easy task, nor can it be accomplished by one or two institutions alone. It is absolutely essential that all three organs of the state must work tirelessly together. And it is not just these three organs of state alone. They too require the support of NGOs, particularly those which work at grassroot levels, individuals who have dedicated themselves to certain causes, international organizations, the media etc. Law schools also have a vital role to play where a new generation of legal talent is being trained and enthusiastic students can be used to conduct legal literacy camps as is being done now. Everyone must come together and work in harmony and thereby do their bit to serve the society. This does not of course mean that legal literacy is a magic, quick-fix solution, where with a flick of a wand all problems will disappear. The process of educating the masses of their legal rights will necessary involve a gradual change and we must have belief in the cause as well as sufficient patience to be able to finally see the results. It is also important to remember that the problems that our society faces today all feed into one another and the effectiveness of legal literacy will be largely dependent upon the extent of such problems. Let me give an example. A person approaches a particular institution for a remedy and is faced with a corrupt official who demands a bribe, the person may be unable to obtain the remedy though he or she has been made aware of his or her rights. The same corrupt official may act differently while dealing with another person realising that he has the ability and capability to challenge such a demand. The cycle of poverty and deprivation thus becomes more difficult to break when it is faced with external challenges such as corruption. Other such hindrances include red-tapism, unnecessary delays, etc. However, we must not let these problems deter us. We must continue our efforts with great determination and perseverance. Indeed, our efforts at promoting legal literacy can even assist in easing other problems such as corruption, poverty etc. Even though these problems spiral off each other to make each other worse, the solutions to these problems also play off each other and a victory in one area is a step towards remedying the other problems. In conclusion, I would like to note that while we have taken Legal Literacy day today as an opportunity to discuss various issues, we cannot forget these issues tomorrow. The solutions to the many problems that can be tackled through legal literacy are not going to disappear overnight. Nor can our efforts end when the day comes to a close. Rather we must regard today as a renewed commitment that we have made towards legal literacy and strive to achieve all the high ideals that have been spoken about today, throughout the year. My Best wishes. Thank you very much.

Eliminate the Text Book Controversy - Teach Classics

Every few years it seems that the nation is embroiled in conflicts over history. Most recently, the conflict arose and ground zero was the Texas Board of Education. There, the Board voted in a series of revisions to its requirements for the course “United States History Studies Since 1877.” I contend that these conflicts could be mostly avoided if students were encouraged to read classical sources rather than text books that define the "story" branded "history."

The nature of the revisions is alteration of the concepts students are expected to master. In other words, the Texas Board of Education, as do many boards of education, votes of principles and concepts they expect students to master over the course of their schooling. Then the text book industry creates text books to cover this list of principles and concepts.

According to an article I read in the Financial Times the other day, because Texas is a populous state and thus a large purchaser of text books, the buying power they have means that their standards tend to affect what text book makers make available throughout the country. The article said that "Historically, this has, in effect, allowed it to dictate the syllabus in smaller states."

One fight concerns what students should learn about the Founding Fathers' belief in the separation of church and state, and another relates how to definate or connote terms like "capitalist" or "free enterprise system." In other words, are these favorable terms or negative terms?

A right-leaning organization published its concerns that the left was speaking out because they want to teach history infused with a left-leaning interpretation.

A left-leaning organization published its concerns that that the proposed changes from the right would lead to a distortion of history by creating a focus on right-leaning thinkers and a decreased focus on left-leaning thinkers.

Part of the underlying problem is the extent to which members of the general public are made to presume that a text book can adequately give an unbiased overview of history. Sadly, this is not really possible. Try the excercise of writing a few paragraphs on a controversial topic (e.g. "the Reagan revolution"; "the abortion debate"; or whether slavery was the primary cause of the civil war). Try hard, in only a couple or three paragraphs, to adequately capture differing views on the subject matter, realizing that your target audience may have no knowledge of the subject matter. Then show your paragraphs to 20 individuals who have strong and diverse opinions about the subject matter about which you are writing. I contend that you are sure to be accused of at least inadvertaint bias, and you might even be convinced that you simply aren't familiar with the whole story.

This problem can be addressed by seeking to escape the text book controversy, and invite students to learn history through the examination of original sources. Readers of Thomas Jefferson's original writers can determine for themselves what they thought of his religious views. Readers of the Adam Smith and Karl Marx can better understand the concepts underlying capitalism and communism than can readers of a text book trying to narrow Smith and Marx into sound bites.

A study of original thinkers makes students think for themselves. Although the text book reader is invited to think that they are receiving "the" story, readers of original source materials are naturally aware that they are reading the views of a particular thinker, who may or may not reflect the views of others.

The is an important valid criticism of "great books" programs. Although "great books" programs educate its readers as to diverse ideas and diverse concepts, it is arguably impossible to get through the history of the United States through one year of study if one is bogged down in comprehensively understanding the complexities of a particular social movement.

There are two answers to this criticism. First, perhaps history curriculums unnecessarily expect its readers to spend time remembering facts that are not so important.

Second, and more importantly, there exists summaries of history that are not artificially authoritative "text books." For instance, when studying the ancient world, one can read Herototus and Thcydides without getting the misimpression that the text has no author's perspective. In the modern world, the same can be true of reading DeToquiville's account of America's founding, Howard Zinn's "People's History of the United States, Paul Johnson's History of the American People, and Max Lerner's America as a civilization." All of these books are individual's accounts of American history. They contain many of the same facts that may be found in the text books, but are not riddled with the same false impression that they represent the "official" story line.

Even The Bible Endorses A Transparent Legal System and A Layered Judiciary

Text: Exodus 18

Although I am no advocate of breaking down the separation of church and state, I am also comfortable with using the Bible as a source for understanding legal and social concepts. Thus, Exodus 18 provides an excellent source from which to understand certain crucial legal concepts.

A. The text itself

In Exodus 18:13, we find Moses acting in the role of the judiciary, “sitting to judge the people…from morning until evening.” In Exodus 18:16, Moses explains that “whenever they have problem, [namely the citizenry] they come to me and I judge between man and his neighbor. I impart to them God’s statutes and laws.”

From this last line, we are thrust with the impression that the people for whom Moses is judging are unaware of “God’s statutes and laws.” In Exodus 18:18, Yitro, Moses’ father-in-law, expresses concern about Moses’ wearing himself out by endeavoring to be the sole decision-maker. Thus, he advocates, the following: (1) enlighten the people as to the statutes and laws; (2) seek out capable, honest, incorruptible people to serve as judges, so that Moses would charged only with the “major” problems.

Yitro concludes his recommendation with a line that warrants interpretation, and probably deserves multiple interpretations. He says: “If you do this, and God commands you to do this, you will be able to survive, and also this entire people will come to their place in peace.” Moses complies with this suggestion.

B. The concepts therein This story is an excellent illustration of several legal and constitutional concepts, along with ideas central to this blog.

A government of law, not men

Yitro advises Moses to educate the citizenry about the laws that govern their social conduct. Educating the citizenry as to laws that govern conduct is not required merely to maintain the power of a government. In fact, many regimes throughout history have maintained control over society by exercising power randomly and maintaining a state of confusion and fear as to what actions might be lawful or unlawful. Often in those societies, the people are uneducated as to rules under which they live, so they are often unable to truly decipher when the governing powers are abusing their authority.

However, when the citizens know the law, they are more likely to disdain abuses by government or government officials. It also strikes me that citizenries with knowledge of the law in which they live are more inclined to be fair and egalitarian. For one, when citizens are equally aware of their rights, it is harder for one to take advantage of another and easier for individuals and groups to exercise their rights.

Additionally, when the law is publicly available, there is a general sense in society that they live under the rule of law, making an example of John Adams’ expression “a government of law, not men.” The term, “a government of law, not men” is essential to understanding the American legal system. In the American judicial system, judges are required to rule based on the application of the relevant law.

Although every judge is influenced by his or her own morality, ethics, and personal desires, his or her judicial decisions are required to be limited to applicability of the law at hand. As a lawyer, I often find myself telling potential clients, “as much as I think you have been morally and ethically wronged or mistreated, I do not think the law provides a remedy.”

2. A layered judiciary with distinct appellate courts

Yitro instructs Moses in 18:21 “You must seek out from among the people, capable, God-fearing me, men of truth, who despise gain. You must then appoint them over the people as offices… Let them judge the people at all times. Every major problem they will bring to you, and every minor problem, they shall judge by themselves.” The text itself provides for a layered judiciary where minor problems are handled by the lower court and major problems are handled by Moses himself. In American law, all trials are handled by lower courts and higher courts are assigned to address legal questions the lower court may have gotten wrong or not properly thought through. Thus, litigants who believe that the trial court has ruled incorrectly may appeal to the appeals court and obtain a ruling requiring the trial court to apply the law differently. I have reason to believe that Yitro has a similar notion in mind.

In Numbers 36, the brothers of Zelophehad, a man who died without sons, appealed to Moses to assign his land to them rather than to Zelophehad’s daughters, as if they married men of another tribe, the land would be cut off from their tribe. Presumably, the brothers of Zelophehad sought the assistance of Moses after not obtaining a satisfactory result from the trial court.

3. Caselaw

Moses rules that the land should be passed to the daughters, but that the daughters should marry within their own tribe, but avoiding any cross-tribe land transfer. The text indicates that Moses ruled according to God’s instruction, but it is unclear if Moses sought God’s instruction in this particular case, or if this is a reference to the notion that courts of appeals are regularly asked to interpret the law—and once they do so, their rulings have the legal affect of being treated as if they were literally the text of the law. In other words, Moses, as an appellate judge, considered a factual scenario that the law did not explicitly address, and interpreted the law in a manner so that it could apply to the situation at hand. The Torah concludes the text by indicating Moses ruled according to God’s instruction. Similarly, appellate court seek to rule according to the written law they are applying—and once they rule, principles of the rule of law require that everyone treat the court’s decision as if it were the law itself.

Conclusion

American law did not form in a vacuum. Many legal principles we employ have precedent in numerous other contexts. The Bible can serve as an attractive reference point because the text is treated with so much importance by so many people. I personally find it so very fascinating that in only a few pages of Bible text I can explain so many legal principles applicable to our present legal framework. In fact, I would not be surprised if further examination of the texts I discuss here would yield even more legal concepts. It is just so fascinating.

"What's the Right Thing to Do" is the Right Thing to Watch -- and Thoughts on the Importance of Moral Philosophy to Political Philosophy

Although it is generally rare that television shows inspire serious thought about philosophical issues, PBS’s Michael Sandel’s “What’s the Right Thing to Do” succesfully invites its watchers to become part of the great questions addressed by western moral philosophers throughout the ages—and gives its watchers an opportunity to appreciate the role of moral philosophy in political philosophy. I had the opportunity to watch two of the twelve episodes two Sundays ago, and another two last Sunday, and hope to watch two more today. All of them are accessible at http://justiceharvard.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=5. The show is a broadcast of some or all of Sandel’s moral philosophy class at Harvard University. The class invites its participants to consider moral dilemmas, like “Would you switch a runaway trolley from one track to another if it meant killing one person instead of five?” ;“ Would it be just as moral to push a person in front of the speeding trolley to stop it and save the five?”; “What about a surgeon killing one healthy person and using his organs so that five people who needed organ transplants could live?”; and “Whether it is better to harm one person to save multiple people or better to avoid harming anyone.” Through exploring the moral dilemma examples, he demonstrates the answers of various philosophical approaches, such as utilitarianism v libertarianism. Anyone interested in a general overview of western moral philosophy will definitely get that in this series For me, the show is serving an an unexpected reminder of the importance of moral philosophy to political philosophy. In my recent study of political philosophy, my mind has created an artificial border between morality and political philosophy that may not be true to those who established the values that underly our political system. Moral philosophy is an essential part of political philosophy. Political philosophy relies of morality to determine what is in society’s best interest. For instance, libertarian philosophy focuses on the morality of individual freedom over else. Utilitarianism focuses on the greatest good for the greatest number. Behind these political philosophies are questions of what is society’s moral responsibility to its citizens. Pure political philosophy asks only what system of governance is effective at creating the desired result, usually presuming that the desired result is something simply like satisfaction with the governing structure under which they live. However, that is a short sighted error because it ignores that moral questions underlie the expectations of government. For instance, would it be moral to maximize citizen liberty if it means that citizens are at a greater risk of injury from harm from pollution or unsafe commercial products? Alternatively, would it be moral to maximize citizen safety if it means that citizens have fewer rights to take personal risk, succeed at personal endeavors and decrease the number of personal choices available to them. These questions underlie our present political debates concerning health care, tort liability, environmental protection, and even national security. It is unlikely that Michael Sandel’s class will unilaterally increase the study of moral philosophy, or even the recognition that moral philosophy underlies so many of society’s decisions. However, Sandel’s book “Justice” and his PBS class are making philosophy more accessible to many outside the walls of university institutions. The importance of this to our society can not be over-stated, as much poltical dialogue today resorts to arguments over self-interest and claims of ignorance on the part of competing views rather than an acceptance of disagreements due to competing moral approaches to problems.

Pro Se Assistance and Unbundled Legal Services Essential To Justice in This Economy -- Plus Additional Options to Make Justice Accessible

Relevant Text: Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr. and California Chief Justice Ronald M. George: “A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers.” New York Times, 1/1/2010 (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/opinion/02broderick.html?hp) I was extremely pleased to read New Hampshire Chief Justice John T. Broderick Jr. and California Chief Justice Ronald M. George’s New Years Day article in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/02/opinion/02broderick.html?hp) advocating that the legal system increase the availability of unbundled legal services as a means to help close the “justice gap.” The “justice gap” refers to the existence of a major gap between the legal needs of low-to-middle income people and the legal assistance available to them. “Unbundled legal services” refers to an attorney client relationship where the attorney assists with specific parts of a legal case rather than taking on representation of the entire legal case. I hope this public endorsement of unbundled legal services and other pro se legal assistance will lead to an increase in the availability of unbundled legal services, other pro se legal assistance, and other creative solutions that make it possible for non-wealthy individuals to have their day in court. The Justices point out that the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 has caused an increased number of individuals without sufficient resources to pay for necessary legal assistance. Unbundled legal services allows individuals to obtain legal assistance where it is most needed, rather than the burden of paying for counsel for an entire matter, which can be an extremely costly endeavor. Unbundling often involves discrete assistance such as preparing a specific document, coaching on how to present in court, or even appearing for an isolated hearing. In my opinion, this very public endorsement of unbundling by two chief justices is an essential advancement in the cause of making the court system more accessible to those without financial means. Having two State Chief Justices referring to the gap between the legal needs of low-to-middle income people and the legal assistance available to them as a “justice gap” is a public recognition that our system of jurisprudence makes the employment of counsel an almost necessity for a party to received a fair hearing. One other method of addressing the legal needs of low-to-moderate income persons has been advanced by the Civil Gideon movement. Civil Gideon is an effort to expand the types of cases in which low-income individuals are entitled to publicly funded representation. The term Gideon references the Supreme Court case Gideon v. Wainwright 372 U.S. 335(1963), which held that the Sixth Amendment requires courts to provide counsel for criminal defendants unable to afford their own. The Civil Gideon movement seeks to expand this legal right to assistance for individuals facing life-altering civil matters such as divorce, child-custody, residential evictions and termination of parental rights. The movement primarily focuses on expanding state statutes to assure that low-income individuals impacted by these issues are not left without legal assistance. The movement has also worked on seeking favorable state court interpretations of existing statutes and constitutional provision, namely interpretations that existing law requires the provision of publicly funded representation in certain life-altering civil matters. A further method worthy of consideration is expanding Title 42 Section 1988. (see http://codes.lp.findlaw.com/uscode/42/21/I/1988). Section 1988(b) provides that plaintiffs successful under certain statutes are entitled to reasonable attorney fees as part of their recovery, in addition to whatever the jury has awarded. This statute, along with its analogous employment law statute at Title 42 2000e-5(k) allow attorneys to take meritorious cases from clients who would otherwise be unable to afford legal counsel. Without minimizing the importance of unbundled legal services and other forms of pro se legal assistance, it would be hard to deny that the justice gap would be seriously decreased if an expansive form of Civil Gideon were adopted or Section 1988 were expanded. The Court in Gideon wrote that “The right to be heard would be, in many cases, of little avail if it did not comprehend the right to be heard by counsel….Left without the aid of counsel he may be put on trial without a proper charge, and convicted upon incompetent evidence, or evidence irrelevant to the issue or otherwise inadmissible.” Thus, although it should be incumbent on the legal community to do everything we can do to make the court system accessible to non-lawyers regardless of personal wealth, it is fair to point out that the justice gap, to be fully met, must be addressed on various fronts. Thus, Justices Broderick and George point out the importance of the legal community making efforts to make the court system accessible to those who have no access to counsel. In the two paragraphs preceding this one, I discuss the legislative front that could substantially impact the availability of bundled counsel to low-to-moderate income persons. The third front (not previously mentioned in this post) is the educational one. Although Justices Broderick and George touch on the role of educating pro se litigants as a means to increase their instant access to the courts, I think it is important that when we are considering access to justice issues, we consider the scope of knowledge and information available to the general public concerning their rights and the court system. As Deborah Rhode points out in her book, Access to Justice, someone unfamiliar with their rights may not even be aware that they have a reason to consider consulting counsel. As it is so worth reading, please read Justice Broderick and Justice George's article for yourself: A Nation of Do-It-Yourself Lawyers By JOHN T. BRODERICK Jr. and RONALD M. GEORGE Published: January 1, 2010 AMERICA’S courts are built on a system of rules and procedures that assume that almost everyone who comes to court has a lawyer. Unfortunately, the reality is quite different. An increasing number of civil cases go forward without lawyers. Litigants who cannot afford a lawyer, and either do not qualify for legal aid or are unable to have a lawyer assigned to them because of dwindling budgets, are on their own — pro se. What’s more, they’re often on their own in cases involving life-altering situations like divorce, child custody and loss of shelter. As the economy has worsened, the ranks of the self-represented poor have expanded. In a recent informal study conducted by the Self-Represented Litigation Network, about half the judges who responded reported a greater number of pro se litigants as a result of the economic crisis. Unrepresented litigants now also include many in the middle class and small-business owners who unexpectedly find themselves in distress and without sufficient resources to pay for the legal assistance they need. As judges, we believe more needs to be done to meet this growing challenge: an inaccessible, overburdened justice system serves none of us well. California took a major step forward in October when it became the first state to recognize as a goal the right to counsel in certain civil cases. (The state also committed to a pilot project, financed by court fees, to provide lawyers for low-income citizens in cases where basic human needs are at stake.) But this is only a beginning. It is essential that we promote other efforts to close the “justice gap.” One such effort involves the “unbundling” of legal services. Forty-one states, including California and New Hampshire, have adopted a model rule drafted by the American Bar Association, or similar provisions, which allow lawyers to unbundle their services and take only part of a case, a cost-saving practice known as “limited-scope representation” that, with proper ethical safeguards, is responsive to new realities. Traditionally, lawyers have been required to stay with a case from beginning to end, unless a court has excused them from this obligation. Now, in those states that explicitly or implicitly allow unbundling, people or businesses can hire a lawyer on a limited basis to help them fill out forms, to prepare documents, to coach them on how to present in court or to appear in court for one or two hearings. For example, a lawyer could advise a client in a divorce proceeding about legal principles governing the division of marital assets or provide assistance in calculating child-support obligations. A lawyer might also draft pleadings or legal memos or provide representation at a hearing to obtain a domestic-violence restraining order. What could be wrong with this? Well, some lawyers have expressed concern that limited legal representation will encourage litigants to dissect their cases in an effort to save money, sacrificing quality representation that the litigant might otherwise be able to afford. We have also heard the argument that by offering too much assistance to self-represented litigants, the courts themselves are undermining the value of lawyers and the legal profession. Apparently, some are concerned that the court system will become so user-friendly that there will be no need for lawyers. We respectfully disagree. Litigants who can afford the services of a lawyer will continue to use one until a case or problem is resolved. Lawyers make a difference and clients know that. But for those whose only option is to go it alone, at least some limited, affordable time with a lawyer is a valuable option we should all encourage. In fact, we believe that limited-scope-representation rules will allow lawyers — especially sole practitioners — to service people who might otherwise have never sought legal assistance. We also believe that carefully drafted ethical rules allowing lawyers to handle part of a case give the legal profession an opportunity to help the courts address the ever-growing number of litigants who cross our thresholds. This cause has special relevance now as state courts are faced with serious cutbacks in financing, forcing some to close their doors one day a week or a month, lay off front-line staff members and delay jury trials. None of this bodes well for the judicial system or for those seeking to vindicate their rights through the courts, whether they have a lawyer or not. We need members of the legal profession to join with us, as many have done, in meeting this challenge by making unbundled legal services and other innovative solutions — like self-help Web sites, online assistance programs and court self-help centers — work for all who need them. If we are to maintain public trust and confidence in the courts, we must keep faith with our founding principles and our core belief in equal justice under the law. John T. Broderick Jr. is the chief justice of New Hampshire. Ronald M. George is the chief justice of California.

A Postscript for Justice Souter: It is Important to Clarify the Difference Between Community Service and Civic Engagement

My most recent post discussed a talk given by Justice Souter on the subject of the importance of civics education, and the critical role it plays in preserving an independent judiciary. The focus of that piece was what Justice Souter described as the source of his understanding of civics, namely his experience observing democracy in action, in the form of annual town meetings in small town New Hampshire. That piece, in effect, argues that Justice Souter’s description of his experience shows that true civics education comes best from direct observation of or actual interaction with the democratic process itself, rather than mere exposure to philosophic notions or ideals during the four corners of the school house. There is another point worthy of attention that I did not raise in my piece of December 1, 2009. Although I pointed out that Justice Souter’s piece related to a “democratic experience,” I did not adequately point out that we should not confuse the description of his experience with that of someone engaging in “community service” and volunteerism. Community service is voluntary behavior or action that is designed to benefit a community or its institutions. Although a democracy is unlikely to function well without a population motivated to engage in community service, it is important not to confuse community service with the democratic experience. Community service can exist in any society, not just in a democracy or a democratic republic. Community service requires only that an individual or several individuals care about the needs the community itself or other members. For instance, one can provide food to the homeless without worrying about the causes of homelessness or whether there are larger social problems causing homelessness. Alternatively, one can volunteer to clean up a park without wondering if there are underlying societal problems causing the park require clean up. The democratic experience, however, requires its participants to evaluate the communal needs and the role of local, state, and national government in addressing those needs. Even the most libertarian among us see a role for government in assuring certain levels of safety from violence and the availability of roads for safe travel. Thus, the democratic experience is one where a citizen mentally goes beyond individual service and begins engaging in problem solving on a societal or global level. The democratic experience includes the thought process of devising societal solutions and the willingness to take communal steps towards resolving such problems. This may involve attending meetings on public issues, working with others to resolve the problem, raising money for a community or lobbying association, or even volunteering to elect a particular candidate. One can only have a true democratic experience in a society that allows for such. A society which tells its young that they have no power to alter social institutions is not truly democratic, regardless of whether the law technically provides for democracy. However, a society where citizens feel a sense of ownership towards their government, and thus empowered to organize for change to government’s institutions is truly democratic. By “change to government’s institutions,” I do not only mean the type of radical change sought by Saul Alinsky-style activists. I am also referring to budgetary changes and communal priority changes that would be decided upon in the town meetings described by Justice Souter. Thus, the democratic experience includes the thought process of devising societal solutions and the willingness to take communal steps towards resolving such problems. This experience may involve attending meetings on public issues, working with others to resolve the problem, raising money for a community or lobbying association, or even volunteering to elect a particular candidate. In other words, it is this democratic experience, rather than community service, which is the essential function of those citizens who are democratically engaged.

Stories of Democratic Experience

Part of my reason for focusing on Justice Souter's talk has been a deep interest in the notion that experiences with democracy are worth discussing openly, because they shape how we see the opportunities to be engaged democratically.

From a psychological standpoint, open honest talk about one's influences help explain one's philosophical approach to problems. For instance, my personal perspective in how to address social and economic problems stems a great deal from my experiences as a community organizer in 1998 and 1999, including when in 1999 my work focused on community organizing in low-income neighborhoods in Baltimore city. They also likely stem from my experiences in at other times of my life as well.

If one does an oral history of one's political perspective, one is likely to focus on those instances in which one can to a specific realization concerning economic, community, or international affairs. However, the democratic experience is not always about big realizations. When I think about those instances where I might be said to have accomplished something politically useful, such as when I helped stop a private prison from being built in Washington DC and when I helped push for a Loan Repayment Assistence Program in my law school, I did not unilaterally pick a community problem, create infrastructure to address the problem, and manipulate that infrastructure. Instead, I joined an existing campaign, saw some organizational and leadership need I could address, and found ways to succeed by taking advantage of others' talents. In neither campaign have I been recognized for my contribution, and its dubious if my contribution had any unique value.

From the standpoint of democratic engagement, it is not interesting whether or not my contributions to the projects were important or influential in ultimate success. Instead, what is important is what drove me to get involved, and what drove other community members to take time to address less-immediate-impersonal community issues.

One my experiences is life was to attend the 2008 Democrtic Party convention. For a few days, I kept an online journal where I commented on my experience. I reproduce these mini-essays here, as examples of how one might go about documenting their democratic experience. I fully recognize that these essays don't illustrate the exciting experience of being involved in pushing a governing body to take action, preventing certain action, or being involved in the inner circle of a political campaign. However, these essays illustrate one citizen's experience being part of history and excitement in that process, an experience no less worthy of documentation.

Wednesday, August 27, 2008
A Walk Around the Convention
Before I direct your attention to my experiences yesterday, I should notify you that I think Hillary Clinton hit the notes she needed to hit. The bottom line is that if we Democrats are going to advance this country into the type of country we want, namely one that maximizes personal freedoms, engages in a noble and reasonable foreign policy, and consists of a government with economic and educational opportunity for all citizens, we need all of Clinton's supporters on board. Thus, it is my hopes that all internal divisions were laid to rest by Clinton's speech.

Now for some geography. As one comes to the Pepsi center, one quickly realizes how much of the surrounding area is blocked off, and thus no vehicle traffic is permitted. Between the no-traffic area and the secured area are a few protesters, but more sellers of shirts, candy, and buttons. On occasion, one hears: "tickets tickets, I am looking for tickets."

How does security determine who to let in: one must wear their credentials badge on a cord around their neck. One shows their credentials at security walking into the secured area surrounding the convention center, walking into the convention center itself, walking into the convention hall itself, and even going into the "Sky Lounge," namely the lounge set aside for guests of the Finance Committee. Credentials are worn by almost all attendees, including members of the European Parliment, lobbyists, activists, members of the press, DNC staff, and every other attendee to that convention.

The Hall itself has 3 levels. The first level is for the delegates themselves. On the periphery of the delegate entrance are numerous vendors, many of which are the same vendors one would see if one came for a ball game. In addition, many press have tables in this area. Thus, this area is crowded with delegates, powers-that-be walking to their seats, the press, and more importantly, many looking around to find stars. On one occasion, an area surrounding an entrance way was blocked off because security heard that Senator Biden was walking in the direction of that entrance. For those of us wanting to get a glimpse of the Senator, we were out of luck, as he did not show up where we were standing. From my vague un-scientific count, however, there were probably30 people with cameras out ready to take a picture. I wonder how many people now have pictures entitled "anticipating Senator Biden."

The second level is the club level. I am not certain who gets in the club level, as I did not even try. The third level is the "Hoi polloi" level, otherwise the nosebleed section. As you can imagine, that was the section I was in.

As one may imagine, there are far fewer seats than those interested in getting in the hall. Yeseterday, I came early to see Rep. Kucinich. He gave a great speech, and got some great crowd reaction. However, he spoke around the 5:00 hour. No one has a problem finding a seat then. Actually, I had a great seat for Kucinich's speech. However, my interest in eating dinner overcame my interest in preserving my great seat. Thus, when I tried to go back in around 7:15 or so, I ended up 3 rows from the top, which is a very steep view. Lessons learned: if you get a good seat, keep it!

As security was strictly enforcing how many they would let in the hall at once, I realized I was not going to get back in for Clinton's speech, so I headed back to the sky lounge and had an opportunity to sit with some prestigious internationals in which we engaged in an intriguing dialogue about the role of government in managing the market. As I am not the most articulate in economic discussions, and have strong Bush Jr.-like tendencies when economics are the subject of conversation, I was very proud to be able to have an intelligent economic discussion with a member of their home country's parliament. I then learned that this very kind gentleman was in line to become Finance Minister. Upon that revelation, I made clear that I anticipated my knowledge of the economy was minimal compared to his.

As you can see, this blog appears to be taking the diary form rather than the essay form I had hoped. As you can imagine, there is a lot to take in and no so much time for blogging. In any case, I hope you all are enjoying my random thoughts, and will let me know if there are any subjects about which you wish to read that I have failed to discuss.
Posted by Adam W. Marker at 6:08 AM 0 comments
Tuesday, August 26, 2008
Some props to Howard Dean--and other day 1 happening
Today was the first day of the Convention. Thus the opportunity to hear thousands of cheering democrats in the Pepsi Center in downtown Denver. It was moving to see the excitement of Ted Kennedy fans while he spoke, and while they presented a film about his life. When Michelle Obama spoke, I was not in the Pepsi Center but in "Blue Sky Grill," a neighboring facility for special guests of the DNC Finance Division. Even there, you could tell the difference between Obama and other speakers. When Obama spoke, everyone listened. When others spoke, like various politicians, some listened and some sat around and drank and shmoozed.

I want to give props to Howard Dean, who spoke at an "after hours party" sponsored by the Finance Division, called "Party with your party." On the bus ride over, it became clear that I was going to a party with some major funders, some of whom were personally wealthy and some of whom had talent for engaging other's generosity. Nevertheless, Howard Dean's remarks at this event was telling about how he sees the Democratic Party. He said something to the effect of, "as you know, we want everyone to be involved in our party. However, not everyone has the ability to give as much, as so we have events like this to reward those of you who give more." Although I am not certain of the exact words, the subtext is very clear: this is a party for all democrats, not just the wealthy few. It is worth honoring those who are fortunate enough to give more, but that does not take away from those who give less, nor does it suggest that those who are able to give more are necessarily more committed. Rather, the ideal would be for all to contribute the same, and it is wise for those of means to donate the monies that those without means cannot.

This is an extreemly powerful statement, and made even more powerful by the location in which Dean gave it.

Another aspect of that party deserves comment, namely, the musical guest: the GooGoo Dolls. They rocked! Unfortunately, Americans are not used to dancing while dressed in suits when they are not at weddings. For me, I was ready for some serious dancing, but that wasn't in the cards for this party.

Earlier in the day I went to a meeting of the National Jewish Democratic Council. At the same time of the NJDC meeting, several other ethnic based groups met as well. After the meetings, I had the opportunity to discuss our respective meetings with someone who is a member of the Native American caucus. Although I did not learn what occurred in that caucus meeting, I learned how frustrated many Native Americans are that the United States has generally failed to live up to the treaties it entered into with the tribes. She further expressed concern that the courts refuse to require compliance. Although I have very little knowledge as to the current status of our compliance with our obligations to Native American tribes, I certainly hope that if she is accurate, attention is quickly directed towards that issue quickly! I will have to look into it.

The NJDC meeting was not a meeting directed towards activism, which is what I had hoped. It was analysis of Jewish voting patterns expected for this election. Knowing that the Obama team had created a special committee directed towards outreach to the Jewish community, I asked one of the NJDC professionals why that outreach was not addressed. The response was that the NJDC was a 501(c)(4), and therefore prohibited from endorsing and identifying specific candidates in their work. Thus, the meeting was relatively academic in nature.

In conclusion, the streets of Denver reflect the democratic engagement I referenced in yesterday's discourse. Sadly, most noticeable were the right wing fanatics, including several posting signs specifically directed towards homosexuality, saying things as direct as "homosexuality is a sin" and something about going to hell. One couple standing near me went up to one of the protesters and said "not everyone believes in hell. For instance, Jews don't believe in hell. Apparently the response was: then they are going to hell. Never a dull moment.

More on Denver itself later in the week. Also, more on the hotel in which I am staying, which is doing a great job trying to become more "green."

I also had an extensive conversation with a Clinton supporter who alleged that the Obama folks committed electoral violations in Iowa. She further alleged that the leaders of the DNC that be have been trying to rescue control from the Clintons are thus got Obama with those goals in mind. Although I don't have enough information to comment further, it will be very interesting to see what happens over the next couple days.
Posted by Adam W. Marker at 12:06 AM 0 comments
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Traveling to Democracy
It's midnight in Denver, many hours since I left the District of Columbia. On the surface, all I did today was travel. However, in my mind, I did something more, namely prepare to participate in and observe the democratic experience.

On the plane to Denver were activists of all stripes, some of whom represented activist organizations and other of which represented constituencies. A good portion of the plane trip was spent discussing various activity options with my friend Lee, who invited me on this adventure. Event options include: attending forums on the intersection of religion and politics, the shaping of American foreign policy, DC Vote, and activities hosted by veteran's organizations.

I feel like I am about to experience democracy in a way I have not previously experienced it. By way of background, let me explain that I see the democratic experience as one where members of a community, state, or country gather to communicate with each other about ways to advance the causes of the community, state, or country. In pure democracies, each member of the community, state, or country actually votes in favor or against legislative initiatives. In democratic republics, such as the United States, citizens vote for representatives to legislate on their behalf. However, the democractic experience is not merely the experience of voting. Instead, the essence of democracy is the constructive interaction of various sects and segments of society in ways that further society as a whole. Thus, my sense is that I will observe members of diverse segments of American society gather to discuss ways to advance society as a whole.

In writing this last paragraph, I don't mean to sound naive. I am well aware that that the grouping at Denver will be a select group. All attendees are either members or associated in some way with the Democratic Party. In addition, given the cost of attending this convention, the diversity present will likely not represent the economic diversity existing throughout this society. Also, I am well aware of the economic segregation I am likely to experience. For instance, I don't anticipate meeting Barack Obama personally--although I expect that if I raised millions of dollars, arrangements for an introduction would have occurred. However, none of this will take away from the fact that I am about to be at an event with community activists from every county in this country. Regardless of whether whether the event is as democratic as possible, it will be an important experience in democracy that is rarely experienced in one's own town--because no matter how diverse one's city or neighborhood is, there are not and cannot be activist citizens from every county in this country. Thus, for whatever its faults, I am so excited to experience democracy in this manner.
Posted by Adam W. Marker at 11:03 PM 1 comments
Friday, August 22, 2008
I'm Going to the Convention
Luck struck! The Democratic Convention starts this coming Monday, namely in three days. Two days ago, Wednesday evening, I was talking to my roomate about how interesting it would be to go to a Democratic convention. He joked, "you should just go." I retorted, I wouldn't even know how to get tickets." Less than three hours later, a buddy of mine mentioned, effectively out of the blue, that he had an extra ticket to the convention, and invited me. I have no idea how I lucked out like that. Through this blog, I intend to keep you abreast of my experiences hobnobing with the leaders of our party. Furthermore, I believe strongly in our candidate, Barack Obama. Unlike prior Democratic Presidential Candidates, he was a community organizer for low-to-moderate income neighborhoods. Having been a community organizer in low-to-moderate income neighborhoods, I can tell you that one cannot be a community organizer unless one is seriously committed to the cause of tikkun olam, namely, helping to repair the world. The experience of being a community organizer exposes you to despair, frustration, and a variety of inequities that are experienced in America. Many idealists come to community organizing and leave after a month or two because they feel their goals of "making a difference" cannot compete with their goals of getting ahead in the business community. And as a community organizer, one is often instilled with fear that their activism will cause them to be labeled an opponent of America by those whose financial interests are in competition with the interests of justice and civic virtues. I hope the information I gain over my week in Denver will confirm my beliefs about what Barack Obama is bringing to the Democratic Party and the Country as a whole. Please check into this blog as I try to keep you aprised of these events as they unfold.

Learning Democratic Theory Through Obtaining the Democratic Experience

Relevant Text: Justice David H. Souter, “Remarks on Civic Education,” spoken on August 1, 2009 at Opening Assembly of American Bar Association Annual Meeting. See http://www.abanow.org/2009/08/souter-tells-aba-annual-meeting-opening-assembly-that-civic-education-is-critical-to-preserving-an-independent-judiciary and http://www.abanet.org/publiced/JusticeSouterChallengesABA.pdf INTRODUCTION On August 1, 2009, Justice David H. Souter spoke briefly about the state of civics education in this country, pointing out that constitutional government itself is at risk when a substantial portion of our population does not have knowledge of the government structure under which we live. He pointed out that it is impossible for those who have very little knowledge about our government’s structure to appreciate the importance of judicial independence, and the value of the inherent conflict between the legislative and judicial branches. Thus, he advocated an intensification of the bar association’s efforts in educating the population at large about civics. I contend here that it is not merely education about democracy, but democratic experience, that inspires people to value our system of government and get involved directly in our democracy. THE SOURCE OF SOUTER’S CIVIC KNOWLEDGE: DEMOCRATIC EXPERIENCE The bulk of his talk, however, was a self-reflection on the sources of his knowledge of various principles behind our government’s structure. Most of that knowledge is sourced to his experiences going to annual town meetings in New Hampshire. Through describing his experiences at the town meetings, Justice Souter shows how he had the opportunity to observe first hand the execution of the concepts of divided power (separation of powers) -- between legislative and executive, federalism -- of a sort through divided power between State and town, due process of fundamental fairness --through the Thus, when taught these concepts formally in school, Justice Souter had actual experience with which to appreciate said concepts. THE UNSTATED IMPORTANCE OF REPLICATING THE DEMOCRATIC EXPERIENCE Justice Souter does not fully expound on why his experience attending annual town hall meetings is so worthy of reflection. In fact, in my first read of his talk, I was confused by the relationship between his personal experience and his effort to encourage his audience to personally get involved in advancing the cause of formal curricular school-based civic education. I wasn’t sure if we as readers were to learn from his experience, or only appreciate it. Upon further reflection, however, the relationship is very clear, and essential. A subject of study is real when it affects one’s experiences. Some examples not from the speech are illustrative. Many kids become enamored with football and basketball, and hence became very familiar with the math necessary to understand the game. On the darker side, many kids who become caught up in the drug trade also become quick mathematicians. One can also find that an Orthodox Jew Christian or Muslim may excel at literacy in order to read his or her holy books. Additional analogous examples are numerous. For Justice Souter, attendance at the annual town meeting made real a number of civic and legal principles. More importantly, as a result of real-life exposure to the application of democratic principles, references to them in civics class were not abstract theoretical principles for him, but were reflective of real experience, and thus fully comprehensible. I have not had the opportunity to review any studies of politicians, activists, or lawyers that presented any commonality in their exposure to the civics arts. However, I would venture a guess that most could identify experiences in their youth where the civic arts proved a real part of human life. Thus, the lesson of Retired Justice Souter’s experience is not merely the importance of increasing exposure of legal and civics principles to kids, the the exposure to the fact that legal and civics principles affect every day life. As it was with Justice Souter, this is more likely to be achieved through exposure to real life than by exposure to better written text books. Twice in Justice Souter’s conclusion he states that citizens must be instructed in the government in order to appreciate the importance of judicial independence, and thus to preserve the notion that it is a “safe place” within which to redress one’s grievances with one’s fellow. This is telling, as the word place indicates a locality, which is irrelevant absent an experience in such a locality or place. CONCLUSION The notion of exposing tweens, teens, and young adults to the democratic experience, just as Justice Souter was exposed, sounds to me like a highly practical approach to civics education. Internships, externships, fellowships, and observation days are also common ways of inexpensively exposing worlds to kids. However, there is nothing like going to a community meeting, forum, or hearing concerning subject matters and locations familiar to the student.

A Free People May Require Free Time

The authors of the 2009 America's Civic Health Index (published by the National Conference on Citizenship) entitle their report "civic health in hard times," indicating that the economic downturn of 2008 and 2009 has had a substantial effect on the way in which Americans engage. The primary finding of the report has been that"most Americans said they are reducing engagement and turning inward under the stress of the economic crisis." It appears as if many Americans are more willing to be of personal assistance to friends and family in need then they are to go to community meetings or engage in political campaigns. A partial answer to why people have looked inward to address their economic challenges rather than turn to the political world around them, and the economic norms in which they function, may be found in the findings of Juliet Schor in The Overworked American: the Unexpected Decline of Leisure. Schor, and others, have been concerned that society's orientation towards work has made it practically impossible for their to be broad based commitment to community and political engagement. Several years ago, I wrote an article for socialaction.com concerning a coalition of religious leaders aimed at addressing the effects on Americans of the lack of free time available to the average American for community activities, and thus taking up the issues raised by Schor. (Wanting to preserve precisely what I wrote for reconsideration, I am not addressing any typos, grammatical, or clarity errors that might be found in the article. This essay was written and published on socialaction.com sometime between summer 1999 and fall 2000.)

Free Time, Free People by Adam Marker

I don't know about you, but I feel like I haven't had a free minute since the early '70s. (And I was born in 1974). Do you feel like you've been working a lot recently? Do you feel just a little guilty when you choose to take a vacation-or just take a few hours off?

You're not the only one. It's a societal phenomenon, and community organizers and activists are becoming conscious of this as a social problem. Free Time/Free People is a project designed to educate us about the issue of overwork--and work at finding solutions to it.

The problem

Juliet Schor, in The Overworked American (Basic Books, 1992) concludes: "If present trends continue, by the end of the century, Americans will be spending as much time at their jobs as they did back in the 1920s." For instance, she writes, "with nearly two-thirds of adult women now employed...many working mothers live a life in perpetual motion, effectively holding down two full-time jobs." She adds "Thirty percent of men with children under 14 report working fifty or more hours a week." Her book is filled with statistics of how overwork leads to unhealthy trends-like the replacement of community activity with excessive television watching!

Most Americans feel overworked in one way or another. Most of us think our inability to find time is simply a personal flaw or personal problem rather than one affecting our entire community. We find ourselves saying:"I have no time for my family;" "I would love to be involved in this issue or that issue if only I had a few hours;" and "Let's have coffee; I think I will be available for an hour in two to three months from now." We tend to say to ourselves: "I am overworked; I need to work harder; I seem to be unable to change my mode of living to have more time" rather than "we are overworked; we work plenty hard; we need to change our modes of living to have more free time."

Once we admit that overwork is a societal issue rather than merely one of personal control and decision making, we become empowered to address the problem on a societal level. In the spirit of our not-so-distant celebration of Passover, let's imagine the 4 children from the Seder, "enslaved" by the problem of overwork:

1.The one who works two full-time jobs just to feed his or her family.

2.The one who has reached a level of stature. This one must work at least 60 hours per week to keep his or her job and income level.

3.The one who wants to move up in management. This one dare not take a break lest someone without family obligations take his or her place.

4.The one working in the community and public interest sector. He or she feels that the numbers of hours worked is a reflection of his or her personal commitment to the issue or cause at hand.

This tension, the push to be always working, always productive, always using every minute, is something felt by both low income African Americans in Baltimore and upper-middle class Jews in Bethesda.

The solutions

Barbara Brandt, (director of The Short-Time Work Group) has been trying to address the problem of overwork for a number of years. She points out that overwork makes it harder for people to sleep, concentrate on the job, spend time with their kids, and get involved in community groups. She demonstrates how the almost unquestioned focus on work has spiraling effects, including increased drinking and drug use, decreased citizen participation, less productive work time, as well as a host of other problems-causing the need for more social workers and social activists.

Brandt has been teaching and writing about overwork for a number of years, including a co-authored article published in the July/August 1991 issue of Utne Reader. Ironically, she reports, many activists, upon hearing her presentations, have reacted: "We see your point, but we don't have time to deal with it."

She is excited by the Free Time/Free People project organized by The Shalom Center and others, a coalition of religious and other leaders committed to addressing overwork through educational, cultural, and legislative means. (Click here for what we can do if you are too busy to read the rest of this essay!) She believes that the Free Time/Free People coalition is likely to be more successful than past coalitions because the religious community is taking a leadership role.

Brandt attributes the labelling of the problem of overwork to Professor Ben Honeycut, who calls overwork "the American religion." Because we are obedient and loyal to the culture of work-work-work, we find ourselves sacrificing our communities, our religions, and even our personal passions. Once the concept of continual work and continual production has become a holy end, there is no excuse or reason to choose to eat with one's family, read with one's children, or reject a promotion. Perish the thought that we might take the time to study Torah or pray. How can we justify time worshipping the God of Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob when we could be worshipping the God of Work, Success, and Personal Achievement?

As Brandt explains, "if the problem of overwork is a religious problem, then it requires a religious response."

The Free Time/Free People Project

Rabbi Arthur Waskow of the Shalom Center has convened leaders from Jobs With Justice; the Unitarian Universalist Association; editors of The Other Side; Tikkun and The Witness; The Shorter-Work Time Group; the American Sufi Muslim Association; the Episcopal Diocese of Los Angeles;, and a host of other leaders. This broad coalition has agreed to work together on these specific goals:

• To reduce the hours of work imposed on individuals without reducing their income;
• To strongly encourage the use of more free time in the service of family, community, and spiritual growth.
• To make work itself sacred by securing full employment in jobs with decent income, health care, dignity, and self-direction. (From the Free Time/Free People statement).

Waskow believes that "The Free Time/Free People project is responding to a crisis that people feel sharply in their 'private' lives but have not yet fully understood as a social and economic issue." Some of the specific legislative goals of this broad coalition include:

• A national living wage that allows people to live decently when working between 35-40 hours a week;
• An end to the overtime exemption on supervisors and professionals;
• No compulsory or forced overtime;
• Paid leave to be involved in community groups and the boards of non-profits (at present, only executives enjoy this privilege);
• Strengthening the Family Medical Leave Act and rewarding corporations that give workers more flextime for community.

What we can do

To prevent this from being a dead-on-arrival legislative campaign, Waskow and the other members of the Free Time/Free People coalition are focusing on ways that we, as everyday citizens, can address the cultural aspects of the problem of overwork. Change is unlikely to occur until most Americans see lack of free time as a real social problem requiring governmental involvement for which they need to agitate.

1. Reach out to religious and community leaders. The Free Time/Free People project plans to publish pamphlets about worker's rights with respect to their Sabbath day, and to encourage more participation in Sabbath activities. Religious leaders will be encouraged to create a "Sabbath for the Sabbath" at least once a year, when their own congregation's Sabbath celebration could be focused on a full day of restful reflection.

Waskow is also working with congregations of various faiths and communities to encourage and support "community days," or community festivals when people can come to socialize and be together for an extended period of time. Time is set aside for singing, painting, sharing crafts,and storytelling. While leaders of the project are doing countless initial presentations, they hope to soon help local activists facilitate community days and annual "Sabbaths for the Sabbath' to respond to community-specific needs. Waskow aspires to help all Americans to realize their own need for regular Sabbaths. Signing the Free Time/Free People statement (see below) is also a good way to connect to this project.

2. Educate yourself and others. Meg Riley, Washington director of the Unitarian Universalist Association (which offers sabbaticals to all employees) likens our present approach to this issue to that of many family farmers in the Midwest. Family farmers, says Riley "saw the value of their work go down and down and they consequently worked harder and harder for less and less. They didn't see the issue as political." As do many of the activists involved in Free Time/Free People, Riley warns that unless Americans are empowered to identify overwork as a real social phenomenon that can be reversed, we will remain enslaved by our stress and our notions of powerlessness.

3. Consume Less. Riley also links the lack of free time to the issue of over-consumption. As we gradually have more resources at our disposal, we consequently become dependent on those resources, and consequently require we work harder and harder because the standard has been raised." She illustrates: "Now people say 'of course you should have a car;' There was a time when not everyone had a car and when one who didn't have a car needed a car, they simply borrowed from the person who had one," If we found ways to consume less, we would be comfortable making less and consequently, working less.

4. Take 7. Meg Riley has also taken a proactive step in her own office. She has enacted a policy of 7 minutes of silence a day where people can "think, breathe, snore, pray, or do whatever." She thinks people are more effective as a result.

The real challenge

The instinctive posture for social activists is to think about how institutional change can occur. But let us begin by each thinking about how we push ourselves and push others in ways that are unhealthy. Let's contemplate ways in which we overcommit ourselves and push ourselves to succeed in unrealistic timelines. Let's think about our families and what we can do to get to know them better-and ourselves better.

Can this focus on the self help bring about social justice? Can focusing on our own needs really help us effect real societal changes? The examples and blessed memories of Rabbi Abraham Joshua Heschel and Rev. Martin Luther King, Jr. tell us that it can. They were true to their own personal religious and needs-including prayer, reflection, and a weekly Sabbath-as a basis from which to find the energy and strength necessary to transform society.

[For the full text of the Free Time/Free People statement, a list of its signatories, and a form to join the project, go to www.shalomctr.org.html/comm15.html.]