“Concern for others is the best form of self-interest.”

Coming from a management consultant, those words might raise skeptical eyebrows. But coming from retired Archbishop Desmond Tutu, the Anglican prelate who was central to the abolition of apartheid in his native South Africa, they seem perfectly natural.

“The Arch,” as he is affectionately called back home, was in Flint, Michigan, last week to talk to the community and to thank the board of trustees of the Charles Stewart Mott Foundation (of which, to honor full disclosure, I am a member) for their help in funding the changes needed to bring democracy to South Africa. Some of us had heard him a decade before, in a meeting with our board at his official residence in Cape Town. But we hear lots of expert commentary on social, financial, political, and international issues, often from people we’ve heard before. What is it, I found myself asking, that makes this man’s message so different?

The question was still with me as we filed into Whiting Auditorium that afternoon for his public talk to nearly 2,000 citizens of this midsized industrial city. His topic, racism, could not have been more appropriate. This once-prosperous town, long a centerpiece of General Motors manufacturing, has seen a precipitous collapse of jobs in recent years. With the flight of the middle class to the suburbs, a dense and polarizing racism has grown up, targeting the impoverished blacks in the urban center. Yet Archbishop Tutu spoke with no rage in his voice, no blaming of individuals, no rhetoric of rebellion and divisiveness. Instead, his characteristically impish mirth filled the hall with laughter and regularly prompted responses of “Amen!” and “That’s right!” from a mixed-race group that at times seemed more congregation than audience.

Was this because his message centered on religion? True, he appeared in his usual clerical collar, wearing his large silver cross on a chain around his neck. True, he was not afraid to talk about God, goodness, creation, sin, and healing. But that message is regularly available in the pulpits of Flint.

Was it, then, that he was from elsewhere, the outsider who gets a hearing simply because he’s assumed to be an expert? That’s part of it — bolstered mightily, in this case, by his stature as a Nobel laureate and his reputation as an uncompromising foe of oppression and tyranny in South Africa.

Was it that he was genuinely humorous? As he challenged his audience to see the absurdity of racism, he reminded them not to be so deadly serious about it. He got them chuckling over its foibles. Yet he was never glib. He left them with no doubt about the evils of racism — the unspeakable inhumanity it engenders, the suffering it imposes. Too much the realist, he didn’t hang suspended in a pious heaven of ideals. But too much the inspirer, he didn’t wallow in the pathos and tragedy which, in his role as chairman of South Africa’s Truth and Reconciliation Commission, he has been forced to hear in the tales of his fellow South Africans.

All of these things help account for his impact. But as I listened, what stood out the most — what I think gives him a uniquely compelling message for the twenty-first century — is that he has found a language of public discourse to talk about a difficult subject: love. Again and again, his commentary — easygoing, compelling, almost offhand — returned to the need for a sense of caring, compassion, and kindness. Explaining the African concept of ubuntu, for example, he noted that it means that “I am me only because you are you,” and that “my humanity is caught up in your humanity.” So “if I dehumanize you,” he concluded, “I am inexorably dehumanized.”

Coming from anyone else, that might have sounded at best theoretical and at worst maudlin. From him, it sounded perfectly realistic. It was a love born out of long experience, reflection, and courage. What’s more, it was sharply targeted. It had a real purpose: the healing of racism, classism, sexism, ageism, and every other ism that keeps people at odds with their neighbors in Flint, in Johannesburg, and elsewhere in the world.

And that, as I realized over dinner with him later that evening, is what makes him great. In today’s world, we need to find ways to talk about the five core moral values that humanity holds in common. With four of them — fairness, responsibility, respect, and honesty — the language is beginning to come together. We’re finding the powerful metaphors, the compelling analogies, the gripping anecdotes. And as each day’s news unfolds, we’re building a library of sad examples of their opposites.

But love? For some reason that’s harder to discuss. Is it that real men don’t eat quiche or use the “L” word? Is it that our pragmatism militates against something so fuzzy? Is it that our sociometric mindset dismisses anything so immeasurable and ungraphable? Is it that love is not something universities have learned how to teach, or governments to legislate, or foundations to fund?

Maybe. But then along comes this diminutive, peaceful, jovial African. By his own and others’ accounts, he survived the septic brutality of apartheid not by force or fraud, nor by cunning or hatred, but by charity, empathy, and reconciliation. He has seen the power of forgiveness work firsthand. He knows what it is like to love where others hate. And he’s found a way to say it.

It’s a message about a core, universal value that the United States needs and — to judge by the crowd in Flint — wants to hear these days.

©2004 Institute for Global Ethics

“When hard questions of domestic relations are sure to affect the outcome, the prudent course is for the federal court to stay its hand rather than reach out to resolve a weighty question of federal constitutional law.”

– U.S. Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, writing this week’s unanimous ruling upholding the inclusion of the phrase “one nation under God” in the Pledge of Allegiance. The ruling, which comes exactly 50 years after Congress inserted that phrase into the Pledge as a swipe against “godless communism,” sidestepped the entire question in front of the court: whether the added language implies an unconstitutional government endorsement of religion. Instead of deciding that issue, the Supreme Court overturned the case on a technicality, saying the lead plaintiff — a father in a protracted custody dispute with his ex-wife — lacked the legal standing to bring the case on behalf of his daughter. (“Supreme Court Preserves ‘God’ in Pledge,” AP, June 14)

SAN DIEGO
Two U.S. companies were sued last week for allegedly participating in the abuse of Iraqi prisoners, marking the first lawsuit to derive from mounting evidence of physical assaults and killings by captors.

The firms, California-based Titan Corp. and Virginia-based CACI International, were hired to help the U.S. military with interpretation and interrogation services respectively, reported the Los Angeles Times.

The suit accuses the companies of racketeering by engaging in abuse — rape, torture, and the like — in order to prove their services are effective and win more private contracts with the U.S. government.

“It is patently clear that these corporations saw an opportunity to build their businesses by proving they could extract information from detainees in Iraq, by any means necessary,” said one of the plaintiffs’ attorneys.

The suit, filed by a Philadelphia law firm and the human-rights-focused Center for Constitutional Rights in New York, relies on witness accounts and a report on abuse by U.S. Army Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba.

That report indicated that “sadistic, blatant, and wanton criminal abuses” took place and implicated several individuals, including three Titan and CACI employees named in last week’s suit, noted the Times.

CACI and Titan both denounced the suit, taking turns to call it “frivolous” and “irresponsible and outrageous.”

In other news, U.S. military dog handlers said they were ordered by intelligence personnel to use their dogs to intimidate prisoners at Abu Ghraib, according to sworn statements reported by the Washington Post last week.

The testimony provides “the clearest indication yet that military intelligence personnel were deeply involved” in the abusive practices that have tarnished the military’s image, according to the Post.

WASHINGTON
The Bush administration went on the defensive last week after the Wall Street Journal published a confidential administration memo suggesting that the president could subvert legal prohibitions against the torture of captured prisoners.

The memo, authored by the Defense Department in March 2003, offered up a legal interpretation that essentially gutted longstanding laws against torture, saying that “cruel, inhuman, or degrading treatment” could be performed without penalty, reported the Washington Post.

That memo and its legal advice sparked an international firestorm of condemnation for both its willfully revisionist intent and the danger it poses to longstanding norms of wartime behavior.

The memo, which echoed August 2002 advice from the Justice Department, opined that by narrowing the definition of torture, U.S. authorities could engage in a wide range of painful and abusive techniques without violating the law.

Furthermore, if U.S. personnel were accused of torture, the memo concluded that President Bush could invoke wartime authority, authorizing the behavior and trumping such claims, making them null and void, noted the Post.

“In order to respect the president’s inherent constitutional authority to manage a military campaign,” lawyers wrote in the confidential memo, the prohibition against torture “must be construed as inapplicable to interrogation undertaken pursuant to his commander-in-chief authority.”

French president Jacques Chirac was among those who quickly denounced the memo and its ethical implications.

“Yes, we should fight terrorism, but we should not forget the principles on which our civilization rests, such as human rights,” Chirac said at a news conference last week.

“It’s really unprecedented,” a senior military officer told the Post. “For almost 30 years we’ve taught the Geneva Convention one way. Once you start telling people it’s okay to break the law, there’s no telling where they might stop.”

Testifying before the Senate Judiciary Committee last week, Attorney General John Ashcroft defended the administration and refused to release the August 2002 briefing by his department that appeared to offer the legal reasoning for disregarding anti-torture rules, rousing anger from some lawmakers.

The White House last week said in a statement that the advice on circumventing torture standards was ultimately rejected and that “the president directed the military to treat al Qaeda and Taliban humanely and consistent with the Geneva Conventions.”

Refusing to say whether he thought torture was justifiable, President Bush last week fended off a series of questions about the memo and its efforts to shield abusive treatment as acceptable under U.S. law.

“Look, I’m going to say it one more time,” Bush told reporters. “The instructions went out to our people to adhere to law. That ought to comfort you.”

WASHINGTON
A handful of Republican lawmakers last week appended a major jobs bill with a tiny unrelated rider that would make it easier for churches to endorse political candidates without losing their tax-exempt status.

U.S. law currently grants churches generous tax breaks in exchange for their agreement to abide by certain restrictions on political activities, an arrangement meant to ensure the separation of church and state.

The new proposal, labeled Safe Harbor for Churches, would allow churches to break that agreement — by endorsing a particular political candidate, for example — as many as three times without penalty, reported the New York Times.

“That means you can take the last three Sundays before the election and pass out a voter card and still retain your tax status as a church,” criticized Daniel Maffei, communications director for the Democratic minority on the House Ways and Means Committee, where the measure was announced.

Such a move has long been sought by conservative Christian groups that would like to put the pulpit to political use. While Republicans have tried to pass similar measures in the past, they have always failed.

This year’s effort, led by Ways and Means chairman Rep. Bill Thomas (R-Calif.), follows a controversial push by the Bush administration to find “friendly congregations” in Pennsylvania to help stump for the president’s reelection.

The moves have set off warning bells among those concerned about using churches to push politics.

Bush campaign spokesman Steve Schmidt told the Times that there’s no need to worry: “The Bush campaign has an inclusive message. The campaign wants people of faith to participate in the political process.”

NORTH CANTON, Ohio
Diebold Inc., a firm that manufactures voting machines, last week announced that it has adopted a new policy barring top officials and many employees from making political contributions, following controversy over pro-Bush remarks by its CEO last year.

In a regulatory filing, Diebold’s board of directors said the new policy would affect top management and about 200 employees at the firm’s Diebold Elections Systems subsidiary, reported the Associated Press.

The new policy says certain employees “may not make contributions to, directly or indirectly, any political candidate, party, election issue, or cause, or participate in any political activities, except for voting.”

Diebold Elections Systems, which makes electronic voting machines, is one of a handful of leading firms hoping to cash in on concerns over the nation’s outdated ballot system following the Florida 2000 debacle.

Warning bells went off last August after Diebold chief executive Walden O’Dell held a $1,000-a-plate fund-raiser at his home, telling invitees that he was “committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to [President Bush].”

While O’Dell later apologized for making the comment, his actions pushed the board of Diebold to take stronger steps to try and kill the controversy, spokesman Mike Jacobsen acknowledged.

“Since acquiring the elections business, some things have happened, clearly, with our chairman with his personal political involvement,” Jacobsen told the AP. “The chairman and the board saw fit to make this revision.”

Diebold’s two chief competitors, Election Systems & Software and Hart InterCivic, have similar policies against political donations, but apply them only to donations made on behalf of the company, not the individual, reported the Akron Beacon Journal.

HAIKOU, China
China last week kicked off one of the country’s largest-ever fraud trials, putting 25 people on trial for allegedly embezzling roughly $3.15 billion in a securities scam that ended in 2002.

The trial, which is being held on the southern island of Hainan, began last week by focusing on alleged mastermind Shi Xue, the former president of Dailan Securities, which was shut down by the government.

Shi is accused of conning investors out of funds they thought were buying treasury bonds. Instead, prosecutors say the money was embezzled and used to trade shares and buy properties, enriching Shi and his cohorts, reported the Associated Press.

Shi allegedly pocketed $31.5 million himself — the largest-ever amount for a single embezzlement defendant in China, according to the AP.

Special to Newsline from Canadian correspondent Errol P. Mendes

TORONTO
The Globe & Mail is reporting that almost 60 percent of defined pension plans in the Canadian private sector are in deficit position, according to a report by the Certified General Accountants Association of Canada (CGA).

Without more financial resources, there could be a “looming social and economic crisis” for retirees.

According to the CGA, the plans need an infusion of an additional $117 billion to provide for future indexation of accrued benefits and the extent of the underfunded liability could push some private-sector companies into bankruptcy.

In such a scenario, retirees would have their pension benefits sharply reduced, according to Anthony Ariganello, president and CEO of CGA.

Ariganello also said that a market upturn causing higher investment returns for the pension plans would not wipe out the deficits.

According to the Globe & Mail report, the study covered 847 defined pension plans, which is roughly 30 percent of all defined pension plans in Canada. These plans entitle retirees to a specific pension based on pay at specified stage of employment and years of service.

The ethical dilemma facing companies with deficit pension plans is whether to file for bankruptcy and negotiate under the protection of bankruptcy proceedings in Canada to use the threat of liquidation in an attempt to coerce employees to accept lower pension payoffs — as has happened with Air Canada and Stelco — or to sacrifice profits to reduce the deficits.

WASHINGTON
Four star athletes of U.S. track and field, including the world’s fastest man, were warned last week that they are under suspicion of using illegal steroids, a move that could lead to their disqualification from the U.S. Olympic team.

The news came from the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency (USADA), which is pursuing a sprawling inquiry into alleged doping engineered by California-based BALCO, reported the New York Times.

Last month, U.S. sprinter Kelli White agreed to a two-year suspension and other penalties after being confronted with evidence that she engaged in doping. Last week’s warnings may lead to similar punishment.

The athletes targeted last week include the world’s fastest man, Tim Montgomery, who allegedly began taking performance-boosting drugs with BALCO’s help in November 2000, according to the Times.

Montgomery’s wife, sprinter Marion Jones, is also rumored to be under suspicion, though no formal actions have yet been taken.

The other athletes named last week include two-time Olympic medalist sprinter Chryste Gaines, Olympic medalist runner Alvin Harrison, and world indoor champion sprinter Michelle Collins, according to press reports.

Michelle Collins’ lawyer, Brian Getz, last week said doping officials will face an uphill battle with his client.

“Allegations … are easy to bring. Now comes the hard part for USADA,” Getz told the Times. “They’re going to have to prove this. Michelle Collins has passed every drug test she has ever taken.”

The U.S. Olympic Committee, which is struggling to prove that it is clean of doped-up athletes ahead of the August summer Olympics in Athens, last week said it welcomed the USADA’s efforts.

“We are committed to taking a team to the Athens Games that represents the highest standards of fair play and clean competition, a team that will make America proud,” U.S. Olympic Committee spokesman Darryl Seibel told the Los Angeles Times.

COLUMBUS, Ohio
Ohio State University (OSU) fired head basketball coach Jim O’Brien last week after learning that he gave $6,000 to a recruit five years ago — a rules violation that the coach says was based on compassion, not competition.

O’Brien admits that he knew the $6,000 payment was a violation of NCAA rules, but says the funds were meant to help the struggling family of Aleksandar Radojevic, a 1999 recruit from Yugoslavia.

Last week’s firing, which ended O’Brien’s seven-year career at Ohio State, stemmed from a lawsuit filed by a local woman who accused O’Brien of reneging on a promise of $1,000 per week for helping Radojevic and other foreign players assimilate upon their arrival in the States.

While the lawsuit did not target Ohio State, athletic director Andy Geiger said the revelation of O’Brien’s $6,000 payment, which did not come from school funds, warranted swift and stern action, regardless of its motivation, reported the Boston Globe.

O’Brien, who declined to resign, last week released a statement saying that he was being fired “because I was asked to and tried to give assistance to a young man’s family who was in dire financial straits. The assistance in no way influenced the young man in his decision to attend OSU and, indeed, the young man did not enroll at OSU.”

Radojevic, whose eligibility to play college sports was ultimately denied by the NCAA, elected to enter the NBA draft, playing for Toronto, Denver, and Milwaukee before being sidelined by an injury in 2001, according to the Associated Press.

Asked if he was troubled that “because a guy cared about a kid, he’s lost his job,” OSU’s Geiger responded, “I’m troubled that a rule was admittedly violated and it took five years for us to find out about it,” reported the Globe.

From the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press:

“Despite tumultuous events abroad, the public’s news habits have been relatively stable over the past two years. Yet modest growth has continued in two important areas: online news and cable news. Regarding the latter, the expanding audience for the Fox News Channel stands out. Since 2000, the number of Americans who regularly watch Fox News has increased by nearly half from 17 percent to 25 percent while audiences for other cable outlets have been flat at best.

“Fox’s vitality comes as a consequence of another significant change in the media landscape. Political polarization is increasingly reflected in the public’s news viewing habits. Since 2000, the Fox News Channel’s gains have been greatest among political conservatives and Republicans. More than half of regular Fox viewers describe themselves as politically conservative (52 percent), up from 40 percent four years ago. At the same time, CNN, Fox’s principal rival, has a more Democrat-leaning audience than in the past.

“The public’s evaluations of media credibility also are more divided along ideological and partisan lines. Republicans have become more distrustful of virtually all major media outlets over the past four years, while Democratic evaluations of the news media have been mostly unchanged. As a result, only about half as many Republicans as Democrats rate a variety of well-known news outlets as credible — a list that includes ABC News, CBS News, NBC News, NPR, PBS’s ‘NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,’ the New York Times, Newsweek, Time and U.S. News and World Report.

“CNN’s once dominant credibility ratings have slumped in recent years, mostly among Republicans and independents. By comparison, the Fox News Channel’s believability ratings have remained steady both overall and within partisan groups. Nonetheless, among those able to rate the networks, more continue to say they can believe all or most of what they hear on CNN than say that about Fox News Channel (32 percent vs. 25 percent).

“…Fox ranks as the most trusted news source among Republicans but is among the least trusted by Democrats.

“The biennial news consumption survey by the Pew Research Center for the People and the Press finds that ideology and partisanship also are at work in other media choices and attitudes. The nationwide … finds that the audiences for Rush Limbaugh’s radio show and Bill O’Reilly’s TV program remain overwhelmingly conservative and Republican. By contrast, audiences for some other news sources notably NPR, the ‘NewsHour,’ and magazines like the New Yorker, the Atlantic and Harper’s tilt liberal and Democratic, but not nearly to the same degree.

“…[T]here has been a sharp rise in the percentage of Americans who say they closely follow international news most of the time, rather than just when important developments occur. The number tracking overseas news closely most of the time has increased from 37 percent in 2002 to 52 percent, which appears to be driven by the broad interest in the conflict in Iraq.

“With most other media trends flat, the steady growth in the audience for online news stands out. Internet news, once largely the province of young, white males, now attracts a growing number of minorities. The percentage of African Americans who regularly go online for news has grown by about half over the past four years (16 percent to 25 percent). More generally, the Internet population has broadened to include more older Americans. Nearly two-thirds of Americans in their 50s and early 60s (64 percent) say they go online, up from 45 percent in 2000.

“The survey finds that many Americans especially older people look for in-depth news coverage. Moreover, a majority of college graduates (55 percent) say they better understand the news when they read or hear it rather than seeing pictures or video. The durability of the serious news consumer is reflected in the steady numbers of Americans who are regular consumers of news from NPR, the NewsHour, C-SPAN, and magazines such as the New Yorker, the Atlantic and Harper’s.

“For the most part, these audiences have not increased in size in recent years, but they have not suffered the long-term declines experienced by newspapers and network evening news….

“Other findings:

“…The public continues to express skepticism toward news outlets and those who run them. More than half (53 percent) agree with the statement ‘I often don’t trust what news organizations are saying.’ Nearly as many (48 percent) believe people who decide on news content are ‘out of touch.’

“Regular readers of literary magazines like the New Yorker and the Atlantic proved to be the most knowledgeable: 59 percent correctly answered four current events questions, a higher percentage than any other news audience. The readership of these magazines also has the greatest proportion of college graduates. Readers of political magazines such as the Weekly Standard and The New Republic rank second, along with the audience for ‘Larry King Live.’…”

“There is no way under the sun of making a man worthy of love, except by loving him.”

– Thomas Merton (U.S. religious thinker and author, 1915-1968)