In today's New York Times op-ed page, Thorbjorn Jagland, Chair of the Norwegian Nobel Committee offers an explanation of why the committee gave Liu Xiaobo the Nobel Peace Price. As if an explanation is needed - but given the way governments have bent over backwards to ignore Chinese violations of human rights for the sake of economic opportunity, perhaps a peace award to a Chinese dissident is seen as a radical action in need of defense.

Jagland's article sets out an explanation of how the notion of sovereignty has changed over the years, yielding the Universal Declaration of Human Right, to which China has at least given lip service. In this context, Jagland notes that China's conviction of Liu rests on "spreading rumors or slander or any other means to subvert the state power or overthrow the socialist system." As Jagland notes "it is not a government's task to stamp out opinions and rumors." The Universal Declaration supports the right of individuals to free expression even if such speech criticizes the government.

The US Government has consistently ignored China's violations of human rights in order to continue to do business with China. The justification has been that economic freedom can only thrive within a politically free system - and that if the West engages China economically, political freedom is inevitable. This of course depends upon dissident voices within China being heard. But without support from the West, these voices continue to be oppressed.

The awarding of the Nobel Peace Prize to Liu Xiaobo is a step in the right direction. My hope is that other groups and governments will follow their example.

My business ethics class is in the middle of reading The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals. The students seem to be enjoying it a lot. Many enjoy Michael Pollan's engaging writing style, but they also seem intrigued by what Pollan is reporting about agribusiness and the American food system.

What I find most thought-provoking in the book is Pollan's juxtaposition of the logic of industry versus the logic of evolution. Efficiency is the starting point of the logic of industry and a most American value. Pollan's investigation reveals how pursuing this value in the absence of others has turned good intentions (finding a way of producing abundant and cheap food) into a misbegotten adventure. By relying on a monoculture of corn, we have inadvertently created a fast-food jungle accompanied by health problems like obesity, diabetes, cancer, and heart disease; environmental problems; social justice issues related to the quality of food available to the poor and to the rights of farm workers; and a system that is inhumane in how we treat animals.

I am also intrigued by the biodiverse grass farm of Joel Salatin that Pollan describes. Indeed, I have to be intellectually vigilant to not entirely sucumb to the romantic agarian ideal that it depicts. Indeed, I'm not sure Pollan has entirely resisted the seduction. But it does seem to make so much sense to feed animals what they are biologically intended to eat and to raise them in humane environs. I agree with one of my colleagues that it is hard to find fault with Pollan's methodology and perspective.

But there are those who find fault. In a blog called The Modest Proposal, Pollan is taken to task for only speaking to one representative of each of the producers of his four meals. And there is always the obvious practical critique of Pollan and the local food movement: Is eating locally and seasonally even feasible given the vastness of this nation - both geographically and in term of population? Are we simply too big for it to work?

This morning I heard a report on NPR about the role of the men on the U.S. Kirk in the evacuation of South Vietnam in 1975. It was a moving story about how these men aided Vietnamese refugees as they fled Vietnam during the final offensive in Saigon. I encourage you to go to the link and hear or read the story.

The story relates a recent reunion of the sailors on the U.S. Kirk where they honored a Vietnamese man named Ba Nguyen. Mr. Nguyen piloted a helicopter with his wife and children in it and chased the U.S. Kirk out of Saigon. He was unable to land on the Navy ship because it was too small. As the sailors tried to wave him off, Mr. Nguyen's wife literally dropped their 10-month-old daughter onto the ship. Mr. Nguyen's wife and three children then jumped onto the vessel. The crew on the ship caught the baby and the other four and then headed back to South Vietnam to pick up more refugees.

It's an amazing story that is just now being told. Why hasn't it been told until now? Because 35 years ago, most Americans were sick of Vietnam and didn't want to hear about it.

OK. Time for some full disclosure. I have a personal interest in this story. My father was the Consul General in MR2, the second military region of South Vietnam, from 1973 to 1975. My dad worked with Ambassador Graham Martin during the evacuation and in the office in the U.S. Department of State that handled the settlement of Vietnamese refugees. There have been a few critics of the handling of refugees from Vietnam, but really - they did the best they can. They got as many out as they could, not worrying about the paperwork - just getting as many folks out as they could.

What struck me about the NPR story was that it had not been told because no one wanted to hear about Vietnam. That was exactly my parents' experience. When they finally left Vietnam they traveled around Asia for a while - not having the stomach to go back to the States yet. Clearly they knew intuitively that this would be a contentious story. Sure enough, that summer my mom would come home from a social gathering with stories about being shut out of conversations as soon as people heard where she had been.

My closing thought: Let's get the Iraqis who worked with Americans out of Iraq as best we can AND let's not ignore and silence our vets coming home from Iraq.

I've spent the summer pondering and presenting ideas on Franciscan Servant Leadership. Although servant leadership hasn't been in the op-ed pages recently, nonetheless, it seems like a worthwhile concept to ponder, given the various crises in leadership that we are witnessing and that are frequently discussed in the news.

Servant leadership in itself is a fairly counter-cultural understanding of leadership - one that is based on serving and listening and responding to the needs to others rather than one focused on attaining and keeping power. Serving others as a leader removes the focus from self and turns it instead toward others. That is profoundly contrary to the way most business leaders lead.

St. Francis' style of servant leadership is that much more counter-cultural. Indeed, many in business might protest that St. Francis cannot possibly be a role model of leadership for a business leader. But perhaps this holy fool has something to teach us.

Over the next few weeks, I'm going to write about four practices of Franciscan servant leadership. These practices are prayer, dialogue, discernment of gifts, and shared leadership.

For now, let me leave you with a quote from Robert K. Greenleaf, who coined the term "servant leadership." I think this understanding of servant leadership is profoundly Franciscan, and I hope you will see why over the next few weeks.

" This is my thesis: caring for persons, the more able and the less able serving each other, is the rock upon which a good society is built. Whereas, until recently, caring was largely person to person, now most of it is mediated through institutions - often large, complex, powerful, impersonal; not always competent; sometimes corrupt. If a better society is to be built, one that is more just and more loving, one that provides greater creative opportunity for its people, then the most open course is to raise both the capacity to serve and the very performance as servant of existing major institutions by new regenerative forces operating within them.” (Greenleaf, “What is servant leadership ?” http://www.greenleaf.org/whatissl/)

Weighing in on Mosques in America

I just heard a piece on NPR about protests across America about the building of mosques. I'm sure anyone who doesn't live under a rock has heard about the controversy about building a mosque near Ground Zero. The president has weighed in and clarified his "weighing in." So I'm going to take a position. The opposition to the building of mosques in this country is simply wrong.

It grieves me that Americans can be so wrong-headed and wrong-hearted on this issue. I understand and agree that Ground Zero is holy ground; I sympathize with the hurt and anger of those who lost loved ones and agree that the burial place of those who died must be honored. I can't think of a better way to honor them than to extend a hand in friendship to moderate Muslims who seek a community center and place to worship, allowing them the freedom to exercise their religion in a land that is supposed to be free. I can't think of a worse way to honor them than to continue the cycle of violence through prejudice and hatred .

Islam does not = terrorism. Islam is not a cult. Islam is one of the 3 great monotheistic religions, which include Judaism and Christianity. Islam is not monolithic. Just as there are different denominations of Christianity and different forms of Judaism and Buddhism, so there are different types of Islam. Furthermore, fundamentalism and violence is not unique to Islam.

I hope Americans will take this opportunity to become more educated about Islam; I hope they will be compassionate toward Muslims; I hope they will not repeat the tragic mistakes we have made in the past toward people we viewed as "enemies" and wrongly persecuted.

Is America in danger of being taken over by a race of elite superhuman intelligent beings? No, I haven’t heard of an imminent invasion by space aliens, but I did read an extensive article in the New York Times on the “Singularity Movement” that raised thoughts of such an invasion in my mind. The Singularity is a movement embraced by a group of the smartest and wealthiest technological minds in Silicon Valley. The vision of the Singularity movement is that eventually human beings and machines will be able to merge (if images of “The Borg” from Star Trek arise in your mind, you get the picture). Such a union will free these human/machine entities from illness, old age, and even death.

Raymond Kurzweil, the spokesperson for the movement , made clear his intention to live for hundreds of years and even to resurrect his father. The eventual advances of neuroscience and technological ability will enable him to download memories and data; medical advances will enable him to prepare his body for longevity. At this time, Mr. Kurzweil takes 150 pills a day and receives “regular intravenous procedures,” in addition to “reprogramming his body through a low-fat, vegetable-rich diet and regular exercise” (well, we’re all supposed to be doing that, right?). Nonetheless, I could not help but reflect upon how terribly frightened this man must be of death. Can technology truly “fix” everything – even the “problem” of death?

I’m not sure whether to laugh at this prospect or to cry. It seems so sci-fi; indeed, there are probably many in a position to say, “This all sounds great, but it IS sci-fi – we simply aren’t there yet.” Nonetheless, apparently there are some who think it CAN happen and is a really nifty idea. This of course raises all kinds of questions about how and whether this changes how we think of ourselves as human. Will these “borgs” become the new standard of humanity? Will the rest of us become “less than human”? The implications of such a superhuman “master race” are frightening. But I’m not yet ready to build a fallout shelter against the impending invasion!

This summer I'm reading Barry L. Padgett's Professional Morality and Guilty Bystanding: Merton's Conjectures and the Value of Work. I'm going to be using it in my business ethics class this fall. While teaching the course last semester, I discerned that I needed a "formation" component to the course - that is, I felt the students needed to be coaxed out of their "business" mindset and invited to reflect upon who they are and what is important to them.

One of the favorite buzz phrases in business these days is "thinking outside the box." It is so ubiquitous among business students that I am tempted to ban its use from my classroom. It is a vanity, really, because people use the phrase to flatter themselves that they are "thinking outside the box" when really they are doing nothing of the sort.

Truly thinking outside the box requires profound self-knowledge of the Socratic sort. At one point Padgett notes, "self-reflection is a necessary component of living a moral life at all" (p. 107). I was so excited to read this sentence, as it expresses something that I've known all along and was not quite able to articulate. If we are going to go beyond mere compliance and become truly moral, we need not just to know the ethical theories and apply them to case studies, we need not just to memorize the four Franciscan principles of Marian University. We need to engage in deep and life-long self-reflection; we need to be open to what we learn from that reflection; and then we must act accordingly.

I'm looking forward to offering my students an adventure in self-knowledge this fall.

Padgett, Barry L. Professional Morality and Guilty Bystanding: Merton's Conjectures and the Value of Work. Newcastle Upon Tyne, UK: Cambridge Scholars Press, 2009.