"In The Shadow of Beaumont Tower: An Anthology" by T. A. Silvestri

1
In the Shadow of Beaumont Tower is an edited

collection of works written by
Tyler Silvestri from - 7 while
pursuing a degree in Political Theory &
Constitutional Democracy at Michigan
State University. Highlights include an
examination of MSUs Title IX policies and
procedures, a proposal to amend the
Constitution to create a more robust vice
presidency, submissions by other authors
reflecting on Tylers work, and an inside
look at several of the non-academic projects
Tyler did during college, including
Duty: The Musical and the speech
he gave at his graduation from
James Madison College.
Tyler Silvestri is a
student at Michigan
State University College
of Law. When not in the
classroom, Tyler is a
musician, writer, and
advocate for student
rights.
In the Shadow of Beaumont Tower : An Anthology
Copyright 2017 by Tyler Silvestri
All rights reserved. Printed in the United States of America. No part of this work
may be used or reproduced in any manner whatsoever without written
permission from the author, except in the case of brief quotations embodied in
critical articles or reviews. Note that the author is predisposed to granting such
permission, and is mostly just happy that you read any of this.
For any inquiries, contact Tyler Silvestri at TylerSilvestri53@gmail.com.
Written by Tyler Silvestri, except where noted. Submissions by other authors are
used with permission.
Edited by Tyler Silvestri.
Cover by Jeff Shannon, Adam Collins, and Tyler Silvestri. The cover is a
derivative of MSU Beaumont Tower by Jeff Shannon, as licensed under CC-
BY-SA-2.5.
First Edition: November 2017 by Tagalong Publishing, East Lansing, MI, in

conjunction with Michigan State University Libraries.
Table of Contents
Preface 6
Academic Papers 7
In Defense of Democratic Integrity 8
Dark Blue 15
Margaret Sanger, the Pill, and Eugenics 18
Where Life Matters Most 28
Liberalism as Collectivism 46
Dogmatic Liberalism 52
Toleration, Secularization, and the Crisis of the Modern-Day Liberal 61
The Noble Illusion 72
Feminism as a Logical Consequence of Liberalism 78
The bermenschs Enemy 88
A New Ideology of the Family 99
Snip 109
Rights Babble 116
Power 122
Commitment 123
Go It Alone 127
Step Up 133
Moving from Baltimore 144
Advocate 167
Watching the Watchmen 177
References 207
Occasional Writings 218
On Taylor Swift and Spotify 219
Letter to I Can Make It! Camp Leadership 221
First Student Defenders Case Recap 224
Tylers Narrative on Learning by Andrew Hua 227
Letter to Mason-Abbot Resident Assistant Staff 230
Letter Regarding The Great North 233
In the Shadow of Beaumont Tower 4
An Open Letter to Friends Considering Voting for Trump 237

Response to The State News Endorsements 241
James Madison College Student Commencement Speech 243
First Draft 246
Professor Benjamin Kleinermans Introduction 249
Pictures from the Speech 250
Reflection on Freshman Year 251
2015: An End-of-the-Year Reflection 254
Dance in the Rain The Tagalongs 257
20 Questions with a Tagalong 258
Looking Back on Dance in the Rain by Travis Valentine 262
Reflection on Dance in the Rain 266
Duty: The Musical 268
A Review of Duty: The Musical by Kattie Hallup 269
Original Story Outline, 6/15/16 275
Reflection on Duty: The Musical 280
Rsum Upon Graduation 281
Thank you to all of my parents, my siblings,
Thomas Wilson, Sean Roberts, Clara Lepard,
Carley Henke, Ben Kleinerman, Ron Dorr,
Travis Valentine, Tim and Jennifer Wilson,
Mitch Bild, Haley Gold, Sarah Ghazal, Dylan Westrin,
Lorenzo Santavicca, Lucas Joncas, and anyone who read
a draft, gave me an idea, or taught me a lesson.
I couldnt have done this without each of you.
In the Shadow of Beaumont Tower 6
Preface
The following anthology was first conceived of during my sophomore
year at Michigan State University, somewhere around December 2014. I
originally envisioned it as an unedited collection of every paper I wrote in
college, but as I turned in papers I couldnt be bothered to read myself, I
realized there was no sense in including anything I wasnt proud of.
Furthermore, I extended the scope of the project to include non-academic
work undertaken during my undergraduate years.
While compiling this work, I consistently pictured myself at 53 years
old, finding this work at the back of a bookshelf, and fondly reminiscing
on what Id done as a college student. If I thought that I wouldnt find
something humorous, instructive, or pride-inducing, I didnt include it.
This collection is truly what I consider to be the best of my college years
(at least insofar as one can put them in a written work).
Most of the entries have been lightly edited for formatting and clarity,
but none have been edited for content. Following each academic work
(and a few of the non-academic ones), I have included a brief reflection.
Endnotes refer to shorthand citations listed at the end of each section,
which themselves correspond to longform references beginning on page
207.
While I suspect that I will be the only one to ever read the entirety of
this account, I hope that any reader will be able to glean something of
value from the words I wrote in the shadow of Beaumont Tower.
Academic Papers
2013-2017, Michigan State University
8
In Defense of
Democratic Integrity
The Case for Adhering to Democracy in
the United States, Brazil, and Beyond
I F DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE DEFENDED BY

democratic means, then democracy is not worth defending. When
any system is being instituted, the most effective form of that
system should be implemented. By operating outside of an established
system, one admits that the system itself is not capable of handling its
duties. To defend democracy with non-democracy is to admit that
democracy is institutionally flawed. The inefficacy of an establishment is
made obvious when that establishment cannot adhere to its own
principles to achieve its goals. If it cant play by the rules, it needs to
develop new guidelines that take more variables into account, or else find
a way to achieve the established goals within the confines of the system.
I contend that democracy was capable of handling the issues that faced
The United States and Brazil during their respective times of turmoil, and
that military intervention was improper in some cases. Democracy, in
both the United States and Brazil, must be defended by democratic means
unless they are willing to admit that the ideals their nations operate on are
ineffective; military intervention was and is permissible if and only if it
furthers liberalism and civil society, and even then, only when there is no
alternative but force.
Abraham Lincoln was a soft tyrant who violated liberty in the name
of liberty itself, and established a dangerous precedent for future
presidents. Toward the beginning of the Civil War, Lincolns intentions
were good, seeking gradual, paid emancipation.1 But as the war went on,
Lincoln ignored the Constitution in favor of a Hamiltonian republic.
Because the South did not form a legitimate government (one that
protects life, liberty, and property) after secession, they had no
philosophical right to secession; that said, Lincoln had no right to suspend
the writ of habeas corpus, banish dissenters, charge civilians in military
courts, conscript soldiers, or censor the press.
Lincolns violations of civil liberties undermine his claim that he
believed in liberty for all. The writ of habeas corpus (the right to petition
the court to release oneself from imprisonment if there are no charges) is
mentioned once in the Constitution.2 It is explicitly discussed in Article 1,
which deals with limitations on Congress, not the President. Lincolns
claim that Congress could not act quickly enough to suspend the writ is
irrelevant; even if that claim were true, the executive branch still has no
authority to suspend it. Perhaps an amendment changing that would have
been well-advised, but there was no such amendment in place at the time.
The claim that the people must insist upon the Constitution even when
the presidents do not3 doesnt hold up when you consider that Lincoln
simply banished those who did; furthermore, his trying of civilians in
military courts was blatantly illegal, a fact later reaffirmed by the Supreme
Court.4 The fact that conscripted soldiers made up between 10-15% of
Northern soldiers5 is also irrelevant; the men had their liberty violated by
not having the freedom to abstain from war. Lincolns example of a
simple-minded soldier boy who deserts and the agitator who induce[d]
him6 is invalidated when you consider that the boy may very well have
been unjustly required to go to war through conscription. The freedom
of the press is explicitly mentioned in the First Amendment, 7 and
Lincolns disregard for it is appalling. All of these liberties were taken away
unnecessarily. There is no compelling argument that the South would
have won had freedom been allowed to exist.
The worst part of Lincolns tyranny is that it wasnt even effective.
The claim that Lincoln had to wage a war that killed over 600,000
Americans because he couldnt get paid emancipation to pass in
Delaware8 is simply false. Lincoln had already made up his mind to ignore
the Constitution.9 Rather than launching an assault that left so many dead,
why didnt he simply make compensated emancipation a federal law? At

least some slaves would have been voluntarily sold, and those that werent
would have been freed when slavery eventually became economically or
politically undesirable. Every other major nation in the world abolished
slavery without a civil war through paid emancipation.10 We could have
avoided being the exception. Furthermore, if the federal government was
willing to recognize slaves as property, the eminent domain clause of the
Fifth Amendment would have permitted Lincoln to take private property,
as long as he provided just compensation.11 Had a slave-owner opposed,
they could be arrested for interfering with eminent domain. Of course,
this would require a legitimate public use of the property, such as building
railroads. And lo, the Central Pacific Railroad, under construction in the
1860s, paid both black12 and Chinese workers.13
Despite the righteousness that Lincoln aimed for, the oppression of
blacks continued for over a hundred years. Blacks were treated as second-
class citizens, with the separate but equal doctrine upheld by the
Supreme Court in Plessy v. Ferguson, and looked upon as a problem by
whites. 14 During Reconstruction, programs like the Freedmans Bureau
sought to synthesize equality for blacks, but ended up demoralizing the
freedmen.15
Lincolns attitude of executive superiority in times of crisis has
dangerous implications today. Look to the war on terror first waged by
President Bush, and now by President Obama. One could also cite
Richard Nixons assertion that the president is above the law.9 The
military intervention and soft tyranny during the Civil War is not unlike
that which occurred during Brazils struggles with democracy.
The Brazilian military served as an appropriate and necessary
moderating power16 until its upheaval of the government in 1964. A
growing liberal faction in the Brazilian empire, established in 1822,
opposed a non-democratically elected emperor, and the tension forced
Emperor Pedro I to abdicate the throne to his five-year-old son, Pedro II,
in 1831. 17 In the period between Pedro Is departure and Pedro IIs
crowning in 1840, a civil society began to form. The populace began
questioning the size of the central government, the importance of
individual liberties, and the possibility of universal suffrage. Tragically,
this liberalization was stifled when Pedro II was crowned at fourteen years
old.17 Despite the authoritarian rule, international pressure and new ideas
regarding the military re-ignited concerns about the power of the state. In
an effort to appease this liberalization, Princess Isabel abolished slavery
in 1888, but this was not enough to satisfy the proletariat.18 The military
removed the emperor and his family in 1889. In this case, military
intervention was acceptable because there was no system of democracy
in place.
The military created a liberal federal republic in 1891 with a new
constitution. States had significant autonomy, with the national
government only regulating the national military and import taxes.
Universal suffrage was achieved, and a separation of church and state was
instituted.19 However, due to unfamiliarity with democracy, no effective
political party system formed. A large number of parties caused under-
representation and discord. Additionally, the civil society had not fully
developed, evidenced by low voter turnout and general political apathy.20
The state of political turmoil led the military to oust President Washington
Luis and appoint Getlio Vargas as provisional President.21 In theory, this
military intervention was permissible because of the newly-civil societys
inability to maintain democracy. The military in Brazil again acted as a
defender of civil society; in practice, however, it caused great discord
because of the Vargas regimes populist policies.
Vargas took advantage of the ambiguity of Brazilian democracy and
declared a new state (estado novo).22 From 1930 to 1945, Vargas led a
soft dictatorship that focused heavily on government intervention in the
economy and censorship of the press. Civil society grew tired of the
oppressive regime, and fought against it. Four main political parties
formed, one of which had the sole goal of ending estado novo. After a decree
that essentially guaranteed Vargas and his cohorts elections, the military
again removed an oppressive dictator. For the next nine years, a series of
populist presidents scaled back Vargas policies, but did not abolish them.
In 1964, the military unjustly removed President Goulart from
power. 23 The civil society at the time had grown strong enough to
democratically remove oppression, but the military intervened before it
could. The armed forces installed an authoritarian bureaucracy that
heavily oppressed the people. Beginning in 1967, civil dissatisfaction with

the regime was rampant. A number of strikes and protests forced then-
president Mdici to harshly punish criticism of the state. 24 In 1975,
growing opposition to a military regime within the military itself caused a
re-institution of many civil liberties, and eventually an end to the
oppressive government.25 From 1985 on, civil society slowly but surely
took back the political system, and Brazil is now a fairly successful
democracy.26 But there are lingering reminders of the militarys rule. It is
not uncommon for members of the militarized police force to accost
citizens unjustly.27
The intricate history of the militarys involvement in Brazil serves as
an example of when non-democracy is an appropriate solution. The
failure of governments when democracy is absent is a fair justification for
using force to protect civil society. But intervention when democracy is
present, as with the removal of President Goulart, leads to turmoil. Also
noteworthy is the militarys unwise appointment of President Vargas.
Non-democracy often fails to lead to liberal democracy.
Of course, there are differences between the situations in Brazil and
the United States; military intervention only happened once in America,
whereas it occurred multiple times in Brazil. Slavery was more of an
economic issue than a social one in Brazil, whereas the opposite was true
in the United States. Yet the principles of a civil society protected by
constitutional rights was infringed upon in both cases, and teaches a
valuable lesson about the nature of government: a civil society must form,
and then protect itself once it does.
Some would argue that when done in the name of defending an
institution, it is permissible to venture outside the bounds of said
institution. While I recognize that abiding by the rules may be incredibly
difficult at times, I disagree emphatically with the assertion that it is
somehow acceptable to break them. What reason is there to defend a
system if there is a system better equipped to handle attacks on its very
core? Wouldnt embracing the second system as the primary system make
more sense? Why defend a system that cant defend itself? Axioms of
government are not supposed to be sometimes ideas; they are always
ideas. There is no reason to create any establishment that only works
when given ideal conditions. What makes freedom, equality, and
democracy great? Their efficacy. These ideologies work. If a liberal
democracy is to truly persevere, as opposed to artificially survive with
intense racial divides and corruption as did the United States and Brazil,
its democratic integrity must not perish.
1 McPherson, 23
2 United State Constitution, Article 1, Section 9, Clause 2
3 Kleinerman (2005), 809
4 McPherson, 58
5 Id., 61
6 Id., 60
7 United State Constitution, First Amendment
8 Rodriguez, 275
9 Kleinerman (2009), prior to the Table of Contents
10 Rodriguez, 239
11 United State Constitution, Amendment 5, Clause 6
12 Central Pacific Railroad Museum Photgraph
13 H.S. Crocker and Co., 8
14 Dubois, 43
15 Id., 58
16 Roett, 43
17 Id., 27
18 Id., 31
19 Id., 32
20 Id., 35
21 Id., 36
22 Id., 41
23 Id., 54
24 Id., 63
25 Id., 64
26 Id., 114
27 Willson, 50
Reflection on
In Defense of Democratic Integrity
This paper was the first paper I turned in for Professor Benjamin
Kleinerman, who ultimately became something of a mentor during my
time in James Madison College. Kleinerman was an avid supporter of
President Lincoln; I was not. Despite this, he gave me a 3.75, which was
the best grade in the class. At the end of my paper, he called it a well-
reasoned and well-argued paper, and noted that he disagreed with every
single word. This display of academic integrity, even in the face of an
opinion so counter to his own, left a remarkable impression on me
throughout my undergraduate career.i
My views on exercises of executive power (including Lincolns) have
softened over the years. While I continue to think that Lincoln
overstepped his authority unnecessarily in some respects, my criticism of
him is nowhere near as vitriolic as it was when I wrote this. As a freshman,
I believed that it was preferable to let a system be dismantled rather than
to act in a way contrary to it, even in the name of the system itself. Today,
I am far more hesitant to make that assertion.
The section on Brazil was included solely because the course required
it, and I did not care enough about it then (nor do I now) to reasonably
stand by it today.
In Defense of Democratic Integrity was originally written for MC 201,

taught by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman. It was submitted on
November 22nd, 2013.
i
For more on this anecdote, see James Madison College Student Commencement
Speech on page 243.
15
Dark Blue
I
LAY ON THE FLOOR OF MY PARENTS BEDROOM,
confused and scared. My mother tried to console me, but her tear-
stained face rendered her attempt useless. My father sat on the bed,
explaining that he had to go and that it was what God wanted him to
do.
Six days earlier, two planes had collided with the World Trade Center,
leaving nearly 3,000 dead. My father, a firefighter of 11 years, had just told
me that he was going to board a bus to New York City in the morning.
Mom explained that there might still be people trapped under the remains
of the buildings, and that Dad could help get them out. When I look back
on that night, I dont remember it as scary. I dont remember it as sad. I
remember it only in an all-encompassing Dark Blue.
My brothers, at just two and four years old, were too young to
understand what was going on. My parents didnt bother explaining the
terrorist attack to them; children that young could never comprehend
such raw hatred. But I was six years old. I was a grown-up big kid who
knew everything there was to know until that night, that is. In that
moment, with the immense Dark Blue swallowing me whole, I felt smaller
than ever before. There were things bigger than me that I could not stop,
and they were going to take my dad from me.
You cant go! There could be more planes! New York is dangerous,
and I cant lose you! I pled. It was only at this point that Dad began to
cry. He promised me that he would come back, that he would never leave
me alone. We dont need another hero, I told him, quoting a song from
a silly Mel Gibson movie that he used to sing to me as a toddler.
Dark Blue 16
But other people do, he said. Somewhere out there, someones dad
is trapped underneath the rubble, wanting to see his wife and kids. Unless
I go save him, a boy just like you will never see his daddy again.
I was torn; this was my first real experience with selfishness and
morality. I knew that it was right for my dad to go save these people. My
parents had taught me that this was the kind of thing God would want
Dad to do, and that Jesus would have done. But he was my dad! It was
not his job to go help people; it was his job to protect me. But my parents
had taught me how wrong selfishness was. Deep down, I knew that he
had to go. I knew it was right. Dark Blue was there again, humbling me,
showing me that I was nothing in the grand scheme of things. I told Dad
that I would be okay with him leaving, but he had to come back soon.
At this point, he asked my mom to leave the room. Once she had, my
father talked to me like a man for the first time.
Im not worried about you, Tyler. Dad said. I know you can handle
me being gone. Im worried about your mom. She needs someone to keep
her safe. Can you be the man of the house for me? Can I trust you to
protect her and your brothers?
I was floored. My dad was trusting me to take care of the family while
he was gone. I couldnt disappoint him. I promised him that I would keep
the family safe if he promised to be safe in New York. He shook my hand
for the first time in my life, signaling we had reached an agreement. My
mom came back in, and they decided to go to bed. Despite all my new-
found manhood, I still wanted to sleep on my parents floor, quietly
singing the line We dont need another hero to myself over and over
again.
Dad left in the morning and came back a week later. He told me that
he met Steve Buscemi, but nothing else. Did you save anyone? I asked.
Is anyones dad at home because of mine? He refused to tell me. As far
as I know, he never even told my mom about the events of that week. It
is my strong suspicion that he found his own Dark Blue. I think he
encountered something so humbling and humanizing that he didnt want
to burden someone else with it. I will forever respect him for that.
That night taught me about selfishness, morality, responsibility, and
honor. But more than anything, it taught me humility. Dark Blue is the
Silvestri 17
way I remember experiences that make me realize how little one person
is. Dark Blue screams the fact that life is not about you. Until the day I
die, I will look back at September 11th, 2001 in sadness, and at September
17th, 2001 in Dark Blue.
18
Reflection on
Dark Blue
Dark Blue was submitted as a descriptive essay, assigned by

Professor Ron Dorr. The assignment asked us to clearly describe anything
wed like. In early drafts, my roommate and I had considered describing
the feelings of walking from the dining hall to my room, noting the
subdued colors of the hallway and the odd, orange, and spiky walls of
Case Hall. Professor Dorr dismissed this idea almost immediately,
encouraging me to reflect more deeply.
I submitted this paper instead, reflecting on a rather poignant memory
from childhood. Upon discussing it with family members, it turns out
many of the details of this account are less than accurate. Nonetheless, I
believe Dark Blue is a solid piece of writing, and I am proud to have
written it. Professor Dorr has since told me that he enjoyed the paper
greatly; I consider this one of the most substantial compliments I have
ever received.
Dark Blue was originally written for MC 111, taught by Professor Ron
Dorr. It was submitted on September 24th, 2013.
19
Margaret Sanger, the Pill,

and Eugenics
D URING THE 1960s, A CULTURAL REVOLUTION WAS

sparked by a simple medical advancement: women became able to
take a pill to avoid becoming pregnant. The Pill, as Enovid became
colloquially known, was lauded by the Left as a vital component of
womens freedom, and decried by the Right as an encouragement of
promiscuity. The debate surrounding the Pill is often characterized as a
dichotomy: The Pill was either seen as an essential part of a womans
liberty, or as a symptom of the moral decline of society. But in reality,
there was a third position on the issue. Some viewed the Pill as an
apparatus to far more sinister ends than either feminism or loose morals.
Margaret Sanger was a reproductive rights activist who was jailed after
opening the birth control clinic now known as Planned Parenthood.1 At
the time, spreading information about contraception was illegal. Later in
her life, she and philanthropist Katherine McCormick colluded to fund
the research and development of Enovid by biologist Gregory Pincus.2
Most narratives regarding the history of the Pill portray Sanger as a brave
warrior fighting for womens right to control their own bodies;3 but a
careful examination of Sangers own writings suggests that her true
intention behind supporting the Pill was based more on a concern for a
genetically stronger society than a freer one. Margaret Sanger's belief in
eugenics, the systematic eradication of specific groups by genetic means,
was one of the key factors that led to her encouragement of the
development and propagation of the Pill during the 1960s.
Margaret Sanger, The Pill, and Eugenics 20
Margaret Sanger started her crusade for birth control with noble
intentions. Her fight for birth control was sparked by the death of her
mother when Sanger was just nineteen. Sanger blamed her father for her
mothers death, claiming that, [he] caused this. Mother is dead from
having too many children. Sangers mother raised eleven children, in
addition to suffering seven miscarriages. 4 After seeing the horror that
excessive childbirth can bring, Sanger attended nursing school to help
combat reproductions adverse effects. It was during her tenure as a nurse
that her interest in reproduction turned into an obsession. The death of
one of her patients, Sadie Sachs, altered the course of Sangers life forever;
Sachs died due to complications from a poorly-performed abortion, and
Sanger later of said of the tragedy that,
It was the dawn of a new day in my life . . . I went to bed

knowing that no matter what it might cost I was resolved
to seek out the root of evil, to do something to change the
destiny of mothers, whose miseries were as vast as the sky.5
After treating numerous women who resorted to illegal, unsafe, black-
market abortions to rid themselves of an unwanted pregnancy, Sanger
decided the need for an effective contraceptive was undeniable. 6 The
prominent birth control methods of the era were incredibly ineffective.
Popular methods included the primarily-Catholic rhythm method
(which essentially consisted of avoiding intercourse during days when a
woman was fertile), the diaphragm (a silicon cup inserted in the vagina to
prevent the movement of sperm), and douching. 7 Sanger saw the
inefficacy and the extravagant cost of these methods firsthand, and
decided the most effective contraceptive would be an oral one. As she
wrote in a letter to a friend, I was feeling more and more despondent as
I saw and realized more than ever the inadequacy of the diaphragm
reaching millions of women who need and should have something as
simple as a birth control pill.8 Sanger believed that an oral contraceptive
could be taken discretely, produced inexpensively, and work most reliably
given its reliance on chemicals, as opposed to the merely physical
obstructions provided by prominent methods of the day.9
Silvestri 21
The narrative of oral contraceptives would be drastically different if

that Sanger hadnt begun to associate with eugenicists such as Leon F.
Whitney and Roswell H. Johnson around this time. 10 Sanger quickly
shifted her focus from keeping women safe to curbing population growth,
believing that both birth control and eugenics sought to assist the race
toward the elimination of the unfit.11 However, it is here that a caveat
must be added; as Gene Burns points out in his book, The Moral Veto:
Framing Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural Pluralism in the United States, the
lens with which we look at Sangers eugenics must be considered. The
beginning of Sangers fight for oral contraception intersected with the rise
of the American eugenics movement.12 Eugenics was, at the time, a field
of study that garnered respect in academia; 13 in her earliest eugenic
writings, Sangers version of eugenics actually emphasized the importance
of not discriminating against groups, instead mentioning only unfit
individuals. 14 This individualistic version of eugenics held that
sterilization should always be voluntary, and was a decision best left to
families.
But these views were quickly replaced by more sinister ones. Sanger
became less concerned with family ties and the betterment of individuals,
instead opting for a radical collectivism that concerned itself with the
good of society as a whole. On page 181 of her 1922 book, The Pivot of
Civilization, she puts forth that, the undeniably feeble-minded should,
indeed, not only be discouraged but prevented from propagating their
kind.
But what constituted feeble-minded and unfit for Sanger?
Sangers opponents who believe her activism was racially-motivated often
cite a quote from a letter to her associate Dr. Clarence Gamble, in which
she states that, We dont want the word to go out that we want to
exterminate the Negro population.15 At first glance, this seems to suggest
that she believed African-Americans ought to be eradicated. This
commonly-referenced quote unfairly characterizes Sanger; in context, the
quote seems to suggest that she doesnt want the black community to
misinterpret what she is doing:
We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with

social-service backgrounds, and with engaging personalities.
The most successful educational approach to the Negro is
through a religious appeal. We dont want the word to go out
that we want to exterminate the Negro population. And the
minister is the man who can straighten out that idea if it ever
occurs to any of their more rebellious members.16
A fairly compelling piece of evidence against her alleged prejudice
towards African-Americans can be found in her personal correspondence.
Consider, for example:
I admire the courage of a government that takes a stand on

sterilization of the unfit and second, my admiration is subject
to the interpretation of the word ''unfit.'' If by ''unfit'' it is
meant the physical or mental defects of a human being, that is
an admirable gesture, but if ''unfit'' refers to races or
religions, then that is another matter which I frankly
deplore.17
While it is impossible to deny that Sanger supported coerced
sterilization of an abstract feeble-minded populace, the identities of the
groups that constituted the so-called unfit are major points of
contention among scholars.
The answer becomes clearer upon a closer, in-context look at Sangers
writing. Her 1932 essay, A Plan for Peace, outlines the ideal methodology
to ensure a genetically-acceptable society. In the essay, she proposes that
those who are considered feeble-minded be barred from entering the
country; for those born in the nation, it is best to apply a stern and rigid
policy of sterilization and segregation to those who have bad traits that
may be transferred to their children, convince those with communicable
diseases to be voluntarily sterilized, and then give those with bad genes
the choice between segregation [by way of placing the unfit specialized
farms for their entire life] or sterilization.18 She cited criminals, illiterate
people, prostitutes, and drug addicts as the targets of her efforts. Sanger
believed that predispositions to criminality, drug addiction, prostitution,
cognitive deficiencies, and general delinquency were determined by
biological and genetic factors, and that the only appropriate solution was
Silvestri 23
to ask the government to first take the burden of the insane and
feebleminded from your back [by using] sterilization for these.19 Sangers
eugenics appear to be focused only on those with (what she believed to
be) communicable, genetic, or mental deficiencies, rather than racially-
based or religiously-based qualifications.
It has been established that Sanger supported sterilization, but her
quotes raise the question of precisely how she planned to implement
eugenic policies. Once again, her extensive body of work offers answers.
It should be noted that Sanger rejected Nazi euthanasia policies, believing
that the unfit should not be killed, but only stopped from reproducing,
albeit forcefully; "We [do not] believe that the community could or should
send to the lethal chamber the defective progeny resulting from
irresponsible and unintelligent breeding, she says on page 100 of The
Pivot of Civilization. In fact, Sangers books were some of the first Adolf
Hitler ordered to be burned during the early days of the Holocaust, as
fascism was antithetical to Sangers early message of allegiance to oneself
rather than societal norms.20 Sanger subscribed to the ideas of political
economist Thomas Malthus, who thought that population growth would
not be sustainable given the rate at which resources were being used, and
therefore concluded that the sterilization of the unfit was necessary.21
Sanger did not believe, however, that sterilization alone would be
enough to ensure an optimal society; to truly achieve her utopia, birth
control, specifically in the form of an oral contraceptive, was essential.22
The evidence that Sanger supported birth control for eugenic purposes is
plentiful. Most obvious is a volume of the Sanger-edited Birth Control
Review which sports the masthead, To create a race of thoroughbreds.23
Also telling is a passage from a 1919 issue of the Birth Control Review in
which a contributor (not Sanger herself) states, More children from the
fit, less from the unfit- that is the chief issue of birth control.24 While it
was not Sanger who stated this, it did appear in the periodical that she
edited; if such a brazen claim were false, one would assume the matriarch
of the birth control movement would have decried it, rather than publish
it. One can reasonably conclude that Sanger believed birth control to be
a method by which undesirable population growth could be curbed. This
is most explicitly stated during her address at the International Eugenics
Conferences Second International Eugenics Congress in September of

1921:
I think you must agree . . . that the campaign for birth

control is not merely of eugenic value, but is practically
identical with the final aims of eugenics . . . As an advocate
of birth control, I wish . . . to point out that the unbalance
between the birth rate of the unfit and the fit, admittedly
the greatest present menace to civilization, can never be
rectified by the inauguration of a cradle competition between
these two classes. On the contrary, the most urgent problem
today is how to limit and discourage the over-fertility of the
mentally and physically defective.25
In March of 1952, this belief, combined with her aforementioned
concern for womens health, prompted Sanger to convince her friend and
benefactor Katherine McCormick to fund a vast majority of the $2 million
the development of Dr. Gregory Pincus work on oral contraception
required.26
One year earlier, Gregory Pincus, a Harvard-educated biologist, met
Margaret Sanger at a dinner party hosted by Abraham Stone, Planned
Parenthoods vice president. 27 Pincus, who had extensively researched
mammalian hormones and their relationship with infertility, was offered
a small grant from Planned Parenthood to begin work on a human
contraceptive. Pincus had little practical interest in an oral contraceptive,
and was quoted later in his life as saying that he simply invented the Pill
at the request of a woman.28 Despite Planned Parenthoods grant, little
progress was made until Sanger approached Katherine McCormick about
bankrolling Pincus project.
Katherine McCormick, a Michigan aristocrat, had been asking Sanger
for suggestions as to how best contribute her vast wealth to the cause of
contraception since 1950. McCormick and Sanger agreed that a quality
contraceptive was necessary to combat population growth, especially
among the unfit.29 Sanger told McCormick that Pincus research could
potentially yield revolutionary results. 30 McCormick, only the second
woman to ever graduate from the Massachusetts Institute of Technology,
used her knowledge of biology to steer Pincus research in a more
Silvestri 25
productive direction; after doing so, she agreed to fund his research.
Pincus put together a team of scientists to assist him in his efforts. Most
notably among these was Dr. John Rock, who conducted experimental
trials on humans to determine the safety of the drug. In 1957, the Food
and Drug Administration approved Enovid as a method to alleviate
menstrual symptoms, and approved it for contraceptive use in 1960.
Sangers vision of a pill that could prevent unwanted reproduction,
whether it be a family decision among the fit or a political one for the
unfit, had finally been realized.
While Margaret Sanger started her campaign for birth control to
increase the quality of contraception and improve the safety of reluctantly
pregnant women, her interest in Malthusian negative eugenics drastically
influenced her support of Gregory Pincus drug, Enovid. Along with her
cohort, Katherine McCormick, and her researcher-for-hire, Gregory
Pincus, Sanger played a role in the creation of one of the most influential
and revolutionary medical advancements of all time. The main reason the
Pill is used today is family planning, a cause Sanger was certainly a
supporter of; but this practical justification for birth control was not the
only motivation Sanger had for supporting the Pill. As evidenced by her
numerous public writings, her personal correspondence, and the actions
of her and her associates, it is clear that Margaret Sanger believed that,
combined with a stringent policy of sterilizing the genetically inferior, the
Pill could ultimately lead to a biologically purer, stronger populace.
1 Gazit
2 Kalambakal, 112
3 Asbell, xi-xvii
4 PBS, People & Events: Margaret Sanger
5 Sanger (1938), 92
6 Knowles, 2
7 Bonomo
8 Marks, 53
9 Chesler, 420
10 Sanger (1931)
11 Engelman, 132
12 PBS, Eugenics and Birth Control
13 Burns, 88
14 Sanger (1921)
15 Planned Parenthood (2014)
16 Id.
17 Sanger (1934)
18 Sanger (1932)
19 Sanger (1926)
20 New York University
21 Grant, 53
22 Sanger (1919)
23 Sanger (1921), Masthead
24 Birth Control Review (1919)
25 Sanger (1921)
26 Asbell, 7
27 Marks, 54
28 Id.
29 McCormick, 2
30 Marks, 53-54
27
Reflection on
Margaret Sanger, the Pill, and Eugenics
My research for the Margaret Sanger, the Pill, and Eugenics opened my
eyes to the significance of birth control, especially as it related to
empowering women to enter the work force. However, it also made me
aware of some of the more sinister aspects of the Pills foundations. I
remain an avid advocate of birth control, but recognize that its genesis is
somewhat suspect.
Looking back on it, I see Margaret Sanger, the Pill, and Eugenics as an early
example of something that came to be common practice for me during
college: rejecting the more egregious rhetoric of conservatives while
noting that the truth isnt as rosy as liberals might like it to be.
The original title of this paper was The Burden of the Feeble-Minded, but I
have since realized that title is insufferably pretentious.
Margaret Sanger, the Pill, and Eugenics was originally written for MC
112, taught by Professor Rod Phillips. It was submitted on April 28th, 2014.
28
Where Life Matters Most

An Interview with Ron Dorr regarding
the Assassination of John F. Kennedy
P RESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, THE 35th PRESIDENT

of the United States, is often lauded as being one of the best
commanders-in-chief in our nations history. Kennedy made
great strides in diplomacy, international relations with Communist
countries, and civil rights during his time in the White House. His bold,
norm-challenging approach to politics culminated in his assassination by
Lee Harvey Oswald on November 22nd, 1963.
Kennedys presidency is most remarkable for his dealings with
Communism during the 1960s. In October 1962, a U-2 spy plane took
photographs of Soviet missiles that were under construction within
Cuban borders. Kennedy and his team of advisors deemed the missiles a
pressing nuclear threat, posing a difficult decision for the President: Could
defending the country lead to an all-out nuclear war? Kennedy decided to
use the U.S. Navy to stop and search all Soviet ships around Cuba, a move
that concerned the United Nations. The U.N. asked both the U.S. and
Soviet Presidents to refrain from attacking the other, and asked the U.S.
to stop searching Soviet ships; Kennedy refused. On October 28th, Soviet
President Nikita Khrushchev agreed to dismantle the Cuban missile bases
on the condition that the U.S. secretly dismantle its weapons in Turkey,
as well as publicly promise to never invade Cuba. This compromise was
satisfactory to Kennedy, and he was widely praised for his diplomacy and
success in avoiding a war.
Silvestri 29
Kennedy was also a major player in the civil rights movement of the
1960s, championing causes like affirmative action and equal protection
for minorities in schools. Many of the solutions to racial inequality that
Kennedy supported became key points of the Civil Rights Act of 1964.
Kennedy worked to release Coretta Scott King, the wife of Martin Luther
King Jr., from jail after she attempted to be served at a deli counter.
These radical changes to the status quo ultimately cost Kennedy his
life. On November 22nd, 1963, while on a trip to raise political support in
Texas, Kennedy was assassinated by Lee Harvey Oswald. Oswald, a
known Communist sympathizer, disagreed with many of Kennedys
policies against Communism, and shot the president three times from the
sixth floor of a nearby building. Oswald was arrested an hour later for
killing a police officer who suspected him of being the assassin. Two days
later, Oswald was killed by nightclub owner Jack Ruby. Kennedys death
caused a slew of political consequences, and affected the conception many
Americans had of the presidency. Kennedy was seen as a model of a good
president, and, as a result, gained a large number of supporters. These
supporters who idolized the president had their worldview drastically
altered following his death; one of these supporters was James Madison
College Professor Ron Dorr.
I say with no hint of exaggeration that Professor Ron Dorr is far and
away one of the most fascinating and extraordinary people I have ever
had the pleasure of meeting. Professor Dorr has been a professor at James
Madison College for over forty years, during which time he helped create
Madisons freshman writing sequence (MC 111-112 [and 113 when there
was still a trimester system]). A graduate student at the time of Kennedys
assassination, he was able to offer a unique and revealing perspective on
an event that shaped America in such a dramatic way.
On January 30th, 2013, I sat down with Professor Dorr in his office to
conduct an interview. As I prepared my materials under the gaze of a large
poster of Abraham Lincoln, a particularly telling fact occurred to me:
Professor Dorr was not teaching this semester, but was still holding office
hours. This man was so ingrained in Madison culture that he was around
regardless of whether he had classes or not. I checked the sound on the
microphone that would record the exchange, having a curiously strong
suspicion that Professor Dorr was about to teach not only about Kennedy,
but about life; I was correct. The interview went as follows:
Tyler Silvestri: Could you set the scene for me? Who were you
and what were you doing during the early 1960s?
Ron Dorr: I had spent 14 months in Bogota, Colombia after I
had graduated from Grinell College. Grinell had a program
like the Peace Corps and sent eight of us overseas to countries,
and I chose Bogota to go to. I finished those 14 months teaching
English, American Literature, and U.S. History at the Colegio
Mayor de Cultura Cundinamarca. I finished that in August of
1960, and so I was coming back and going to Graduate school
where I had a Woodrow Wilson National Fellowship, so I was
at Columbia University on the day that Kennedy was killed. I
went over to the International House that morning and
listened to Dwight D. Eisenhower because my parents were
immense fans of Eisenhower. They were sturdy, longtime
Republicans; I had actually voted for Nixon, instead of
Kennedy, in a mock election in 1960 (I wasnt old enough to
vote). I wanted to see who Eisenhower was, and I was
captivated. He spoke in such and authoritative and personal
way about his People to People exchange program that I left
that morning, probably around 9:30, saying from here on out,
I am going to make a point to see, in the flesh, every single
living President of the United States. Within four or five hours,
Lee Harvey Oswald had broken my promise.
I went back to my apartment, got some things ready, and then
went over to Burgess Library to catch up on my reading. Ive
often said that if you didnt stay up on your reading in
graduate school, you could get five weeks behind in three
weeks. I was catching up on a class on diplomatic history when
a friend of mine walked up to me and said, Hes been killed.
I said, What are you talking about? He said, The Presidents
been killed. This was shortly after the announcement had
been made, around 1:00, and the rest of the day we were
shocked, stunned, and dazed.
Silvestri 31
TS: Prior to his assassination, did you have any strong feelings
toward Kennedy?
RD: When he was elected, I thought he was, in some ways, a
very superficial politician. I thought he was more like a
celebrity than he was a person who was really committed to
change. Perhaps it was because he was still young. Perhaps it
was because of his wit (and this was true of his presidency
also), he could often gloss over hard questions with his humor.
Before I went overseas, I didnt have, what you would call, a
feeling that I was a fan of Kennedy.
But overseas, people changed me. There are several reasons
this occurred. The people I was living with kept talking about
his visit to Bogota on December 17th, 1961; it was a day like
9/11 in the United States in that there was a blue sky with no
clouds. The doctor I was living with said that half a million
people crowded the streets from the airport to downtown
Bogota. Later on, I found out that what the President of
Colombia had said to Kennedy was something like the
following. The President, Alberto Lleras Camargo, said, Do
you know why the campesinos [Spanish peasants] are
cheering you like that? Its because they believe you are on
their side.
I had actually seen an instance of that. Ciudad techo, which
means roofed city, was a place where the Alliance for
Progress was sending the money in, but Bogotanos were
having to do the work. I talked to people who were building
their own new houses. They were modest houses, but one
painter I talked to was getting up between 5:00 and 7:00 in the
morning, working on his house, then leaving to do his regular
job. So, I saw direct results, though I questioned at first the
quarantine in the Cuban Missile Crisis. It was obvious
afterwards that Kennedy had been restrained, and, I would
say, used his power well during the Crisis. So, I was converted
to Kennedy overseas, and came back vowing to get involved
in his re-election campaign in 1964. Before he was killed, he
sent a message to Congress saying we need to increase our
foreign aid, and he quoted one of the people who had been
involved in the Ciudad Techo Housing Progress: I had a
miserable life before I had help to build my home; now I have

dignity. Now I have freedom. I was feeling that I knew
something about his life, and the effects of Kennedys work in
South America. I was ready to work on his campaign.
TS: In the minutes after hearing about the assassination, what
were your immediate thoughts?
RD: I was dazed. I was stunned. Almost everybody was. I can
still see the picture of us walking around Columbias campus.
Its a very tight, walled-in campus. There were people walking
around, hardly saying anything at all. There were a number of
people crying. Some people wanted to talk about the motives
and the like, but there were probably two or three hours where
we just walked around trying to absorb the question, What
has happened here?
My immediate reaction was the same thing that Dr. Garcia, the
surgeon I stayed with in Colombia, said when Medgar Evars
was killed in 1963: This is the act of a barbarian. And that
was my notion. Why would anyone want to kill John Kennedy?
Hes at the height of his power. Hes trying to realize his goals.
It was a barbaric act. I think I immediately thought to myself,
This is someone who is dissatisfied with Kennedys progress
in civil rights, because he was slow to do what he did, but in
June he talked eloquently about this being a moral, social,
cultural, political crisis, and that had impressed me.
TS: Why exactly were you so sad about the death of someone
youd never met? Was it just because you were so stricken by
his politics?
RD: Part of it, I think, was that most of my friends, and Id say
most Americans, didnt believe anyone would ever shoot the
president. The people who knew the death of a president were
those dealing with Franklin Roosevelts death, but that was not
by the bullet of an assassin. So, there was that blow. Again, Ill
make the comparison to 9/11; I dont think most Americans
thought we could be attacked on our own soil. And I suspect
how old were you, six [during 9/11]?
TS: Six, yeah.
Silvestri 33
RD: That that was a real blow, a shock to Americans. I think

the second reason it was such a blow was because I hadnt
committed myself in a strong way in high school or college to
a political affiliation. I grew up listening to mainly Republicans,
conservatives, and ornery individualists in a small Iowa town,
and I didnt pay attention to the debates. But overseas, I
learned to do that. And because I was going to work for his
next campaign, it was hard for me to accept that it wasnt going
to happen. I guess theres an emotional reason for it also; I had
come to believe he really was a great person. The death of
someone you think highly of is quite shocking. Its painful. It
stings! It hurts!
TS: Were you surprised by any of your classmates reactions?
RD: The person who checked out books at the Burgess library
was so dazed that he didnt even bother; he said, Just take
your books, go on. All he wanted to do was get out of that
library. He was dumbfounded. He couldnt handle the
mechanics of his daily work because he was so stunned.
Later that evening, I went over to the International House,
which was a place you could gather and watch TV well. There
were probably 75 or 100 of us watching a television set when
[Vice President Lyndon] Johnson came back with the coffin
and said a few words. That was a bit reassuring; we felt that
Johnson was going to take over well. He was measured and
brief, not calling attention to himself, but asking for the help of
Americans. That helped a bit at the end. And I think it helped
for me to write the journal entry.i Late as it was that evening, I
probably should have gone to bed, but I stayed up and wrote
that evening. Columbia cancelled classes that Monday, and
then announced that they were going to send busses to
Washington, D.C. for students to pay their respects. I heard
that 250,000 walked by the casket before they closed the lines.
They closed the lines before I got up the steps to see it, and,
iProfessor Dorr provided a copy of this journal entry, and it has been attached
to the end of this paper with his permission.
since I didnt have a way back, I rode the bus back, so I didnt
attend the funeral.
TS: You noted that your parents were Republicans; what was
their reaction, as far as you could tell?
RD: They were sad and ashamed that this happened in the
United States, but they did not have any emotional reaction.
TS: How long was it before you learned the identity of the
shooter?
RD: I think we knew by the end of the day.
TS: What theories were prevalent immediately afterwards?
Was there any speculation as to the motives?
RD: Yes, there were some people in the immediate aftermath
asking, Was it a leftist? Was it a rightist? Was it a conspiracy?
Are they going after other leaders? So, there was kind of an
immediate suspicion. Were there these full-blown theories that
people like Oliver Stone have developed? Not that I can
remember.
I was pleased and mildly surprised that the police in Dallas
did such effective work and had Oswald arrested right away.
They found the gun, three bullet casings. I never gave any
credence to the conspiracy theorists. I thought, Boy, until you
can prove that somebody else was involved, the evidence to
me is very clear. Im not interested in their ideas. What kind
of specific, telling evidence to do they present?
And this is my conclusion about them: because the event was
so huge, so great, so calamitous, people want to find a cause
that is just as huge. It is an affront to their own notions of the
world that some minor character can have such a powerful
impact on the history of the world, and that, in many ways,
that accidents, chance, contingents, play such a part in human
life. Ive got nieces who, when their mother died, kept saying,
I know theres a reason for everything, and thats whats
holding me together. I know theres a reason this happened.
And my belief isnt that. I dont think theres a logical reason
for everything. We know it in science with mutations, we
know accidents take place, we know things cant be explained,
Silvestri 35
and I think one has to take that into account in ones view of
the world.
TS: And you see this in any big event that happens; 9/11,
Sandy Hook, all have controversy surrounding an underlying
cause
RD: Right.
TS: And I think we have a hard time processing that one
person has the ability to change everything for everyone.
RD: Its ironic, to some degree, that this is believed. If there can
be such a powerful force for good [like JFK], then how can it
be denied that it can be thwarted? And this opens up another
dimension of the results of the assassination. In my life, it did
change some of my worldview and religious views. Not
completely, but it had a powerful effect on those beliefs.
TS: How so?
RD: Before that, I really believed that God was in command,
that all was right with the world. This assassination, combined
with the death of my roommate the following May, really
shattered my belief that a loving god was really in command.
One of my views now is that God is finite. Yes, I say in the
Apostles Creed, almighty God, but to me, God isnt. Thats
a hard thing for believers to affirm. But a lot of incidents in my
twenties led me to that belief.
This assassination had a powerful effect on my life. It changed
the very course of my life. A week before he was assassinated,
I wrote a letter to my parents saying that I was thinking about
dropping out of Columbia because I hated it. A couple weeks
after Kennedys death, Sargent Shriver of the Peace Corps
came and tried to convince people to join the Peace Corps. I
resonated with that, and applied to the Peace Corps. I was
accepted. Because Id been overseas, I knew what I wanted to
do, but the Peace Corps couldnt promise I would be able to
teach what I taught two years earlier. What they wanted were
math and science teachers, and those were my weakest points.
So, I worked with a good friend of mine overseas, and he
found an opening for me at the university he was at. A week
before I was to go to Georgetown for Peace Corps training, I

called them and said, Im sorry, but I have to turn you down.
I went back then to Bogota for two years, a major effect of
Kennedys assassination. The third person from Grinell to win
the travel service scholarship that I was the first to win came
down to Bogota teach at the place I did for those 14 months. I
met her at the airport and told her the place I was staying had
a room, and she wanted to stay there until she found a more
permanent place to stay. I told her that Garcia would welcome
her. She stayed and never left. We grew to love one another,
and shes been my wife for 47 years. I mean, [laughs gingerly]
thats a major effect of Kennedys killing.
When I went back the second time, the job I had wasnt paying
enough, so I found another job at another university to
supplement my income. I was asked to take the place of
somebody who was teaching an Advanced English course. It
was terrible. He was just having them read Readers Digest
articles. I said to my students after two weeks, Youre bored
by this, Im bored by this. Would you like to study John F.
Kennedys speeches? I have a record of them. They said yes,
and we spent most of that semester studying his speeches.
That was the turning point of my vocational history. I went
from studying history, which I majored in in college, to
literature. I didnt want to teach English, because I thought it
wasnt my calling, but when I got back to graduate school at
the University of Minnesota as a TA in American Studies for
two years, I got into a position teaching in the Rhetoric
Department. That all started because of the special attention I
paid to Kennedys speeches. That was another shift due to the
assassination.
I became a Democrat. After both stints overseas, I took part in
Democratic farm labor politics in Minnesota in a way I havent
since. His death intensified my political participation. Going
back overseas again continued to broaden my views. It shaped
my view of patriotism, which is being a loving critic, or a
critical lover, of the United States. There were biographical,
vocational, political, cultural, emotional changes that all
would not have happened had Kennedy not been killed.
Silvestri 37
But I had to let Kennedy age, and I had to age, before I

understood him in a mature way. At 23, I didnt know about
his womanizing or physical handicaps, the number of drugs
he was on, and the like. I knew he was timid in some respects,
like civil rights, where he didnt do what he would say. He said
he would sign an executive order on his first day in office
forcing people in hiring people to not be racist. That did not
happen. He made a number of mistakes in his tenure. I have a
much more mixed view of him today than I did at 23.
TS: Having gone to Colombia afterwards, what was the
reaction to the assassination?
RD: Six [Colombian] students wrote me letters of condolence
afterwards. Ive never had a student in the United States write
me a letter of condolence over the death of a president. These
students were shattered. They continued to think highly of
Kennedy. Thats why the students said, Yeah, lets study his
speeches, while I was there. Colombian politicians have a
tradition of being poets, artists, even novelists, and I think that
the intellectual class thought highly of him because of his
rhetorical arts for that reason.
TS: Having just come off of the Cuban Missile Crisis, were you
afraid at all of Soviet involvement?
RD: I dont think I was, and this is the reason why: probably
the most important address that John Kennedy gave, besides
the one about the quarantine in the Crisis, was the
commencement address he gave at American University about
the need to change our attitude towards peace. He said that
Cold War enemies can become friends. Khrushchev and I
have set up a hotline. Khrushchev and I are going to meet.
Khrushchev and I see the possibility of a changing
relationship. That was one of the things we lost with
Kennedys death. There might have been a real thaw, a
difference, in U.S. and Soviet relations had Kennedy had a
second term.
The Cuban Missile Crisis did have this effect on me: I had a
keener conception of mortality. I still remember Dr. Garcia
saying to me as Soviet ships were getting closer, Goodnight,
Mr. Ron. See you tomorrow if there is a tomorrow. That

was the first time in my life I went to bed thinking, Am I going
to wake up? There had been a map outlining the range of the
missiles, and Bogota was in it.
Kennedys death and my roommates death had caused me to
be in a state of deep grief when I went back to Colombia. The
good thing about those two years was that I had to learn to
handle that grief, and what Ive concluded since then is that I
respond to grief often through work. Do the kind of work you
think you are supposed to do, and do it well. I also respond by
reading, either things that helped before or by reading new
things. The most important way is by forging loving relations,
the most important of those was meeting my wife. Even in the
midst of what diminishes us in life, we must seek what
replenishes us. As individuals, we have a part to play. We can
try to increase those forces that replenish and fight those that
decrease us. And its not a battle that I know will turn out one
way or another.
TS: Looking back fifty years later, how did Kennedys
assassination affect the country as a whole?
RD: It opened the world in a way that I suspect people didnt
think was possible. Southern Democrats, who had always
been obstacles to civil rights, became proponents. One of
Kennedys advisors said something to this effect: We didnt
realize the depth of admiration and affection for Kennedy that
young people had all over the world. That showed, because
there were so many people overseas that were affected by his
death. Before he died, there was a youthful hope that the world
was going to change. Johnson built on that, using the
assassination for his legislative agenda, and he was right in
doing that.
TS: Im a firm believer that we have to look to the past to
determine what to do in the future; what lesson can we take
away today from such a tragedy?
RD: I think a number of the revelations surprised Americans.
A Pulitzer Prize winning analyst, Charles Bartlett, said that
Kennedy was, a model, not only of political integrity, but of
Silvestri 39
familial integrity. That meant that Kennedy was able to pull

the wool over the eyes of even the most astute journalist. A
number of people were shocked about instances of his
womanizing, and the women who were involved wrote about
it, so he couldnt deny it. People involved in civil rights talked
about the conflict between King and Kennedy. The warts came
out.
And what that meant in my own life was that all of us are
flawed. We are all of mixed character. Most of us will never
have it presented in books and to the public in the way that
people do to Kennedy, but hes a person of wonder in some
ways, and a person of deep weaknesses as well. One might say
the same about Lincoln. One could certainly say it of Obama,
George Bush. I think when you start saying its true of you and
me, thats when it gets a little troubling. They dont want the
warts and the weaknesses broadcast.
Still in the United States, maybe a little less so now, but I can
still remember when Hillary Clinton was running for office in
2008, and Chelsea Clinton said, You can be whatever you
want to be. Your future is what you make of it. Historically,
we are limited. We are limited by our history, the gifts, and the
weaknesses we have. That is a lesson that became very clear to
me. Yes, we ride on a railroad track, and we can change the
engine, and the number of railroad carts, but if we want to
keep going, we have to stay on the track. There are real limits
to humanity, and Americans dont like to admit that.
When I was a senior in college, the Board of Religion asked
graduating seniors if they could give a talk on what their
education meant to them. It was to be a moment of meditation
and pondering. I volunteered to do that. I was trying to answer
the question What is the meaning and purpose of my own
life? I decided that to be a human being was to live intensely
a life of love with integrity and of gratitude. Kennedys death
reinforced that. I think Ive been fairly faithful in that regard.
Maybe another way of saying what Im saying now is that
where love and courage intersect, life matters most of all. I
picked that up from Kennedy in part, and Ill be the first to say
I didnt always show the courage I should have. But I think
thats true, that when those two loving relations occur,

something significant happens. I can see it in Lincoln, in
Eleanor Roosevelt, and certainly in Kennedy.
Remarks on the Interview
I was immensely pleased with the results of my interview with
Professor Dorr. His ability to think deeply and, as he says, take serious
subjects seriously, offered an in-depth and exhaustive look at the effect
the death of a president can have on a country, a planet, and a person. He
gave me the journal entry he wrote the day Kennedy died to better
describe his immediate thoughts; I have attached this entry. Professor
Dorr provided me not only with a history lesson, but a life lesson.
Perhaps my favorite section of the interview was Professor Dorrs
critical analysis of the conspiracy theories behind Kennedys death. Every
major tragedy has a vocal minority putting forth a more grandiose, sinister
explanation than the commonly accepted one. I agree very strongly with
Professor Dorrs assertion that this phenomenon occurs because of
humankinds inability to believe that a few people can have such a
significant impact on the world around them.
Professor Dorrs analysis of Kennedy caused me to look
introspectively for some time afterwards. The thesis, if you will, of
Professor Dorrs thoughts on the assassination was that each and every
human has a unique set of strengths and flaws, and that Kennedy was no
exception. I asked myself a series of questions after the interview: What
moral flaws do I have? What can I do about them? How can I use JFKs
example better in my own life? I am still formulating answers.
The most poignant part of the interview, however, was when
Professor Dorr described the religious changes that occurred partially as
a result of Kennedys assassination. It had not occurred to me, nor was I
in any way prepared for the revelation, that the death of a man he had
never met could have such a profound impact on the worldview of a
person. The dichotomy between a loving, controlling god and the
senseless violence that occurs every day is a universal one, and Professor
Dorr articulated his immensely complex feelings on the subject in a clear,
concise way.
Silvestri 41
I believe that the most important thing I took away from my interview
with Professor Dorr, and perhaps even from Kennedys death itself, is a
stronger sense of self-awareness and a new conception of what both
public and private figures should strive towards in life. Kennedys life,
although short, was spent working courageously towards the ideals of love
and compassion that he believed in, despite his shortcomings; I believe
that I, and perhaps most, should lead our lives in a similar manner, so as
to find the place where life matters most.
Ron Dorrs Journal Entry on Friday, November 22, 1963

God, what a day. No one will forget it. But everyone would like to
bring it back again; relive it in order to prevent such a terrible tragedy that
took place.
Rumors of some kind were floating around as I went to Butler Library,
but I thought they were concerning some local officials. "They're alive,"
it was reported, and I took no heed. Upstairs there were other inklings,
but when [Texas Governor John] Connally was mentioned, I thought for
sure it was restricted to a local-state scene. It didn't dawn on me that this
was where President Kennedy was.
Then Fred told me as I was studying in one of the rooms of Burgess.
"Did you hear, the President is killed - assassinated?" And I couldn't
believe it. Checking with others in the hall confirmed it. He had been shot
and mortally wounded. All I could think was Why? Why? Who? It was
a barbaric act - just as Dr. Garcia had suggested to me about Evers' slaying.
Immediately the thought of an extreme segregationist came to mind - and
the belief that Kennedy would now become a martyr to the civil rights
cause.
On Campus Walk there were students like me. I couldn't read that
book. Who could study? Burgess was cleared down to 10-15 students
within an hour. We just gathered around radios - in groups of 20 to 30
students, stunned beyond belief, in silence, trying to make believe it wasn't
true. Faces were sad, looks anguished. For those who talked in some other
conversation or didn't realize what had happened one wanted to say,
"Don't you know - the President is dead?"
Just standing there, listening, silently, thinking, at a loss to do anything,

just standing there, telling those who came up to the group, "yes, it's true."
You remember the fine fellow at Burgess, stricken so badly he didn't really
care if you left with books or not, the face of the girl on the monument,
the freshly-stained eyes of Margery, the news coming over the radio so
solemnly and tragically.
And I wept. What else could one do? Joining others at King's Chapel,
I wept for the loss of a great man, one whom I had come to respect and
admire and love. What purpose is there in such an act, O God? Give us
the courage in these moments and the intelligence to make right decisions.
And to weep again. These were the few moments in the chapel.
People walking around with sad looks of despair and disbelief, like a
cloud hanging over the campus. The library closed its doors at 5 until
Monday, church bells began to toll mournfully (do not ask for whom the
bells toll; they toll for thee), only gradually did students begin to talk and
speculate about motives, etc.
A man recording the reactions of various students, a Negro who said,
"it is sad" if the death of a man such as this is necessary to move the
country dramatically to act for a program of civil and racial equality, the
arguments over whether it was or was not a radical of either side, all of
this as the shade of dusk darkened and cast an even greater gloom on the
campus scene.
Then to watch television and listen to the news sink in harder and
harder. The clusters of chairs at International House, all glued to the
television report, the moments of silence joined by students of 78 nations
there. And not to do anything else but sit and watch and think. Here - in
this country? Why? He was no evil man. He was working toward a better
world.
There were those thoughts arising from the comments or pictures
carried by television. "You can feel the sorrow." "I loved that guy." "I just
saw him a few days ago; I waved at him and he waved at me." "Look,
don't you care? Don't you know your President is dead?"
All of Latin America will say, "We've lost a friend," for the admiration
of esteem in which they held him. "He was a great man." "We're supposed
to be civilized . . . I'm ashamed to be a human being." "Let's get this plane
Silvestri 43
to Washington I need your help, and God's." And the president himself,
"Ask not what your country can do for you, ask what you can do for your
country . . . those who act boldly are doing right . . . let us never negotiate
out of fear. But never fear to negotiate."
Those words won't come again. Never will one hear that voice again,
those distinct "r's," the eloquent words and phrases, the forceful,
compelling, confident notes. They are gone, committed to memory...to
eternity.
Forty-six years old. So young, so vital, so intense. He was fully
committed. Sure, he was a practical politician, but he fought for those
ideals which he considered right. And perhaps for them he paid his life.
"Ask what you can do for your country" - you can give your life, and
he did. Greater love hath no man than this, that he lay down his life for
his friends. But why did it have to be his? "Why not some other's? Why?
I would give mine that he might live.
He was un gran hombre, una buona persona. Though I never knew him
personally I say this because I knew those who knew that. Where did I
learn to love him? In Bogota, where all Bogota loved him. There were
those descriptions by the doctor - of the clear blue sky, not a cloud
anywhere - when a half million Bogotanos turned out to see him, when
he received a standing ovation by some upon seeing a newsreel of his trip
in Mexico, the moment when Marta picked up the newspaper and kissed
his photograph, the love and esteem which los Latinos had for him. The
man who shouldered the free world's burden during the missile crisis, the
man who quoted Latin America's growing "freedom and dignity," the man
who asserted that "we are not fatigued," the man who proclaimed, "I am
a Berliner," you, Mr. John F. Kennedy, whom I loved.
Your life has been all too unfairly snuffed out. May the God that
protected you until now guard you eternally in his peace.
It was the work of someone gone berserk. What purpose could he
have had, what goal served? It makes one feel terribly ashamed of being
an American, of this country and its alleged traditions. Why can we
disparage coups dtat in Latin America or other countries, when we have
such a blemish on our record? It makes me want to leave the country, to
serve notice that this is no part of the America that I know. Where is the
last best hope for the world?
Never have I felt death so personally. The man's dead. He's dead. We
will never see him again, that smiling, vibrant, energetic, dynamic
personality at work. It is more than the loss of something personal, of
your own. It is as if the nation had lost something, all of us suffered a
mortal blow. I wept profusely and unashamed for him. Because he's gone
away.
45
Reflection on
Where Life Matters Most
I stand by all of the comments I made in the 2014 Remarks section of

Where Life Matters Most. I would only add that in the years since, Professor
Dorr told me he was particularly impressed with the Remarks section. In
reality, it was I who had more reason to be impressed; this interview only
reinforced for me that Professor Dorr is a remarkable man, and I am
proud to have known him. I get chills every time I read Dorrs wise words,
and I often look back on them in times of doubt and conflict.
Where Life Matters Most was originally written for MC 112, taught by
Professor Rod Phillips. It was submitted on February 5 th, 2014.
46
Liberalism as Collectivism
An Analysis of Socrates Concern
for the Individual in Platos Republic
S OCRATES IDEAL REGIME, AS LAID OUT IN PLATOs

Republic, runs counter to todays widely-accepted liberal tradition of
governance, which holds privacy, equality, freedom, and respect for
individual rights in the highest esteem. In Socrates perfect political
community, a small number of citizens are under strict government
control, with everything from their homes to their sex lives having been
influenced by the state; individual rights fall by the wayside in favor of a
collective good.
Yet it is unfair to characterize Socrates best regime as despotic. The
Republics strictly-enforced socioeconomic classes do ignore individual
rights in the modern sense, but are designed to account for the
predispositions and inherent nature of the citizens in order to ensure their
long-term happiness in ways that constitutional safeguards never could.
At first glance, Socrates conception of the perfect political community
seems to eschew individual rights in favor of the collective good, but upon
further inspection, his definition of justice could be said to be more
concerned about individuals than the one-size-fits-all-approach of the
liberal tradition.
In Book II, Socrates outlines the founding of a city, in which each
individual plays a specialized role in the citys commerce. Those who are
talented shoemakers make only shoes, whereas those who would make
talented doctors serve as doctors; each citizen does what he or she does
best. When this arrangement is achieved, Socrates says that a city has been
Silvestri 47
formed. 1 From here, he and Adeimantus flesh out the details of this
utopia. The market-based paradise in which mutually beneficial trade
provides citizens with the necessities for survival leaves them with enough
free time to enjoy the sweeter things in life, such as alcohol, intercourse,
appropriate amounts of children, and peace. 2 The populace is largely
homogenous, as citizens seem only to care for their work, their lives, and
their pleasures. Adeimantus seems to accept this city as a just one, leaving
the question of justices definition seemingly answered. The Republic would
have been significantly shorter had it not been for Glaucons objection to
this society of bare necessities.
Glaucon views the Adeimantian city as one best suited for pigs,
because it does not take mans natural desire for luxuries into account.3
Socrates decides that his discussants point of contention is a valid one,
and truly begins to concern himself with the nature of the individuals in
the hypothetical city he and his interlocutors are positing. He considers
the desires of the average human, and concludes that the city must expand
in size in order to address them. This expansion in size naturally leads to
a need for more land, the conquest of which tends to bring about war.4 If
there is to be war, Socrates reasons, then there must be guardians of the
city.
These protectors are not ordinary city-dwellers, however. They are
wolfish, competitive people who are spirited, courageous, and strong.5
Adeimantus worries that the current candidates for the defenders of the
city are too brutish; under the proposed system, there exists no safeguard
to prevent these potential aggressors from harming either each other or
the artisan class. It is here, after a moments doubt that a quality candidate
for guardianship is possible, that Socrates lays the foundation for a system
that takes greater concern for individuals than modern political
philosophies.
Socrates realizes that the laws in a society cannot be applied evenly to
each and every citizen because of the differences inherent in each human
being. Expecting the artisans and the guardians to abide by the same
standards would only lead to disaster. Instead, someone who has been
trained in philosophy should rule absolutely, sorting the members of the
society into socioeconomic classes according to their natural talents,
inclinations, and shortcomings. 6 For a majority of citizens, tending to

their own artisan professions and having private families and wealth
would yield no negative results; they would be entirely capable of making
decisions about their own affairs. But for the ultra-boisterous Guardian
class, these freedoms would prove disastrous. For this reason, Socrates
lays down peculiar, paternalistic laws for his citys defenders.
The Guardians live a life that is under intense scrutiny from both the
members of their own class and from the commoners. They share wives
and children in common in homes that do not contain basic standards of
privacy such as doors. No woman is to live privately with any manand
neither will a parent know his own offspring, nor a child his parent.7
While the Adeimantians were expected to be having frequent sex,
intercourse among the Guardian class is limited to only happen during
certain times of the year in very public festivals. 8 Their partners are
determined by random lot, and it is implied that the intercourse happens
in front of the rest of the populace. Should Guardians have a child outside
of the pre-approved times, it is understood that the child must be killed.
Even the highest ruler in the city, the Gold, is an unwilling participant.
It is implied that once a Guardian stops wanting to participate in the
competition to see whom is best-suited to rule, they are bestowed the
Gold status. Those who would rule best are the ones who want to rule
the least, yet they are forced take their place at the top of the societys
hierarchy.9
But why would Socrates, who claims to be seeking justice, get rid of
basic rights like privacy and liberty? From the liberal point of view, it is
Socrates who is proving to be unjust. After all, arent constitutional rights
and individual freedom the best path for well-being in the citizenry, since
it is the individual who truly understands what is in the best interest of
oneself?
Socrates would condemn modern constitutional rights on the grounds
that they do not actually provide for the best interest of either individual
citizens or the community at large. He views justice as being the best thing
for the soul, and his conception of justice leaves no room for classical
liberalism. Socrates' opposition to individual rights is not unjust; in fact,
Silvestri 49
Socrates would argue that it is the concept of individual rights itself that
is unjust, since it does not work toward the right order of one's soul.
It appears that it is Socrates that is truly concerned with the well-being
of the individual, as opposed to proponents of individual rights. Whereas
classical liberalism would conclude that the individual is best suited to
determine what course of action best fits their own needs, Socrates
believes that people often make poor choices, and need to be protected
not only from each other, but from themselves. Constitutional rights
come only in a one-size-fits-all model; every person is expected to be able
to know what pursuits will lead to the best outcomes. This model is
ironically collectivist. Under the Socratic system, the individual's
personality is taken into account, and the choices that they are allowed to
make are adjusted accordingly.
Classical liberalism has attractive rhetoric regarding the well-being of
individuals; the idea of each person being able to live their life as they
please appeals to the independence present in most individuals. Socrates
had always been full of wonder at the [individual] nature of Glaucon and
Adeimantus,10 and knows that there are multiple just natures possible for
a human being. Furthermore, Socrates recognizes that the multiple just
natures cannot be reconciled with the somewhat liberal Adeimantian city.
These different natures require different care, in Socrates view, and
therefore warrant different forms of governance. He believes Platos
siblings are the recipients of some sort of divine intervention in that they
are unwilling to deem injustice as superior to justice,11 and wants to foster
that attitude on the basis of each individuals nature.
This idea even applies to his seemingly unjust treatment of the disabled
and elderly. Socrates contends that "to produce health is to establish the
elements in a body in the natural relation of dominating and being
dominated by one another, while to cause disease is to bring it about that
one rules or is ruled by the other contrary to nature."12 Socrates doesnt
view physical and mental health as paradigms to be examined in a vacuum,
but as indications of the very status of the soul.
Since Socrates believes justice and ones techne go hand-in-hand, it is
impossible for the impaired to be just; if justice is minding your own
business and doing what is good for the soul, and a disabled person is
incapable of minding said business, they are therefore incapable of doing

what is good for the soul and being just. For Socrates, those who are
handicapped, either physically or mentally, are incapable of doing
meaningful work for themselves or for others. While admittedly harsh,
the philosopher-kings treatment of those deemed unworthy ought to be
characterized as a relief from living of a life that is necessarily and
inherently unjust.
While counterintuitive, it clearly appears that Socrates would have
denounced individual rights precisely because he cares so much about the
nature of individuals. As opposed to constitutional rights, which assume
unilaterally that freedom is the best way of life for everyone, Socrates
suggests using the power of philosophy to determine what is best for the
citizens of his Republic. The eschewing of liberty in The Republic is not
done unjustly, in Socrates view, because granting liberty to the subjects
would lead only to unjust results.
1 Plato, 369b
2 Id., 372a
3 Id., 372c-e
4 Id., 373a-e
5 Id., 375a-c
6 Id., 474b
7 Id., 457d
8 Id., 459e
9 Id., 412c
10 Id., 367e
11 Id., 368b
12 Id., 444d
51
Reflection on
Liberalism as Collectivism is a classic example of what college is all about:

exploring ideas that dont comport with what you used to believe, nor
what you believe now. I simply disagree with the conclusion of the paper,
and consider the mentality that follows from it to be fodder for
authoritarians. Nonetheless, it was a fun examination of a classic, and Im
glad I did it.
Liberalism as Collectivism was originally written for MC 270, taught by

Professor Eric Petrie. It was submitted on November 14th, 2014 (roughly a
month late, to boot).
52
Dogmatic Liberalism
Reconsidering the Role of Religion
in Human Nature and American Political Life
A LEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, PIERRE MANENT, AND

Publius of The Federalist Papers all make bold statements about the
nature of human beings, and how that nature affects political
discourse, structure, and culture. In doing so, each emphasized the need
for concrete, enduring, and dogmatic principles from which the populace
could not stray. Tocqueville and Manent especially emphasized ideals
propounded by Christianity. By exploring how each thinker
conceptualizes human predispositions, and by taking their conclusions to
their logical extents, one can see how their ideas comport with one
anothers, as well as how they hold up to scrutiny through a modern lens.
I contend that while these great thinkers are right about the need for
dogmas, the source of these dogmas no longer needs to be Christianity;
in fact, it is possible that liberalism itself could encompass the very values
a democratic society should so ardently emulate.
In beginning to assess the importance of dogmas in liberal democratic
politics, it is first necessary to examine the political psychology of humans
engaging in a democratic experiment. In Federalist no. 51, Publius called
government, the greatest of all reflections on human nature. He went
on to argue that the state arises from the imperfections inherent in
humanity, and that no government would be necessary if humans were
not flawed; it is this humble concession that sets the state for all of the
Federalists views on human nature. The Federalists did not see humans
as perfect beings, but as deeply flawed political actors. However, they
were cautiously optimistic that the governmental structure they had
Silvestri 53
designed would be sufficient to check the more unsavory parts of human

behavior. After all, people arent all bad; Publius saw a degree of
depravity in mankind that require[d] a certain degree of circumspection
and distrust, but also recognized some characteristics that were worthy
of praise, such as their ability to make decisions that were beneficial to the
society as a whole, rather than themselves (serving as a root for
Tocquevilles self-interest well understood). Publius thought a
constitutional republic accounted for and responded to these qualities in
a way no other form of government could.1
Publius also saw mankind as illogical in the short run. The reason a
republican government was necessary, as opposed to a pure democracy,
was that the inclinations and passions of people tend to weigh more
heavily on democratic will than reasonable policy does. 2 An electorate
relying solely on their momentary passions was bound to make decisions
that were detrimental in the long run. When moderation in both personal
and political realms is most necessary, you can count on a democratic
people to exercise it least.3
But abject tyranny does not comport with human nature any more
than stringent moderation does. History has shown that since people cant
just set their own laws with no respect for others, the majoritys opinion
of what the law should be becomes the laws basis. People tend to accept
the legitimacy of this doctrine inherently, even when the democratic will
runs counter to their personal wishes, again illustrating Tocquevilles
concept of self-interest well understood.
Having established the best and worst of human nature through the
lens of politics, a major question comes to the forefront: what can be done
about this often-undesirable nature? Publius defense of Republican
government as a response are helpful, but hardly outline the underlying
philosophy behind their claim. For that, we turn to Tocqueville. who
believed, mores to be one of the great general causes to which the
maintenance of a democratic republic in the United Sates can be
attributed. 4 Tocqueville accepts the Federalists claim that their
constitutional order can check human failings, and modifies it slightly;
rather than a top-down approach where government counteracts moral
failings, Tocqueville sees the republic and morality as constantly exerting
force on each other. The cultural convictions in America allow the

government to continue to exercise the influence the Federalists believed
it could. But where do these public beliefs come from?
In short, the answer is an enduring dogmatic streak in the American
social conscience. Tocqueville thinks that is necessary for any society to
accept certain core tenets without too much doubt. In America, these
include sovereignty of the people, equality of conditions, and other
classically liberal ideas. A political body could not function if the members
of it spent their time exploring answers to the most basic questions that
come with life. Tocqueville argues that if they were to do this, no common
consensus could ever be reached.5 By accepting at least a base premise for
their thought, humans could begin to trouble themselves with nuanced
political questions. Despite characterizing this subjugation to others
thought as a form of slavery, Tocqueville believes it is a sort of slavery
that gives people the push they need to truly exercise their freedom.6
The first dogma that Tocqueville argues people should accept is the
aforementioned doctrine of self-interest well understood. Instead of
denying that each person ought to follow the course of action that
benefits them the most, American mores reflect the idea that acting in
concert with others interests is, in the long run, in their own interest.7
This doctrine was not new to Americans, but was so entrenched and
integral to the American way of life that it explains almost all the actions
of [American] life.8 The idea of following your own self-interest in order
to help others is so agreeable to the American mind that is readily
accepted by nearly everyone. Self-interest well understood acts as a sort
of social delimiter for Tocqueville. While it makes the American public
less likely to act in extraordinarily virtuous ways, it also makes it
considerably less likely for Americans to act in particularly undesirable
ways; self-interest well understood is the great moderator of American
political life. Even if it is not perfect, it is undoubtedly necessary.
Tocqueville is not saying that Americans are more selfish than the rest of
the world, but that their selfishness is enlightened in a way that others
is not.9
Another dogma Tocqueville propounds is based on an entrenched
religion viewed in the context of self-interest well understood. He believes
Silvestri 55
a generally uniform religion to be the key to a successful American polity,

and that it is far and away the best dogma a society could rely on. 10
Religion can give the Americans a classified, coordinated, [and] foreseen
view of the world, as opposed to a purely political perspective where
everything is agitated, contested, [and] uncertain.11 He further thinks
entrenched religion is even more necessary in egalitarian times than they
are in aristocratic ones, as members of an aristocracy are predisposed to
accept the idea that authority from on high is legitimate.12 Democrats,
who believe wholeheartedly in the equality of conditions, tend to view the
opinions of every member of their community as equally valid, and reject
the sort of top-down direction a religious or moral dogma entails. The
fact that the religion has played a large role in America historically is a
kind of lucky accident. As such, Tocqueville thinks it should be heavily
protected. He sees religion as being the source of many mores, and thinks
these mores are the foundation of successful politics. 13 Given the
important role of religion, Tocqueville considers it necessary for every
politician and legislator to pretend to adhere to dominant religion, even if
they themselves do not believe in its tenets.14
This should not be construed to suggest the existence of a state church.
While religion can do immeasurable good for politics, politics is
dangerously capable of corrupting (and thereby weakening) religion.
Tocqueville believed that a state religion would inevitably end up in a
position to serve a political interest. If that were to happen, the Churchs
legitimacy would be fundamentally compromised, and the entirety of the
benefits a strong religious presence grants would be nullified.15
In fact, Tocqueville applies this caution to churches generally, state-
sanctioned or not. During his initial visit to the United States, Tocqueville
was pleasantly surprised to find that priests were not heavily involved in
government, whether it was the law or their congregation preventing
them from doing so.16 He quickly saw the benefits of this phenomenon,
and strongly condemned religious leaders being involved in politics,
because overt political sentiments in religion could alienate members and
weaken the churchs moral influence. Tocqueville goes as far as saying he
would rather, chain priests in the sanctuary than allow them to leave it,
because he is so protective of the distinction between church and state.17
Christianity is a particularly desirable religion because it only propounds

moral teachings, whereas Islam makes moral, political, scientific, and
social commands. According to Tocqueville, only the former has any
hope of being a basis for democracy for very long. 18 Tocquevilles
sentiment here calls to mind Mark 12:17, which reads, in part, Render to
Caesar the things that are Caesars, and to God the things that are Gods.
Tocquevilles faith in faith itself as a tool for the American republic is
not concerned with whether or not Christianity is an accurate depiction
of metaphysics. If it serves man very much as an individual that his
religion be true, this is not so for societywhat is most important is not
so much that all citizens profess the true religion but that they profess a
religion. 19 He reasons that because the morality within the different
denominations of Christianity is largely the same, it is not relevant which
denomination is the accepted one. Culturally, Americans conflate
Christianity with freedom, and as long as religion stays generally
compatible with liberty, there is no harm in believing in this assessment.20
While he argues a democratic government must function secularly,
Tocqueville rejects the idea that a democratic people can operate
atheistically. Society would inevitably fail if the moral fortitude of the
populace was not stalwart, especially if the political restraints that come
with a democratic republic were present.21
It is here that political philosopher Pierre Manent becomes crucially
relevant. Manent bridges the human nature expressed by the Federalists
and the dogmas put forth by Tocqueville, and then sheds further light on
each topic. A highlight of Manents work is treatment of Tocquevilles
self-interest well understood. Manent argues that liberalism frees
people to make choices that benefit the society at large, whereas the
centralization of power binds them to making selfish decisions. 22 The
dogmatic egalitarianism in America leads people to believe that they are
inherently equal; therefore, Americans attribute any inequalities caused by
our social nature to nature itself. We dismiss and accept them as
accidents.23
Building on the human nature the Federalists outlined, Manent
suggests that humans want democracy because they want to trust the
masses. 24 The dogmas of popular sovereignty and self-interest well
Silvestri 57
understood forth are bound up in the independence of man.25 It is human

nature to want to be independent, but only through these democratic
dogmas can a society escape the inequalities (accidental or not) that
burden them. Democracy creates a new state of nature, akin to the one
John Locke conceived of, by founding itself on free and equal
individuals.26
But Manent goes a step further. Manent contends that humans in the
liberal tradition not only want to be free of each other, but from their
creator. By being the offspring of his own works, liberals seek to
liberate themselves from society and religion, and be subject only to
nature itself. But Manent says that this Promethean ambition of modern
man is destined to fail: what nature gives, cannot be ordered by it; what
sovereignty orders, it cannot give.27 Despite the natural tendency for the
human to want to be subject only to nature, humans tend to reject natural
law in a secular liberal tradition. For this reason, Manent believes that
liberalism is dangerous, and that Christianity should be reinforced,28 as
Tocqueville suggested. Manent believes that only a religion such as
Christianity can reconcile our desire to separate nature from law with our
desire for political freedom.
I contend that Manent (and, to a degree, Tocqueville) overstates his
case. His theory is probably correct when applied to the America
Tocqueville wrote about, but the modern United States looks quite
different. Secularism, both politically and personally, is considerably more
widespread. Churches did not heed Tocquevilles warning to not collide
unnecessarily with the generally accepted ideas and permanent interests
that reign among the mass.29 On issues like gay marriage, birth control,
and abortion, churches often appear anachronistic and backward to most
millennials. The political culture has shifted significantly, and Manents
characterization of human nature doesnt appear to hold up in light of our
new social climate. It no longer appears that man has the desire for laws
to command him as little as possible. 30 Consider policies like drug
prohibition, increased government surveillance, and increasingly
socialized health care the modern American is, generally, willing to
subject himself or herself to the laws for a number of reasons. By and
large, Americans have either escaped or soon will escape the influence of
revealed religion, as most of Europe has.
I am not arguing that the Federalists, Tocqueville, and Manent are
wrong about the importance of dogmas. I am merely suggesting that we
reframe the dogmas in light of our new social and political culture. Notice
that popular sovereignty and self-interest well understood are not
inherently religious dogmas. While Tocqueville does posit that self-
interest well understood is both compatible with and conducive to
religion, there is nothing that suggests they necessitate one another. 31
Instead of basing our dogmas and doctrines on religion, why not base
them on liberalism itself? Instead of a commitment to religion, I think a
democratic people should be committed to human equality, liberty, and
dignity. This does not have to be because of any divine will, but precisely
because of our self-interest well understood. Society is objectively better
when we are prosperous, generally free, and relatively equal. It is in the
interest of everyone (especially in the context of self-interest well
understood as a social delimiter) that we be espouse classically liberal ideas
and tenets. This is not to say that people should not be allowed to have
religion as a dogma (because Tocqueville is right in saying that religion
often seeks to bring happiness in this world), but that those who do not
wish to should be allowed to choose for themselves.32
Tocqueville was right to say that society flourishes when we give
democratic peoples enlightenment and freedom and leave them alone;33
however, this enlightenment has changed significantly. Tocqueville asks,
What makes a people master of itself if it has not submitted to God?34
But it no longer matters; people largely accept as dogma that they are the
masters of themselves. If this is accepted a priori, the root of our
independence is irrelevant. This does not undermine religion or
Tocquevilles essential dogmatism. My theory is only an updated
reflection on the modern social conscience, and provides an alternate
narrative for going forward. America is at the beginning of a new
dogmatic social conscience, and it is my sincere hope that the dogmas
relied upon are those of the classical liberal tradition.
Silvestri 59
1 Federalist no. 55
2 Federalist no. 6
3 Federalist no. 37
4 Tocqueville, 274
5 Id., 407
6 Id., 408
7 Id., 501
8 Id., 502
9 Id., 503
10 Id., 417
11 Id., 43
12 Id., 409
13 Id., 44 & 279
14 Id., 521
15 Id., 530
16 Id., 283
17 Id., 521
18 Id., 418
19 Id., 278
20 Id., 280-281
21 Id., 282
22 Manent, 102
23 Id., 108
24 Id., 110
25 Id., 112
26 Id., 112-113
27 Id., 114-115
28 Id., 116-117
29 Tocqueville, 423
30 Manent, 116
31 Tocqueville, 505
32 Id., 506
33 Id., 518
34 Id., 282
60
Reflection on
Dogmatic Liberalism
I can definitely see where I was coming from when I wrote Dogmatic
Liberalism. These were the rantings of a jaded and secular libertarian, eager
to rebel against the status quo. While I do still have reservations about the
influence of Christianity on our politics, Ive grown more skeptical of a
religious commitment to any political philosophy. See Jonathan Haidts
The Righteous Mind: Why Good People are Divided by Politics and Religion for
more on this topic.
This appears to be the paper where I discovered the semicolon; I use
it entirely too much.
Dogmatic Liberalism was originally written for MC 271, taught by

Professor Folke Lindahl. It was submitted on May 8th, 2015.
61
Toleration, Secularization,
and the Crisis of the
Modern-Day Liberal
W HEN CONSIDERING THE PROPER ROLE OF

religion in politics, one must also consider the proper treatment of
religion in society. In todays fairly liberal world, we seem to take for
granted the assumption that free choice in religion is not only a good thing,
but a basic right. To truly begin to take the relationship between faith and
freedom seriously, it is vital that the arguments in favor of religious
toleration be carefully unpacked, and also that the objections to the
doctrine be acknowledged, or even refuted. To be fair in an exploration
of liberalism, religion, and the potential pitfalls the two have when they
meet, an examination of the major thinkers in liberal tolerance thinking,
particularly John Locke, Montesquieu, and Pierre Manent, as well as the
strengths and weaknesses of their arguments, is in order.
In A Letter Concerning Toleration, John Locke lays out a fairly compelling
case in favor of religious freedom. The political climate of the day kept
him from speaking entirely honestly, particularly on issues of atheism and
Catholicism. But by combining the experiences that influenced Lockes
thinking before writing the letter and the text of the letter itself, we can
surmise a comprehensive treatment of Lockes attitudes toward religion
and its proper role in society. It seems that Locke believes the state should
allow citizens to practice any religion they please (albeit with some
limitations) on the grounds that toleration is conducive to peace and in
the long-term interest of both the government and the religious
institutions; however, at first glance, his solution appears to have
disturbing implications for the future of religion in society.
Lockes argument is an intensely logical one. He uses reason to come
to conclusions about the way political and religious bodies interact with
each other and amongst themselves. Locke starts his foray into the
question of state and religion with two truisms: true Christians should
embrace various methods of one becoming closer to God, and they
should use only compassion and language to combat sin, rather than
violence. 1 These premises, Locke believes, had been eschewed by
contemporary clergyman in favor of two false beliefs, namely that
wavering from strict religious doctrine is inherently a sin, and that it is the
duty of the Christian to ensure others convert, even by the use of force.
Until these lies are rejected by the masses, he argues, competing
denominations will try to gain power and influence over others by way of
the state, causing constant turmoil and war. His solution to this problem
was originally for citizens to cede their natural rights, including religious
preferences, to a sovereign monarch who would ensure peace by strictly
controlling religious quarrels in the interest of the common good, but his
experience with martyrs protesting against the Clarendon Code changed
his view quickly.2
Locke realized that the beliefs people hold dear should not be
discounted, as people are willing to subject themselves to massive
hardship in the name of a perceived reward of eternal salvation. When
such deep faith has such a monumental influence on the populace, the
states control of the people and their religion can only do so much. In
light of a recent debacle King Charles II was involved in between the
Anglican and Catholic Churches, it appeared that a state-sanctioned
church, regardless of denomination, would inevitably lead to conflict and
unrest.3 Furthermore, a change in ones core beliefs is rarely a calculated,
rational decision, but a response to experiences and feelings; for this
reason, using force to inspire a change in conviction is a futile task, and
will only breed contempt amongst all denominations.4 It follows, then,
Silvestri 63
that the suppression of religious choice is ultimately against the long-term

interest of the magistrate, as the vitriol the denominations feel as a result
of being oppressed will have been ameliorated. Having been made aware
of the staggering influence spiritual beliefs can have on both the individual
and society, Locke outlined his argument in support of pluralism in A
Letter Concerning Toleration.
Locke begins by immediately positing that toleration is a core virtue
of a successful church, and dismissing clergyman who seek to use the
government to propagate religion as being motivated by power instead of
piety.5 He then makes clear his conception of the role of government in
society: the Commonwealth exists to protect civil interests of citizens,
namely, life, liberty, and property most broadly.6 Notably, these rights all
involve physical actions and the execution of external force. 7 There
appears to be no reason, either logically or scripturally, that one man has
any claim to authority over someone elses soul; since the magistrate is
merely a man, is appears no such power belongs to him. As such, it is best
the Crown generally stay out of religious questions, unless they threaten
the fabric of society itself. If the magistrates duty is to protect the rights
and safety of the citizenry, and if it is true that a lack of tolerance leads to
war as was historically the case it follows that a ruler who pursues
policies known to run counter to peace is not fulfilling his duty, and is
therefore rightfully subject to an armed revolution by the people.8
Having justified the rulers absence in spiritual affairs, Locke does
provide an avenue for the religious to influence one another by way of a
church. He defines a church as a non-compulsory association of people,
all of whom seek to worship God publicly in a manner that they believe
will please Him. Since no one is naturally a member of any religion, he
argues, it is important that they be able to join and leave congregations;9
he qualifies, however, that just as the state should not meddle in religious
affairs, the Church should leave governance to the magistrate, as it is he
who is charged with protecting mans inviolable rights.10 Locke then calls
for acceptance between the denominations themselves, claiming that no
peace will ever be possible as long as the myth that religion must be
enforced by violence persists.11 If it is true that clergymen seek to emulate
the word of God, then they should allow people to pray in whatever
method they feel brings them closest to the truth, if not only in the interest
of harmony in society.12
The argument ends forcefully with a reframing of his critics
arguments. Locke suggests that rather than asking what societys response
should be if a religion is not agreeable to the magistrate, one should ask
why the magistrate, who is in charge of worldly affairs, ought to play a
role in the spiritual realm. As long as laws are just, then whatever lawful
action one wishes to take in public ought to be legal to take in their
religious lives as well.13 Locke sees trying to combat the tension between
conflicting opinions as a futile task, as dissent is inevitable. Instead, he
suggests it is precisely the rejection of tolerance that has caused so many
bloody and plainly unholy conflicts in the decades preceding his letter.
In his letter, Lockes prose is striking and deliberate, and particularly
stands out as a glowing strength of the case he makes. Rather than
attacking religious institutions from a secular position, he uses the very
words they claim to hold above all else to point out the Churchs
hypocrisy. This appeal to religious morality is present from the beginning,
most notably when he uses Bible verses to condemn any follower of Jesus
who advocates for war and intolerance as not being a true Christian.14
Shortly after, he points out the paradox in the Church claiming to want
to save the soul of a man they killed while he was still a heretic.15 Lockes
criticism of religious hypocrites is swift, powerful, and effective. To a
lesser degree, the references to the English Civil War and the Clarendon
Code helped ground the argument in relatable terms for those reading at
the time.
While it is certainly true that one of the strengths of the text is that the
reasonable, logical approach makes refuting it difficult, it is not the case
that there are no substantive criticisms of the work. The most obvious is
likely the fear of a complete degradation of public morality. Without the
state enforcing and encouraging moral behavior, what stops societal
ethics from eroding entirely? A prudent reading of the text offers some
form of response from Locke. Firstly, Locke may have argued, the
objector has the wrong priority in mind. Rather than combat voluntary
gatherings of religion, why not combat the immorality itself? The debate
on morality could lead to improved ethical theories, while still allowing
Silvestri 65
one to condemn behaviors they find objectionable.16 Locke might have

further pointed out that when force is used to propagate certain behaviors,
it is likely that the person accused of villainy will simply lie and claim to
have changed their ways, leaving the endeavor fruitless.17
Another possible objection involves Lockes admitted failure to check
the magistrate. If a ruler believes he has the right to make laws that that
are blatantly against the interests of citizens, Godis the only Judge in
this case.18 Locke does not refute this point, but one ought to consider
that while this lack of recourse may not sit well with modern-day liberal
sensibilities, it is important to explore solutions to the problem. Later
liberal governments were able to craft systems that curbed executive
power, such as the Supreme Court. While Locke may have left the
question unsatisfactorily answered, it is possible to use his theories to
address the problems within them.
There is a slight flaw in Lockes logic, however. While the submission
to the laws punishment that dissenting martyrs showed during the
English Civil War shaped much of his philosophy, he ostensibly forgets
this lesson in his conclusion. While he cedes that some church actions
must be illegal if they violate the mores at the core of Civil Society, he
thinks the concern is overstated because the Churches will avoid such a
practice in order to protect their interests and reputation;19 but is it not
true, by Lockes own admission, that people are willing to ignore worldly
incentive structures in the pursuit of salvation? In a work so logically
sound, one may wonder if this seemingly critical error isnt an intentional
ruse to highlight a more nuanced and controversial criticism of either the
church or the state. Here, Locke may be clandestinely criticizing the
churchs incentive structure as it relates to social good.
There are a number of veiled attacks on religion throughout the letter.
Consider Lockes backhanded definition of a church: a free and
voluntary Society [wherein] no body is born a member Otherwise, the
Religion of Parents would descend unto Children nothing can be
imagined more absurd. At first glance, this definition seems to paint the
religion in a positive light. But when one considers the staggering number
of people who do share their parents religion (which is usually the one
they were born with), Lockes analysis of the house of God may be a
tongue-in-cheek condemnation of the role religion has in child-rearing, a

criticism that he simply couldnt say in his political climate. Also suspect
is the distinction he makes in the powers the Church can reasonably have.
He puts forth that in questions of actions that neither morally required
nor morally forbidden, the Church ought to have no influence, as
indifferent things of this nature do not please God. 20 It is certainly
possible that Locke is trying to use liberal governance as a way to weaken
religion itself.
In any case, the reasoning that Locke employed in this seminal work
is generally sound, and influenced scores of philosophers and nations.
When one considers whether or not modern liberalism can still be rooted
in Lockes theory, is it not prudent to ask if it worked so well we no longer
need to? In developed liberal democracies, and particularly in America,
religion thrives despite a formal and institutional separation from the
government. It seems that while developing democracies may still need
to keep Lockes Letter in mind, we have embraced, enhanced, and
enshrined the theory in our collective conscience.
While John Lockes is undeniably the most cited theory of religious
toleration from the classical liberal school of thought, one would do
oneself a great disservice by discounting other theories, such as that of
Baron de Montesquieu. In The Spirit of the Laws, Montesquieus magnum
opus, a much clearer, succinct, and possibly honest approach to religious
toleration can be found. At the center of Montesquieus conception of
toleration is the rejection of wondering whether or not a religion is true;
the more important question, he argues, is how much good the religion
provides for society.21
This utility-based view of religion obviously runs counter to the way
most citizens conceive of spirituality, but Montesquieu makes a
compelling case for trading truth in favor of peace. He begins with the
simple premise that it is the duty of both the legal and the spiritual
institutions to ensure the morals of the society are acceptable. In this
endeavor, he proposes the two bodies work inversely; if either one fails
uphold certain ethical standards, it is the obligation of the other to
institute harsher rules until the standard is met. 22 Whereas Locke
preferred that matters of the soul generally be left to the individuals,
Silvestri 67
Montesquieu sees the overarching moral fabric of the community as more

important that the individual.
Montesquieus argument reaches an interesting crossroad with Lockes.
Both philosophers agree that it is unjust to use the law as a justification
for discriminating against someone on account of their religion. 23
Montesquieu also invokes the phenomenon that so drastically changed
much of Lockes worldview: there is no use in using legal ramifications to
scare citizens into keeping their religion in check, because it is religion
which holds eternal damnation and salvation, the greatest punishment and
reward possible. Dissenters will often be willing to face whatever
punishment the state commands if they truly believe that they will
ultimately be better off for it. Both recognize this as a very real threat to
the states power, and propose toleration as a way to curb this influence
and keep the people at ease. Montesquieu makes clear that keeping the
people content is critical, and accepts the toleration of religion as a means
of doing so. He posits that a ruler cant abolish the institutions that the
society holds dear, whether they be part a state-based religion, or a natural
cultural more; any ruler wanting to alter or destroy the state religion would
run the risk of a very violent, very passionate revolution.24
Montesquieu also agrees with Locke on the issue of
interdenominational peace. While Montesquieu points out the difference
between tolerating a societys deep faith and condoning it, he does admit
that it is possible to create peace through religious pluralism.25 If this is to
be done, the laws must be structured in a way that protects against sects
fighting one another. Not only must the state tolerate religious sects, but
religious sects must tolerate one another. Their obligation does not end
at allowing the state to conduct its affairs unhindered; they also have a
responsibility to one another. Montesquieu is quick to point this out
because of the historical evidence of oppressed religions gaining an
opportunity to harm the religion that oppressed them in the first place. In
that moment, they stop acting as moral authorities and begin ruling one
another as despots, which Montesquieu universally condemns.
The two philosophers do have two major points of disagreement.
Montesquieu cites Greece and Japan as examples of a single, state-
sanctioned religion that acts as a buffer for peace during times of civil
war.26 Conversely, Locke often saw the establishment of a national church

as a precursor to a civil war, and sought to guard against it. It is also worth
noting that, regardless of the sincerity behind Lockes claims, there is no
condemnation of any one religious group, be it atheists or Catholics, in
Montesquieu, whereas Locke seems strikingly illiberal in this regard.
It is at this point that a question fairly arises: Given Lockes seemingly
anti-church attitude and Montesquieus treatment of religion as a mere
means to end, is there a crisis of secularism built into liberalism? Is there
room for sincere faith, or is liberalism simply incompatible with devotion
to a higher power? Pierre Manent identifies this quagmire as the
theologico-political problem. To deny, as most liberals do, that political
life is intrinsically linked to a higher purpose is not only to be in
opposition to the ancients, but to strip away the individuals role in society
and create some sort of homogenous individual.27
Manent argues that after the fall of the Holy Roman Empire, the
secular aristocracy sought to form a government that steered away from
either empire or city-state. Their solution, an absolute monarch, was
legitimized by a claim of divine right from the Creator himself.28 After
the Enlightenment, however, a distrust of churches and states
intermingling formed. When liberalism took hold as a major philosophy,
the distrust of Christianity, and by extension all higher-minded goals,
Manent believes the political landscape became simultaneously and
paradoxically more tolerant of freedom of the individual, and more
accepting of larger government. When there is no unifying goal, the liberal
becomes irreparably divided between our identity as a member of the
marketplace and a member of the nation. 29 While he still considers
himself a liberal, Manent warns that the relationship between liberalism
and religion is a dangerous and important issue we should consider.
Is Manent correct in his assertions? I am skeptical. Regardless of
whether Locke condemned religion secretly and sought to weaken its
power, he raises valuable criticisms that the intellectually honest thinker
ought to address. Even though Montesquieu sees religion as a means to
end, isnt that a challenge to the religious to make the case that the one
true religion they subscribe to is the means to the end of peace?
Furthermore, is it not more probable, as Jerrold Seigel points out, that the
Silvestri 69
consistent killing in the name of religion for hundreds of years is what

actually weakened Christianitys standing in the public eye?30 There is little
doubt that liberalism is a challenging and thought-provoking doctrine.
Manents criticism of the modern liberal as dismissive of a higher good is
unfounded.
Manent would agree that liberals have determined a set of evils that
we do not tolerate, such as despotism. But where he then uses this fact as
evidence that liberals are avoiding addressing the unspoken good, I see
the rejection of those evils as the good in and of itself. To not violate the
rights of others, be it privately or by use of the state, is the good that
liberals strive for. The beauty of liberalism is that if Manent prefers his
philosophy to be based in religion, he is free to do so. It is not the rejection
of evil that makes the liberal inconsistentit is Manents rejection of
those theories that wish to seek him the right to believe whatever he
pleases that undermines modern day liberalism.
1 Locke, 26
2 Id., 4
3 Id., 5
4 Id., 7
5 Id., 23
6 Id., 26
7 Id., 27
8 Id., 10
9 Id., 28
10 Id., 31
11 Id., 33
12 Id., 34
13 Id., 53
14 Id., 23
15 Id., 25
16 Id., 24-25
17 Id., 27
18 Id., 49
19 Id.
20 Id., 40
21 Montesquieu, 236-237
22 Id., 234
23 Id., 239
24 Id., 238-239
25 Id., 238
26 Id., 236
27 Manent, xvi
28 Id., 7
29 Id., 64
30 Id., xiii
71
Reflection on
Toleration, Secularization, and the
Crisis of the Modern-Day Liberal
This paper does the work that Dogmatic Liberalism tried to, but in a
more concise and measured way. Im particularly pleased with the analysis
of A Letter Concerning Toleration. Furthermore, I still believe that liberalism
has the capability of serving higher aims, including community goods.
Nonetheless, Toleration, Secularization, and the Crisis of the Modern-Day
Liberal comes off as condescending, relegating religious belief to a choice
like any other, instead of recognizing its long status as a key part of liberal
thought.
Toleration, Secularization, and the Crisis of the Modern-Day Liberal was

originally written for MC 271, taught by Professor Folke Lindahl. It was
submitted on March 5th, 2015.
72
The Noble Illusion

A New Public Philosophy in Response to
Robert Nagels Judicial Power and American Character
C ENTRAL TO ROBERT NAGELS JUDICIAL POWER AND

American Character is his condemnation of the modern Supreme
Courts role in American governance. Nagel views the Supreme
Court as a social barometer for our political climate, insofar as it does
not act based on the tenets we usually associate with jurists, such as
objectivity and moderation, but instead succumbs too quickly to political
pressure and intolerance; he suspects this is the case because the
American people are anxious about their own moral fortitude, and
transfer these insecurities to the Court.1 Furthermore, he argues that the
American public engages in an almost Orwellian doublethink by
simultaneously calling for and condemning judicial supremacy. I contend
that this paradox can be resolved by conceiving of a Noble Illusion akin
to Platos Noble Lie in The Republic.i Based on Nagels observations, it
seems to me that it is vital that Americans embrace a Noble Illusion about
the proper role of jurists so as not to be subjected to the pitfalls of
stringent legalism or realism, as well as to allow for evolving jurisprudence
in the face of changing cultural and social mores.
iThe Noble Lie in The Republic referred to a made-up genesis of the social
classes Socrates proposed. While Socrates did not pretend that his account was
truthful, he believed that if the citizens of the city believed it, they would be
more inclined to act in desirable ways; see The Republic, Book 3, 414e-415d.
Silvestri 73
Nagels poignant description of a scene in which abortion activists

lobby the Supreme Court for their preferred policy instead of Congress is
significant.2 The trend that Judge Bork reported is indicative of a clear
public conception of judicial supremacy: the most politically active
members of society believe the judiciary to be the final arbiters of policy,
and think that they are susceptible influence by demonstrations. As Nagel
puts it, the protesters suspect that judges are not bound by law. 3 It
seems that pure legalism (referring to a doctrine in which only legal
arguments are considered) leads to anti-democratic rulings, and strict
realism (a philosophy in which judicial and political concerns are
intertwined) leads to a lack of consistency in the law; how, then, can the
Court strike a balance between the will of the people and the text of the
Constitution while still acting in their proper capacity?
Appealing to the Supreme Court for policy-making makes Americans
uneasy, despite the fact that judges, academia, and the populace seem to
exercise that route when it is convenient for them. 4 When Attorney
General Edwin Meese argued that the Supreme Court should not have
the ultimate say in the meaning of the Constitution, both the public and
academia were outraged.5 This fact is difficult to reconcile with the scene
Bork described earlier. Rather than fighting against this clear and present
inclination of the people, I propose we embrace it.
If there is one thing American jurisprudence shows clearly, it is that
the Court fights an uphill (and arguably impossible) battle when going
against the cultural climate. From the backlash against Brown v. Board of
Education (and the ensuing circumstances that led to Cooper v. Aaron) to
the outcry in the wake of Roe v. Wade, it is clear that the Supreme Court is
often at odds with the cultural climate. It is further evident that they are
responsive to this political and cultural will, as they were in Planned
Parenthood v. Casey and Webster v. Reproductive Health Services.6 Regardless of
the law, the Justices are acutely aware of people marching in the streets.7
While one could question the viability and justness of this fact (as Nagel
does for several pages), the reality is that Americans expect and quietly
accept our simultaneous belief in legalism and realism.8
There is little use in trying to change this paradoxical belief. If held to
an academically rigorous standard, it seems true that these doctrines
cannot coexist; they are clearly at odds with one another, and the effects
of a mixed judicial philosophy would be wildly inconsistent.
Simultaneously, adhering to legalism leads to moral failings in the law, and
adhering to realism leads to legal ones. But while academia might not be
able to reconcile this problem, it is important to note that the public does
not hold the Court to the same standard academics might. Our political
culture has changed, and our expectations of the judiciary have morphed
with it. Historically, there are few examples of a populace radically shifting
its opinion on something (as ours has on the role of the Court) and later
changing it back. This inconsistent judicial philosophy is likely here to stay.
So instead of attempting to fight this, I contend that we should roll
with the proverbial punches. Americans should take up a quiet mix of
realism and legalism as a public philosophy. The Noble Illusion that these
doctrines can co-exist allows the Court to be responsive to change while
still assuming the air of objectivity and insulation from politics. Americans
want the Court to rule in favor of what they view as right, regardless of
the legal basis for the policy; what we dont want, however, is to know
that it is happening. While demonstrations at the Supreme Court scare us,
we are cognizant of the fact that, whether we like it or not, the Court is
now in some sort of policy-making position. Even though many accepted
every premise of Meeses argument, they were still quick to call him a
radical and contemptuous.9 But if we silently accepted the reality in
front of us, unlike Meese did, our judiciary could become capable of
something entirely new.
If the Bench is not bound by strict doctrines like legalism or realism,
and is given a tacit approval from the public to do so, the Supreme Court
is suddenly able to evaluate constitutional questions a truly case-by-case
basis. This new brand of precept, which Ill call mixed contextualism,
weighs the political consequences of their decisions against the legal
ramifications of them. It allows for some rulings to embrace a democratic
will and others to enforce traditional and largely-accepted values. This
seems, on its face, to successfully bridge popular sovereignty and
individual rights. In cases where the democratic will is not oppressive and
seems to be good policy, but does not quite have a constitutional basis, it
could still be enacted; likewise, when the democratic will bordered on
Silvestri 75
tyrannical, Justices could use a command of the law defense in ruling

against it.
The key to this mixed philosophy, however, is that all parties silently
agree to its terms. For the Court to maintain its legitimacy, it needs to
appear objective. The public cannot know (or, at the very least, cannot
acknowledge) that the Court is receptive to public opinion, lest the Court
be seen as another house of Congress.
This kind of doublethink is not without precedent in American
jurisprudence. The most obvious example is Justice Marshalls ruling in
Marbury v. Madison. While many think that his claim that he merely
followed the command of the law was just rhetoric, most accept that this
suggestion itself helped legitimize the Supreme Court in the midst of great
political doubt. The circumstances surrounding Justice Taneys holding in
ex parte Merryman also come to mind; had Taney not condemned Lincolns
actions, he would have set a dangerous precedent, but had Lincoln abided
by Taneys decision, we would likely not be in a position to analyze the
jurisprudence of a post-1865 Supreme Court.
This mixed contextualism can also be applied to the ruling in Green v.
County School Board of New Kent County. Nagel wonders why schools that
used to be segregated are obligated to have approximately equal student
bodies if the act of having a racially unbalanced student body is not
unconstitutional in and of itself.10 While Nagel rectifies the legal dilemma
by reframing the freedom of choice plan as a negative communication to
the parents of black students, I see it more as an exercise of the Noble
Illusion; even if a legal basis wasnt there, the social concern at hand
outweighed the lack of constitutional grounds. While this is not,
admittedly, a philosophically ideal standard by which to adjudicate, it
seems that such an unspoken credo may be necessary given the political,
social, and cultural context in which we operate today. This is especially
clear when viewed in the light of cases where it was used and achieved a
generally favorable result.
By accepting the Noble Illusion that the Supreme Court does what is
right because they followed the law, even in the face of evidence to the
contrary (such as, in my opinion, Justice Roberts actions in NFIB v.
Sebelius), our constitutional order becomes an authoritative, principled
republic that is still responsive to democratic change. This is the ultimate

form of the self-confidence Nagel calls for.11 Rather than try to radically
change ourselves and our social conceptions of the branches of
government, as Nagel suggests, we ought to accept ourselves as we are,
even if that means embracing our anxiousness. The mixed contextualism
that I have propounded could lead to an American public that is confident
enough in itself and in its judiciary to reach an optimal outcome when
Congress fails to, even if it means the unelected judiciary has to work
outside the lines of a strict jurisprudential philosophy.
1 Nagel, 7
2 Id., 46
3 Id.
4 Id., 47
5 Id., 56-57
6 Id., 49
7 Id., 57
8 Id., 59
9 Id., 57
10 Id., 115
11 Id., 156
77
Reflection on
The Noble Illusion
The Noble Illusion is one of my favorite papers in this collection. This is

not because of the quality of the work, per se, but because of the
circumstances surrounding it. When The Noble Illusion was submitted, it
was a tongue-in-cheek criticism of those who I perceived to be without
principle. It struck me that no major political party or philosophy could
be said to act consistently with their expressed principles. This paper was
meant to highlight the ridiculousness of an inconsistent judicial
philosophy. In short, I didnt believe a word of what Id written.
But in the years since, Ive embraced the words I sarcastically wrote.
Ive taken a broad move away from strict adherence to any ideology in
recent years, and this reflection is further evidence of that. More and more,
Ive realized the futility of pining for a return to constitutional principles,
especially in the collective mind of the American populace. If anything,
mixed contextualism is less a proposal than a recognition of current
practice.
The Noble Illusion was originally written for MC 373s Honors Option,
taught by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman. It was submitted on May 2 nd,
2015.
78
Feminism as a
Logical Consequence
of Liberalism
C LASSICAL LIBERAL THEORY, WHICH HAS LARGELY

dominated Western politics in one form or another over the last few
hundred years, is often portrayed as being at odds with
contemporary feminism. At first glance, this notion seems
incomprehensible; how could a philosophy based on equality and respect
for fundamental rights not be compatible with the belief that both sexes
should be treated equally? According to modern thinkers like Allison
Jaggar, the problem lies in the fundamentals of liberalism. According to
her, liberalisms foundation is incongruous with modern feminist ideals,
and ought to be replaced by a more inclusive political theory. But
proponents of this sentiment fail to understand liberalism and the
possibilities enveloped in it. In fact, feminism is a logical consequence of
classical liberal theory rather than its antithesis, and a vast majority of
Jaggars political prescriptions are either possible or inherent within
liberalisms framework.
Liberal feminism is brilliantly outlined in John Stuart Mills The
Subjection of Women. Written in an age when the subjugation of a wife to
her husband was a socially entrenched and legally enforced paradigm, Mill
makes a strikingly simple argument against institutions with patriarchal
barriers to womens entry: no one would reasonably institute a law
requiring that strong men be blacksmiths, nor that weak men be barred
from doing so. 1 History, according to Mill, supports the claim that
Silvestri 79
individual autonomy leads to the best results for both individuals and
groups. It is simply superfluous to prevent those who would be inept at a
given activity from engaging in it, because they naturally will be
discouraged from doing so.2 Market principles, a staple of classical liberal
theory, preclude those who are ill-suited for a task from succeeding at it.
If, as Mills contemporary opponents suggested, women are truly inferior
to men, then removing legal barriers to womens success would be
inconsequential, because they are predisposed to perform worse than men.
Mill argues that there can only be a net gain from liberal feminist
policies. If the status quo is right, then men will still be dominant because
they are inherently superior. The worst that could happen is that a few
particularly capable women succeed, as Joan of Arc or Queen Elizabeth.3
But by and large, women would naturally remain in the roles they
currently occupy.
But if Mill is correct in thinking that women are as capable as men,
then the societal change would still be net positive. Competition would
lead to an increase in capable workers, and would give society an increased
pool of human resources from which to select their laborers.4 Mill uses
the analogy of conscripting sailors rather than paying them to show the
immorality, inefficiency, and inefficacy of coercing people to achieve
desirable ends. Any objection to this line of thinking is necessarily based
in wanting to maintain ones current role in the social hierarchy, which
Mill dismisses as being irrational and immoral.
Mill makes a somewhat personal attack against the ruling class of the
time. By offering Hobsons choice to the women, men are suggesting that
the arrangement of marriage is so undesirable to women that they must
be coerced into participating in it.5 Here, Mill uses a subtle psychological
argument that highlights the patriarchys status as an anachronism.
Marriage in a Millean system is remarkably progressive compared to
the time in which Mill wrote. Women would own whatever property they
entered into the marriage with, and any income she acquired belonged to
her, providing she contributed to the income of the family with the labor
of housework.6 But when issues beyond this arise in a marriage, as they
inevitably will, Mill again takes an exemplary liberal position; issues in the
private life of the family are best arbitrated by the family.7 Questions of
whether a wife ought to hold other jobs, how the children ought to be
raised, and how the housework ought to be done should be determined
within the household, with the utmost latitudefor the adaptation of
general rules to individual suitabilities.8 This is precisely the essence of
feminism. Assuming the absence of legal barriers, women ought to be
able to decide for themselves, voluntarily, how they want to comport
themselves; their life and its details are up to them.
The ends of Mills liberal feminism are clear: legal barriers to womens
success should be done away with, but this does not extend so far as
giving them additional privileges that men do not have. 9 In fact, Mill
condemns the most radical feminists; he posits that if a womans goal is
the subjection of man rather than equality, she is a worthy candidate for
divorce.10 Mill views liberalism as the tool by which to achieve justice for
women,11 but it is precisely his focus on institutional and formal equality
rather than equity is the genesis of the modern debate around liberalism
and feminisms compatibility. Allison Jaggar begins her defense of this
incompatibility and her rejection of Mills philosophy by outlining the
tenets and basis of Mill and his sympathizers thoughts.
According to Jaggar, liberal theory and feminism have run parallel to
one another on most issues since the 18th century.12 Feminists sought to
include women in the liberal advances happening at the time. In the 18th
century, feminists advocated for a recognition of womens natural rights.
In the 19th century, they (including Mill) argued against legal barriers to
womens success. But in the 20th century, as many called for the state to
ameliorate negative effects of capitalism, feminists began pursuing social
programs that used the states powers to benefit them;13 this leap from
the state protecting negative rights to guaranteeing positive ones marks
the major departure from classical to progressive liberalism. But Jaggar
maintains that from its outset, liberalism and its two central tenets,
normative dualism and abstract individualism, ran contrary to the best
interests of women.
Normative dualism, a term of Jaggars own invention, refers to the
idea that a humans value is predicated on their ability to reason.14 This
idea, according to liberals, is what separates humans from beasts, and is
the epistemological basis for our governance. The physical shape of a
Silvestri 81
person is irrelevant to their status as a human, provided they are capable

of rationality.
Jaggars objection to normative dualism is based primarily in biology.
She points out that humans are distinct from animals in more ways than
rationality, citing the inordinate amount of time human children are cared
for by their parents.15 Without offering any evidence, she further posits
that the care of a child could not be done by a single adult, and that it is
necessary for children to exist in social contexts; essentially, she believes
that it takes a village to raise a child. Jaggar then suggests that this neglect
of biological fact is somehow indicative of the illegitimacy of normative
dualism. If liberals recognized the biological need for community, the
existence of selfless institutions like public goods and limited altruism
become necessary rather than confounding. However, Jaggars seemingly
simple solution to the problems of liberalism is itself problematic because
of its lack of evidence and the fact that she neglects to present any sort of
alternative. I would be more swayed by Jaggars claims if she put forth a
viable substitute, but any without any empirical or even theoretical
argument to the contrary, her condemnation of normative dualism falls
flat.
Jaggar also takes issue with the liberal skepticism that she believes is
derived from normative dualism. 16 The skepticism she refers to is the
liberal position that the state is incapable of promoting any particular
conception of human happiness or well-being. Liberal thought, stemming
from a belief in individual autonomy, generally holds that because
everyone is the arbiter of what constitutes their own best ends, the state
would be treating people unequally if it accepted or rejected any one view
of the good life. Reason can be used to derive the best means to reach
an end, but offers nothing about the validity of the end itself. Jaggars two
main objections to liberal skepticism are that it fails to account for
humans basic needs and that it is illogical, since it stems from normative
dualism, an idea she has already dismissed. She charges that liberalism
ignore[s] the facts of human biology: our common need for air, water,
food, warmth, etc. 17 This is a fundamental misunderstanding of
liberalism. No liberal would deny that humans need the things she lists,
but would instead contend that the individual knows their needs and is
best suited to fulfill them. Furthermore, because I did not accept her
argument against normative dualism, it follows that I cannot accept her
dismissal of its consequences.
Abstract individualism is the notion that political theories ought to
consider human individuals in their base state as being independent from
social or cultural contexts, and deems it just to apply conclusions drawn
on this basis to humans in societies. 18 In this way, liberalism has
sometimes been called ahistorical. Abstract individualism further holds
that rationality is roughly equivalent in all people, regardless of religious,
racial, or physical differences; this is evident in the Millean argument that
if women have been less successful than men, its because they havent
been given ample opportunity to succeed.19
Jaggar believes that feminism itself pokes holes in the idea of abstract
individualism. Modern research shows that most differences between
men and women throughout their life stem from early differences in their
development. If it were true that human nature is independent of context,
this would seem to be an empirical refutation of that theory. 20 Here,
however, Jaggar misrepresents liberal thought; while the liberal would
hold that there is an ahistorical human nature we can understand, they
would not contend that this nature is not malleable to social pressures.
Citing Naomi Scheman, Jaggar challenges the idea that individuals
form their own mental states. 21 Scheman and Jaggar argue that our
emotions, beliefs, and desires are all tempered and necessarily defined by
the social implications of them. Anger, embarrassment, fear, and even our
religious beliefs are identified by social cues and instructions. If human
nature exists independently of such a context, it would be impossible to
express these feelings or arrive at answers to introspective questions,
according to Scheman. Here, Scheman assumes without justification that
the feelings we interpret and the answers we arrive at are somehow
inherently correct because they are derived from society. Introspective
questions could be answered independently of society, but with different
answers. Scheman fails to establish why social answers are innately
superior to individual ones.
Scheman further postulates that attempting to justify forms of social
organization by reference to the existing desires of individual members of
Silvestri 83
[is] a pointlessly circular procedure.22 This is exactly the point of the

ahistoricity of liberalism. In the same way that social organization cant be
derived from the desires of individuals, it cant be derived from the
aggregate of individuals desires either. Liberalism operating ahistorically
circumvents this quagmire.
Jaggar mounts an attack on liberalisms conception of rationality by
rejecting individual autonomy and egoism, as well as by charging classical
liberalism with male bias. The idea that individuals can freely make
decisions based on their own interests is flawed because people often
dont know themselves well;23 this is evidenced by feminists who claim
women can be conditioned to follow certain sex roles. Women hide their
own nature by caving to social pressures, which implies that an
individuals desires cannot be taken at face value. But why are these
gender roles in place? In large part, they have persisted because
governments codified and enforced them. In a liberal state, no such
statutes would be in place; in fact, theyre exactly the sort of thing Mill is
arguing against in The Subjection of Women. Furthermore, even if it is granted
that ones desires may be clouded by social pressures, there is hardly a
compelling reason that someone else, especially the state, is best suited to
see through the proverbial fog and make decisions on ones behalf.
A crux of Jaggars argument is her rejection of humanitys tendency
toward egoism, a traditionally liberal thought. The liberal would argue that
people tend to take actions that are in their perceived best interest; one
may be capable of acting in a somewhat altruistic capacity, but it is done
with hesitation, and is weighed against their own selfish good.24 Jaggar
believes that this idea is obviously false because women often find their
own fulfillment in serving others.25 From this claim, which Jaggar fails
to offer a modicum of evidence for, feminists have two choices. One
option is to accept egoism and argue that socialization has forced women
to deviate from their nature for hundreds of years; this, notably, is among
Mills arguments.26 The other option, according to Jaggar, is reject the
egoistic model and embrace feminine characteristics while maintaining
that they are rational.27
Here, Jaggar offers feminists a false dichotomy. While I contend the
egoistic model is valid, Id argue that supposedly feminine traits such as
nurturing and caring for others can be rational under this model, and can
be held by members of either sex. If an individual decides that they would
derive the most pleasure from helping another, they have still acted
egoistically. As previously established, the liberal makes no judgment as
to the ranking of ones ends. It is not at all illiberal to act altruistically if
an individual derives more value from acting selflessly than selfishly.
This highlights the fundamental problem with Jaggars argument: she fails
to acknowledge the potential for positive outcomes, feminist or otherwise,
from a choice-dependent system. Likewise, her use of Amartya Sens
revealed preference theory of economics, in which individuals
commitments to groups are emphasized, is marred by the fact that
altruism is still possible under liberal economic theories. There is nothing
illiberal about an individual judging that their best interests are aligned
with a groups, and acting accordingly with that basis. There is no mystery
about how public goods exist in liberal societies; it was, at some point, in
the best interests of those individuals involved to establish such a system.
Note that when ones interests do not align with those offered by the
public good, one can pursue alternatives in a liberal system; consider
private health care in European countries and private security in much of
the world. It is difficult to deny that the goals of feminism are at least
possible with in a liberal state.
Jaggars most vitriolic and least compelling argument against liberalism
and feminisms compatibility is liberalisms inherent male bias. According
to Jaggar, normative dualism is sexist because it emphasizes the mind over
the body, and men have traditionally been associated with their minds
while women were tied to their bodies because of the nature of
reproduction.28 This does not hold up historically. While it is true that art
and culture were largely shaped by men at one point, to suggest that men
were not or are not tied to their bodies is ludicrous. Consider that
historically, the hunting, gathering, manual labor, and most physical
activities other than housework was left to men. In modernity, manliness
is not associated with being learned or with being artsy, but with being
large, strong, and physically dominant. Which is seen as manlier today:
painting or chopping down a tree? If anything, being involved in cultural
pursuits is largely seen as feminine today.
Silvestri 85
Jaggar also sees abstract individualism as sexist because it doesnt

account for the reality of social differentiation.29 Even if social classes like
race and gender are illegitimate social constructs, as the liberal maintains,
the reality is that people are discriminated against on these grounds. Her
point is well-taken, but her solution to the problem is ill-advised.
Recognizing the disparities members of marginalized groups face on the
basis of social constructs, it seems suspect to codify these constructs by
legislating on their basis. This is similar to the aforementioned problem
of sex roles. Liberal citizens ought to use social tools to dismantle such
constructions altogether, rather than propagate them by formally
acknowledging their existence. Its worth noting that I do agree with
Jaggars disdain for Gilbert v. General Electric Co., but I fail to see its
relevance to her argument. One bad decision from a single court is hardly
reason to reject the entire political philosophy it was based in.
Citing Mary Gibson, Jaggar argues that no political theory is useful if
it doesnt make at least some value judgments for concepts such as
personhood, harm to others, and a conception of the good life. 30
Liberalism does take strong stances on the boundaries of personhood and
the morality of bringing harm to others, but, admittedly fails to offer a
clear model of the best human life. But in a practical sense, the same can
be said about every other philosophy. From Plato to Marx, an objective
good life that is both acknowledged and attainable has eluded
philosophers and the world at large. Liberalisms beauty is in its humility.
Rather than presuming to know any one conception of the ultimate ends
of humanity, liberalism lets each individual be the arbiter of their own life.
At its core, liberalism is about entrusting each individual to use their own
devices and their own values to achieve their own happiness. Is that not
precisely the goal of feminism? Both women and men being able to live
their lives without undue interference from others is both feminist and
liberal, and their intersectionality should be acknowledged, not decried.
1 Mill, 17
2 Id., 26
3 Id., 53
4 Id., 27
5 Id.
6 Id., 46-47
7 Id., 48
8 Id.
9 Id., 26
10 Id., 42
11 Id., 43
12 Jaggar, 27
13 Id., 28 & 34
14 Id., 28
15 Id., 41
16 Id.
17 Id., 42
18 Id., 29
19 Mill, 20-21
20 Jaggar, 42
21 Id., 42-43
22 Id., 44
23 Id.
24 Id., 31
25 Id., 45
26 Mill, 13-14
27 Jaggar, 44
28 Id., 46
29 Id., 46-47
30 Id., 41
87
Reflection on
Feminism as a Logical Consequence of Liberalism
I am a feminist because I am a liberal. This paper was an effort to

defend that position, and I stand by the bulk of it. However, if I had it to
do over, I would lighten the tone to avoid the appearance of preaching at
a woman about what feminism is. The substance of this paper is good,
but I worry that it treads dangerously close to what progressives now call
mansplaining.
Furthermore, Id pull back slightly from the sentence, There is no
mystery about how public goods exist in liberal societies; it was, at some
point, in the best interests of those individuals involved to establish such
a system. After more research into the topic of group evolution and
cooperation, Ill concede that the account I gave there might not be
correct. However, I dont believe that necessarily takes away from the
brunt of my argument.
Feminism as a Logical Consequence of Liberalism was originally written for

MC 370, taught by Professor Louis Hunt. It was submitted on October 11th,
2015.
88
The bermenschs Enemy

Understanding Nietzsches Philosophy
by Examining his Foes
M UCH OF THE SCHOLARLY WORK ON FRIEDRICH

Nietzsches philosophy has focused on his general thoughts on
morality, Christianity, and history, or else on his more original
ideas of the bermensch or eternal recurrence. But instances of a
much less-discussed theme can be found in most of Nietzsches books;
throughout Nietzsches canon, references to those he despises, hates, or
considers enemies are plentiful. What does it mean to be an enemy of
Nietzsche, and what does it say about one who is? Nietzsches conception
of an enemy is a nuanced one, turning on the idea that to truly hate an
enemy, one must both deeply respect and love them. Nietzsches novel
view of his enemies has broad consequences for the rest of his philosophy,
as it helps shape and inform the qualities and attitudes that Nietzsches
strong man possesses.
An important distinction must be made when considering Nietzsche's
feeling toward his enemies; the difference between "despising" and
"hating" someone or something is stark. For Nietzsche, to despise
something is to view it as inferior. The nobles in Nietzsche's master-slave
morality system despised the peasants because they did not contain the
traits deemed "good" by the ruling class. Those who are meek, dim-witted,
dependent on others, or incapable of exercising their will to power fall
among those Nietzsche might despise.1
Silvestri 89
This focus on inequality as the source of contempt between

individuals works both ways. In one of his many aphorisms, Nietzsche
posits a hypothetical conversation: "'I don't like him.' Why? 'I am
not equal to him.' Has any human being ever answered this way?"2
While this may seem like a dismissal of the line of thinking present in
the conversation at first glance, a more prudent reading of the quip (based
on the rest of Nietzsche's thoughts on contempt) gives way to a hint at
the deeper motivations of those expressing distaste for others. One may
see oneself as superior to another, and dislike that person on those
grounds, but it is equally plausible that one may dislike another precisely
because the object of ones contempt is seen as superior. As long as this
envy is embraced and does not morph into resentment, Nietzsche
endorses the recognition of differences between individuals as a legitimate
source of dislike; note Nietzsche's expression of envy toward the novelist
Stendhal for coming up with a particular joke before Nietzsche did.3
Another key facet of Nietzsche's philosophy of distaste is that he does
not secretly dislike anybody. If Nietzsche doesn't like you, you're well
aware of it.4 This tenet speaks to the value that Nietzsche places on self-
awareness. Being one's true self is arguably the goal that Nietzsche places
above all others, and if one's exercise of amor fati includes being honest
about one's despising another, then so be it.
Hating someone or something is entirely incompatible with despising
them, according to Nietzsche. In fact, the object of one's hatred can only
be properly considered so if one views the hated person as equal or
superior to oneself in terms of greatness.5 Whereas to be despised by
Nietzsche implies that he sees you as inferior, to be hated by him is
evidence that he respects you. The fact that one is capable of being an
enemy, Nietzsche's or otherwise, is a key indication that one possesses a
strong nature.6
Nietzsche goes as far as to say that unless he considers his enemy his
equal, he has no business waging war against them. For someone to be
seen in this light by Nietzsche, that person must have already been
victorious in their endeavors. 7 For Nietzsche, evidence of his own
strength is inextricably tied to the strength of that which he opposes;
Nietzsche does not attack the weak, for it would be an insult to himself
to stoop to the level of inferiors. The goal in fighting an enemy is not to

be the victor, but to have staked everything by having fought. Within this
framework, a victory for Nietzsche indicates he must seek a stronger,
more equal enemy; note that Nietzsche's ideal man is always searching for
a greater enemy.8 Conversely, a loss is only shameful if it is a loss without
dignity, and dignity is preserved when one loses to an equal. After all, "the
noble soul has reverence for itself," and that reverence extends to the
noble soul's equal.9
Those who have incurred the enmity of Nietzsche are not only
respected as equals, but are loved by him.10 This love stems from the deep
respect that one ought to hold for an enemy. Nietzsche does not see
anything worth despising in his enemies (as it would imply inferiority),
and only perceives honorable qualities.11 He may well praise an enemy
despite disagreeing with him, and his enemy will understand this
distinction, for they are equals.12 Nietzsche insists on being proud of his
enemies' successes, because, in doing so, they become his successes as
well. 13 If one's properly-understood enemy has succeeded, then it is
possible for one to achieve a similar triumph; if you are an equal of
someone who hates you, then they are just as capable of achieving your
victory as you were. In this way, even those Nietzsche hates manage to
contribute to his flourishing.14
But beware, enemy of Nietzsche, lest you think that being the object
of an bermensch's hatred is comfortable and fall victim to his wrath!
When in conflict with Nietzsche, one ought to brace for the worst.
Nietzsche does not believe in exercising mercy in his quarrels; if he sees
you as an enemy, he sees you as an equal, and Nietzsche does not believe
in grace between equals. 15 Nietzsche does not want even the most
formidable foe to exercise restraint in their altercations, for it would only
highlight his weakness and lack of worth. 16 Note here Nietzsche's
emphasis on dignity and virtue, harkening back to the value placed on
losing without shame. It follows that since Nietzsche doesn't want you to
spare him, he has no intentions of extending any sort of clemency toward
you.
The line between friend and enemy is a blurred one for Nietzsche. He
believes that the noble man not only loves his enemies, but hates his
Silvestri 91
friends.17 To be a true friend to someone, one must be willing to fight for

that friend; but this presupposes that one is capable of warring. For one
to justly value a friend, one must respect that person, and in doing so, an
enemy is born. Nietzsche calls a friend "the best enemy," arguing that the
immense amount of reverence one must have for a cohort necessitates
that one be at their best, and when one is properly at their best, they are
bound to make enemies.18
The obfuscated boundary between Nietzschean friends and enemies
is exemplified in Milan Kundera's The Unbearable Lightness of Being. For any
relationship to succeed, whether it be romantic or platonic, Nietzsche
believes that both partners must mutually understand the intrinsic
connotations and nuances present behind every word spoken between
them.19 The relationship between Franz and Sabina in Kundera's novel is
an exemplary case of when this condition is not met. When Sabina put on
a bowler hat during a sexual encounter (an action which, due to the
object's history and her experiences with it, carried immense significance
for her), Franz became uncomfortable due to his misunderstanding of the
gesture. The lovers had spoken at length, exchanging impactful
experiences and pithy anecdotes alike, and while the definitions of their
words registered with both, neither could appreciate the underlying
meaning behind the diction.20 On this count, Franz and Sabina failed the
test Nietzsche puts forth for potential companions.
The quagmire stemmed from a disconnect between the pairs
conception of love. Franz saw love as the relinquishing of his strength to
put himself at the mercy of Sabina;21 meanwhile, Sabina's version of love
was entirely compatible with keeping secrets of the self from not only the
public, but her partner. Upon realizing that Franz was incapable of
exercising his power over her, Sabina ceased to see him as an equal and
rejected his advances. 22 It would be wrong to characterize Franz and
Sabina as enemies, and therefore to say that they hated one another.
Sabina's conception of Franz as lesser relegates him to an object of her
contempt. Over the course of the novel, the pair go their separate ways,
and never rekindle their romance. The gap in understanding between
Franz and Sabina not only led to the breakdown of their relationship, but
precluded the pair from being either friends or enemies; Franz and Sabina
may well have despised each other, but it's difficult to argue they hated
each other as Nietzsche would have understood it.
To further highlight the difference between the Nietzschean
conceptions of "hating" versus "despising" something, consider
Nietzsche's eviscerating attacks on Christianity. There is no doubt that
Nietzsche is a firm opponent of Christianity, its followers, and its values;
he freely admits that a religion that misrepresents and misunderstands the
needs of the body and spirit a charge he levies against Christianity is
worthy of being despised.23 But is it fair to say that he hates Christians, at
least in the Nietzschean sense?
It doesn't appear so. Evaluate the substance of Nietzsche's criticisms:
Nietzsche dislikes Christianity because it is life-denying, masking the
hardships of this world with promises of an afterlife; it rejects those
inclinations which allow individuals to rise to power, and embraces what
Nietzsche views to be signs of weakness as signs of moral fortitude.24
Clearly, the tenets of Christianity are worthy of ire, at least from the
Nietzschean point of view. But Nietzsche would not see someone who
subscribes to a doctrine like this as an equal; an individual of this nature
would be weak, seeking fruitlessly to transcend their fate rather than love
it. How could Nietzsche hold such a person in a high enough esteem to
hate them? It seems that he couldn't.
No, such a person may well be the subject of Nietzsche's contempt,
but not of his hatred. A Christian is not Nietzsche's enemy his equal
but his subordinate. "Let me leave no doubt as to what I despise, whom
I despise: it is the man of today, the man with whom I am unhappily
contemporaneous," Nietzsche says, decrying his conscious colleague as
"disgusting" for championing the ideals of Christianity in modernity.25
In fact, Nietzsche identifies Pontius Pilate as the single character in
the New Testament worthy of honor and respect.26 Take care to note the
complexity of Nietzsche's attitude toward the Bible's second installment.
Nietzsche loathes the values, ideals, morals, actions, and conclusions of
its many pages, writing numerous books and essays outlining the damage
it has caused to society and attacking its every facet; but despite all of his
contempt, there is only one candidate worthy of Nietzsche's hate: the very
executioner of Christ. While there is not nearly enough evidence to
Silvestri 93
suggest that Nietzsche hates Pontius Pilate, the fact that the Roman
prefect is the only person in the New Testament worthy of respect, a
prerequisite for enmity, speaks volumes about the disconnect between
those Nietzsche despises and those he hates.
But how might Nietzsche apply these conceptions to those existing
alongside him, existing outside of works of fiction or religion? Nietzsche
believes that the average person is generally friendly and pleasant, and is
incapable of hating others properly. While this initially seems like praise
for commoners, Nietzsche quickly points to this lack of hate as being a
sign of weakness; because the affable man has no hatred, he holds an
excess of a less intense (and less admirable, in Nietzsche's opinion)
contempt for his neighbors.27 This passage seems to imply that strong,
noble men necessarily make enemies. But how does this square with
Nietzsche's account of his day-to-day life?
According to Nietzsche, his average day went by largely without
incident. Instances of enemies expressing distaste for Nietzsche were few
and far between, and he even suggests that people may have been too nice
to him in his travels, claiming that he brings out the best in all whom he
encounters.28 Does Nietzsche's characterization of his life disqualify him
from being a strong man by his own definition? After all, if the noble man
harbors hatred, how could the happy-go-lucky Nietzsche who appears in
Section Four of Why I Am So Wise be considered noble? While one may
be tempted to fall back on Walt Whitman's platitude, i and chalk the
contradiction up to one of Nietzsche's multitudes, an answer may be
available through an exploration of ressentiment.
The slave morality that Nietzsche outlines in The Genealogy of Morals
gave way to ressentiment, the reactionary tendency of the weak man to lash
out against the conditions around himself. Whereas the "noble mode of
valuation" is its own inspiration, growing organically and independently
iDo I contradict myself?

Very well then, I contradict myself
(I am large, I contain multitudes).
-Walt Whitman, Song of Myself

of external factors, Nietzsche sees ressentiment as creating values that

impede a person's ascent to their true self.29 Nietzsche does not deny that
ressentiment can rear its petty head in the noble man, but that he can swiftly
cast it away, whereas it festers in the hearts of weaker persons.30 Therein
lies the key to solving the dilemma of the all-too-affable Nietzsche that
appears in Why I Am So Wise.
It would be easy for Nietzsche to retaliate against those he despises,
and for that very reason, he must resist the temptation. To settle the
proverbial score with everyone who did him the slightest wrong would,
as far as Nietzsche can tell, deprive him of valuable time with which he
can play, which he values as the mark of one's maturity.31 Nietzsche may
be tempted to slip into a pessimistic worldview, bothered by the utter
ineptitude of those around him, but he warns against becoming a person
who spends their days rejecting the entirety of the world around them.32
Nietzsche's affability, while appearing on its surface to be a trait shared
with those he condemns, is in fact an exercise of his will to power. By
remaining pleasant regardless of the situations presented to him by his
neighbors, Nietzsche is able to overcome the expectations and
reprimands they would cast upon him otherwise.33
Note the delicate line Nietzsche straddles here; simply due to his
superior philosophical fortitude, Nietzsche is acting virtuously by doing
precisely what he condemns others of doing. This is not hypocritical, as
Nietzsche's congeniality is based in overcoming the herd's standards,
whereas the commoner is cordial simply because it is what he has been
told to do. Nietzsche exercises control over other's behavior by engaging
in pleasantries, and creates values, at least in the microcosm of his
surroundings, by doing so.
Suppose that Nietzsche had made genuine enemies, however. How
would he treat them, assuming he acted in accordance with his strong
man? Put simply, Nietzsche uses every aggression against him as an
opportunity to exercise his will to power. Recall that Nietzsche admits
strong men are not immune to ressentiment, but that they do away with
instances of it quickly. 34 The proper use of ressentiment is swift and fair; if
one falls victim to ressentiment, the proper course of action is to exercise a
measured response that reframes the aggression as a benefit. Nietzsche
Silvestri 95
rectifies a wrong done against him by convincing the enemy that the
aggression was actually a blessing.35
This is best exemplified in The Bite of the Adder, a passage from Thus
Spoke Zarathustra in which the titular character, Zarathustra, is napping
under a tree. A snake bites Zarathustra's neck, waking him from his
slumber. Zarathustra stops the snake from fleeing, and expresses his
thanks for the bite, explaining that he had a long journey ahead of him,
and needed to be woken up. When the snake points out that its bite was
venomous, Zarathustra laughs, and confidently orders the snake to suck
the poison out of him, to which the snake obliges.36
Zarathustra is used by Nietzsche as a vehicle to express that one
ought not reward an enemy for their aggression, as that would cause the
enemy embarrassment; Nietzsche does not want to embarrass his enemy,
because he respects and loves him. Rather, Nietzsche paints the enemy's
actions as helpful, showing Nietzsche's fortitude and demanding the
respect of his enemy.
This path is only to be taken by those noble men who did fall victim
to ressentiment; Nietzsche notes that those with strong natures often avoid
ressentiment in cases where the weak-willed succumb.37 The ability to ignore
or absorb the aspersions laid unto one by an enemy is the mark of a strong
nature, according to Nietzsche. It shows that there "is an excess of the
power to form" in such an individual, and is a key element in the sort of
person capable of exercising their will to power effectively. Revenge is an
exercise undertaken only by weak men as far as Nietzsche is concerned.
The strong man's primary concern is coming to terms with the world
around him in such a way that "everything must turn out for the best.38
Those who are concerned with achieving greatness, as Nietzsche and
his bermensch are, see all whom they encounter as either a means to an
end or as an obstacle to that end.39 Nietzsche took special interest in those
he despised and those he hated, counting both among the former category,
and taking care to articulate meaningful differences between the two
groups. The ways in which Nietzsche respected, admonished, and even
loved his enemies, as well as the disdain he held for those he found
contemptible, informed his conception of a "strong nature." Viewing
Nietzschean enmity in this light provides valuable insight into some of
the more popular aspects of his philosophy; amor fati is enriched by its
relation to equality before enemies. Ressentiment can be understood in a
new way when paired against Nietzsche's pleasant nature in Why I Am So
Wise or Zarathustra's reaction to the snake in The Bite of the Adder.
Nietzsche's contempt for Christianity is better understood when viewed
in terms of "despising" rather than "hatred." The intersectionality of
Nietzsche's individual ideas is highlighted best by juxtaposing them
against his actions toward his enemies, and can be used as a means to
begin unraveling the enigma that is Friedrich Nietzsche.
Silvestri 97
1 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 394-395 via Basic Writings of Nietzsche
2 Id., 284
3 Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, 700 via Basic Writings of Nietzsche
4 Id., 714
5 Nietzsche, Beyond Good and Evil, 284 via Basic Writings of Nietzsche
7 Id., 688
8 Nietzsche, Thus Spoke Zarathustra, 42
10 Id., 336
11 Nietzsche, Genealogy of Morals, 475 via Basic Writings of Nietzsche
14 Id., 69
17 Id., 66
18 Id., 49
20 Kundera, 88
21 Id., 83
22 Id., 112-113
23 Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 45
24 Nietzsche, Attempt at a Self-Criticism, 23 via Basic Writings of Nietzsche
25 Nietzsche, The Antichrist, 30
26 Id., 41
30 Id., 475
35 Nietzsche, Ecce Homo, 684-685 via Basic Writings of Nietzsche
98
Reflection on
The assignment that became The bermenschs Enemy was originally

focused only on a few of Nietzsches works. However, at the same time I
was doing the initial work for the paper, I experienced a betrayal by a
friend in my personal life. My first instinct was to be mad, and to get even;
but as so many Madison students do, I turned to my schoolwork for
answers. I asked, what would Nietzsche do? and used the academic
opportunity to explore that question. As a result, I did far more reading
(from both assigned and unassigned sources) than most of my classmates.
This examination gave me a fresh perspective on my personal
quagmire, and helped me understand Nietzsche in a deeper way. At the
risk of sounding like the myriad high schoolers who like, got super into
Nietzsche, man, the Germans thinking truly did impact me.
On the academic side, the paper was well-received. My professor
called it original and intriguing, excellent, impressive, and a very
fine essay, indeed. I stand by this paper, and am very proud of it.
The bermenschs Enemy was originally written for MC 371, taught by

Professor Folke Lindahl. It was submitted on March 11th, 2016.
99
A New Ideology
of the Family
T HE IMPORTANCE OF BIOLOGICAL TIES IN THE

American cultural canon cannot be overstated. Dominant religions
hold Our Heavenly Father in the highest esteem, and our political
discourse regularly revolves around what our Founding Fathers may or
may not have believed. On a more interpersonal level, Americans often
refer to their close friends as being like a brother, or see an unrelated
mentor as loving her mentee like a son. This stress on genealogical
connection in the social lexicon informs our understanding of what it
means to be both offspring and progenitors.
The gene-centric conception of family life and identity has profound
implications for the way society treats those who have been created via
gamete donation or adopted. This standard has led J. David Velleman to
argue in his essay Family History that biological ties are important enough
to render conception by donating genetic material morally reprehensible.
While it is undeniable that understanding ones genealogical history can
be a source from which some can derive value, the claim that it is a
fundamental right that serves as a precursor to a morally-justified
conception seems excessive; I will argue that the biology-centered family
we conceive of today is a social construct that holds no inherent moral
weight, and is not nearly as critical to ones identity as Velleman makes it
out to be. This standard does not consider parenting-by-procreation
impermissible, but is instead a call for pluralism in the way that Americans
judge what makes a real family.
In Family History, Velleman provides a compelling account of his
grandparents arrival to the United States. He goes to great lengths to
recount the trials and tribulations his grandparents went through to
pursue their version of the American Dream, and notes that he himself,
his brother, his mother, and his aunt all followed in the footsteps of
Vellemans maternal grandfather by working in the educational field. 1
Velleman takes pride in the accomplishments of his grandparents, and
believes that they continue to inspire his own children by shaping their
conception of life in America and the value of hard work. It would be a
fools errand to try to deny that Vellemans genealogical history had a
profound impact on he and his childrens identities. Doing my best to
avoid foolishness, I will not attempt to reject the very real influence of
Vellemans family; but what importance does Vellemans family hold on
the broader question of non-traditional progenys morality? It seems to
me that it does not hold any.
The importance Velleman places on his ancestors story is not one that
all Americans hold is such high regard Vellemans family history is his
and his alone. It would take merely one example of an individual who is
relatively secure in his identity to dismantle Vellemans conception as
universal or inherent. My own family is Italian. Both of my paternal
grandparents were born in Italy, and travelled to the United States long
before I was born. In fact, due to the Italian doctrine of jus sanguinis, I
hold dual citizenship with the United States and Italy. I am well aware of
my familys genealogical ties to our homeland. Under Vellemans
conception, my heritage ought to be of critical importance to me. One
might reasonably ask how it informed my identity.
Growing up with my Italian heritage, I was told that I, as an Italian,
must do two things: love wine, and scoff smugly at Olive Garden. While
I have kept good on both of these demands, I would hardly say they have
impacted my conception of myself. My identity is grounded in the values
I hold dear; I undoubtedly attribute more of my penchant for justice,
candor, and liberty to John Locke than to genealogy.
Silvestri 101
Vellemans emphasis on biological connection fails to recognize the

importance of extra-familial sources of identity formation. Despite having
full access to and knowledge of my genealogical background, I have opted
to see myself as a product of entirely different forces. One does not need
to (although one certainly can) understand ones grandparents to
understand oneself. There are perfectly legitimate external sources of self-
knowledge that a person can utilize in forming a healthy, well-informed
identity for herself. In developing the way one sees oneself, a person could
choose to factor in religion, class, political persuasion, or even university
membership; those who espouse the view that blood is thicker than
water have clearly never stepped in the Red Cedar River.
Velleman believes that a significant part of his identity stems from an
abstract ideal he calls family resemblance.2 He points to his dispositions,
physical appearance, methods of rationality, and other such
considerations as examples of this nebulous congruence. Others like
Velleman are identifiable to him by exhibiting such traits, and work as a
sort of metaphysical mirror to define Velleman for himself. He further
argues that recognizing this personality-based resemblance would be
more difficult if he didnt know those who bore a literal physical
resemblance to him.
Here, Velleman puts the proverbial cart before its horse by calling
such a relationship a familial resemblance, and overstates the
importance of physical likeness. In addressing why hereditary
relationships hold such importance, it seems self-indulgent to label
sameness (either or behavioral or physical) as familial. Putting my
lexical objections aside, I am not convinced that an overlap in physical
characteristics necessarily holds any special significance in developing
ones identity. For Velleman, the fact that his siblings, parents, or cousins
look like him informs his knowledge of himself because they resemble
[him] in ways that are deeply ingrained and resistant to change.3 Why
would this physical similarity not hold equal weight for strangers? I do
not base my identity on the actions of those who share my hair color,
height, or physique; why, then, would I base it on those same
characteristics if shared by family members? Are those qualities not as
resistant to change in the faces of strangers? An obvious answer is that
family is more significant than strangers. But in answering precisely the

question of why family holds such weight, this solution comes off as a
touch tautological. It seems appropriate to table Vellemans emphasis on
physical considerations, and focus instead on internal characteristics.
To see himself, Velleman believes he must simply turn to his parents
or siblings.4 But Velleman fails to articulate a compelling reason why his
kin are the standard by which he ought to judge himself; why not his
friends, his romantic partners, his teachers, or his celebrity idols? I see
more of myself in my best friend than I do in any of my three biological
siblings. My best friend and I share largely the same values, think in
generally similar ways, and understand one another in ways our respective
siblings fail to. Why isnt a close platonic relationship worthy of the same
weight Velleman gives familial ones? Identityboth self-defined and
acquired reciprocally through contact with those who share ones
valuescan be rooted in sources that are environmental, not genetic; this
is highlighted in Elizabeth Brakes Creation Theory: Do Genetic Ties Matter?
when she claims that an adopted child sharing [her] environment is as
much [hers], in the sense of a shared identity, as a child sharing [her]
genes.5 Here, Ill underscore a key disconnect between Velleman and I:
none of my arguments discredit the idea that value can be derived from
familial relationships the way Velleman suggests it can. My view does,
however, provide a reasonable alternative, thereby weakening his claim
that these relational goods are essential to a childs sense of identity.
Also relevant is Christine Overalls argument that emphasizing these
genetic ties undermine a childs individuality.6 If identity is inextricably
tied to familial history, it certainly raises the question of how much of a
role this history plays in a persons being. A strong reading of such an idea
has dangerous implications. Consider a hypothetical grandson of Italian
dictator Benito Mussolini named Jeff; while Jeff Mussolini could
certainly stand to learn from the example set by his grandfather, it would
be wrong to define Jeff and his identity by the actions of his ancestor.
Jeffs sense of identity could (and probably would) be impacted by fascism,
but we are in no position to fairly judge whether Jeff would be prone to
be for or against fascism based solely on his familial history. It is perfectly
Silvestri 103
plausible that Jeff would choose to ignore the actions of a man he never
met, and live his own life.
So why, then, does so much of modern literature invoke themes of
familial history? Velleman argues that to deny the significance of
genealogy is to fundamentally misunderstand the literary canon of
modernity.7 He cites Telemachus and Oedipus as classical examples of
the importance of biological parenting, and points to Luke Skywalker and
Darth Vader as a modern case study. Again, Velleman fails to understand
the importance of context.
Vellemans first example is The Odysseys Telemachus, the son of
Odysseus who spends years searching for his absent father. Velleman is
right to note the importance the father-son relationship played in
Telemachus searching for his long-lost progenitor. However, Velleman
fails to consider the time in which The Odyssey was written; the 8th century
still featured royalty being passed on through bloodlines. The focus on
fatherhood would resonate with audiences of the day, who saw rulers
come into power due to their parentage. Similar logic can be used to
discount Vellemans invoking of Oedipus. Incestuous relationships were
no more accepted in the 5th century than they are now, and the role of
biological royalty is even more relevant in Oedipus tale than in
Telemachus.
Vellemans use of Darth Vader and Luke Skywalkers monumental
conversation on progeny is puzzling, as it displays precisely the sort of
misunderstanding of literature that Velleman accused deniers of
genealogical significance of having. Luke Skywalkers outrage at Darth
Vaders revelation was not because Vader was his father, but because
Lukes expectations had not been met. Luke had lived his life believing
his father was no one of note, until his mentor, Ben Kenobi, portrayed
Lukes father as a hero. A year and half later, Luke discovered this was a
lie, and that his father had killed Lukes mentor, shattering his worldview
and conflicting entirely with his understanding of his interlocutor. This is
further underscored by Princess Leias rather benign reaction to learning
that Darth Vader was also her father.
All of the literary examples Velleman cites as evidence for the
importance of genealogy are dismantled by either in-universe or real-life
contextual considerations. Could Vellemans ignoring of context be the

key to unravelling his parental philosophy? I believe so.
It certainly gives cause for serious pause in considering Vellemans
argument regarding adoptees seeking out their progenitors. Velleman
points out that half of adoptees seek out their biological parents;8 setting
aside the obvious fact that half of adoptees opt not to search for their
birth parents, I find this statistic surprisingly low, even as an advocate for
lessening the emphasis on genealogy. In the American context, where
biological relationships are given significant attention and acceptance, it
makes sense that a large number of adoptees would want to take part in
the cultural paradigm. It is improper to point to adoptees reacting to a
social stigma in favor of genealogical knowledge as evidence that stigma
ought to exist. Velleman again cites the status quo as evidence the status
quo is defensible, just as he did with the literary examples; this is implies
ought line of logic is dangerous, as it is precisely the kind of thinking
that led to the disenfranchisement of women, African-Americans, and
other socially disadvantaged groups for so long.
All of Vellemans arguments so far have led up to what I consider to
be his most controversial claim. Velleman condemns the use of donated
gametes to induce a pregnancy as morally indefensible.9 Because children
conceived in such a manner are permanently severed from all or part of
their biological past,10 he argues that these children are deprived a good
that informs their identity in a crucial way. The difference between
acquiring a child via gamete donation versus adoption is that adoption
generally stems from one or more parents opting to give up
responsibilities and confer disadvantage on a child; a child conceived by
gamete donation was willfully and intentionally brought into the world
with the disadvantage of not knowing his or her ancestral story.11 This
deprivation of a good by which identities are formed is, on Vellemans
view, impermissible. Velleman goes so far as to suggest that children born
by such a process ought not to have been born at allalthough, to his
credit, he does say this only applies to hypothetical children, and that
children already born by these means have equal moral standing with
everyone else.12
Silvestri 105
What Velleman fails to establish is why the absence of genealogical

knowledge constitutes such a disadvantage that non-life would have been
preferable to a life without it. There are literally thousands of advantages
and disadvantages that any given human being will face in a lifetime; why
is a lack of biological family ties such a devastating one?
Consider, for a moment, a young, reasonably well-off, dark-skinned,
African American couple. The couple has decided to have a baby in the
traditional manner, and, barring some stunningly unlikely medical oddity,
their hypothetical baby is likely to be a dark-skinned African American.
Before undertaking the arduous journey of pregnancy and parenthood,
the couple decides to seek the advice of a renowned educator, J. David
Velleman. Velleman knows full well that dark-skinned African Americans
are more likely to be the recipients of unfair police treatment, harsher
criminal penalties, social discrimination, and a generally disadvantaged life.
What recommendation can Velleman give if he is to remain intellectually
honest? It seems there are only two options.
Firstly, Velleman could suggest the couple refrain from having a child.
To have the child, Velleman might argue, would be to knowingly and
willingly confer a disadvantage on it such that non-life is the most
preferable option. While internally consistent with Vellemans philosophy,
this position hardly seems defensible, and borders on eugenics. For what
it is worth, I doubt the real Velleman would ever take this position.
This leaves one option Velleman can pursue to remain intellectually
honest: somehow, Velleman must show that the absence of genealogical
background is a more burdensome disadvantage than being in a regularly
oppressed racial group. This seems like a tough position to take, and I
dont envy Velleman for being in this spot.
Feel free to substitute our African American couple with any minority
racial, ethnic, religious, or other oppressed group you see fit. An
interracial couple? The same standard holds. Two atheists intending to
raise their child secularly in a largely Christian country? Velleman remains
in the same position. What of two people who were certain that any child
they had would be born without an arm? Velleman would still be obligated
to discourage the childs conception or prove a missing limb is preferable
to not knowing ones heritage.
Telling ones life story is key to Vellemans conception of an identity,

and he believes the recounting of ones origins to be crucial part of this
story.13 On his view, this genesis must be rooted in ancestral history to
provide a satisfactory account. But Velleman admits that the qualities and
lessons one gleans from ones ancestors is generally speculative; the truth
of the matter asserted is not relevant, as long as the subject has food for
thought.14 I again fail to see why the demands of Velleman must be met
from a familial lens. Why can a persons origin story not start from the
first time she read something compelling, or the first time he acted
autonomously? Could a young woman not derive her inspiration from
Adeimantus of The Republic, from Alexander Hamilton in The Federalist
Papers, or from The Scarlet Letters Hester Prynne? What does it say about
Vellemans conception that the subject fails to form an identity until her
ancestors role in history is explored, or, at the very least, speculated upon?
This view degrades the individual, and only offers an advantage that is far
from universally valued.
As I have pointed out previously, my goal is not to condemn biological
parenting; I was raised by my progenitors, and I suspect Ill raise progeny
of my own. My goal has been to develop the new ideology of the family
that Velleman calls for. This ideology focuses on pluralism, and
recognizes that there are many different ways to become the parent of a
child, and that neither biologically acquiring, artificially conceiving, or
adopting a child is worthy of our scorn. Children born into todays world
will face a plethora of disadvantagesthe last thing we ought to do is
make them question whether or not the circumstance of their birth were
one of those misfortunes. Rather than worrying about how we acquire
children, we ought to focus more on how we raise them once theyve
arrived.
Silvestri 107
1 Velleman, 61-62
2 Id., 68
3 Id., 69
4 Id., 70
5 Brake, 136
6 Id., 137
7 Velleman, 71
8 Id., 63, footnote 2
9 Id., 65
10 Id., 63
11 Id., 64
12 Id., 66-67
13 Id., 67
14 Id., 47
108
Reflection on
A New Ideology of the Family
Ernest Hemingway is purported to have remarked that one should,

Write drunk, edit sober. For A New Ideology of the Family, I amended this
aphorism to read, Write drunk, edit hungover. After a bottle of red wine,
I began this paper ten hours before it was due, and I truly think it is better
for it. There is a certain amount of creativity and humor that isnt present
in much of my other work. I received a 4.0 on the paper, and it received
a very warm reception from the class when I read it aloud. Ill note,
however, that I have not been able to replicate the wine-induced success
since.
As to the substance of the paper, I stand by it wholeheartedly.
A New Ideology of the Family was originally written for PHL 440, taught
by Professor Jamie Nelson. It was submitted on April 20th, 2016.
109
Snip
Examining the Bioethics o f Infant Male Circumcision
for Secular Reasons
M ALE CIRCUMCISION, THE PRACTICE OF SURGICALLY

removing the foreskin from a males penis, has been the subject of
intense controversy for decades, especially as it relates to performing
the procedure on infants. Given a newborns inability to articulate (or
even form) their own values, let alone weigh those values against potential
medical procedures, it is difficult to justify why an infant should undergo
an elective, medically unnecessary procedure like circumcision. On
grounds relating to informed consent and bodily autonomy, the
circumcision of infants for secular reasons should be disallowed;
furthermore, secular arguments defending neonatal circumcision are not
sufficiently strong to justify the practice.
Before delving into the reasons that infant circumcision is ethically
suspect, it is important to understand the historical and global context
surrounding the debate. Historically, circumcision has had broad support
on religious grounds. It is a tenet of Jewish law, a prophets tradition in
Islam, and is neither required nor forbidden by most Christian doctrines.
Yet as the world has grown increasingly secular, the globe has not seen a
corresponding drop in circumcision rates everywhere. Globally, its
estimated that 37.7% of males are circumcised, with roughly 62.1% of
that number having undergone the procedure for religious reasons.1 This
means that 37.9% of circumcised men were circumcised on secular
grounds.
One might hope this was done for medical reasons, but support for
that hope is sparse. Organizations like the Canadian Paediatric Society
Snip 110
have explicitly come out against non-therapeutic neonatal circumcision.

Meanwhile, organizations like American Academy of Pediatrics and the
American College of Obstetrics and Gynecology have recommended
against regular use of the practice, while still recommending parents be
allowed to choose. More neutrally, the British Medical Association has
declined to take a stance on the ethics of the practice. Uniquely, the
American Medical Association has said it will oppose any attempts to
intrude into legitimate medical practice and the informed choices of
patients as it relates to neonatal circumcision.2 In short, there is far from
a consensus amongst medical professionals on whether circumcision
ought to be allowed or encouraged.
The global distribution of circumcision is of particular note. South
America, Europe, and most of Asia have less than 20% prevalence of
circumcision, religiously-based or otherwise. Conversely, the United
States has a prevalence of 76%-92%.3 Given that the prevalence of the
procedure amongst religious people holds roughly the same,4 it seems that
cultural reasons are the primary factor for Americans deciding to
circumcise their newborns. In fact, a study of American parents who had
their babies circumcised pointed to primarily social justificationsthe
most prominent reason centered on whether the father was circumcised,
with other social and cultural concerns weighing heavily.5
Succinctly, the question is whether a medically unnecessary procedure
should be performed on an infant who is unable to understand or consent
to it. Given the important rights of bodily integrity and patient autonomy,
the answer seems to be a clear no. Joseph Mazors paper The Child's
Interests and the Case for the Permissibility of Male Infant Circumcision serves as a
foil to this argument, and will be used as a base of comparison throughout.
Violations of bodily integrity are generally viewed unfavorably by
Americans, at least in the medical context. Even on public health issues
such as vaccinations, Americans vigorously debate whether there is a
sufficiently good reason to compel somebody to undergo medical
routines or procedures. Yet curiously, Americans seem to draw the line at
the foreskin of an infants penis. The principle is ostensibly sound: unless
there is a compelling medical interest to do so, a persons right to keep
their body as it is should not be abridged without their permission. We
Silvestri 111
adhere to that standard for nearly every procedure, circumcision excepted.

From a secular viewpoint, there doesnt seem to be a compelling interest
to remove the penile foreskin of infants sufficient to breach that right,
especially considering the medical benefits are modest at best, and the
effects are permanent.
Inherently, infants are incapable of giving consent to any number of
things that society imposes on them, including education, clothes, and
medically necessary proceduresbut these cases all have a common
thread: they are universally understood as being in the objective best
interest of the child, and children are highly unlikely to succeed in a world
where they do not receive these goods, their consent notwithstanding.
The same cannot be said when it comes to circumcision.
Joseph Mazor has argued that Americans are not as committed to this
principle as it appears. He cites parents who choose to fix their newborns
cleft lip as an example, because it is not medically necessary to treat the
condition. Since there are purely cosmetic reasons to operate on an infant
which Americans deem acceptable, he reasons that circumcision should
be treated similarly. 6 There are two reasons Mazors example is
disanalogous: 1) cleft lips are deviations from the biological norm, where
uncircumcised penises are not, and 2) the childs interest in removing a
cleft lip is rooted in social judgments based on obviously identifiable
criteria that their purported interest in circumcision is not.
When choosing to operate on a cleft lip, a parent is choosing to bring
their childs body closer to the average body of its peersit is a step
toward biological normativity, not away from it. Circumcision not only
moves the child away from the biological norm of having a foreskin, but
away from the global norm of remaining uncut as well.
A parents reasoning in repairing a cleft lip is likely rooted in fears of
their child being teased or otherwise discriminated against because of their
physical features. The childs lip is visible to nearly everyone with whom
the child will come into contact. Conversely, the results of a circumcision
are not visible to most of the people whom a child will encounter. Mazors
sole argument against a right to bodily integrity applying in the case of
circumcision is not relevant because of these dissimilarities.
Snip 112
The right to bodily integrity is not the only thing grounding a secular
objection to neonatal circumcision. Contemporary medical ethics give
large deference to patients in determining what care will be given to them.
This doctrine is rooted in a respect for the autonomy of individuals. This
autonomy is not, of course, absolute. There are several imaginable
circumstances in which violating autonomy makes sense, such as when a
patient is unconscious and requires medical attention. When it comes to
issues of medical autonomy, infants should largely be viewed in the same
way an unconscious patient would.
As it stands, overriding or co-opting a patients autonomy is generally
done when the patient cannot give consent themselves, when there is an
appropriate surrogate, and when the medical action is in the best interest
of the patient, as determined by their doctor and/or advocate, usually
based on whether a reasonable person would consent to the procedure.
This principle is why few object to operating on unconscious or otherwise
incapacitated individuals to save their lives. Applying that standard to the
circumcision of an infant renders troublesome results. While the first two
criteria are undeniably met, the third is controversial: is an immutable,
unnecessary procedure in the best interest of a baby, especially when they
themselves could choose to undergo the procedure once they develop the
requisite faculties? This seems unlikely. As previously established, most
Americans are not basing the decision to circumcise in an evaluation of
medical best interests, but in abstract social and cultural considerations.
Should one deem neonatal circumcision a permissible abridgement of
the patients right to autonomy, I would challenge them to consider the
case of an uncircumcised demented person (having reached eighty years
old) who has given their durable power of attorney to a family member.
Like an infant, this incapacitated octogenarian is incapable of
understanding or consenting to medical procedures. Would anyone
(including Mazor) believe it is ethically permissible for a family member
to order the circumcision of their demented relative? This seems highly
suspect, yet has no relevant departures from the moral fact patternthe
patient cannot give consent themselves, there is an appropriate surrogate,
and the purported best interests (religion, culture, cleanliness, etc.) are the
same. If one fails to recognize a distinction between the cases and
Silvestri 113
contends that it would be permissible to circumcise the elderly patient,

they should be applauded for their intellectual consistency, and promptly
avoided due to their off-putting ethics.
Mazor believes the argument from autonomy (or what he calls self-
determination) is rendered moot because the costs are not the same
between circumcising in infancy and circumcising as an adult. The adult,
he argues, could take on a series of costs the infant does not, including
pain, risks of temporary medical complications such as excessive
bleeding, disruption of daily life and economic expense.7 He accordingly
reasons that not circumcising the boy could subject him to a series of
costs for which he did not consent.
Ignoring the fact that the first two examples he cites also apply to
recipients of neonatal circumcision, Mazor fails to account for the costs
an infant incurs that an adult does not. Potential costs in this category
include psychological distress over unwillingly losing a part of your body,
as well as the potential for very serious and long-lasting physical and
psychological distress should the procedure go wrong.
Consider the case of David Reimer, whose circumcision was botched;
doctors instructed the Reimer family to raise David as a girl, and removed
his testicles to facilitate this deception. David grew up as identifying as
female, but felt that something was amiss, and began identifying as a male
at fifteen. Upon learning the truth, David suffered stress, anxiety, financial
instability, and a troubled marriageat 38, David committed suicide. 8
Obviously, the tragic complications of Davids circumcision could
happen to anyone being circumcised, infant or otherwise; the difference
is that the procedure would have been undertaken with those risks in
mind, and applying only to the person making the decision themselves.
In the case of an infant, someone else is taking significant risks that come
with consequences they dont have to deal with themselves.
The preceding argument has addressed only whether the secular
defenses of neonatal circumcision hold weight, and ultimately determines
that they do not. While there are significant (and, in my view, equally
suspect) religious justifications for the practice, they are not addressed
here because of the political, social, and cultural realities surrounding the
question. Even if religiously-grounded circumcision was determined to be
Snip 114
unethical, the political battle of outlawing the practice would be significant,

and would come into conflict with rights of religious freedom. However,
proscribing secular neonatal circumcision is feasible, and should be
implemented in the United States as soon as possible. By prohibiting
infant circumcision while providing an exception for those with deeply-
held religious beliefs, the United States would take a great step toward
respecting the bodily integrity and autonomy of newborn males.
1 Morris, et. al., 2016

2 Kotz
3 World Health Organization (2008)
4 Id., 3
5 Brown & Brown (1987)
6 Mazor (2013)
7 Id.
8 CBC (2004)
115
Reflection on
Snip
I was allowed to write on any bioethical topic I wished for the

assignment that became Snip. Most of my classmates in Ethical Issues in
Health Care chose topics our textbook had covered, but I chose to examine
the ethics of neonatal circumcision, which our book had not discussed. I
did so because I had a deep personal conflict about the practice. It seemed
so counter to the principles of autonomy I claimed to believe in, yet it was
so culturally pervasive that I had a bias toward it.
As Snip shows, I ultimately decided that I am against the practice, and
do not plan to have any of my children circumcised. As I discovered with
many other writings in this anthology, Snip taught me the value that
academic inquiries can have in ones personal life.
Snip was originally written for PHL 344, taught by

Professor Jamie Nelson. It was submitted on March 15th, 2017.
116
Rights Babble
Examining Rights Talk in a Post -2016 World
I N RIGHTS TALK: THE IMPOVERISHMENT OF

Political Discourse, Mary Ann Glendon waxes apocalyptic about the
denigration of American political conversation, especially as it
relates to rights-based thinking. On her account, rights talk undermines
the very foundations of the American polity because of its inherent
absolutism, lack of compromise, insularity, and disconnect with the
common good.1 The rights-centered rhetoric that most Americans engage
in, poorly serves the strong tradition of protection for individual
freedom[and] regularly neglects moral, long-term, and the social
implications, according to Glendon. 2 This view may have been
compelling in 1991, when Rights Talk was published, but in the wake of
the 2016 presidential election, Glendons contention seems suspect. The
fear that an overreliance on rights-based dialogue would leave no room
for discussions of the public good simply hasnt panned outthe 2016
election cycle featured rhetoric from the top contenders that was largely
rooted in the public good, as well as occasional rights-based arguments
that centered around social benefits. All of this points to a populace that
has both used rights talk to foster significant substantive debate, and has
adapted the lexicon of rights to serve the pursuit of more broadly social
goods.
Writing in a time before anyone with the surname Bush had held
the highest executive office, Glendon worried that Tocquevilles oft-cited
concept of soft despotism had become a reality. Quoting Tocqueville,
Silvestri 117
Glendon posited that when nations reach [a point of apathetic reliance

on the state], Tocqueville surmised, either they must modify both laws
and mores or they will perish. 3 What Glendon apparently did not
anticipate is that Americans would do both within her lifetime, and in fact
had already done so before she even began the first draft of Rights Talk.
American jurisprudence on a constitutional right to privacy has a long
and storied history, which Glendon deftly attacks several times.4 Yet she
fails to recognize that the expansion of privacy and subsequent abortion
rights (which she spends no small amount of time discussing5) is precisely
the kind of change in both mores and laws that Glendon (using
Tocqueville as a conduit) so clamors for. Earlier mores regarding sanctity
and understanding of life have largely given way to new ones which largely
align with progressive viewpoints about abortion and contraception;
updated abortion laws via the right to privacy are simply an expression of
that.
Subsequent developments in privacy jurisprudence have further
undermined Glendons thesis. Consider her criticism of the reasoning in
Bowers v. Hardwick, which upheld anti-sodomy laws without meaningfully
differentiating them from the privacy right articulated in Roe v. Wade.6 Just
seventeen years later in Lawrence v. Texas, the Court recognized this
discrepancy and overturned the holding in Bowers. In the interim between
Bowers and Lawrence, American mores about how far the right to privacy
extended changed significantlythe overturning of Bowers serves as the
corresponding updating of the law that Tocqueville referred to. Glendon
laments that rights-based discourse has not left ample room for debate,
saying that, deliberation requires time, information, and forums where
facts interest, and ideas can be exchanged and debated.7 Modern history
supports this view, because in the seventeen-year deliberation between
Bowers and Lawrence, attitudes concerning the relationship between gay
rights and privacy were debated, and consequently evolved; as a result, the
laws updated accordingly. But even the seemingly-contemporary Lawrence
was argued nearly a decade-and-a-half ago. What effect has rights talk had
more recently?
Rights Babble 118
To answer this query, one might find the 2016 presidential election
and its rocky aftermath instructive. The campaign of Democratic
Candidate Senator Bernie Sanders was deeply steeped in rights talk. Yet
the rights he spoke of were not that of the the lone rights-bearer
Glendon decries; they were largely social rights centered around the
common good. At various times throughout the campaign, Sanders called
both education8 and health care9 rights on the grounds that they were
good for society at large. Ostensibly, this runs directly counter to the
argument that Glendon puts forth, in which rights talk neglects the . . .
social implications.10 Indeed, when Glendon asks, Where do citizens
acquire the capacity to care about the common good?, 11 a major
candidate for the 2016 presidency would respond with rights-based
thinking. This is especially significant given that Sanders was
overwhelmingly popular with young people. 12 A candidate with broad
youth support espoused rights-rooted rhetoric aimed at achieving social
good. In a culture that relies so heavily on rights-based talk, rights-based
arguments (individual or otherwise) are often heavy-hitters. The lack of
public discourse regarding responsibility, sociality, and civil society 13
Glendon lamented has apparently risen from its societal grave.
Furthermore, Sanders frequently alluded to Baltic nations with
significantly more progressive policies than our own as exemplary, while
still operating within a rights-based framework.14 Glendon railed against
the relative unconcern with the rest of the world that she thought was
inherent in rights-based thing.15 Yet Sanders campaign garnered massive
support while using a rights-based, socially-focused, foreign-conscious
approach.i
A simple (though nonetheless fair) counterpoint would be that
Sanders is not the President, nor was he the Democratic nominee, and so
iThe preceding examination should not be construed as endorsement of the

sorts of rights Senator Sanders advocated forthey serve simply as examples
of rights talk that was a.) popular, b.) centered on the common good, and c.)
focused largely on other countries. Just because Glendon is wrong doesnt
mean Sanders is right.
Silvestri 119
rights talk centered on the common good clearly wasnt the silver bullet
in this election. But an examination of both parties nominees (President
Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton) also discredits Glendons position.
Neither candidate focused very much at all on rights-based thinking.
Clintons campaign slogan was Stronger Together, and much of her run
focused on uniting America.16 Likewise, the eventual winners campaign
revolved around the idea of America as a we who had to protect
ourselves from various external threats. 17 Many (myself included) have
serious doubts about his commitment to First and Fifth Amendment
rights generally. 18 Political positions notwithstanding, neither nominee
engaged significantly in rights talk.
The 2016 presidential election flies in the face of Glendons thesis. On
the one hand, there was a major candidate who focused almost exclusively
on common good-centered rights talk. On the other hand, the two
nominees virtually eschewed rights talk altogether. How can our political
discourse be so denigrated by the individually-rooted rights talk that
Glendon decries if none of the top three presidential candidates engaged
in it? It seems instead that the post-2016 electorate engages in a different
sort of political dialogue.
Glendon cites a 1989 survey that found the contemporary youth were
almost entirely lacking . . . a sense of the importance of civic
participation. 19 That characterization certainly doesnt hold up today,
and more evidence than Senator Sanders run supports this claim. Does
anyone doubt that more people (including the youth) know the name of
Sean Spicer, Trumps press secretary, than the names of either Jay Carney
or Josh Earnest, the last two men to stand at the podium? One struggles
to recall the name of either Secretary of Education in the Obama
administration. Yet seldom a day has gone by in 2017 without the name
Betsy DeVos printed in the New York Times or trending on Twitter.
Even entertainment media has picked up on the demand for content
focused on the heretofore obscured political actors. Consider Saturday
Night Lives treatment of the Presidents advisors, strategists, and
Attorney General to name just a few20; SNL has always been political, but
never to such a specific degree. An obvious objection would be that weve
Rights Babble 120
never had such an unqualified Cabinet, but thats precisely the point. When
fundamental threats and questions about the polity and its inner workings
arise, the populace (including young people) is prepared to engage them,
despite having been conditioned to discuss politics in terms of rights. Few
would say we live in politically comfortable timesbut its difficult to say
that we live in politically apathetic ones.
Glendon believes that, only time will tell whether the public square
can be effectively regained to discuss fundamental issues in meaningful
ways.21 Time has responded affirmatively. While much of politics could
be described as (to borrow Secretary Clintons remark in the third debate)
horrifying, its not because of rights talk. By operating within a rights-
based discourse, Americans have addressed questions of the common
good, sociality, and civic engagement.
Now we just have to live with our answers.
1 Glendon, x
2 Id., 171
3 Tocqueville, Democracy in America I, 93-94 via Glendon, 120
4 Most relevantly in Glendon, 146-152
5 Id., 66, 164-168
6 Id., 156
7 Id., 179
8 Bernie Sanders on Twitter, 2/13/16
9 Sanders, Senate Webpage
10 Glendon, 171
11 Id., 129
12 The Economist, 4/27/16
13 Glendon, 143
14 Moody and Rosen, CNN, 2/17/16
15 Glendon, 145
16 Clinton, The Choice is Clear
17 Washington Post, 8/19/16
18 Trump, YouTube, 12/7/15
19 Glendon, 128
20 Crouch, 2017
21 Glendon, 182
121
Reflection on
Rights Babble
I greatly enjoyed Mary Ann Glendons Rights Talk because it forced

me to confront long-held beliefs about rights-based thinking in a way that
few books have. However, as Rights Babble shows, I have ultimately
concluded that Glendons fears are overstated, and have not played out
as she thought they would.
On the whole, I enjoy this paper, and stand by it. I look forward to
reading and writing more about the tumultuous 2016 election and its
aftermath.
Rights Babble was originally written for MC 378, taught by

Professor Benjamin Kleinerman. It was submitted on February 22 nd, 2017.
122
Power
A Series on the Bush Administration
and the War on Terror
The following three papers were written over the course of Fall 2016
for my James Madison College senior seminar. The focus of the class was
the War on Terror, including the ethics of drones, the problem of
Guantanamo detainees, and the differences between the Bush and Obama
administrations.
I found the sections on executive power most interesting, particularly
as it related to Vice President Dick Cheney and Congress response to
expansions of executive power. This series title is a tongue-in-cheek
reference to the fact that most of the courses assigned readings featured
the word power somewhere in their title. Each of these papers was
composed with the others in mind. They build off each other, and are
best read in tandem. Accordingly, Ill just say that I stand by each, rather
than reflect on them separately.
The relevant works include:
1. Commitment: David Addington, Integrity, and Congressional
Cooperation
2. Go It Alone: An Examination of the Bush Administrations Self-
Reliance in Fighting the War on Terror
3. Step Up: Congressional Resistance to the Executive Branch during the
War on Terror
Furthermore, the paper Moving from Baltimore: Continuing the
Transformation of the American Vice Presidency can be seen as a sort of spiritual
successor to the series. While it was written a semester later for a different
class, Moving from Baltimore was heavily informed by the research
undertaken for Power.
The papers in Power were originally written for MC 497, taught by

Professor Benjamin Kleinerman. They were submitted on October 3 rd,
October 31st, and December 11th, 2016.
123
Commitment
David Addington, Integrity, and Congressional
Cooperation
V ICE PRESIDENT DICK CHENEYS STAFF, LED BY DAVID

Addington, held a view of executive power that was fundamentally
incompatible with cooperation between governmental branches. This
conception influenced President Bush himself, and is key to
understanding the Bush administrations executive actions in the wake of
9/11. Addingtons understanding of the Presidents power was
characterized by a stern opposition to compromising with or even
consulting legislative or judicial authorities. Nearly a decade later, what
can be said about Addingtons insistence on executive independence,
even when it was against his and the Presidents interests? Evaluating the
success of Addingtons initiatives is only possible if his goals are properly
understood. Using Benjamin Wittes Law and the Long War and Jack
Goldsmiths The Terror Presidency, one can glean insight into the ways that
Addington succeeded and failed in his endeavors; but above all else, one
is forced to critically examine the integrity with which Addington acted
against congressional compromise, for better or for worse.
The Bush administrations plan of action regarding congressional
oversight or approval of executive branch happenings has been
characterized by Jack Goldsmith as the go-it-alone approach. 1 This
course was motivated by a belief that compromise was tantamount to
admitting that the President could not achieve certain ends alone.
Addington was arguably the most vocal proponent of this idea, asking
every advocate of congressional input if the measure could feasibly be
done by the President alone.2 For Addington, one should never lose a
battle to win a war; to give deference to Congress on a single issue would
be to set a precedent that Congress had authority in matters of war that
the President did not. This was clearly unacceptable.
Commitment 124
As head of the Office of Legal Counsel, Jack Goldsmith voiced

counterarguments to this path, contending that the Supreme Court may
intervene if the executive branch were to act without congressional
constraint, and that such an intervention may be far more restrictive than
any fight Congress was likely to put up.3 But Addington did not find this
argument particularly compelling. The Vice Presidents Chief of Staff was
strikingly optimistic about respect the Court would give the President in
military matters, ignoring political realities for convenient wartime
precedent.4 As fate would have it, the highest court in the land roundly
rejected many of the administrations stated goals, in decisions like Hamdi
and Rasul.
So far, it seems like Addingtons approach was a failure. Yet the blows
to the Bush administrations agenda werent nearly as grave as they
seemed. Benjamin Wittes points out that in every instance except
Boumedine v. Bush, the Court did not base its decisions in constitutional
reasoning, but on statutory interpretation. 5 This allowed Congress to
retroactively authorize Bushs methods, which they did most significantly
in the case of the Military Commissions Act. 6 At the end of the day,
Addington and Co. got what they wanted without asking for Congress
help in the first place. Congress may have stepped in, but only after the
assertion of another branchs power. The executive branch changed little
of its substantive direction, and Addington continued to wax poetic about
the executives agency. 7 Congress threw Bush a bone, but the
administration never admitted to needing it.
It is easy to overstate the efficacy of this plan, however. The Hamdan
decision did back the administration into a corner that only Congress was
able to rescue it from. 2006s Military Commissions Act not only
authorized most of Bushs actions, but granted broader authority than
Bush ever could have hoped for from the Court. 8 But as Goldsmith
points out, the success is marginal at bestthe authority reached through
compromise was certainly less than what Bush would have liked.9 There
were limits to the power the executive branch could claim, as Addington
discovered. Rather than barreling forward until he was stopped,
Addington should have followed the model Wittes puts forth: define the
Silvestri 125
lines of acceptable governmental conduct, approach those lines, and

[refrain] from stepping over them.10
Goldsmith concludes that Addington and Cheneys attempts to
extend the power of the President backfired, as future executives would
be scrutinized in light of the previous executives attempted expansion of
power; 11 but in the years since Goldsmiths book was published, this
prediction has not quite panned out. Consider the actions of President
Obama in Seymour Hershs The Killing of Osama bin Laden. President
Obama was more than happy to launch military initiatives without
legislative approval, as evidenced by Americas 2011 involvement in Libya,
but he sought a congressional cosign when considering whether to
intervene in Syria.12 What could be the cause of this discrepancy? Hersh
interprets Obamas desire for Congress say-so as a passing of the buck;
due to firm political promises he had made, the only way for Obama to
stay out of Syria was for Congress to tell him he had to.13 In a post-Bush
presidency, the executive was empowered to decide if congressional
approval was necessary, and could sometimes act without it. Does this
sound like a president bound by the actions of his predecessor? Obamas
military strategy could very well be seen as evidence that Addingtons
philosophy was a winning one.
But independently of the efficacy of Addingtons conception of
executive power, one thing is clear: Addington stuck to his guns, come
hell or high water. Regardless of whether one agrees with the Unitary
Executive Theory, one has to acknowledge that Addingtons commitment
(and by extension, Cheneys and Bushs) to the philosophy was principled,
genuine, and consistent. Goldsmith himself admits this, describing
Addingtons faith in executive power as unshakeable, and begrudgingly
lauding Addington for seldom backing down in the face of enormous
resistance. 14 Addington was clearly genuinely committed to this
expansion of executive power, undertaking the initiative long before 9/11,
and continuing the fight well after. For Addington, principle came before
politics; at the tail end of his time in government, the two prospective
Presidents were Barack Obama, a Democrat, and John McCain, who,
having fought the administration with vitriol in passing his eponymous
amendment to 2005s Detainee Treatment Act,15 was not exactly the kind
Commitment 126
of Republican that Addington envisioned at the nations helm. But at no

point did Addington pull back the reins on his pet project of executive
expansion, even when it looked like the future executive would hold
inevitably different views.
In my view, the unimpeachable integrity of Addington and his cohort
makes condemning their actions significantly more challenging. Its
obvious that a proponent of enhanced executive power would see
Addington as an ideological hero, but on what basis can his detractors
criticize his attitude? Critics of Addington and Co. ought to consider what
they would have done had they occupied the West Wing. The charges
levied by these critics (who are, quite frankly, joined by me) are primarily
based on the consequences of the administrations conduct: they dont
want executive power, they dont want enhanced interrogation, and they
dont want administrative supremacy.
But at the end of the day, opponents of an expanded executive would
happily have taken someone with the fervor and commitment of
Addington in their corner. One can condemn the theory behind
Addingtons actions, but its difficult to do anything but respect his
commitment to it. David Addington is a shining example of a principled
leader committed to an unfortunate ideal. Seen in this light, I find myself
unable to put all of the blame for post-9/11 executive overreach on
Addington and those like him.
1 Goldsmith, 123
2 Id., 124
3 Id., 125
4 Id., 134
5 Wittes, 106-107
6 Goldsmith, 138
7 Id., 135
8 Id., 138
9 Id., 139
10 Wittes, 149
11 Goldsmith, 140
12 Hersh, 53
13 Id., 63
14 Goldsmith, 129
15 Wittes, 68
127
Go It Alone
An Examination of the Bush Administrations
Self-Reliance in Fighting the War on Terror
T HE WAR ON TERROR PUT THE FLEDGLING BUSH

administration in a precarious position: how was a constitutional
order supposed to respond to an attack of a brand-new variety? Had
President George W. Bushs White House been occupied by anyone other
than executive power ideologues, the state of American checks and
balances may very well look very different today. But the men and women
who steered the nation in the wake of 9/11 were principled disciples of
the Unitary Executive Theory, and their dedication to expanding
executive power critically influenced the way Bushs executive branch
navigated the aftermath of a national tragedy. The administrations
insistence on its own power in addressing the threat of terrorism
(henceforth referred to as the Go It Alone approach1) led to outcomes
that the President, Vice President, and their cunning staffs never expected
nor desired; the Bush administrations decision to wage the War on Terror
themselves was misguided, and ultimately detracted from the power of
the presidency by inadvertently expanding the scope of the Supreme
Court in questions of national security and foreign policy.
The Go It Alone approach is best characterized by the executive
branchs fervent belief in its own prerogative. Congress had no business
nor authority in interfering with the Presidents discretion as it related to
matters of national security and fighting terrorism, as far as the Bush
administration was concerned. 2 The President and his advisers were
committed to doing whatever it took to counter the nascent threat of
terrorist attacks on American soil, and they refused to let anyone,
including the other branches of the federal government, stand in their way.
The administration held two key beliefs about waging the War on Terror:
the executive branch was best suited to stop the terrorists, and involving
Go It Alone 128
or even consulting Congress could strip President Bush of the requisite

power needed to combat radical forces.3 When they did decide to involve
the Legislature, it was only in non-substantive ways, or else after being
forced to by the Supreme Court.4
One cannot overstate the importance of the theological significance
of executive power for Bush. 5 Operating independently of the other
branches was a central administrative priority of Bush during his time
in office.6 He believed that most decisions relevant to the War on Terror
could adequately be made by himself, Vice President Dick Cheney, and
the members of the so-called War Council, which most crucially
consisted of John Yoo, Alberto Gonzales, and David Addington. 7
Political capital, public opinion, and basic adherence to checks and
balances were all subordinate to the assertion of Bushs executive power.8
At the core of their strategy was the contention that their shoot-from-the-
hip attitude in response to 9/11 was sufficient to ground a concrete
mentality for the remainder of their new ideological war;9 it is on this
score that the Bush administration was most incorrect, and it serves as the
logical gap that led to the ultimate undoing of their stated goals.
But how did the Go It Alone mentality tangibly manifest itself
from 2001 to 2008? An obvious example is Bushs detention of those
individuals at Guantanamo Bay prior to the holding in Hamdi v. Rumsfeld.
Rather than formally suspending the writ of habeas corpus (as the
President is empowered to do in times of rebellion), Bush denied the writ
to hundreds of detainees while it was still technically in effect, and
subsequently imprisoned those detainees indefinitely. He did this under
the guise of presidential prerogative, rather than admitting an overstep
and seeking ex post facto approval from Congress as Lincoln did during the
Civil War.10 Whereas Lincoln, the darling of executive power proponents,
recognized he did not have unilateral authority in wartime, Bush not only
held that he had authority to deny the writ, but that Congress would be
out of line to suggest otherwise; in short, Bush and his advisers believed
that the Constitution should be interpreted such that the executive had
the power to do what he had to do in times of national emergencies like
the one they were facing.11
Silvestri 129
Another instance of the Go It Alone approach rearing its assertive

head can be found in President Bushs signing statement attached to
2005s Detainee Treatment Act. Congress passed a law clearly articulating
its view of extreme iterations of enhanced interrogation: torture is bad,
and the United States has no business doing it. But while signing the law,
Bush affixed a statement indicating that the statute would be interpreted,
in a manner consistent with the constitutional authority of the
President [in] protecting the American people from further terrorist
attacks. 12 Bush roundly rejected the idea that Congress could put
meaningful limitations on his agency in dealing with suspected terrorists.
These examples point to the meat-and-potatoes of the
administrations goals regarding Congress: Bush sought (and in many
ways succeeded) to strip Congress of its checking powers. The executive
branch maneuvered in ways that undercut Congress ability to audit the
Presidents initiatives. Bush further took the wind out of Congress sails
by using signing statements and invoking executive privilege to blatantly
circumvent the legislative will.13
How effective was the clear-cut, philosophically-grounded strategy
taken by President Bush? Not particularly, as fateand the Supreme
Courtwould have it. Since Congress hadnt stepped in to counter the
ever-growing executive, the Supreme Court decided to have a go at
opposing President Bush. In Rasul v. Bush, the Court rejected the
administrations contention that housing suspected terrorists in
Guantanamo Bay was sufficient grounds to shield them from oversight
by federal courts.14 The Court inserted itself in the theater of war in a way
that it had previously refrained from doing. Rasul opened the floodgates
for a Court whose jurisdiction was not limited to venues controlled
exclusively by the United States, culminating in the holding in Boumedine
v. Bush.
A more prudent administration would have seen Rasul for what
it was: an undeniable warning that the Court would not stand for an
executive unbound from extra-executive oversight.15 But because of the
arrogance and undue confidence in the Supreme Court present in the
upper echelon of the administration, Bush and Co. fought on, continuing
to assert their independence and rejecting calls to consult Congress for
Go It Alone 130
some time.16 Addingtons position that acquiescing slightly to Congress

would result in a weakening of the executive branch was entirely
undermined by the more stringent restrictions laid down by the Court.17
Blows to the administrations executive-oriented agenda kept coming.
Hamdi v. Rumsfeld, released concurrently with Rasul, instituted the first due
process restraints of the War on Terror. 18 Had Bush gone to the
Republican-majority Congress to seek approval for the various initiatives
he was pursuing, the office of the President would likely have much more
power than it ultimately ended up with.19 Rasul was decided on purely
statutory grounds, as opposed to constitutional ones, leaving the door
wide open for Bush to partner with Congress to achieved their shared
goal.20
But the executive branch trudged along in their narcissistic fight for
power, and the more adversarial Court continued to play the role that
Congress refused to.21 The ruling in 2006s Hamdan v. Rumsfeld required
Bush to seek congressional approval for the military commissions he had
set up, and reframed adherence to the Geneva Conventions a treaty
obligation.22 Congress ultimately approved the commissions, and granted
the administration much of what it wanted (and what the Court decried)
in the Military Commissions Act.23 Congress publicly fought the Bush
administration on its overreaches, but generally codified expansions of
executive power on the few occasions they were asked to.24
Ultimately, however, Congress subsequent approval is irrelevant to
the larger point: The Bush administration was backed into a corner by the
Supreme Court, and was forced to cooperate with entities with whom it
did not believe it was required to. Undeniably, the Court became stronger
than Congress in fighting for constitutional checks and balances.25 This is
the ultimate failure of the Go It Alone approach. In a historical trend of
expanding federal power, one would think that the most active growth
would be in the executive branch, followed by Congress; the Court seems
least likely to play a major role in war or national security. But the Bush
administrations policies went too far, and ultimately increased the power
of the judicial branch at the cost of the legislative branchs clout.
Some have posited that the Go It Alone strategy worked, and
ultimately increased the power of the executive branch. They often point
Silvestri 131
to Obamas selective use of congressional authorization in military

involvement regarding Libya and Syria as evidence. 26 After all, is a
President who can use Congress as a tool to avoid political backlash being
substantively checked?i But this objection fails to see the forest through
the trees, relying on a false binary between executive and legislative power;
Congress deference to the President has increased, but the Courts role
has expanded dramatically. The President has a new adversary in the
Supreme Court, and that paradigm isnt likely to change. Now that the
Court has a seat at the table, it is very likely to overstay its welcome.27
Bush, borrowed against the power of future presidencies, not by ceding
power to the Legislature, but by inadvertently inviting the Court to a
conversation in which it had never previously taken part.28
By not assuaging the fears of a public skeptical of executive overreach,
Bush dealt a swift blow to his credibility and that of all future executives.
Jack Goldsmith identifies the key task of the post-9/11 president as the
need to, establish adequate trust with the American people to enable the
president to take the steps needed to fight and enemy that the public does
not see and in some respects cannot comprehend.29 Instead, the Bush
administration made terrorists look like victims, increased the role of the
Supreme Court in national policy discussions, and sacrificed the
legitimacy that congressional approval can give an executives actions.30
Lincoln and Roosevelt exerted unprecedented power, but checked
themselves against the publics skittishness; Lincoln and Roosevelt are
remembered as national heroes.31 Bush will not be.
iAdmittedly, I made this argument less than a month ago in Commitment: David
Addington, Integrity, and Congressional Cooperation, a paper examining the integrity
of the War Council.
Go It Alone 132
1 This name comes from Jack Goldsmith; see Goldsmith, 123.

2 Goldsmith, 98
3 Id., 126
4 Pfiffner, 173
5 Goldsmith, 212
6 Id., 132
7 Id., 22
8 Wittes, 51
9 Id., 55
10 Pfiffner, 94
11 Goldsmith, 82
12 Id., 86
13 Pfiffner, 206-207
14 Wittes, 64
15 Id., 65
16 Goldsmith, 134
17 Id., 125
18 Id., 134
19 Id., 135
20 Pfiffner, 101
21 Id., 240
22 Goldsmith, 136
23 Id., 138
24 Id., 221
25 Id., 222
26 Hersh, 53 & 63
27 Goldsmith, 224
28 Id., 140
29 Id., 192
30 Wittes, 71 & 134
31 Goldsmith, 210
133
Step Up
Congressional Resistance to the
Executive Branch during the War on Terror
A CCORDING TO THE ACCOUNT THAT POP

political science propagates, the executive branch grew
substantially under President George W. Bush, and the Legislature
did little to stop this expansion. The story goes that President Bush,
working in conjunction with Vice President Dick Cheney, David
Addington, and John Yoo, overstepped his bounds as the Commander-
in-Chief and left the presidency bigger than it had ever been. Their
contemporaries in Congress, allegedly fearful of taking an active role in
the War on Terror, have been accused of failing to sufficiently check the
Bush administration. But evidence for this version of history is far from
plentiful. The conventional narrative that Congress ceded too much
power to the Bush administration is not supported by a meaningful
examination of the Legislatures actions during the War on Terror;
Congress significantly checked President Bush, and these checks have
subsequently both empowered and constrained President Obama. In fact,
this push and pull between branches has not highlighted an excessively
strong executive, but instead points to a dangerous growth of every
branch.
In stark contrast to the conventional narrative, congressional
pushback against President Bush began as early as September 18th, 2001.
Bush initially sought authorization from Congress to use force against any
nation planning to harm the United States, rather than those nations
directly responsible for the 9/11 attacks.1 Congress declined to grant this
excessively broad request, limiting the administration from the very
beginning. In the wake of the most devastating domestic terrorist attack
in the nations history, the Legislature almost immediately reigned in the
executive.
Step Up 134
This early intervention does not stand by itself. The PATRIOT Act,
which granted sweeping powers to the President, was initially far more
empowering. Attorney General John Ashcroft proposed a draft version
of the PATRIOT Act (then called the Anti-Terrorism Act) on
September 19th, 2001. Under the proposed legislation, the Attorney
General had no limit on how long he could detain suspected foreign
terrorists.2 By the time the proposal morphed into the PATRIOT Act,
Congress imposed a seven-day limit on such detentions before criminal
or release proceedings had to begin. 3 Even in granting the President
unprecedented power, Congress thought it prudent to restrain him in
crucial and substantive ways.
Another critically important instance of congressional pushback can
be seen in the passage of the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. Senator
John McCain introduced an amendment that banned interrogation
techniques resembling torture by any U.S. personnel. It did so by
requiring that all interrogations conducted by American officials comport
with the standards of the U.S. Army Field Manual. Fearing that this would
cripple the CIAs ability to effectively gather information, Vice President
Dick Cheney and CIA Director Porter Goss met with Senator McCain to
try dissuading him from pursuing the amendment. McCain stormed out
of the meeting, refusing to compromise on the issue.4
When the Detainee Treatment Act was finally signed, President Bush
issued an accompanying signing statement, claiming that he would
interpret the law in such a way that was consistent the constitutional
authority of the President. This drew the ire of commentators like James
Pfiffner, who claims that the signing statement gutted the intent of the
law, and concluded that President Bush did not consider himself bound
by this law.5 Independently of the signing statement, Benjamin Wittes,
in disagreement with Vice President Cheney, called the effects of the
McCain Amendment modest.6
The facts do not support this narrative. Jack Goldsmith describes the
McCain Amendment as having stopped the CIA program in its tracks.7
In Goldsmiths account of the meeting between Vice President Cheney,
Senator McCain, and CIA Director Goss described earlier, much more
weight is given to the effect Senator McCains apoplectic attitude had on
Silvestri 135
the CIA. Senator McCain believed vehemently that the CIAs actions
constituted torture, and were in direct contrast with the spiritand
arguably the wordingof the law. Goss suspended the most
controversial interrogation programs against the wishes of the White
House, fearing congressional investigations and sanctions. This instance
of congressional pushback had practical and significant effects on
administration protocol.
Attached to the Detainee Treatment Act was an eponymous
amendment introduced by Senator Lindsey Graham. The Graham
Amendment resolved the perceived problem presented by the Supreme
Courts ruling in Rasul v. Bush, in which the Court held that they could
statutorily hear the habeas corpus petitions of Guantanamo Bay detainees.
This court-stripping provision was widely seen as a victory for Bush.
However, Graham also added judicial review of the rulings given by the
Combatant Status Review Tribunals, as well as significant procedural
protections previously unafforded to detainees, including the right to
know what evidence would be used against them. 8 Despite Congress
giving the administration something it desperately wanted, Bushs initial
ask was curtailed in significant and, from Bushs perspective, undesirable
ways.
Graham was also the principal force behind another significant
instance of congressional pushback: The Military Commissions Act of
2006. The Supreme Court ruled that the administration was obligated to
seek congressional approval to convene military commissions in Hamdan
v. Rumsfeld.9 However, the Court decided this solely on statutory grounds,
arguing not that Bush couldnt hold trials in military commissions, but
that he required Congress permission to do so. 10 Bush sought such
permission from Congress, looking for a simple approval of what his
administration was already doing.
Instead, Senator Graham jumped at the opportunity to restrain the
President. In a massive repudiation of the Unitary Executive Theory,
Graham sought the testimony of JAGs to discredit the administrations
techniques, as well as the legal theories underpinning them.11 By using
Bushs underlings against him, Graham dealt a serious blow to the
Presidents philosophical foundation on Capitol Hill and in the court of
Step Up 136
public opinion. The law was also significant in that it marked the first time
a President was forced to ask Congress for permission for such an
ostensibly executive function. Furthermore, Graham included markedly
more detainee protections than the Bush administration had was currently
affording terrorism suspects.
Congress also stymied President Bushs will through less headline-
friendly methods. In 2003, Inspector General John Helgerson launched
concurrent investigations into the CIAs interrogation program and CIA
leaderships failure to prevent 9/11he did so of his own accord in the
former case, and at the behest of the Legislature in the latter. 12 His
findings were mixed, simultaneously praising the Agency for seeking the
Presidents approval while criticizing the programs implementation.
But the significance of the investigation lies independently of its
findings. What is so striking about Helgersons work is its uniqueness.
Never before had an independent review of the CIAs practices been
undertaken in the midst of a war. When Helgersons review was still
impending, the Agency took many steps to resolve problems they
anticipated being noted in the report. Furthermore, the CIA enacted eight
of the ten policy recommendations Helgerson put forth in the report.13
Regardless of the reports conclusion, the very threat of an inspector
general review was enough to force procedural change, with even more
following the reports release.
Helgersons report was only possible due to the expanded role that
various preceding Congresses had granted the inspector generals office.
In the wake of Watergate, the inspector generals scope grew from an
advisory function beholden to the President into a largely-independent
check on executive branch activity. 14 Subsequent legislatures expanded
the jurisdiction of the inspector generals office, empowering it make
meaningful change as Helgerson did.
Meddling with the Presidents subordinates became a hallmark of
terror-era legislative resistance. In late 2006, administration officials
terminated the employment of seven of the ninety-three U.S. Attorneys.
Senate Democrats suspected the firings were politically motivated, and an
inspector general report later confirmed this suspicion. 15 In response,
Congress rescinded the Presidents ability to replace U.S. Attorneys
Silvestri 137
without Senate approval. The outcry on Capitol Hill led to the

resignations of nine senior executive branch employees, including
Attorney General Alberto Gonzales. 16 The Legislature again asserted
itself as an actor in executive branch affairs, further undermining the
Unitary Executive Theory.
Each of the aforementioned examples of congressional pushback only
matter if they worked. A telling indicator that they did can be found in an
anecdote recounted by Vice President Cheney. 17 Cheney describes a
meeting with senior congressional leaders in which he asked whether the
administration should seek Congress approval for the Terrorist
Surveillance Program.i The legislators declined to bring the program to
the larger Congress attention, citing concerns about potential leaks, but
the fact that they were consulted at all is striking. Vice President Cheney
and his staffers harbored a well-known contempt for asking Congress for
approval; 18 for Cheney to invite congressional input, there must have
been a compelling reason. The meeting seems to be clear a case of the
incentive structure the Legislature created impacting the actions of the
executive branch.
Several commentators have given a plethora of reasons for why they
believe Congress took a backseat to policy-making during the Bush
administration. Senator Mike Lee, a Republican from Utah, has said that
modern executive overreach is a problem, of [Congress] own making.19
Benjamin Wittes points to a fear that their policies could be wrong, and
therefore be harmful during the next round of elections; 20 this
disincentive, coupled with the inherent divisiveness within the Legislature,
has led to a patchy and erratic record on checking the President.21 Mark
Tushnet places the blame on political parties themselves, arguing that
because President Bush worked primarily with a Republican-controlled
Congress, there was little incentive for Congress to stake a claim to their
rightful constitutional place. 22 Both authors put forth ostensibly
reasonable explanations, and rely on the same congressional actions that
iIncidentally, this meeting occurred on March 10th, 2004, the same night as the
infamous John Ashcroft hospital incident.
Step Up 138
I do in coming to their conclusionsbut their assessments of the

Legislature during the War on Terror rely on an improper contextual
framing that confuses cooperation with obeisance.
Consider the Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. The court-stripping
language of the law was inarguably a victory for Bush, but it was tempered
by the judicial review of CSRT decisions and increased detainee
protections. The fact that the White House got what it wanted doesnt
imply that Congress didnt; Bush and Congress had similar underlying
goals with differences in the minutiae, and the compromise in the DTA
stems from a mutually beneficial partnership, not deference from either
side. Remember that in adding judicial review of CSRT rulings, Graham
opened the door for the judicial branch to get involved as well, checking
the Presidency from two sides. Given that congressional and judicial
involvement of this level in detainee treatment matters was
unprecedented, this example looks less like an overextended executive
than a novel assertion of power on the parts of the legislature and judiciary.
The same principle applies to the coverage of the Military
Commissions Act of 2006. The media largely painted the laws passage as
a victory for Bush,23 but that narrative forgets that the legislation was only
necessary because the Court got involved in wartime matters as it never
had before, and that Senator Graham included significantly more
detainee-friendly provisions than the White Houses original bill featured.
The Military Commissions Act, like almost every crucial piece of terror-
related legislation during the Bush administration, was a tempered victory
at best.
Congress did not stop opposing executive action once Bush left office.
President Obama has faced myriad resistance from Capitol Hill during his
presidency, especially on issues related to the War on Terror. The most
glaringly obvious example is the congressional impediment to the closure
of Guantanamo Bay. Obamas constant promises to shutter the prison
were brought to a halt by a 90-6 vote in the Senate.24 Later, the House of
Representatives imposed legislation significantly hindering Obamas
ability to transfer detainees from the prison. 25 Members of Congress
reiterated their commitment to keeping Guantanamo open with the
National Defense Authorization Act in 2011.26
Silvestri 139
In a significant departure from the narrative that President Bush left

the office of the Presidency more empowered than it had ever been,
President Obama expressed extreme frustration over Congress
involvement in his War on Terror. In a 2011 White House memo, Obama
complained that Congress had never before tried, to so limit and
micromanage the military and other elements of our national security
community in matters as basic as a detainee transfer.27
After mistakenly detaining a group of Chinese Muslims called
Uighurs who harbored no animus toward the United States, the Obama
administration tried to release two members of the group from
Guantanamo. The plan was to resettle them in a heavily-surveilled
compound in Virginia, where they would be permitted to live normal
(albeit scrutinized) lives. 28 Upon discovering the plan, Republican
legislators led by Representative Frank Wolf launched an impassioned
campaign against the measure, accusing Obama of being soft on
terrorism. 29 After an intense battle in the media and on Capitol Hill,
Obama capitulated and moved the detainees to Bermuda; he did so only
after waiting the statutorily-imposed 45-day period that began once
Obama notified Congress of his intent.30
The most striking illustration of this sort of unwelcome involvement
highlights not only the resistance that Congress is accused of not having
engaged in, but also points to the ways in which the system of checks and
balances is still relevant and operating in full force. President Obama and
Attorney General Eric Holder repeatedly stated their desire to try 9/11
conspirator Khalid Sheikh Mohammed in a civilian court, but a series of
political misfires caused the White House to lose the backing of legislators,
including Democrats.31 The nail in the KSM trials coffin came in the
aforementioned National Defense Authorization Act of 2011. The law
barred the White House from using any funds to transfer Guantanamo
detainees to domestic soil for any reason, effectively killing the KSM trial
and any future trials like it.32
The push-and-pull between branches is a clear vindication of the
separation of powers the Founders envisioned. Regardless of how one
feels about the potential venue of KSMs trial, it cannot be denied that in
using the power of the purse to check the executive, Congress exercised
Step Up 140
a privilege explicitly granted to it in the Constitution. The Federalist Papers

indicate that this kind of resistance is not only permissible, but desirable.
Federalist no. 48, aptly titled These Departments Should Not Be So
Far Separated as to Have No Constitutional Control Over Each Other,
explains why mere parchment barriers are insufficient mechanisms for
the branches to check each other; it cites the contemporary Virginian and
Pennsylvanian legislatures as examples of a legislature run amok, and
points to the states explicit constitutional provisions against branches
intermingling as the reason why.33 The Founders wanted the branches to
step on each others constitutional toes.
Most relevant is Federalist no. 51, in which Madison famously stated
that, [a]mbition must be made to counteract ambition. While each
branch must be given the necessary constitutional meansto resist the
encroachment of others, the lines being encroached upon are
intentionally fuzzy. 34 Congress cutting funding to a widely-unpopular
executive program fits squarely under the constitutional means
Madison called for, and Obamas objecting to their involvement is exactly
the Founders would have expected and welcomed.
Congress assertion of their ambition forced Obama to abide by the
law, including those laws that were enacted specifically to thwart him. Yet
instead of seeing Obama as adjusting his plans to fit Congress limitations,
many news outlets have accused Obama of simply continuing and
expanding terror policies put in place by President Bush, citing
extraordinary rendition,35 widespread surveillance via FISA courts,36 and
increased drone strikes, 37 among others. Daniel Klaidman argues that
many of the ostensible departures from Bushs policies were more
rhetorical than substantive.38 Only a few commentators recognized that it
was precisely the legislative resistance for which so many clamored for
that incentivized Obama to behave so similarly to Bush.
Charlie Savage astutely highlights a major difference between the
criticisms of President Bush and that of President Obama: where Bush
was frequently criticized on grounds of violating both the rule of law and
civil liberties, Obama has been subject to ridicule primarily regarding the
latter. 39 When the Court and Congress became involved in executive
branch matters, they brought a kind of legitimacy to the policies that
Silvestri 141
fulfilled Benjamin Wittes call for a legal architecture built in the name
of the political system as a whole.40
Through laws and rulings like the Detainee Treatment Act, the
Military Commissions Act, and Hamdan v. Rumsfeld, the legislature and
judiciary resolved the rule-of-law problems that Bush faced, leaving
Obama to continue with these programs while only facing civil liberties-
based concerns.41 Civil libertarian objections are often nebulous and lofty,
and civil libertarians can easily be portrayed as being insufficiently
concerned about security. Anxieties about the rule-of-law are harder to
dismiss offhandedly, and almost automatically invite judicial scrutiny. By
satisfying the rule-of-law concerns, Congress and the Supreme Court
simultaneously empowered and inhibited President Obama. While he is
free to continue Bush-era policies with the assurance they have been
vetted, altered, and blessed by the other branches, he is also still subject
to subsequent review by the very same bodies.42
Note that claiming that Congress adequately checked the President
during the War on Terror is not tantamount to denying that there is a
problem regarding modern checks and balances. The executive branch
has certainly expanded to a worrisome size, but it has not grown
disproportionately compared to the other branches. The friction between
branches during the War on Terror illuminates a dangerous trend in the
American governance: The branches are checking each other upward, not
backward.
Due to the dynamic and energetic nature of the executive, the
President was largely the one to act in objectionable ways during the War
on Terror. Because Bush and Obama were most capable of using federal
resources to enact their will, they were also the most likely to overstep
their constitutional bounds. When that happened, either Congress or the
Supreme Court stepped in to alter and codify the executives overreach.
But in doing so, they themselves took on an unprecedented role.
This framework was evident in the proceedings surrounding the
Detainee Treatment Act of 2005. After Bush operated his detainee
treatment protocols within a novel, expansive scope, Congress instituted
several provisions curtailing this overreach, while simultaneously getting
involved in matters they had not weighed in on before.43 Shortly after, the
Step Up 142
Supreme Court ruled in a way that further suppressed the executive, and
the judiciarys role in the War on Terror swelled; at one point, even lower
courts tasked with creating a new detention review system expressed
frustration about their new responsibilities.44 At the end of the affair, all
three branches had a broader scope than they did before 9/11.
This trend is also evident after examining detainee transfers, domestic
surveillance, and conflicts fought under vague interpretations of
hostilities. In each case, the scope of every governmental branchs
power ballooned, leaving us with our largest-ever federal government. I
suspect we are seeing the phenomenon play out in real time, especially as
it pertains to President Obamas unparalleled use of drone strikes, which
he has used to go as far killing American citizens.45 Senators from both
parties like Rand Paul, Ted Cruz, and Patrick Leahy have mounted early
and vocal challenges against drone strikes, and it seems likely that the
Supreme Court will eventually get involved. 46 Just as Obama took
advantage of Bushs experiments with novel executive power, President
Donald Trump will likely be restrained and empowered by those policies
of Obamas that the Court and Congress decide to alter and codify.
This exponential growth of government is probably here to stay. Its
difficult to imagine a day when the people in power will decide that we
are sufficiently safe from terror, and decide to close shop. Not even the
most watchful populace could guard against the encroachments of a
government whose laws and underpinning legal theories are kept secret.
executives will continue to exercise their power in new and dangerous
ways, and the other branches will continue to check them. But each time
they do so, they will carve out a bigger spot at the table for themselves.
Jack Goldsmith claims that if James Madison were alive today, he, would
smile [at the] harmonious system of mutual frustration undergirding a
surprising national consensus.47 But while Madison might feel vindicated
insofar as no branch has overtaken the others, he would be appalled at
the massive state that his system of checks and balances has ushered in.
Silvestri 143
1 Abramowitz, 71
2 Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001, Section 202
3 USA PATRIOT Act, Section 236, Subsection 5
4 Cheney, 359
5 Pfiffner, 160
6 Wittes, 139
7 Goldsmith, Power and Constraint, 120
8 Id., 185-186
9 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, 136
10 Wittes, 107
12 Id., 101 & 103
13 Id., 104
14 Id., 99
15 Calabresi and Yoo, 413
16 Myers and Shenon, New York Times, 8/27/2007
17 Cheney, 351
18 Goldsmith, The Terror Presidency, 126
19 Hulse, New York Times, 2/8/2016
20 Wittes, 133
21 Id., 144
22 Tushnet, 2678
23 Babington and Weisman, Washington Post, 9/29/06
24 Klaidman, 89
25 Id., 129
26 Id., 230
27 Gerstein, Politico, 6/23/11
28 Savage, 126
29 Id., 127
30 Id., 129
31 Id.,, 87
32 Id., 327
33 Federalist Paper no. 48
34 Federalist Paper no. 51
35 Savage, New York Times, 2/17/09
36 Curry, NBC News, 6/6/13
37 Boyer, 4/24/13
38 Klaidman, 60
39 Savage, 48 and 54
40 Wittes, 134
41 Savage, 55
42 Goldsmith, Power and Constraint, xii
43 Id., 186
44 Id., 192
45 Klaidman, 264
46 Savage, 456
144
Moving from Baltimore

Continuing the Transformation
of the American Vice Presidency
There were two brothers; one ran off to sea, the other became
Vice President; neither was ever heard from again. 1
C URIOUSLY, EXCEEDINGLY LITTLE ATTENTION HAS

been paid to the office of the American vice presidency since its
inception. Given that the occupant of the office is always a single
illness or bullet away from becoming the most powerful person in the
world, one would think that the vice presidency would be more
significantly scrutinized. However, due to institutional, cultural, and
political factors, the second highest office in the executive branch is the
subject of almost no attention. This ambivalent neglect could well have
significant implications on our nation, and to some degree already has.
When one conducts an examination of the vice presidencys historical
foundation, turbulent transformation, and modern brushes with disaster,
a clear theme emerges. While the vice presidency has transformed
substantially since the Founding, the transformation has not gone far
enough; the office needs to be re-worked on an institutional and cultural
scale that puts more emphasis on the vice presidents ability to potentially
serve as commander-in-chief.
Silvestri 145
Historical Context: The Framers Intent and John Tylers

Departure
Before delving into how the vice presidency has changed and whether
it ought to be changed further, it is necessary to examine the offices
constitutional underpinnings. The term vice-president is mentioned
only six times in The Federalist Papers, and two of those instances refer to
an office in the British government. All four of the remaining usages are
in Federalist no. 68, which is titled The Mode of Electing the President.
In the ninth of the papers ten paragraphs, Hamilton finally introduces
the vice president, saying flatly that the second office should be filled by
the Electoral College, and confirmed by the Senate. He then responds to
some of his contemporaries suggestions that the Senate elect the vice
president themselves. Hamilton rebuts this idea by pointing out that
because the Vice-President may occasionally become a substitute for the
President, it is important that the populace play a part in choosing them.2
It is striking that in the nearly 200,000 words Publius uses to defend
the Constitution, there is no actual justification of the vice presidency
itself. To say that the office was a constitutional afterthought is an
understatement. Indeed, some have posited that the Framers didnt
believe the office was necessary, but was a means to perfect the
arrangements they had made for presidential election and succession.3
The text of the Constitution treats the vice presidency similarly. The
operative clause governing the vice presidents most crucial function
(succeeding the president should they be unable to serve), is found in
Article II, Section 1.i Clause 5 begins, In case of the removal of the
President from office, or of his death, resignation, or inability to discharge
the powers and duties of the said office, the same shall devolve on the
Vice-President. Ambiguity runs rampant in this meager sentence.4 What
constitutes inability? Is such an inability always permanent, or is there
iWhether the specific clause in question is the fifth or sixth clause in the section
has been the source of a surprising amount of debate. As articulated by Richard
H. Hansen on page nine of The Year We Had No President, the peculiar
formatting of the sections paragraphs has caused confusion for scholars
writing on the clause. As Hansen did, this paper will refer to it as Clause 5.
a mechanism by which a previously-unable president could recoup their

power? And most importantly, is it the powers and duties of the said
office or the presidency itself that, devolve[s] on the vice president?
Much of the post-ratification treatment of the vice presidency reads
like a hastened attempt to fix accidental omissions. For example, it wasnt
until the Twelfth Amendments passage in 1804 (seventeen years after the
Constitution was ratified) that Congress had the sense to require the vice
president to have the same constitutional qualifications as the president.5
It was this same amendment that required electors to cast one ballot for
president and one ballot for vice president. Prior to 1804, electors cast
two ballots for the president, and the second-highest vote-getter became
vice president. Notably, the amendment came on the heels of
congressional attempts to fix the office by abolishing it entirely.6
The Framers neglect of the office had serious consequences when
President William Henry Harrison died in 1841. Harrison was the first
sitting president to expire while in office, which put his vice president,
John Tyler, in a precarious position. Depending on Tylers interpretation
of Clause 5, he would either become Americas tenth commander-in-chief
or its first Acting President.7 If the powers and duties of the said office
became the vice presidents, then Tyler would only wield presidential
power until a new chief executive was elected; but if it was the said office
that the vice president inherited, Tyler would serve as the nations first
unelected president. The ambiguous language of the Constitution virtually
guaranteed that any decision Tyler made would be controversial, and it is
inherently difficult to surmise the motives and interpretation behind
Tylers choice. Ultimately, Tyler used the latter interpretation, and
determined that he was constitutionally obligated to assume the
presidency in the wake of Harrisons death.8
But Tyler was wrong. Whether maliciously or by accident, Tyler
interpreted the Constitution in a way that did not comport with the
Framers intentions. Evidence for this assertion is plentiful. Most
obviously, there are three places in the Constitution where Tylers
interpretation would render the document internally inconsistent.9
Most glaringly, Section 3 of the Twelfth Amendment outlines
circumstances where the vice president must act as President, as in the
Silvestri 147
case of the death or constitutional disability of the President [emphasis mine]. An

objective reading of the clause implies that the vice president merely acts
as president when the president is dead or disabled.
Article I, Section 3, Clause 5 states that when the vice president is
absent or shall exercise the Office of President, the Senate must elect a
president pro tempore to run Senate sessions. If the vice president
automatically became the president when the sitting president was unable
to perform executive duties, as Tyler opined, then the vice president
would never exercise the Office of the President, because they
themselves would be the president.
A third piece of evidence is found in the Twentieth Amendment. In
cases where the president has not yet been elected by Inauguration Day,
or else has been determined to be unqualified, the Vice President elect
shall act as President until a President shall have qualified. While not a
direct parallel to classic presidential succession, Section 3 of the Twentieth
Amendment shows that there are constitutional cases where a vice
president can act as president until a new president is chosen.
Even more damning evidence is found in the rough drafts of the
Constitution. At the Constitutional Convention, two different resolutions
addressing succession in cases of presidential inability were put forth.10
Neither resolution allowed the vice president to assume the presidency in
such a case, but merely allowed them to serve as Acting President. The
Convention approved of the overall notion, and referred the resolutions
to the Committee on Style to render a workable combination of the two.
In doing so, the Committee (perhaps inadvertently) changed the function
of the resolutions, obfuscating the vice presidents role in succession. This
is especially clear when the original and post-Committee on Style versions
are compared:
Original Text of Post-Committee on Style

Resolutionsii (Ratified Text of
Constitution)
Article X, Section 1: The In case of the removal of the
Legislature may declare by law President from office, or of his death,
what office of the United States resignation, or inability to discharge the
shall act as President, in the case powers and duties of the said office, the
of the death, resignation, or same shall devolve on the Vice
disability of the President and president, and the Congress may by
Vice President; and such Officer law provide for the case of
shall act accordingly, until such removal, death, resignation or
disability be removed, or a President inability, both of the President
shall be elected. and Vice President, declaring
Article X, Section 2: and what officer shall then act as
in case of his removal as President, and such officer shall
aforesaid, death, absence, act accordingly, until the disability
resignation or inability to be removed, or a President shall
discharge the powers or duties of be elected.
his office, the Vice President shall
exercise those powers and duties until
another President be chose, or until
the inability of the President be
removed.
The first resolution implies that the vice president is to act as president
when the commander-in-chief is unable, and the second explicitly
relegates the vice president to the role of Acting President. It is impossible
to know whether this deviation from the Framers will was motivated by
the political preferences of the Committee on Styles members, or
whether it was simply an oversight. In any case, it is clear that John Tyler
iiThis table is heavily adapted from the one found in Hansen, 17-18; the
italicized emphasis is mine.
Silvestri 149
assumed the vice presidency in a manner the Framers did not intend.iii
Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy conducted a review of the
Committee on Styles work, and concluded that the evolution of this
clause makes clear that merely the powers and duties devolve on the vice
president, not the office itself.11
In the immediate aftermath of Tylers oath, some his contemporaries
pushed back. One week after Tyler delivered his Inaugural Address,
former President John Quincy Adams recounted the following in his diary:
I paid a visit this morning to Mr. Tyler, who styles himself
Presidentand not Vice-President acting as President . . . But it is a
construction in direct violation of both the grammar and context of the
Constitution.12 But Adams obstinacy lasted only a few months, and he
eventually acquiesced, referring to Tyler as the President.
Despite opposition from a former president and behavior clearly in
violation of the Framers intent, Vice President John Tyler successfully
assumed the presidency without being elected to it. The so-called Tyler
Precedent remained standard practice for the six other men who became
president after a sitting executive died;13 the custom wasnt codified until
the Twenty-Fifth Amendments adoption in 1967.iv The rocky beginning
of the vice presidencys rise to prominence is a fitting foundation for its
evolution.
iiiAccording to Hansen on pages 19 and 20 of The Year We Had No President, it

is very possible that Tyler did not know his interpretation was faulty, as records
of the Constitutional Convention were sparse until relatively recently.
Madisons notes on the Convention were not published until 1840, a mere year
before Tylers quagmire, and no evidence suggests Tyler ever read them.
Furthermore, the most authoritative source on this question, Max Farrands
Records of the Federal Convention of 1787, was not published until 1911, 49 years
after Tyler had died.
iv Richard H. Hansens 1962 book The Year We Had No President, which has been
cited extensively here, ultimately concludes by calling for a constitutional fix to

the problem of presidential succession. Hansen testified before Congress to
that effect in 1963, and was vindicated by the Twenty-Fifth Amendments 1967
adoption; see New York Times, 1991.
The Evolving Vice Presidency from the New Deal to Mondale

While there is significant disagreement about the wisdom of the vice
presidencys evolution, no one denies that such a transformation has
occurred. Two primary forces allowed the office to grow as much as it
has: The New Deal and Walter Mondales tenure in the office. Viewed in
tandem, it is clear how and why the vice president gained more power
than either the Framers or John Tyler anticipated.
Prior to the New Deal, the president (along with the federal
government) played a significantly smaller role in the lives of average
Americans. Government programs were sparse, and politics was generally
conducted on state and local levels. But that changed when the Great
Depression struck. The widespread economic strife felt by the entire
nation could not be solved by individual states, and so President Franklin
D. Roosevelt pursued an unprecedented legislative agenda to address the
concerns of the entire nation. This novel use of federal resources to aid
the populace dramatically changed the way citizens viewed their
government; because of Roosevelts success, the president became an
active player in the day-to-day affairs of the working citizen.14 Before the
New Deal, the president simply didnt have the requisite responsibilities
for the vice president to lend a meaningful hand. 15 But as the presidency
grew, the vice presidency grew alongside it accordingly.v
Americas first vice president, John Adams, remarked that the vice
presidency was the, most insignificant office that ever the invention of
man contrived or his imagination conceived, and that he could, do
neither good nor evil while he occupied it.16 Most vice presidents found
their tenure as second-in-command to be leisurely at best, and boring at
worst.17 Their only constitutional responsibility, presiding over the Senate,
was cumbersome, dull, and largely unfulfilling. But after the New Deal,
v To a lesser extent, a similar expansion of the presidents role occurred after

the Cold War, insofar as the president became more meaningfully viewed as the
chief diplomat of the nation. Analogously, the vice presidents role grew as well.
See Goldstein (1982), 23.
Silvestri 151
the larger-than-ever executive branch provided opportunities for the vice

president to play a more significant role in executive dealings.
The post-New Deal responsibilities of the vice president are often
sorted into either institutional duties or political duties, with the two
overlapping to capture some responsibilities. 18 Institutional duties are
those responsibilities that require the vice president to act within the
executive branch, and include advising the president, chairing committees,
and playing roles in overseas trips. Conversely, political duties feature the
vice president providing support to the administration indirectly by
serving as a party operative, campaigning for the presidents re-election,
or bridging the gap between the White House and Capitol Hill. Both the
institutional and political duties of the vice president have transformed
substantially since the offices humble beginning.
After the New Deal, the vice presidents institutional duties grew
significantly. Between 1953 and 1977, vice presidents chaired committees
and commissions previously led by executive branch officials for the first
time. 19 However, because the vice president is effectively the only
member of the executive branch that the president cannot remove at-will,
presidents are often skeptical of appointing vice presidents to significant
committees, instead opting to assign them to menial tasks. 20 Vice
presidents also generally took on a bigger role in serving as a foreign
envoy to the ease diplomatic burdens faced by the commander-in-chief,
although results varied from president to president.21
From 1953-1977, the vice presidents political duties increased as well.
While vice presidents infrequently presided over the Senate during this
time, many became the chief lobbyists for their administrations in
Congress. This is a paradigm only possible because of the New Deal, as
it was only then that the president became responsible for giving a
legislative agenda to Congress.22 The vice president also morphed into a
highly visible spokesperson for the administration, pushing both the goals
of the president and their own personal ones; while serving in the office,
Richard Nixon lambasted Communism in defense of President
Eisenhower, Lyndon Johnson advocated for civil rights, and Hubert
Humphrey went to bat for Johnsons Great Society legislation and the
Vietnam War. 23 In both executive and legislative senses, the vice

presidency grew significantly in the wake of the New Deal.
Roosevelt further expanded the importance of the vice presidency by
acquiring the party leaderships power to choose the vice-presidential
nominee. Personal conflicts between the president and vice president
have long been cited as a reason vice presidents wield little power in the
White House.24 This has been attributed to a long history of party elites
selecting a presidential candidates running mate. Roosevelts first vice
president, John Nance Garner, vi went as far as challenging Roosevelt in
the 1940 primaries. 25 Spurned by this betrayal, the popular Roosevelt
threatened to decline the Democratic nomination (which would virtually
ensure a Republican victory) unless his choice for vice president was
nominated; the party capitulated, and Roosevelt secured the ability for
candidates to choose their own running mates.26 In doing so, Roosevelt
solved the compatibility issue that had burdened the relationship between
presidents and vice presidents for so long.
This newfound ability to pick a running mate gave way to the selection
of Walter Mondale as Jimmy Carters running mate in 1976. The Mondale
vice presidency is rightly regarded by many as the gold standard for the
office, due to the unprecedented responsibilities assigned to Mondale, and
the striking success with which he executed them. Richard Moe,
Mondales chief of staff, has attributed the expansion of the office largely
to Jimmy Carters ability to select Mondale himself.
According to Moe, Mondale was initially skeptical of serving as vice
president due to its institutional weakness; Mondale was used to his
independence as a Senator, and did not see a reason to give it up.27 Former
Vice President Hubert Humphrey provided him with one, remarking that
if you care about influencing public policyyou can get more done
down there in a single day as vice president than you can up here in the
Senate in an entire year. 28 After changing his perspective based on
Garner was famously dismissive of the vice presidency, opining that it was
vi
not worth a pitcher of warm spit. (Milkis & Nelson, 417)

Silvestri 153
Humphreys advice, Mondale agreed to be considered by Carter for the

nomination.
Candidate Carter believed the vice presidency was squandered by
every president theretofore, and noted that he sought an accomplice, on
whom he could confer real authority in order to help him pursue the goals
of his presidency. 29 Perhaps due to Humphreys influence, Mondale
envisioned the office the same way Carter did. Carter later reflected that
Mondales, excellent ideas about how to make the vice presidency a full-
time and productive job played a major role in choosing him. 30
Sometime between the election and Inauguration Day, Carter and
Mondale sat down to tease out exactly what Mondale would be
responsible for as vice president. Mondale indicated that he wished to
serve as a significant advisor to the president, be an all-purpose
troubleshooter, and refrain from having operational authority in any
area, to avoid stepping on the toes of executive branch officials.31 These
requests were significant because they required Mondale to have access to
the same information Carter did, which no vice president had ever had
before.
Carter granted all of Mondales requests, thereby transforming the vice
presidency forever. He then went even further than Mondale asked by
instructing his staff to treat Mondales requests and orders as they would
his own, solidifying Mondales substantial role in the administration.32 To
Mondales delight, Carter also moved the vice presidents office from the
Old Executive Office Building to the West Wing. Afterward, Mondale
took to referring to the vice presidents previous quarters as Baltimore,
remarking that If youre over there, you might as well be in Baltimore.33
After moving from Baltimore, Mondale wielded vice presidential
power like no one before him. Mondale spent a meager eighteen hours of
his first year in office presiding over the Senate.34 He thrived as an advisor
because of the unrestricted access to information that Carter afforded
him. 35 Carter declined to assign Mondale to lackluster committees, 36
instead utilizing him as both a key advisor and a surrogate for foreign
affairs. 37 Carter sat down for a sacrosanct one-on-one lunch with
Mondale every Monday, where Mondale would advise the president,
entertain Carters newest and most ambitious ideas, and build upon the
congenial nature of their relationship.38
Mondale and Carter set a precedent for the vice presidents advisory
capacity, and it has been respected (to varying degrees) by nearly every
president since.39 This dramatic shift in the vice presidents role solidified
the office as a subset of the executive branch, as opposed to the
longstanding perception that it was chiefly a legislative office. 40 Yet
despite all of the new and exciting opportunities given to Mondale, there
was always a mutual understanding that Mondales primary allegiance was
to Carters agenda.41 While Mondales time as vice president may have
featured the highest number of significant changes to the office, they were
hardly the last.
The Imperial Vice Presidency

The next three vice presidents after Mondale (George H.W. Bush,
Dan Quayle, and Al Gore) did not deviate significantly from the Mondale
precedent. Both Bush and Quayle contributed to crisis management
during their time in office, and all three played the troubleshooter role
that Mondale originated. 42 Each of the men enjoyed access to their
respective president, and advised them on matters of importance (though
that advice was not always followed, particularly in the case of Quayle).43
That all changed with the swearing in of Vice President Dick Cheney
in January 2001. Cheneys inauguration was followed by another
expansion of the vice presidencys purview, transforming the occupant
into, as some commentators have labeled him, the imperial vice
president.44 Cheney entered the office with the intention of expanding
executive power, which (as in the periods after the New Deal and Cold
War) led to the growth of his own role.45 The suggestion that the vice
president could be too powerful was long thought laughable, but Cheneys
time in office forces one to reconsider that position.46
It is little wonder that Cheney took an active approach to the vice
presidency given that he chaired the selection committee that ultimately
selected him as the nominee.47 In a meeting analogous to that between
Carter and Mondale before the Inauguration, President-elect Bush and
Vice President-elect Cheney met to discuss Cheneys role in Bushs new
Silvestri 155
administration. According to Cheney, Bush wanted the vice president to

be a powerhouse in the West Wing from day one.48 Cheney laid out his
expectations for his tenure, making clear that he wanted limited contact
with the media and a closely-integrated staff; he also assured Bush that he
had no intention of one day running for president himself. 49 In other
words, Cheney wanted to be vice president so he could be vice
president.50
Many of Cheneys actions in office are akin to those of Mondale.
During the transition period after the election, Cheney worked with
President-elect Bush to interview candidates for Secretary of Defense and
the Director of the CIA. 51 Bush and Cheney attended the same
intelligence briefings, and met together with the Joint Chiefs of Staff.52
Cheney also recognized the importance of the more traditional political
roles, noting that there was an even partisan split in the Senate when he
took office, and surmising that he would likely need strong legislative
relationships as the Senates tie-breaker.53
But Cheney also deviated from Mondales example significantly. The
Bush administration has been compared to a company with George W.
Bush as chairman of the board,vii and Dick Cheney as the chief operating
officer;54 it is difficult to disagree with that assessment in light of Cheneys
largely operational role. He claims to have wanted to avoid line
responsibility as Mondale did, 55 but an examination of Cheneys
operational role in the White House renders any similarity to Mondale
superficial.56 It was Cheney himself recruited the administrations first
Treasury secretary, Paul ONeill, and he would later be the one to call
ONeill to fire him. 57 He chaired a key budget review committee that
considered appeals of the Office of Management and Budgets
decisions.58 Furthermore, he expanded the political duties of the office by
Notably, President Trump has been called the CEO President, and yet few
vii
consider Vice President Pence to be a major player in the administration

(Maynard, 2017). Instead, that designation has been given to Steve Bannon,
further lending support to Goldsteins suggestion that the role of the vice
president is inexorably tied to the holders of the presidency and vice presidency
(Goldstein, 375 [2008]).
becoming the first vice president to have dedicated space in the House of
Representatives offices.59 Cheney took the role of legislative liaison to its
extreme by asking Congress whether the administration should seek
congressional approval for the clandestine Terrorist Surveillance
Program.60
The bulk of Cheneys influence was on questions of national security.
Cheney had individual meetings with key members of the Cabinet, and
oversaw the legal response to 9/11. Most strikingly, Cheney and his legal
counsel, David Addington, undertook an initiative to allow the CIA to
use enhanced interrogation techniques that many believed ran counter
to the Geneva Convention; they did so without consulting either the
Secretary of State or National Security Advisor.61 Undeniably, the role of
the vice president in the Bush administration looks very dissimilar to that
of his predecessors. But how has his influence affected his successors?
Brushes with Disaster

After Barack Obamas win in 2008, Joseph R. Biden, Jr. became Dick
Cheneys vice presidential successor. Bidens term can certainly be seen as
a continuation of Cheneys precedent, but virtually no one argues that he
had more influence than Cheney did.62 For as popular as he was, Bidens
tenure will not likely go down as historically significant. But had President
Obama lost the 2008 election, it is very likely that Sarah Palins time as
vice president would have been historic (for better or for worse).
When choosing a running mate, John McCain had always intended to,
shock the world.63 Recognizing the vice presidents political duty as a
campaign surrogate, McCains ailing campaign needed to select a running
mate who would turn the tide in what had thus far been an uphill battle.
For some time, McCain and his advisors considered Senator Joseph
Lieberman, who was once Democrat Al Gores running mate. 64
Responding to concerns about a Democrat becoming president given the
candidates advanced age, McCain even pitched taking a one-term pledge
to quell opposition.65 While the dynamics of a Republican president and
a Democratic vice president would undeniably have tested the limits of
the vice presidencys role, McCains campaign ultimately decided the
Silvestri 157
bipartisan ticket was too risky, and pursued a more politically

homogenous avenue.
In a mere five days, McCains staff vetted Alaska Governor Sarah Palin
at breakneck speed. Palin spent hours filling out the seventy-four-part
questionnaire, while other contenders for the slot had taken weeks. 66
Campaigner manager Steve Schmidt believed that she would excite the
GOP base, rouse women voters, create space between [McCain] and Bush,
and help [McCain] recapture the maverick label.67
This negligence quickly had its ramifications. Palin was stupendously
unfit to be the vice president, let alone the president. The campaign was
full of her many public gaffes, but the behind-the-scenes disasters are
even more troublesome. According to campaign insiders, Palin lacked
fundamental knowledge of the basics of foreign policy. She was
reportedly unable to articulate why North and South Korea were not
unified, insinuated that Saddam Hussein was responsible for the attacks
on 9/11, and failed to identify the enemy that her son would be fighting
in Iraq. 68 Sources have alleged that most answers Palin gave on the
campaign trail were scripted responses that shed memorized.69
A focus group assembled by the McCain campaign produced a
middle-aged woman who had yet to decide how she would cast her ballot.
She believed that Obama was a Muslim, weak on foreign policy,
unpatriotic, and born abroad; yet she was too worried that Palin might
assume the presidency to vote for the Republican ticket. 70 Eventually,
McCain staffers felt guilty that they had allowed Palin to come as close to
the Oval Office as she had. Campaign manager Steve Schmidt later
described Palin as manifestly unprepared to take the oath of office
should it become necessary and as it has become necessary many times in
American history.71 In an HBO dramatization of the campaign, McCain
staffer Nicole Wallace doesnt vote for her employer because of her
discomfort with a potential President Palin;72 Wallace has since called the
film true enough to make [her] squirm.73
In the wake of a tremendous expansion of the vice presidency by Dick
Cheney, the office was nearly occupied by someone Cheney himself called
a reckless choice.74 Palins candidacy would be funny if it werent so
frightening; but while Palins run is not humorous, it is instructive insofar
as it highlights the institutional weaknesses of the vice presidency. Given

the growth of the office, it is more crucial than ever that its occupants be
able to fulfill the responsibilities of the vice president, as well as be capable
of stepping up to serve as commander-in-chief if need be. As it stands
now, the institutional structure does not lend itself to those ends.
Room for Growth

Historically, the problems facing the vice presidency have fallen into
one of three categories:
1. There is not currently a sitting vice president.
2. The vice president feels bored or stifled by the office.
3. The vice president is, for some reason or another, unable to
effectively serve as an advisor to the president.
The first challenge to the vice presidencys efficacy is simple: before
1963, the vice presidency was left vacant fifteen times.75 While the 25th
Amendments adoption in 1967 precluded such a situation from
happening again, it is remarkable that such little regard for the office was
ever acceptable. This quagmire will not likely be faced again, but it is
illustrative of the historical negligence toward the vice presidency.
The second of these problems has been pervasive throughout all
generations of vice presidents. John Adams so hated the office that he
hoped his nemesis, Thomas Jefferson, would someday occupy it. 76 In
1848, Daniel Webster declined the nomination to be the Whig Partys vice
presidential candidate, proclaiming, I do not propose to be buried until
I am dead.77 Lyndon Johnson claimed that he detested every minute
of his tenure as vice president. 78 While one would hope that the
expanding role of the office is enough to keep its occupants entertained,
there is an argument for increasing the powers of the office in order to
attract capable candidates.
The third obstacle to a successful vice presidency is the most complex
one, and warrants a thorough examination. It is helpful to remember why
the vice presidents role as an advisor to the commander-in-chief is so
important: it is not because the president requires additional advising, but
because the vice president requires some preparation to effectively step
up if disaster should strike. President Truman once remarked that in the
Silvestri 159
days after he transitioned from vice president to president, he began to

realize how little the Founding Fathers had been able to anticipate the
preparations necessary for a man to become President so suddenly. It is a
mighty leap from the vice presidency to the presidency when one is forced
to make it without warning.79 While Trumans lament is a perhaps unfair
given the true (albeit hidden) intentions of the Framers, the substance of
his anecdote is valid. While elected presidents have nearly three months
before the Inauguration to structure an administration and an agenda, vice
presidents who become commander-in-chief by succession often have no
warning whatsoever.80 It is perturbing that so little thought has gone into
making sure qualified people are well-equipped to succeed as vice
president, and, if disaster should strike, the president.
Various factors may keep the vice president from serving as a
meaningful advisor to the president. An obvious one is that the president
simply wont allow their second-in-command to do so. FDR failed to
make Truman aware of the atomic bombs existence, despite keeping
other advisors in the loop throughout the bombs development.81 While
it cant be known whether Trumans decision to bomb Japan would have
been different had he known about its existence earlier, its hard to
imagine a situation in which Vice President Truman being aware of the
weapon would have made things worse. Given the importance of the
American president in the modern global politics, keeping such important
information from the vice president can rightly be described as cavalier.
82 Trumans ignorance of the atomic bomb shows why the vice president
ought to be in the know, and why something closely akin to the Mondale
standard should be codified as a constitutional amendment.
It is important to note that even though Mondale had the requisite
information to be an effective vice president, he only had access to it
because Carter allowed him to.83 Indeed, as Hubert Humphrey lamented,
He who giveth can taketh away, and often does.84 The vice presidency
should be restructured to require the vice presidents active engagement
in their administration, even if that doesnt always translate to active
participation.
There is the possibility that the vice president may be too active in the
West Wing, a charge that many have levied against Dick Cheney. In giving
advice to Obamas first chief of staff, Rahm Emanuel, Cheney jokingly

advised him that Whatever you do, make sure youve got the vice
president under control.85 Yet for all the fear and disdain surrounding
Cheneys imperial tenure (and setting aside any value judgments as to
his specific executive initiatives), a vice president that is too active is
preferable to one that is not active enough. At any point during the Bush
administration, the President could have overridden Cheney, or else
stripped him of his more autonomous responsibilities. As Cheney himself
said, My role depended on George W. Bushat the end of the day, it
wouldnt have mattered how many years of experience I had or how many
other offices Id held, if the President wasnt interested in what I had to
say.86 Regardless of how one feels about a President Cheney, no one
seriously doubts that Cheney was prepared to take over had Bush been
incapable of serving; this arrangement is obviously preferable to the
myriad vice presidents who lacked the information or experience to
effectively serve as commander-in-chief. Fear of an overactive vice
president is probably misplaced, but if the concern is that cogent, then it
is all the more reason to seriously evaluate the vice-presidential
contenders during presidential campaigns.
One can conceive of a situation in which a vice president who has
access to the same information as the president could become obstinate,
insubordinate, or even burdensome to the presidents agenda. This is not
an argument against adopting the Mondale standard, but another
argument in favor of giving careful consideration to the selection of the
vice president. If a previously-affable relationship between the president
and vice president deteriorated (as the one between Roosevelt and Garner
did 87 ), the president could choose to select a different running mate
during a re-election campaign, casting doubt on the former vice
presidents credibility. However, vice presidents are already incentivized
to refrain from behaving in such a manner because of the serious damage
it could due to perceptions of their partys unity.
It has been posited that the proper role of the vice president depends,
on the different ways in which a number of important influences are
arranged or play out in each administration. 88 But the problem with
relying on each president to adequately prepare their vice president for
Silvestri 161
potential succession is that potential commanders-in-chief can make poor

judgements in that regard, as the countrys near-miss from a President
Palin shows. Given that nine vice presidents assumed the presidency due
to the presidents death or resignation, and another four were later elected
themselves, 89 Americans need to appreciate the gravity of the vice
presidents responsibility. If voters put more emphasis on the second
name on the ticket, presidential candidates would be incentivized to select
more apt running mates.
Much has been made of the transformation the vice presidents duties
have undergone. Yet startlingly little attention has been paid to the
justification for this expansion. Vice presidential power should not be
increased for the sole purpose of doing so, but because such an increase
will better equip the vice president to potentially execute their most
important responsibility: ascending to the presidency. The growth of the
office under Mondale was laudable because it contributed to a future
vice president is prepared to assume the duties of the presidency if called
upon, 90 and suggestions for altering the office should be made on a
similar basis.
The Constitutions handling of the vice presidency should be amended
in two respects: the vice president should no longer be the president of
the Senate (but should retain the tie-breaking vote), and the offices
advisory role should be codified. The first of these proposals is
controversial, but for want of a good reason. Sitting vice presidents rarely
preside over the Senate in the modern era, as the Senates presiding officer
has virtually no power; in fact, the president pro tempore (a senior senator
who is constitutionally responsible for presiding in the vice presidents
absence) generally delegates that duty to new senators as a kind of chore.91
Eliminating this role of the vice president lessens the concern that they
are too entangled between the legislative and executive branches, while
still giving the Senate a mechanism by which to resolve ties. In a certain
sense, the vice president keeping their tie vote serves an additional check
on the Legislature by incentivizing them to resolve ties internally to keep
the executive branch out of votes; furthermore, this is no more an
excessive legislative entanglement than the president signing off on bills
before they become laws.
The more substantive proposal is the second one. A new section of

Article II should be drafted and situated between what are now Sections
3 and 4. This new Section 4 could read something like: The vice
president shall support the presidents execution of this Article by serving
as an advisor to the president. To effectively execute this charge, the vice
president shall be granted reasonable access to the requisite
information.viii Such an amendment provides vice presidents with the
tools they need to be successful presidents, while still respecting the
autonomy of the commander-in-chief. The phrase requisite information
is intentionally ambiguous, as it provides room for the executive branch
(and, more than likely, the courts) to tease out the exact specifications of
what information the vice president receives.
Commentators have argued that it would be impossible to make the
vice president the major [advisor] to the chief executive, as presidents
take their advice from those whose counsel they value. 92 But this
amendment would by no means require the president to heed the advice
of his second-in-command. By giving the vice president a seat at the
proverbial table, they have the potential to provide helpful counsel to the
president (and to be ignored when they dont), and they gain the
experience and insight necessary to succeed as the president.93
Joel Goldstein, an eminent scholar on the vice presidency, has
developed a test for vice presidential reforms wherein potential reforms
must 1) improve the office of the vice presidency itself, 2) not damage
other offices or institutions unnecessarily, 3) comport with important
ideals like democracy and stability, and 4) be better than all other
alternatives. 94 I believe that my amendment meets the first three criteria,
and leave it to the reader to decide if it satisfies the fourth.
With respect to the first criterion, mandating an advisory role for the
vice president is undoubtedly beneficial to the office itself. It would give
the occupant access to information that could better prepare them for
The substance of this proposal is the most important partId have no

viii
objection to (and would, indeed, encourage) lexical reworking by someone

better versed in constitutional law.
Silvestri 163
potentially becoming the president, and would encourage positive

relationships between the vice president and the rest of the executive
branch. Furthermore, it would almost definitely ameliorate the concerns
of boredom so many vice presidents have reported.
These reforms meet Goldsteins second requirement because they do
not unduly burden any other office or institution. Removing the vice
president as president of the Senate simply reflects current practice, and
can hardly be considered a burden on anyone. Giving the vice president
access to important information is only burdensome to the president
insofar as it requires actually providing the information, which could be a
slight burden on staffers. Additionally, the president could become
annoyed with the vice president if they do not value their advisors advice;
however, these burdens are insignificant compared to the value gained by
preparing the vice president to potentially take over.
Goldsteins third mandate for proposals is that that they not infringe
on values like stability, leadership autonomy, or democracy. These
amendments would enhance stability by setting up potential successors
for success. They would not compromise the presidents autonomy,
because presidents would be free to ignore their vice presidents advice.
Lastly, the proposal enhances democracy by making the peoples ballot
for vice president more meaningful.
As to whether this proposal is better than all others, I must defer
judgment. The mechanisms in our polity are complex, and it is possible
this plan would have unintended consequences that I have overlooked.
However, it is important that a dialogue on this issue be started, and these
amendments could very well serve as a starting point.
The vice presidency has long been overlooked and underused. The
offices history is ripe with contention, misconstructions, and strife. Its
occupants have succeeded and failed to wildly inconsistent degrees. But
the potential of assuming the presidency is so direly important that vice
presidents must be set up for success as much as possible. While the vice
presidency has grown tremendously since its inception, it must grow
further in both the Constitution and the minds of voters if it is to have
the resources and respect the office requires.
1 Goldstein (1982), 300

2 Federalist No. 68
3 Milkis & Nelson, 411
4 Id., 412
5 The Lenore Annenberg Institute for Civics, Annenberg Classroom Twelfth Amendment
7 Hansen, 10
8 Id.
9 Id., 19
10 Hansen, 17
11 Id., 18
12 Id., 13
13 Id., 113
14 Goldstein (1982), 17
15 Id., 139
16 Goldstein (1982), 135
17 Id., 137
18 Goldstein (1982), 134-135
19 Id., 151
20 Id., 151-152
21 Id., 159-160
22 Goldstein (1982), 178
23 Id., 190-194
24 Id., 139
26 Id.
27 Moe, 391
28 Id., 392
29 Id.
30 Carter, 37
31 Moe, 394; Goldstein (2008), 378
32 Moe, 395
33 Id.
34 Goldstein (1982), 142
35 Id., 174
36 Id.
37 Moe, 396
38 Id., 397
39 Goldstein (2008), 381
40 Moe, 399
41 Goldstein (2008), 378
42 Id., 382
43 Id., 381
44 Sidney Blumenthals The Imperial Vice President via Goldstein (2008), 375
45 Goldsmith, 140
46 Goldstein (2008), 374
47 Id., 385
Silvestri 165
48 Cheney, 305
49 Id., 305-306
50 Goldstein (2008), 375
51 Cheney, 299
52 Id., 300
53 Id.
54 Goldstein (2008), 384
55 Cheney, 305
56 Goldstein (2008), 384
57 Cheney, 298-299
58 Goldstein (2008), 384
59 Cheney, 307
60 Id., 351
61 Goldstein (2008), 385
62 Traub, 2009
63 Heilemann & Halperin, 353
64 Id., 354
65 Id., 356
66 Id., 360
67 Id.
69 Id., 371
70 Id., 416
71 Capehart
72 Roach
73 Rainey
75 Goldstein (1982), 229
76 Id., 135
78 Goldstein (1982), 308
79 Id., 220
80 Id., 210
81 Id., 9
82 Id., 175
83 Goldstein (2008), 377
84 Goldstein (1982), 309
85 Cheney, 517
86 Id., 305
88 Goldstein (2008), 375
89 Stark
90 Moe, 400
91 Goldstein (1982), 142
92 Id., 292
93 Hansen, 123
94 Goldstein (1982), 27
166
Reflection on
At the beginning of my final semester, I realized I was one credit shy

of the requisite amount to graduate. Not wanting to waste time and
money on a bowling class, I asked Professor Kleinerman if he would
approve an independent study on some political theory topic. He obliged,
and I chose the vice presidency. Id been stricken by Vice President Dick
Cheneys influence on the Bush administration during Kleinermans War
on Terror class, and I thought the evolution of the office may be
interesting. I was right.
Originally, Kleinerman and I agreed on 12-15 pages for the assignment.
As his grading load grew longer, he told me I could pass with just 8-10.
But as I began researching and writing, I couldnt help but draft the
significantly-longer behemoth that the paper became.
All in all, I am very glad to have taken on this challenge, and continue
to endorse the conclusions of Moving from Baltimore. The American vice
presidency has been woefully underutilized, and its history is considerably
more interesting than most suspect.
Moving from Baltimore was originally written for MC 399, an independent

study supervised by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman.
It was submitted on May 1st, 2017.
167
Advocate
Fighting for Student Rights in Hearings and Be yond
I THOUGHT THAT I HAD A CLEAR UNDERSTANDING

of what I was getting into when I began serving as the Assistant
Director of Student Rights Advocates, a department within the
Associated Students of Michigan State UniversityI expected to defend
students accused of various policy infractions, and then go home at the
end of the day. But the first half of my tenure as Assistant Director ended
up being more of a learning experience than a job (and not just because I
spent most of my paycheck on the credits for MC 400). Over the course
of the four months I have held the position, I have not only fulfilled my
role as a defender of student rights, but expanded the role of the Assistant
Director into the realm of policy change, become remarkably involved
with the University administration, and grown as both a person and as a
professional.
Before I can articulate how my experience with Student Rights
Advocates impacted me, I must first paint a clear picture of what my
responsibilities and privileges entailed. The job description is simple
enough: assist the Director of Student Defendersi in advising students in
University policy-related matters. Historically, the arrangement of the
iWhen I began the position, the department was still called Student
Defenders, a name it had gone by for decades. During my first week on the
job, the name was changed to Student Rights Advocates to more accurately
reflect the work we do.
Advocate 168
department saw the Director interfacing with the rest of ASMSU, a

massively bureaucratic organization, and the Assistant Director
overseeing the assignment of cases to the six interns, as well as personally
undertaking the most serious cases. When I started, this was the
understanding that Director Mitchell Bild and I shared. Mitch, another
Political Theory & Constitutional Democracy senior, had been the
Assistant Director the year before, when I was still an intern.
That dynamic quickly shifted. Because we were both graduating in
May, I was not poised to be the next Director of the department, as was
the case for every Assistant Director in recent memory. The presumptive
Director was instead Haley Gold, an excessively capable Criminal Justice
junior who joined our team as the Office Assistant at the beginning of the
semester. For this reason, I had significant free reign over what my time
in the position looked like; since I wasnt being groomed to take over after
Mitch left, my sole goal was to get as much done as I could during the
year I was there. Mitch spent his time showing Haley the ropes of the
Directorship, including paying bills, meeting with University
administrators, and learning the basics of defending students, as Haley
had never been an intern. This left me to take the more serious cases for
myself, and continue supervising interns as usual. But as students hadnt
been on-campus long enough to get into trouble yet, I was left with some
free time for the first week.
That changed on my third day. The President of ASMSU, Lorenzo
Santavicca, visited my office early on a Thursday morning with a series of
questions regarding student conduct. Lorenzo and I had never met, so I
was surprised to learn that he already knew my name.
Hi Tyler, he began pleasantly. Is Mitch in?
Mitch was not in. As such, I was probably the person in the
organization with the most extensive knowledge of University policy.
Lorenzo sat down and began describing his conundrum to me. A member
of ASMSUs General Assembly had become aware of a fraternity that was
hosting an off-campus event that weekend. The fraternity had hired a
band to play the event, and the bassist of that band was a former MSU
student who had been suspended for sexual assault. Lorenzo and the GA
Silvestri 169
member thought that this was likely a policy violation of some kind, and
wanted my opinion.
I wasnt sure. On the one hand, something about Registered Student
Organizations paying suspended students sat strangely; on the other hand,
it seemed like exactly the kind of oversight the University specialized in. I
told Lorenzo I would get back to him. Three hours later, I had prepared
a decently well-sourced memorandum, and placed it in his mailbox. In the
memo, I explained that while my department took no position on whether
the behavior should be prohibited, my analysis did not conclude that such
an arrangement was.
The next day, Lorenzo strolled into my office again. He thanked me
for my work, complimented the formatting of the memo, and asked me
if I knew how we could change the policy to prevent this situation from
happening again. I choked on my coffee. Until that moment, Student
Rights Advocates had only ever been responsible for working with the
policies as they stood changing them simply wasnt in our purview.
But when the President of your organization asks you to do something,
you try your best to do it. I told Lorenzo he could expect another well-
formatted memo on his desk by the end of the day. After consulting the
Student Rights and Responsibilities document (the closest thing to a
compiled list of the rules at Michigan State), I drafted language that
would bar suspended students from attending RSO-sponsored events,
and created an outline for how policies could be changed. As the policy
stood, suspended students were already precluded from using University
property or equipment; my proposal seemed like a logical extension. I
submitted it to Lorenzo, and told him to let me know if I could do
anything else to help him prevent events like the one in question from
happening again.ii
iiAs fate would have it, the General Assembly member was mistaken. The
fraternity had become aware of the bassists behavior, and retracted their
invitation. Furthermore, the event was on-campus, so the suspended student
was already disallowed from participating. However, Lorenzo thought the
policy was still worth pursuing.
Advocate 170
At this point, an idea occurred to me. When I was an intern, Mitch

and I had spent hours complaining to each other about various policies.
It seemed that there was a perfect storm of opportunity before us: our
President was open to us pursuing policy changes, the policies desperately
needed changing, and I had free time. This was a prime chance for Student
Rights Advocates to undertake a comprehensive review of the entire set
of rules governing Spartans conduct. I proposed the idea to Mitch and
Lorenzo, and they agreed that I was welcome to take point on the project.
Over the next few weeks, I did just that. I went through every page
and every policy with a highlighter, noting the rules that struck me as
problematic. All-in-all, I submitted proposals to change or delete eleven
policies, all of which were found in the General Student Regulations or
the Residence Hall Regulations.
I couldnt help but feel a little out of my depth. I, a fairly unremarkable
student who had signed up to defend mildly-pernicious undergrads, was
writing language that may very well become policy at an institution of
more than 50,000 students. But given the chance to do something Id
talked about for years, I felt I had little choice but to push forward.
The main target of my revisions was Residence Hall Regulation 1.8.
RHR 1.8 reads, No person shall fail to make an effort to discourage
another person from violating a regulation and/or to report a violation of
which one has knowledge. I proposed the deletion of the entire
regulation.
Through our experience defending people who were accused of
violating RHR 1.8, Mitch and I determined that the regulation was
excessively punitive, and not conducive to the goals of an effective
community. We believed the purpose of policies were to protect the
primary and secondary rights of students; in a situation where one fails to
report their roommates malfeasance, they are not violating anyones
rights. We saw countless examples of students who had violated no policy
but RHR 1.8.
We further saw students who were accused of multiple violations in
addition to RHR 1.8. In these cases, the charge was often tacked on at the
end of a long list of charges; Mitch and I found that the more charges
filed against a student, the more likely a hearing board would find them
Silvestri 171
responsible. We objected strongly to the use of RHR 1.8 as prosecutorial

ammunition.
I also took issue with General Student Regulations 2.11 and 2.12. The
GSRs in question address drugs and alcohol, respectively. Both demand
that no student shall possess, use, manufacture, produce, sell, exchange
or otherwise distribute each policys relevant substance. A student
smoking a marijuana joint in his room and a student who started a Breaking
Bad-style methamphetamine empire would be in violation of the same
policy. The practical consequence is that students who would otherwise
admit responsibility to violating a lower-level drug charge were hesitant
to accept responsibility, as they would be accepting responsibility for a
charge that ostensibly included manufacturing drugs. They felt the need
to contest their culpability to explain that they were not drug lords,
wasting time and resources for everyone involved.
There was also a bevy of smaller, admittedly nit-picky revisions I
sought. I submitted my proposals to Lorenzo and Mitch, and received
approval to forward the revisions to the appropriate governing bodies.
The bulk of my changes, including RHR 1.8, were Residence Hall
Regulations. This meant that the Residence Halls Association had first
jurisdiction over proposed amendments. I e-mailed my proposals to
Richard Metaj, the Vice President of RHA, on October 12th. I expected
Richard, the presiding officer over RHAs General Assembly meetings, to
present the changes to the General Assembly. Instead, Richard conferred
with Mariah Hill, RHAs President, and passed the measures through
executive action, circumventing the General Assembly. I double checked
with Richard to make sure they didnt want to pursue the democratic and
transparent route; they did not.
Having clandestinely received RHAs approval, I sent a letter to
Michigan States Vice President for Student Affairs and Services, Dr.
Denise Maybank, on October 21st. In the letter, I explained my policy
recommendations and asked her to submit them to the University
Committee on Student Affairs.
On December 1st, ASMSU unanimously passed all the proposed
changes; at this point, all student input was completed. The only obstacles
left were University bodies and administrators. As of this writing, the
Advocate 172
policies are being considered by the University Committee on Student

Affairs.
My work in policy change also significantly expanded my involvement
with the University bureaucracy, and provided me with excellent
experience in my future professional career. On September 17th, Lorenzo
appointed me to the University Council, one of the bodies whose
approval my policy changes would need; the Council is presided over by
President Lou Anna K. Simon, and its membership includes the deans of
every college. Furthermore, Lorenzo asked me to sit on the University
Committee on Student Affairs on November 7th, and I have since become
chair of the University Subcommittee on Policy. I was now seated on two
of the bodies from which I was seeking approval. By taking part in these
bodies, I developed a deeper understanding of the Universitys
governance structure, and more than ever felt like a significant part of the
University community.
Through the aforementioned exploits, I believe that I made the most
out of my position. I expanded the responsibilities of my job
tremendously, cementing Student Rights Advocates as important actors
in policy change. I used my position to pursue initiatives that I had
personally believed should be undertaken for years, while at the same time
advocating for student rights. In this way, I achieved my stated learning
goal of learning to pursue changes in University policy.
In addition to pursuing responsibilities outside the traditional scope of
my role, I also fulfilled the customary obligations of my job by advising
the more serious cases that came into our office. In the advisory capacity
of my role, I worked many significant cases, but one specifically deepened
not only my understanding of the University judiciary system, but of the
importance of a sound defense.
The first critical case I worked on this semester was that of Amanda
Burroughs. iii Amanda posted a Facebook status making insensitive
remarks about a non-student that were perceived as racist. The media
To ensure FERPA compliance, names and other identifying information have

iii
been changed.
Silvestri 173
picked up the story, and Amandas admittedly offensive post was featured
by USA Today and other major outlets. There were calls throughout the
University community for MSU to dismiss Amanda. At the peak, people
began posting signs with Amandas picture saying, There is a racist living
in [Amandas residence hall].
Amanda entered my office early one morning with some of the lawyers
I worked with. Someone had filed a complaint alleging a violation of the
Anti-Discrimination Policy, and the Office of Institutional Equity had
called Amanda in for an interview. I accompanied Amanda to that
interview.
The case required me to attain a deep understanding of Anti-
Discrimination Policy. In my research, I learned that the ADPs
jurisdiction covers:
All educational, employment, cultural, and social activities
occurring on the University campus;
University-sponsored programs and activities occurring off-
campus, including but not limited to cooperative extension,
intercollegiate athletics, lifelong education, and any regularly
scheduled classes;
University housing; and
Programs and activities sponsored by student governing bodies,
including their constituent groups, and by registered student
organizations.
Since Amandas conduct had occurred off-campus, on a non-university
internet connection, and against a non-student, it didnt seem to me that
OIE had jurisdiction over the incident. In Amandas interview with OIE,
I made this argument.
I want to be clear: I did not support Amandas actions. But a consistent
application of policy is critical in every case, and no fair reading of OIEs
jurisdictional privilege encompassed Amandas incident. I made this
argument to the OIE investigator, and on December 6th, OIE agreed with
me. They determined that they failed to meet jurisdictional requirements,
and declined to find Amanda responsible for violating the ADP.
Advocate 174
This case taught me several things about defense work, and fulfilled
my stated learning goal of gaining a deeper understanding of the
Universitys conduct structure. Even when the behavior is heinous and
the majority believes the accused should be held responsible, it is
important that the respondent receives adequate representation. If the
University is holding students accountable for violating policies, then they
ought to be held to the same standard. While I may not endorse or agree
with Amandas actions, I walked away from this case knowing that I
helped achieve a victory for the rule of law, free speech, and student rights
generally.
This perspective was enhanced by speaking with the attorneys who
work in ASMSU. Two of three lawyers in the department were especially
indispensable in my education this semester. Brian Jefferies and Adam
Cozort are defense attorneys who specialize in defending students
accused of misdemeanors. While Brian Jefferies was my designated
advisor for my Field Experience, and proved immensely helpful, Adam
Cozort ended up having a tremendous impact on my knowledge of
practicing law, especially pertaining to defense work.
Throughout my four months as Assistant Director, I worked very
closely with Adam on several cases. Twice a week, Adam would check in
to see how my cases were going, and offer opinions on potential defense
strategies. Oftentimes, his insights proved invaluable, and I maintain that
a nonzero number of students would be facing harsher University
sanctions if it werent for him. In other instances, Adam challenged me to
think creatively about the best way to approach a case, even when we
came to different conclusions.iv
Adam also taught me a significant amount about being a defense
attorney. As a person occupying the type of job I one day hope to, he was
in a unique position to help me achieve a more holistic understanding of
the career. I frequently sought his counsel on legal-related issues,
ivIncidentally, Adam did not believe that OIE would accept my jurisdictional
argument in the Amanda Burroughs case, and bet me lunch that the
investigation would not end favorably for her; I happily ate victory tacos on his
dime.
Silvestri 175
including defending someone you dont think is innocent, defending a

client you dislike, and sorting through mountains of precedent to find
relevant support. More than anything else, Adam taught me the value of
defense work by framing the defense attorney as an instrument of
accountability. If the state is accusing someone of having not abided by
the law, it is crucial that someone makes sure the institution abides by its
own proceduresthis principle is analogous to the one I discovered for
myself in the Amanda Burroughs proceedings. Even when defending
someone I dont believe is innocent, I take pride in the fact that I am
serving as a check on bodies capable of justified coercion.
The first half of my two-semester term as Assistant Director of
Student Rights Advocates has come to a close. I look back on it knowing
that I made a difference in the lives of numerous students, and that I have
laid the groundwork to impact even more. By expanding my departments
role in the policy arena, I increased my understanding of University
machinations, escalated my involvement in the University community,
and solidified my desire to work toward the defense of peoples rights.
No experience in my undergraduate career has been more impactful on
my personal and professional growth, and I look forward to advocating
for student rights moving forward.
176
Reflection on
Advocate
Reading back on my first semester as Assistant Director, I can only

reminisce fondly on simpler times. My policy change efforts were nothing
short of disastrous once my second semester in the role began. My
changes to the General Student Regulations passed the University
Committee on Student Affairs, but the regulations I cared most about
never even came to a vote.
Due to personal differences between myself and the Presidents of the
Council of Graduate Students and the Owen Graduate Association, talks
on the University Housing Regulations (which combined the three
different sets of housing regulations) fell apart. Despite passing in
ASMSU, RHA (ultimately by vote), and the University Apartments
Council of Residents, Owen Graduate Association put up quite a fight.
After two successful votes and a town hall that led to a third vote, this
time by all residents of the building, OGA finally forwarded the proposal
to COGS. When they considered it, the President of OGA told the body
that I had harassed him; I was not allowed to respond. The UHR failed
by a narrow margin, with most members of the body abstaining.
Rather than dwelling on the UHRs death, Ill simply reflect on what I
learned from the debacle. Ive come to recognize the importance of
making sure that everyone involved feels like they have a meaningful seat
at the table, even if the job could be done without them. The merits of
the proposal were solid, but my inability to navigate the politics of the
situation led not only to the proposals death, but a great deal of stress for
all parties involved.
Moving forward, I intend to continue pursuing the UHR during my
next few years at MSU. Hopefully, Ill be able to learn lessons from this
years failure.
Advocate was originally written for MC 400, the James Madison College
Field Experience Course, and supervised by Maxwell Olivero and Professor
Benjamin Kleinerman. It was submitted on December 5th, 2016.
177
Watching the Watchmen

Adding Accountability and Transparency to Michigan
State Universitys Sexual Misconduct Investigations
L IKE ALL COLLEGES, MICHIGAN STATE UNIVERSITY

has struggled to combat sexual misconduct on its campus. But
unlike other schools, MSU has a nasty habit of making headlines for
their failure to effectively do so. Given Michigan States status as a world-
renowned institution, it is troubling for students and alumni to see scandal
after scandal in the newspaper. What has caused this environment in East
Lansing, and how can it be fixed?
I have analyzed Michigan States Relationship Violence and Sexual
Misconduct policies (old and new) in an effort to discover why MSUs
response to sexual misconduct is wanting. Furthermore, Ive studied the
investigation and sanctioning processes, and concluded that measures to
increase accountability and transparency must be enacted. Examining
those tasked with investigating alleged incidents of sexual misconduct
brings to mind a famous aphorism: Who watches the watchmen?
An Impetus for Change

On September 1st, 2015, the Department of Educations Office of
Civil Rights issued their findings in the four-year investigation of
Michigan State Universitys Title IX procedures. Two students alleged
that the University did not appropriately respond to their reports of sexual
harassment and sexual assault. After a holistic review of MSUs Title IX
procedures, OCR concluded that MSU had taken too long to respond to
the two specific cases of sexual harassment that prompted the

investigation. They also concluded that the University did not have
prompt and equitable Title IX grievance procedures as the law required,
failed to adequately notify students of the Title IX Coordinators identity,
and used a flawed analysis in its handling of two other cases.1
The findings did not come as shock to MSU, as administration
officials had entered into a resolution agreement with OCR, which was
released on the same day as the report. OCR had been monitoring the
Universitys responses to their investigation, and recognized that MSU
had, taken significant action since the investigation began; however,
additional measures were needed to bring the school into compliance with
OCRs mandates. 2 OCR said their concerns would be resolved if the
University abided by the terms of the resolution agreement. The
resolution agreement required MSU to revise its Title IX procedures to
feature (among other things) clearer definitions of sexual misconduct and
consent, as well as create guidelines for promptly conducting
investigations.3 In a statement debuting the resolution agreement, MSU
President Lou Anna K. Simon said that she didnt, see the OCR findings
as the end of a process, [but as] more input to use in improving MSUs
processes further.4 Both in the midst of the investigation and after it, the
University took what it called strong steps to eliminate the existence of
a sexually hostile environment on-campus.5
Today, few contest that the Policy on Sexual Harassment, as it was
known from 1992-2015, was inadequate. The policy only governed sexual
harassment, rather than other forms of sex discrimination like sexual
assault and rape; however, the University contends that those types of
cases were investigated using the same procedures. 6 Furthermore, the
Policy on Sexual Harassment was not easily accessible to students,7 and
aimed to complete investigations in 120 days, a length twice that of the
Office of Civil Rights recommendation.8
Beginning in January 2011, MSUs office for Inclusion and
Intercultural Initiatives was tasked with investigating alleged violations of
the Policy on Sexual Harassment. From August 2011 to August 2014, I3
entertained 174 reports of various kinds of sexual misconduct by students.
They only investigated 47, citing no claimant participation in 73 of the
Silvestri 179
174 instances.9 By December 2014, I3 had closed 41 of those cases. Of

those 41 closed investigations, only 23 led to a finding of responsible,
a mere 13.2% of the total number of reports. 10
The Office of Civil Rights was far from the only one raising concerns
about the efficacy of the Policy on Sexual Harassment and its
accompanying procedures. Media reports recounting students
displeasure with the Universitys handling of their Title IX case were
common in the time preceding OCRs report; in fact, OCR attributes their
initial awareness of problems at MSU to the media.11
One student wrote to The State News, a student-run newspaper,
alleging that an investigation into their romantic partner took 429 days to
complete, and that the ultimate decision of dismissal was not supported
by the facts of the case. 12 Another recounted the eight-month
investigation into her alleged rape, which resulted in the expulsion of her
attacker; however, the sanction was ultimately overturned after the
investigation was re-conducted by an outside law firm.13
In short, dissatisfaction with MSUs handling of sexual misconduct
was present in both the federal government and the student body itself.
During the course of OCRs investigation, Michigan State recognized the
inadequate status quo, and replaced the Policy with the University Policy
on Relationship Violence and Sexual Harassment, colloquially referred
to as the RVSMP. But with the new policy came a new set of challenges.
The University Policy on Relationship Violence and Sexual

Misconduct
The University Policy on Relationship Violence and Sexual
Misconduct (hereafter referred to as the RVSMP) took effect on
January 1st, 2015.i It is considerably longer than its predecessor, making
iSources conflict as to when the policy was officially issued. Some say it was
issued on December 29th, 2014, while others indicate an intent to debut the
policy in the Spring Semester of 2015, and the policy itself cites January 1 st,
2015; see Office of General Counsel, 2014; Cody, 2015; Simon, 2015; and
RVSMP, Section XIV. For all intents and purposes, students began abiding by
the policy on January 1st, 2015, and that date will be used throughout.
clear that it applies to all forms of sexual misconduct, not just sexual
harassment, and providing clearer examples of what constitutes sexual
misconduct. The RVSMP was revised one week after OCRs findings
were released to further comply with their guidelines, as well as to account
for the creation of the Office of Institutional Equity.14 The policy was
further amended on August 31st, 2016.15
This third iteration of the RVSMP (which is currently in place as of
this writing) was the most extensive yet. It radically changed the process
by which students found responsible of violating the RVSMP were
sanctioned. Under the previous policy, claims were investigated by the
Office of Institutional Equity, and proceeded to the Anti-Discrimination
Policy/Relationship Violence Sexual Misconduct Policy Student Conduct
Review Panel (hereinafter referred to as the Panel) to receive a
sanction. The Panel was comprised of one student, one faculty member,
and one staff member, and reviewed cases to recommend a sanction; they
were further empowered to grant a challenge hearing to review
challenges to the OIE finding,16 and send the investigation back to OIE
if they felt the finding was arbitrary and capricious and/or the product
of procedural error.17 Any sanction recommended by the Panel was
subject to the approval of the Vice President of Student Affairs and
Services, who could uphold, reduce, or increase the sanction, as well as
instruct OIE to re-investigate.
But in the current RVSMP, the Panel can only recommend
sanctionschallenge hearings have been eliminated entirely, and the
ability to remand an investigation back to OIE is held only by the VPSA
in cases of suspension/dismissal, and the Equity Review Officer when the
recommended sanction is below suspension/dismissal. This change
gutted the autonomy of the students, faculty, and staff on the Panel,
leaving only administrators to ultimately judge the reasonableness of
investigations and sanctions.
Administrators have made great use of this power. Michigan States
current VPSA, Dr. Denise Maybank, altered the sanctions recommended
by the Panel in 15 out of 30 cases from January 2012 to December 2016.18
Of those 15 cases, Maybank reduced the Panels recommended sanction
in 12 of them by doing things like changing suspensions from two years
Silvestri 181
to one and lowering dismissals to suspensions; in the other three,

Maybank increased suspensions to dismissals.
Disdain for the VPSAs status as the ultimate arbiter of sanctioning is
widespread. MSUs Graduate Employees Union circulated a petition
calling for Maybank to relinquish this ability, noting that it is not Maybank
herself that is the problem, but the centralized nature of the VPSAs
function in the sanctioning process.19 The State News Editorial Board
published an editorial to the same effect, arguing that Maybanks
alterations, completely undermine[d] student and campus safety, citing
several well-publicized cases to make their point.20
In short, the various versions of the University Policy on Relationship
Violence and Sexual Misconduct are almost certainly more effective than
the relatively ambiguous Policy on Sexual Harassment. However, the
RVSMP has had significant implications for the rights of both claimants
(those accusing someone of a violation) and respondents (those being
accused) in RVSM-related cases, and many have wondered whether those
implications have been worth the benefit. Yet the biggest difference a
student involved in an RVSM incident might face is not related to the
policy itself, but to those investigating alleged violations of it.
The Office of Institutional Equity

The Office of Institutional Equity officially hired its first Director in
November 2015,21 but the department was first announced in September
of that year, on the same day OCR delivered its findings. 22 OIE was
tasked with investigating claims under the RVSMP and Anti-
Discrimination Policy, filling the role that the Office for Inclusion and
Intercultural Initiatives previously occupied. OIEs staff is primarily
female, and most investigators are licensed attorneys.
Per Section L.1 of the RVSMP, an OIE investigation begins with the
receipt of a complaint. If OIE determines that it has jurisdiction to
investigate the incident, an investigator will meet with the claimant and
gather their account of it.ii Here, the claimant will identify any witness they
believe are relevant. Within five business days of meeting with the
claimant, 23 OIE will contact the respondent and request a
hearing/meeting. iii At this hearing/meeting, the respondent will tell
their side of the story to the investigator, also identifying witnesses. OIE
will contact those witnesses for an interview, which they are not required
to participate in.
Within 30 days of completing all interviews, OIE guidelines say that
a draft report will be provided to the claimant and the respondent24
witnesses receive neither a copy of the draft report nor the final report
reaching a conclusion. Draft reports contain the investigators summary
of both parties statements, as well as a summary of any witnesses
testimony. The report does not contain any analysis or conclusion
regarding the responsibility of the respondent. Parties are given the
opportunity to respond to anything in the draft report; they are
encouraged to use it to correct inaccuracies in their own statements, but
the process is also used to refute allegations made by the other party.
OIE will analyze the feedback, and incorporate it where appropriate.
Within ten days of receiving this feedback from the claimant and the
respondent, OIE will issue a final investigative report. The final report is
similar to the draft report, except it analyzes all available evidence and
delivers a conclusion of responsible or not responsible for violating
the RVSMP; OIE uses a preponderance of the evidence standard in
evaluating claims, meaning an alleged violation need only more likely than
not have occurred to lead to a responsible finding.25 OIE does not make
decisions as to sanctions, but forwards final investigative reports on to
the aforementioned Panel to reach a sanction.
It is difficult to analyze how effective this process has been compared
to prior years due to, reliability concerns with past data management
ii
Editors Note: For an example of a time OIE did not follow this timeline,
see the case of Amanda Burroughs on pages 172-74.
iii This event was called an investigation meeting until the most recent version
of the RVSMP.
Silvestri 183
systems, but the 2015-2016 efforts of OIE are accessible. 26 OIE has
quadrupled the number of investigators from three to twelve since Fall
2015 in response to a growing caseload; in the 2015-2016 academic year,
OIE received 461 reports, as opposed to the 201 in 2014-2015,27 which
OIE attributes to increased knowledge of how to report suspected
violations.28 Of those 461 reports, OIE did not investigate 378 of them.
Of those 378, OIE cited non-participation as the reason for not
investigating in 289. OIE boasts an average time of 78 days to complete
an investigation from 3/22/16 to 8/15/16, compared to the 153-day
average in 2014-2015. OIE found a violation of the RVSMP in 38 of its
66 closed cases. As a result, thirteen students were suspended, though
four had their suspension deferred pending the satisfaction of other
disciplinary sanctions. Six students were dismissed for violating the
RVSMP.
In theory, OIEs role as a neutral fact-finder in these proceedings
should lend more credence to these investigations. Yet the public outrage
against MSUs treatment of sexual assault has hardly died down. The
Lansing State Journal Editorial Board has argued that, whether the
problem lies with Maybank, with the appeals board, or the investigations
themselves, it is clear that, the way in which Michigan State University
investigates allegations of sexual assaults is not working.29
Case Studies
During the 2016-2017 academic year, I served as Assistant Director of
Student Rights Advocates and Legal Services, a department within the
MSUs undergraduate student government, the Associated Students of
Michigan State University. In that capacity, I accompanied clients to
hearings/meetings, helped them write responses to draft reports, helped
them draft appeals to adverse findings, and advised them throughout the
process. During my tenure, I have grown concerned with aspects of both
OIE and the sanctioning process. Using past records and the cases I
personally worked, I have uncovered serious flaws in the RVSMP and the
procedures undergirding it. Each of the following case studies highlights
a different problem in the RVSM process. All names and identifying
details have been changed to protect the involved parties identities.
Alice Washingtoniv
Alice Washington was enrolled in a kinesiology course that taught self-
defense, especially as it relates to domestic violence. According to Alice,
her male professor made jokes about domestic violence throughout the
semester. In one instance, Alice alleges that her professor was
demonstrating a maneuver when he said, Punch like this. I had to stop
beating my ex-wife after I taught her this one.
Alice reported her instructor to the Office of Institutional Equity. Her
case was assigned to one of OIEs senior investigators. After meeting with
the investigator for the first time, Alice sat down with me for an interview
to discuss her impressions of the process so far. The interview was
recorded, and a partial transcript (edited for clarity) reveals concerning
conduct on the part of OIE.
Alice Washington: As I was describing the jerkish [sic]

statements that my instructor had said, she was saying Oh
my gosh! I cant believehow did this person get this job? This
is nuts! and she just kept saying that. And it was like, thank
you for the affirmation, but it was, like, aggressively
affirming.
Tyler Silvestri: Would you say she appeared to be neutral?
AW: No.
TS: Did she tell you she was neutral?
AW: Yes.
TS: Huh.
AW: And I mean, she was like, very negative against the
person I was talking about. So, I guess that was comforting in
some way, but at the same time it was kind of unprofessional
and weird. But in any case, she said So do you want to be a
ivMs. Washington was not, in fact, a client of Student Rights Advocates, but a
friend who told me about her intention to pursue an OIE investigation. I asked
her to tell me how the intake process looked from her perspective, and she
graciously gave me permission to record that interview and recount it here.
Silvestri 185
claimant?, and I say, I dont know. Maybe. And she pulls

out thisthisdocument
TS: The [claimant information] folder?
AW: No, not the folder. She only gave me that at the end, and
I was like, What the hell? She didnt reallyshe didnt
actually tell me anything about what the folder was. She just
handed it to me. So, she sped me through this weirdit felt
like I was signing a contract. She just briefly sort of glanced at
every single chunk of it, flipped it over, and then went, Okay,
sign this if you want to be a claimant.
TS: Do you know what your obligations as a claimant are?
AW: Umthatshe basically made it sound like I could
decide not to do anything, but if I decide to be a claimant, I get
to find out what happens. So that was basically it. But she sped
through the contract so fast, I was like, What? And I wanted
to sit down and read through all of it, and she said, You know,
well weigh in credibility, whose word, blah blah blah
What goes into credibility? If I had been in there for a sexual
assault, and I had been told that my credibility was going to be
assessed, I would like, freak out.
Obviously, Alices case is troubling because of the egregious
comments of her instructor. But OIEs conduct here is alarming as well.
The complete lack of neutrality shown by the investigator casts serious
doubts on OIEs purported status as an impartial fact-finder.
Furthermore, the improper demeanor of the investigator will likely never
be revealed during the course of the investigation, as it is the investigator
herself who will compile the report. Unless the investigator chooses to
reveal her own impartiality, the respondent will never be made aware it.
All of this goes to show why interviews ought to be recorded and available
to the parties, and why a more transparent, accountable process is
necessary.
Lyla Liu/John Andersonv

John Anderson was a student accused of engaging in some sort of
sexual harassment against a classmate. John and the claimant, Lyla Liu,
were studying one night in a semi-private study room in one of the
campus residence halls. Both the claimant and the respondent indicated
that they were engaging in playful banter when John attempted to look at
something on Lylas computer.
At this point, Lyla alleges that John placed his hand, on her inner
right thigh and moved her hand from mid-thigh to upper thigh. She
further clarified that, [Johns] hand was approaching [her] private area,
close to it, but no actual touch on [her] private area. Lyla claims that after
staring at him in shock, John stopped touching her and returned to his
work.
Johns account of the incident is substantially different. He agreed that
they were playing around with Lylas computer, but adamantly denied that
he touched her thigh; in his response to the draft report provided by OIE,
John maintained that he, did not purposefully touch [the Claimants] arm,
leg, or any other part of her. Any alleged contact was incidental and
accidental, and I remain certain that I did not touch her thigh at all. He
did not view the night as even remotely significant.
In their investigation, OIE reviewed text messages Lyla sent to some
of her friends regarding the incident. However, it is difficult to know
exactly what she told them; John, Lyla, and the friends Lyla texted are all
from China, and so the text messages OIE reviewed were in Mandarin.
OIE used Google Translate to render the messages, which led to more
than a few incomprehensible exchanges. Highlights of the inadequacies
include:
Friend 1: Next time direct freak good. Do not cheap this dog
interest child.
v I personally led the defense of the respondent in this case, and subsequently
obtained a waiver from John, allowing me to use his case materials in this
paper; see the waiver in Appendix A. Nonetheless, the names and other
FERPA-sensitive information of all parties have been changed to mask the
identifies of all involved.
Silvestri 187
Claimant: I do not know I did not get angry also let him that
I love him?
Claimant: You, the incident, when I Ninja down. Afterwards
I really dont know how to solve. Touch thigh Hey.
OIE noted that both parties expressed concern regarding the quality
of the translations, but dismissed the concerns because, the purpose of
OIEs review of the messages was solely to determine whether the
Claimant talked with her friends about her allegations.
Two of Lylas friends were also interviewed by OIE. One friend,
Angela Davis, reported that Lyla told her that John, pushed [Lyla] to the
wall and then just touched her and her legs and things like that. It is
worth noting that Lyla herself never told OIE that John pushed her. OIE
also spoke to Lylas friend Pam Marvin, who indicated that Lyla told her
a story similar to the one she recounted to OIE.
Using only the text messages and the statements of Lylas friends as
evidence, OIE determined, by a preponderance of the evidence, that John,
did touch the Claimants leg in the manner described by the Claimant.
This conclusion was based on a) absurdly translated text messages, and b)
the fact that Lyla recounted the story to other people (with varying
degrees of consistency). For John to have had exculpatory evidence, he
would have needed to provide evidence that he told people the night was
without incident. Effectively, he would have had to text friends and let
them know that he had not assaulted anyone.
Yet this sloppy weighing of evidence is not the most surprising aspect
of the Lyla/John caseultimately, OIE determined that John had not
violated the RVSMP. For sexual contact to have occurred, John would
have had to have touched her, breasts, genitals, buttocks, groin, or
mouth, or else touched, any other body part with sexual intent.
Because Lyla, did not state that [John] massaged, rubbed, or stroked her
leg, OIE could not determine that John had sexual intent when he
touched Lylas thigh. As a result, he was not found responsible for
violating the policy.
Even John was shocked by the outcome. While maintaining that he

did not touch Lylas thigh, he conceded that if he had, he thought he
would have been in violation of the RVSMP. In her appeal of the decision,
Lyla argued that, there is no difference between his disgusting behaviors
and massaging or rubbing. The Equity Review Officer that decided the
appeal disagreed, and the finding of not responsible was upheld.
The Lyla/John case is remarkable not only for its shaky evidentiary
analysis, but for its unsatisfying conclusions from every partys
perspective. In RVSM cases, one would hope that at least one of the
parties involved leaves the proceedings feeling like justice has been served;
in this instance, neither did. The claimant left with her story vindicated,
but her alleged aggressor ultimately escaping culpability. The respondent
walked away with a favorable decision, but a distinctly adverse rationale.
Alyssa Kenez/Andrew Frost

MSU has boasted about the decreased time it takes to complete
investigations, citing an average of 78 days in their current model.30 But
that number is, of course, an averagesome investigations take much
longer. One such investigation involved MSU students Alyssa Kenez and
Andrew Frost. They were introduced to each other by their mutual friend,
Mindy Wagner, and had only met briefly a few times before they attended
the same party in Mindys apartment. The following is not disputed by
either Alyssa or Andrew: at the party, both Alyssa and Andrew drank
some alcohol, but neither believed themselves to be drunk. The pair
flirted throughout the event, playfully tossing balloons at one another.
At this point, the parties accounts begin to diverge. As the party
wound down and everyone else had dispersed, Alyssa claims that Andrew
asked her if he could stay the night in her apartment, which was next door
to Mindys, saying he was too drunk to ride his bike home; Andrew says
he was, perfectly capable of riding his bike home, and asked to stay
because he thought Alyssa wanted him to. Alyssa insists that she told
Andrew he was not welcome to stay, and said he needed to leave;
conversely, Andrew maintains that Alyssa told him she wanted him to stay
the night, and that the two agreed to sleep in Alyssas bed together.
Silvestri 189
Here, Alyssas memory is fuzzy because she, tends to block things

out, but she claims alcohol did not affect her memory. She says that
Andrew disrobed her aggressively, throwing her clothes behind her bed;
in Andrews version of the night, Alyssa helped Andrew take her clothes
off. Both parties agree that Andrew performed cunnilingus on Alyssa, and
that Alyssa, did not push him away.
Andrew then claims that he asked Alyssa for permission to insert
himself inside her, to which she responded affirmatively; Alyssas account
is vague as to the issue of consent, but she declined to call the experience
rape, saying that she, still [isnt] labeling the sex as anything other than
bad sex. Alyssa says that she experienced severe pain throughout, but
Andrew claims that Alyssa, did not pull away and/or give any physical
or verbal indications she was not comfortable or did not want the contact.
Both agree that Alyssa moaned throughout, though Alyssa claims she
did so, hoping it would be over. After a few minutes of intercourse that
neither party enjoyed, Alyssa told Andrew to stop, and both parties agree
that he did so. The two then went to sleep.
The parties accounts of the next morning are wildly disparate. Both
agree that once they woke up, Andrew asked Alyssa if they could have sex
again, saying that he didnt think he had performed well the night before.
Andrew says that Alyssa said yes, and they had equally unpleasant sex
again. Alyssa claims that she said she wasnt interested, and that Andrew
continued trying to convince her, leading to the pair discussing the
definition of consentAndrew denies any such conversation took place.
In her initial OIE interview, she did not say that they had sex that morning.
Both parties agree that Alyssa revealed that the previous night had been
her first time having sex, although Andrew claims she only said this after
engaging in intercourse a second time; they also both agree that Andrew
said something akin to Thank you for sharing your body with me. I want
you to know that I respect you.vi Alyssa then alleges that she attempted
to go back to sleep when Andrew tried to palm her buttocks, leading to
viAndrew believes he said, You do not have to feel uncomfortable. I want to let
you know I respect your body and I appreciate you sharing your body with me.
her exclaiming, I dont want you to touch me. After that, Alyssa believes
she said she had to write a paper, and that Andrew departed.
Andrew rejects most of Alyssas account. He claims that after they had
sex the second time, Alyssa revealed that she had lost her virginity to him
the night before. He says he was bothered by this, and wished that shed
told him earlier; he claims he never would have had sex with her if hed
known it was her first time. He says they went back to sleep for an hour.
After waking up, Andrew claims the pair made breakfast together, and
watched three episodes of the TV show Moesha, and then took another
half-hour nap, after which Alyssa asked, How come you didnt hold me
or touch me?. He says he stayed for a few hours longer, discussing school
and watching television. At that point, Andrew says he departed, believing
the pair to be on good terms.
About a week later, Andrew claims that Mindy (the friend who hosted
the party) cornered him in a friends apartment and began yelling, You
sexually assaulted [Alyssa], It was violent, Im going to ruin your life,
and Youre going to want to kill yourself. He also claimed that Mindy
said she would report Andrew for sexual assault unless he apologized to
Alyssa.vii Andrew claims that Mindy had been sexually assaulted in the
past, and he worried that he was projecting resentment from that incident
onto him. The next day, records indicate that Mindy did report Andrew
to OIE. Andrew became confused, and sought counsel from various
campus resources over the next few weeks, including the University
Ombudsperson, the Sexual Assault Center, the Office of Institutional
Equity themselves. Andrew says OIE was not helpful, deflecting most of
his questions, and declining to tell him exactly what was being alleged.
Records indicate that Alyssa reported the incident to OIE five days
after Mindy did. In her statement, Alyssa says she, was really against
reporting, and that, [because she] didnt really get to make any
choices . . . [she] felt irrelevant in the process. Ultimately, she says she
vii In her witness statement, Mindy claims that she merely got upset when she
saw Andrew. Mindy was later found responsible by the University judiciary for
violating Residence Hall Regulation 1.4, which reads, No person shall interfere
with the free access of another to and from his/her own room
Silvestri 191
reported due to pressure from Mindy. During her interview with OIE,
Alyssa told them she didnt want to open an investigation at that time, but
would let them know if she changed her mind. Eight weeks later, OIE
told Andrew the investigation had been closed.
Two weeks after Andrew was told there would be no investigation,
Alyssa contacted OIE and asked them to re-open one. Three days later,
records indicate OIE officially opened an investigation into Andrew
this day will be referred to as Day 1, and all subsequent dates noted as
Day x will be in reference to the opening of the investigation.viii
On Day 3, Andrew ran into Alyssa and tried to talk to her, not
knowing the investigation had been re-opened. Both agree she said she
didnt want to talk to him, and left immediately after. On Day 4, OIE
informed Andrew that the investigation had been re-opened, and that he
was invited to participate in a meeting-hearing with an OIE investigator
to share his account. On Day 5, Andrew received a no-contact order
from OIE, barring him from contacting Alyssa himself or by proxy.
On Day 14, I accompanied Andrew to his interview with OIE.
According to my notes from the meeting-hearing, Andrew asked what he
was being accused of; the investigator told him that she didnt want him
responding to Alyssas allegations, but asked him to simply share his
recollection of the night. When Andrew began recounting the incident
where Mindy threatened him, the investigator said that she was only
concerned with what happened in Alyssas bedroom. As such, Andrew
declined to list any witnesses. The investigator encouraged Andrew to
submit any questions he may have for Alyssa to OIE, and OIE would
decide if they were appropriate to send to Alyssa; Andrew pointed out
that he could not ask meaningful questions when he didnt know what
was being alleged, at which point the investigator briefly recounted
Alyssas version of events. Andrew was told that he could expect a draft
report in the next week or two, and he submitted five questions for
Alyssa an hour later; OIE declined to ask Alyssa the last two questions,
viii Keep in mind that per OIE guidelines, investigations are ideally completed
within 60 days.
but did not give a justification. Andrew received Alyssas answers to the
first three questions two months later.
The questions were:
Do you recall asking something akin to Why did you not touch
or hold me? after our second nap?
o Alyssa indicated that she did ask this, because she,
wanted him to hold her and touch her but not in a
sexual manner.
Do you recall having sexual intercourse on the morning [in
question]?
o Alyssa said she, was pretty sure it didnt happen, but
she has, had sexual contact in the past and [shes]
blocked it out.
Do you remember saying that you had a good time hanging out
with me before I left?
o Alyssa said she, doesnt remember saying that, but
doesnt deny it.
What effect has speaking to [Mindy] had on your perception of
the incident?
What prompted you to go to OIE?
On Day 46, OIE reached out to Andrew, saying that they met with
Alyssa again earlier that day. Alyssa had several questions for Andrew,
which he responded to immediately. Two of the questions related to
events that occurred after the morning in question, which led Andrew to
think that OIE had allowed Alyssa to call witnesses with information
unrelated to the event. In response, Andrew asked that OIE interview
Jane Daugherty, a witness to Mindys threats, along with Dr. Williams, a
professor that Andrew had confided in throughout the process; OIE
agreed to do so. Andrew also asked if it was common practice for OIE to
re-interview claimantsOIE did not respond.
In an attempt to speed up the proceedings, Andrew reached out to
another OIE investigator on Day 55, inquiring as to whether he could file
a complaint against Alyssa for falsely reporting him. On Day 56, OIE
informed Andrew that he could not, as, there may be a reasonable basis
Silvestri 193
for [Alyssas] complaint, although they noted that this was, not intended
to be in any way a determination regarding a finding.
On Day 83, Andrew went to OIEs office to ask if the draft report was
ready yet. He was told that the investigator in his case was busy, but that
he should contact her by e-mail. Andrew did so, and received a reply
chastising him for dropping into the office unexpectedly. Furthermore,
the investigator said that she was working multiple cases, and that each,
deserve[d] thorough attention. She then stated that he could, expect a
draft report next week via email.
Andrew did not receive a draft report the next week. On Day 88,
Andrew instead received an e-mail from OIE indicating that the
investigation would not be completed within sixty (60) calendar days as
stated in the [Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct] policy for the
reason(s) stated below. The entirety of the section dedicated to those
reasons read, Witness statements. Per page 29 of the RVSM Policy,
OIE will inform both parties of the anticipated length of the delay if
the investigation cannot be completed within sixty days; OIE provided
no such estimate. Furthermore, the letter erroneously listed the day the
investigation began as being three days earlier than every other record
suggests it was.
Records indicate that OIE interviewed Dr. Williams on the same day,
and interviewed Jane Daugherty on Day 91; these interviews occurred 42
and 45 days after Andrew requested they be conducted, respectively.
On Day 96, Andrew received the draft report containing Alyssas
account of the incident, as well as the testimony of Mindy, Dr. Williams,
and Jane. This was the first time in the entire process that Andrew learned
exactly what Alyssa had accused him of doing.
The witness statements of Jane and Dr. Williams struck Andrew as
odd, and so Andrew sent each their respective witness statement, and
asked them to confirm that they were accurate. Both Jane and Williams
said that the witness statements mischaracterized their testimony. Jane
claimed that during the interview, she had to ask the investigator to repeat
back the notes she was writing, as it seemed like the investigator wasnt
listening; Dr. Williams said that based on the witness statement, it was
clear a narrative was trying to be constructed. Andrew asked both if
they would be comfortable e-mailing OIE to express their sentiments and

correct their testimony. Both agreed, and sent such e-mails.
On Day 103, OIE leadership responded to Dr. Williams. Rather than
apologizing or offering to correct the inaccuracies, OIE simply told him
that he was not supposed to have seen any part of the draft report; per
Section N of the RVSMP, parties are not restricted from discussing and
sharing information relating to their investigations with others.
As of this writing, 107 days have passed since OIE opened its
investigation into Andrew. Throughout the process, OIE has not been
forthcoming, missed deadlines, and showed bias toward the claimant by
breaking procedure in her favor. Andrew has retained an attorney in
preparation for an adverse decision, intending to sue the University for
OIEs mishandling of the investigation.
The Alyssa/Andrew case shows why hearings ought to be re-instituted
in the RVSM investigation process. So many small inaccuracies could
have been resolved during the course of a hearing, rather than the tedious
process of asking question by proxy over a period of weeks. Furthermore,
the complete lack of accountability in the investigation process must be
rectified by recording all interviews with the claimant, respondent, and
witnesses.ix
Melanie/Nathanx
Melanie and Nathan agree on most of the facts of their case: on May
31st, 2014, the couple met up to have sexual intercourse, choosing a car
as the venue for want of a better option. In the midst of the encounter, a
stranger knocked on the window of the car, scaring them. The pair
stopped having sex, and Melanie began crying from embarrassment and
ix
Editors Note: a few months after this paper was written, OIE found
Andrew responsible for rape, rather than the harassment Alyssa accused him of.
The Panel dismissed Andrew. An appeal to Dr. Maybank was submitted, but (as
is typical of Andrews experience), months have passed without a decision; as
of November 2017 (more than a year after the incident itself and more than 300
days since the investigation began), a final decision has not been reached.
x The entirety of this account is sourced from Berman, 2017.
Silvestri 195
distress, as she recalled a previous relationship plagued by abuse. Melanie

claims she told Nathan she didnt want to resume sexual activity that night,
but Nathan denies any such conversation occurred.
After getting dinner, the pair walked alongside a set of train tracks for
an hour while she talked; Melanie claims Nathan was dismissive, while
Nathan claims he listened sympathetically. After an hour of walking, the
pair sat down, and Nathan put his arm around Melanies shoulder. Shortly
after, he reached into her shirt and engaged in what he called, a
momentary touching of the breast; conversely, Melanie describes it as a
groping. Melanie asked him to stop, and both agree that he immediately
stopped, showing no signs of violence or other threatening behavior.
Nathan has indicated that regrets misinterpreting her behavior, but
doesnt think that he violated the RVSMP, as he stopped when she asked
him to. Melanie disagrees, telling classmates that he sexually assaulted
her.
In late September 2015, sixteen months after the incident, Melaniexi
reported Nathan to the Office of Institutional Equity. In the process of
compiling the report, the OIE investigator assigned to the case mistakenly
marked the date of the incident as May 31st, 2015 rather than May 31st,
2014. This turned out to be a critical error, as MSU had instituted a
revamped RVSM Policy at the beginning of the semester in response to
the Office of Civil Rights investigation into MSUs Title IX procedure.
Because of the investigators error, Nathans behavior was judged under
the newer, more stringent policy, which did not exist at the time of the
incident.
In February 2016, Nathan was found responsible for violating the
University Policy on Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct, which
had only been instituted nearly seven months after the incident. After
Nathan sued the University on that basis, the University granted him a
xiBy this time, Melanie had begun identifying as transgender, and was undergoing
a woman-to-man transition. For consistencys sake, the name Melanie and the
accompanying female pronouns will be used. However, this should not be
interpreted as a lack of respect for Melanies gender identity, nor as a commentary
on the transgender community more broadly.
new investigation under the Policy on Sexual Harassment, which was in

effect during the incident. That September 30th investigation found him
responsible of violating the old policy as well. The investigator argued that,
evidence indicates [Nathan] made physical contact with an intimate part
of the Claimants body her breast, and that the Nathans conduct was,
sufficiently severe to constitute sexual harassment.
After several appeals, both in court and at MSU, Vice President for
Student Affairs and Services Denise Maybank made a final determination
on October 21st, 2016: the investigations finding was upheld. Nathan was
given a sanction of probation, but that probation was retroactively
shortened to match the date of his graduation, May 7th, 2016. To this day,
a no-contact order barring Nathan from contacting Melanie remains in
place at MSU, despite the fact that Nathan has not spoken to her in over
two years.
Nathan and Melanies case speaks volumes about the negligence
exhibited by OIE. A typo in the date of the incident led to an astounding
393-day investigation and appeals process. While I cannot imagine the
effect such an experience has on someones confidence in the system,
Melanie can. When asked if she would report again, Melanie responded,
No. If I could go back in time, I would not say anything. Its so sad for
me because the process was so traumatic. It was absolutely not worth it.
Kathy Fisher/Don Mayhewxii

Undergraduate Kathy Fisher reported her ex-boyfriend, Don Mayhew,
to the Office of Institutional Equity. Several months before the report,
Kathy told Don that she would, rather die than be [in a relationship]
with him. In response, Don called the police on Kathy, reporting that
she was suicidal. According to the OIE report, seven police officers
transported Kathy to the psychiatric wing of a hospital for three. Seeking
I did not personally have any involvement in this case, and relied on records
xii
in the case file to develop this account. In the spirit of confidentiality, I have
changed not only the names of the parties, but the non-determinative facts; this
was done to further protect the identities of the parties.
Silvestri 197
closure relating to that incident, Kathy claims she tried to talk with Don
when they began to argue.
Kathy alleged that during the argument, Don, grabbed her and pulled
on her legs and arms, causing bruises on her body. Kathy claimed that
Don gripped her arms and tried to lift her out of the chair in which she
was sitting. Don was of a large stature, standing at more than six feet tall,
according to Kathy. Conversely, Kathy was a slight woman, and
significantly smaller than Don.
Eventually, Kathy claimed that Don removed her from the chair and
forced her to the ground, covering her nose and mouth with his hand in
the process. She then reported that she bit him in an attempt to make him
stop. After a brief struggle on the ground, Kathy claimed Don began
attempting to pull her out of the apartment by her legs. She alleged that
he removed the sweatpants she was wearing, and pulled her out of the
door. After putting on a spare pair of pants she had with her, Kathy called
the police. The police did not arrest Don, but did attempt to administer a
portable breathalyzer test on Kathy, which she declined.
The next day, Kathy successfully acquired a Personal Protection Order
against Don, which protected her only when she was in her residence hall.
She also sought medical help, and provided medical reports and
photographs to OIE, which indicated that she had several bruises on her,
arms, wrist, legs, torso, [and] shoulders. Don provided several
photographs depicting bite marks on his arms and torso.
Dons account is radically different than Kathys. Don claimed that on
the night in question, Kathy refused to vacate Dons apartment after he
asked her to leave. He denied trying to remove her from a chair, as there
was no chair in the room. Don alleged that after attempting to contain
Kathy and usher her out the door, Kathy bit him six times, screaming,
Get off me, dont do that. Don described Kathys screaming, [as] if I
was doing unspeakable things to her.
He further denied removing her pants and forcing her to the ground,
instead suggesting that he simply, was lightly trying to pull her arm
away.xiii The OIE investigator stated in her analysis that Don, denied
entirely that he injured the claimant at all.
OIE disagreed, finding that because of the bruises on Kathys body, it
was clear by a preponderance of the evidence that, the Respondent did
engage in an act of violence toward Kathy. However, they also
determined that the evidence was inconclusive as to whether Dons
behavior could be attributed to self-defense. Don stated that the
respondent had bitten him during an earlier argument in February, which
Kathy did not deny. As a result, he claimed to feel threatened by Kathy
during the April incident. This alleged fear apparently cast significant
doubt on Dons culpability for the OIE investigator.
Consider the conflicting narratives: Don claimed that after, lightly
trying to pull her away from the futon, Kathy began screaming wildly
and biting him. In Kathys account, she began screaming, Let go. Stop.
StopYoure hurting me. Let go, after Don grabbed her arms, and bit
him after he still refused to let go. Both parties agree that the biting
occurred after Don put his hands on Kathys arms, although they disagree
as to the severity of the grasp. Yet it was the bruises from the grabbing
that led OIE to conclude that Don had been violent toward Kathy. This
means that, at least according to OIE, Kathy only bit Don after he had,
engage[d] in an act of violence toward her; accordingly, he could not
have bruised her in self-defense, because both parties acknowledge Kathy
bit him after she was attacked.
OIEs analysis is further troubling due to the inconsistent language
used in its conclusion. At the end of the Analysis and Finding section,
the report states that, there is insufficient evidence to lead to a
conclusion that the Respondent violated the policy. While I contend
their analysis was suspect, I will stipulate that if it hadnt been, this would
be the logical conclusion; no one should be found responsible if there is
insufficient evidence to do so. But in the very next line, which begins the
Later in the same report, OIE quotes Don as saying he was lightly trying
xiii
to pull her away, with the word arm omitted. While it is possible that Don
used nearly identical sentences at different times, I believe it is more likely that
OIE simply misquoted him in at least one of the instances.
Silvestri 199
Summary section of the report, OIE states that, as outlined above, the
Respondent is found not to have violated the RVSMP.
These sentences mean very different things. The first says that the
evidence precludes OIE from determining the Respondent violated the
RVSMP; Don was not determined to be innocent, but the evidence could
not support a finding of responsible (at least in OIEs opinion). But the
second sentence says that OIE concluded that Don was innocent, and did
not violate the policy. Their reasoning (flawed as it may be) theretofore
suggests the first conclusion, but the Summary section presents an
altogether unfounded result.
Another worrisome curiosity is the fact that Don later pled guilty to a
disorderly conduct charge stemming from the incident. In a court of law,
in which the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt, Don was
held accountable for his actions (albeit not to domestic violence); yet at
the University level, the much lower preponderance of the evidence
standard was used to find that Don did not violate any policy.
OIEs investigation and finding in the Kathy/Don case shows the
difficulty victims of relationship violence have in seeking justice. Here,
every party agreed that the respondent grabbed the claimant, and the
evidence clearly shows that it was done in a way that injured her. Yet in a
bizarre exercise of mental gymnastics that is unsupported by either partys
narrative, OIE refused to recognize this as relationship violence.
Furthermore, the sloppy quoting and lack of lexical nuance reflects leaves
something to be desired in OIEs ability to draft these reports.
Change from Below: Student Efforts to Fix Title IX Procedures

Discontent with OIE and the sanctioning process is widespread
amongst the student body at Michigan State. The Associated Students of
Michigan State University (the undergraduate student government)
convened a Sexual Assault Task Force of undergraduate students to
analyze the process and make recommendations on how to improve it.
The result was ASMSU Bill 53-71, titled, A Bill To: Support the Sexual
Assault Task Force Recommendations, which was passed on April 4th,
2017. By all accounts, the bill was somewhat sloppily-written. It was
hastily prepared so that it would be done in time for the last ASMSU
General Assembly meeting of Spring Semester 2017, and some nuance

was lost as a result. Nonetheless, the bill is significant insofar as it shows
that the undergraduate student body passed official recommendations on
how to change the process showing that students care tremendously
about the issue. Below, I have revised the SATF recommendations into
what I believe to be a more feasible and workable alternative.
Bill 53-71 featured four recommendations:31
1. That there be a Student-Faculty-Staff Hearing Board to
review OIE investigations, uphold or send these
investigative reports back to OIE for further investigation,
and if upheld, levy sanctions against the responsible student.
2. That the Vice-President for Student Affairs transfer the
power to levy sanctions to a Student-Faculty-Staff Hearing
Board but retain the power to review appeals against these
sanctions.
3. There must be parameters in place to make the sanctioning
process more transparent. Therefore, the Sexual Assault
Task Force recommends some form of sanctioning
guidelines to be set in place.
4. That the Department of Student Rights Advocates be
charged with educating mandatory student reporters.
With respect to the first recommendation, I believe the SATF is
fighting a losing battle. Due to institutional concerns about hearings
relating to the parties being in the same room, I do not believe that
hearings are likely to return. However, the substance of SATF
Recommendation 1 can be implemented by empowering the RVSM
Sanction Review Panel to return investigations to OIE. Furthermore, they
should be allowed to levy sanctions not amounting to
suspension/dismissal without the approval of any administration official.
In cases of suspension/dismissal, the Student Rights and Responsibilities
Document makes clear that only the Vice President for Student Affairs
and Services may suspend or dismiss a student for non-academic reasons,
and changing that would require a political will that simply doesnt exist
right now.32
Silvestri 201
SATF Recommendation 2 is ambiguous. If the VPSA is still

empowered to review the sanctions set by a Hearing Board, as a plain
reading suggests, then this recommendation doesnt change all that much.
As it stands now, the VPSA reviews sanctions set by the panel. Essentially,
the second recommendation is just an odd subset of the first.
However, when viewed in tandem, the recommendations show that
students are uncomfortable with the VPSAs power over the process.
MSU spokesperson Jason Cody has defended the VPSAs role, saying it
allows Maybank to, ensure consistency in the sanctions between various
cases.33 Maybank herself has called this power a necessary part of the
process, existing to maintain the integrity of investigations and
sanctioning. 34 However, this rationale only creates a vicious cycle of
altered sanctions. As Maybank changes the Panels recommendations to
be more consistent with other sanctions, she sets further precedent
against which future sanctions will be judged. More sanctions will have to
be offered down the line, because there has been a growing bevy of cases
with similar sanctions.
Rather than removing the ability from the VPSA (and recognizing that
consistency is an important goal), MSU ought to curb the extent to which
they VPSA can change sanctions. I would revise the SATF
Recommendations to read:
1. That the RVSM Sanction Review Panel be empowered to
review OIE investigations, and either uphold or send these
investigative reports back to OIE for further investigation. If
OIEs finding is upheld, the panel should be empowered to levy
sanctions not amounting to suspension/dismissal against the
responsible student, as well as be able to recommend
suspension/dismissal to the Vice President for Student Affairs
and Services.
2. That the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services be
empowered to alter the recommended sanction only when they
believe the panels recommendation was arbitrary and capricious.
By limiting the scope of the VPSAs alteration power, the appeals
process maintains its integrity at the Panel level while still protecting
against sanctions not reasonably rooted in the facts of the case. However,
in the interest of consistency across sanctions, it is critical that an

amended version of the SATFs third recommendation also be
implemented. Ive simplified SATF Recommendation 3 to read:
3. That the sanctioning process must be made more transparent
by developing specific guidelines for the Sanction Review Panel
to consider in recommending and levying sanctions.
These sanctions ought to be developed by the VPSA, rather than OIE, to
accurately reflect standard sanctions while still maintaining the solely
investigatory role of OIE. These guidelines should include factors to
watch for (like animus, concern for the victim, the severity of the violation)
and specific, numerical, standard ranges for the different types of
misconduct (for example, a two-year suspension for sexual assault).
However, to respect the Panels autonomy, they should be allowed to
deviate from the guidelines when they deem it appropriate.
I reject the SATFs fourth recommendation entirely. Having served as
the Assistant Director of Student Rights Advocates, I am dubious that we
are qualified to educate any mandatory reporters, let alone all of the
student ones. Having said that, I think the intent of the recommendation
was to provide student mandatory reporters with a better understanding
of their obligations. Accordingly, I would revise SATF Recommendation
4 to read:
4. That mandatory student reporters receive more holistic training
as to their responsibilities as mandatory reporters.
Given my experience seeing the OIE investigation process play out, I
would further recommend that the more accountability and transparency
be worked in to investigations. My addition to the SATFs
recommendations would be:
5. That witnesses in OIE investigations be allowed to provide
feedback to their own testimony in draft reports, and that other
parts of the report be redacted; this feedback process would
proceed along the same lines as the current parties who respond
to draft reports.
Silvestri 203
Conclusion
Michigan State University has not addressed sexual assault
investigations in a way that is transparent, satisfies due process, or
consistently leads to outcomes that most would deem reasonable. Some
have argued that the Title IX Coordinator, the Office of Institutional
Equity, and the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services dont care
about sexual assault, or else hate students right to due processbut they
are wrong. In my experience with the major players in RVSM proceedings,
every one of them has only wanted whats best. But as it stands now, the
system is not adequately set up to insulate students from administrators
who, like all of us, sometimes make the wrong the call.
In the report by the 2014 Task Force that reviewed MSUs RVSM
procedures, the University recognized that, one of the key areas that
influence students decisions to report sexual assault is trust in the process
and campus response to reporting and adjudication of sexual
misconduct.35 Unless the process is changed to be more transparent and
accountable, I worry that students may not have the requisite trust to
report their aggressors. Given my experience with RVSM proceedings, I
know that I would be hesitant to report as a victim, and downright
terrified to be a respondent.
1 Chandra, 39-40
2 Id., 40
3 Resolution Agreement, 3-7
4 Simon, Statement on Sexual Assault
5 Cody, 2015
6 Chandra, 11
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives, 2013-2014 Annual Report, 9
10 Id., 10
11 Chandra, 26
12 Anonymous, 2015
13 Linstroth and Wells
14 University Policy on Relationship Violence and Sexual Misconduct, 36
15 Id.
16 Spartan Life 2016-2017, 109
17 RVSM Policy, Appendix H, 2
18 Mencarini, 4/4/2017
19 Kurrie, 2/10/2016
20 State News Editorial Board, 2/26/2016
21 Cody, 11/4/2015
22 OIE, 9/1/2015
23 RVSMP, 29
24 Id.
25 Id., 26
26 Norris (2016)
27 Title IX Annual Report 2015-2016
28 Mencarini, 12/15/2016
29 Lansing State Journal Editorial Board, 4/9/2017
30 Title IX Annual Report, 2015-2016
31 ASMSU Bill 53-71
32 Student Rights and Responsibilities, Article 5.1.H, subsections 7 and 8. Available
through Student Life Handbook 2015-2016, 23-24.

33 Mencarini, 4/4/2017
34 Wilbur, 1/27/2016
35 Task Force Report, 21 (2015)
205
Appendix A
References 206
Reflection on
While I knew that my discontent with OIE had grown over the course
of my tenure as Assistant Director, it wasnt until I compiled a written
account of my gripes that I began to feel outraged. Truly, there are few
organizations I trust less than OIE. Its nothing less than a travesty that
the people on the committees that review OIE and the RVSMP do not
have access to specific case files; accordingly, it is strikingly difficult to
hold OIE accountable for their actions.
Many have asked me to look into publishing this paper, but I fear that
confidentiality issues may preclude me from doing so. While I believe that
I am within my rights to do so, OIE has displayed a tendency to ignore
policies when they are inconvenient. Furthermore, I intend to spend the
next three years at MSUs law school, where I will still be subject to OIEs
jurisdiction.
Despite my personal misgivings about the appropriateness of making
this work widely-available, I do believe that Watching the Watchmen is good
work, and I hope that OIE will one day be reformed. I intend to work
with the next generation of Student Rights Advocates to implement the
recommendations Ive laid out here.
Watching the Watchmen was originally written for MC 401, the second half
of the James Madison College Field Experience requirement. It was
supervised by Maxwell Olivero and Professor Benjamin Kleinerman, and
was submitted on May 6th, 2017.
207
References
In Defense of Democratic Integrity
Co., Leland Standford of H.S. Crocker &. Statement Made to the President of the
United States, and Secretary of the Interior, of the Progress of the Work.
Sacramento: H.S. Crocker & Co. Printers, 1865.
<http://www.sacramentohistory.org/admin/photo/773_1558.pdf>.
Dubois, W.E.B. The Souls of Black Folk. Chicago: A. C. McClurg, & Co., 1903.
Kleinerman, Benjamin. "Lincoln's Example: Executive Power and the Survival

of Constitutionalism." Perspective on Politics (2005): 809.
. The Discretionary President: The Promise and Peril of Executive Power. Lawrence:
University Press of Kansas, 2009.
McPherson, James M. Abraham Lincoln and the Second American Revolution. New
York City: Oxford University Press, 1991.
Rodriguez, Junius P. Slavery in the United States: A Social, Political, and Historical
Encyclopedia, Vol. 1. Denver: ABC-CLIO, 2007.
Roett, Riordan. The New Brazil. Harrisonburg: Brookings Institution Press,

2011.
United State Constitution. Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, PA, 17 Sep
Willson, Margaret. Dance Lest We All Fall Down: Breaking Cycles of Poverty in Brazil
and Beyond. Seattle: University of Washington Press, 2010.
Margaret Sanger, the Pill, and Eugenics

American Experience: The Pill. Dir. Chana Gazit. Perf. Blair Narr. Brown.
2003. Film.
American Medicine. "Intelligent or Unintelligent Birth Control." Birth Control
Review May 1919: 12. Print.
Asbell, Bernard. The Pill. New York: Random House, 1995. RG.137.5.A76.
Bonomo, Joe. The Sensible Way to Birth Control. New York: Bonomo Calorie
Books, 1966. Print.
Burns, Gene. The Moral Veto: Framing Contraception, Abortion, and Cultural
Pluralism in the United States. Cambridge, New York: Cambridge
University Press, 2005. Print.
References 208
Chesler, Ellen. Woman of Valor- Margaret Sanger and the Birth Control
Movement in America. New York: Simon & Schuster, 1992. Print.
Engelman, Peter C. A History of the Birth Control Movement in America.
Santa Barbara: ABC-CLIO, 2011. Print.
Grant, Dr. George. Killer Angel: A Biography of Planned Parenthood's
Margaret Sanger. Franklin, TN: Ars Vitae Press, 1995. Web.
Kalambakal, Vickey. "The Pill." Ciment, James. Postwar America: An
Encyclopedia of Social, Political, Cultural, and Economic History, vol.
3. Armonk, N.Y.: M.E. Sharpe, 2007. 1127. Print.
Knowles, Jon. Margaret Sanger- 20th Century Hero. August 2009. Web. 22 April
2014.
Marks, Lara. Sexual Chemistry: A History of the Contraceptive Pill. New
Haven: Yale University Press, 2001. Print.
McCormick, Katherine. "Letter to Margaret Sanger." Margaret Sanger's Papers,
Sophia Smith Collction. Northampton, Mass.: Smith College, 11 April
1958. Web.
PBS. People & Events: Eugenics and Birth Control . 2011. Web. 22 April 2014.
. "People & Events: Margaret Sanger (1879-1966)." n.d. PBS, American
Experience. Web. 21 April 2014.
Planned Parenthood Federation of America. Opposition Claims About
Margaret Sanger. October 2004. Web. 18 April 2014.
Sanger, Margaret. "A Plan for Peace." Birth Control Review April 1932: 107-
108. Web.
. "Birth Control and Racial Betterment." Birth Control Review February
1919: 11-12. Web.
. "Eugenic Value of Birth Control Propaganda, vol. 200, reel 129." The
Second International Eugenics Congress. New York: MSP-LC, 1921.
1-4. Web.
. "Letter to Leon F. Whitney." 1931: Adelaide Pearson, 26 January 1931.
Web.
. "Letter to Sindey L. Lasell, Jr." Margaret Sanger Papers Project, Smith
Series. MSP-SSC, 13 February 1934. Web.
. "Masthead." Birth Control Review November 1921: 3. Print.
. The Autobiography of Margaret Sanger. Mineola: Dover Publications, 1938.
Print.
Silvestri 209
. "The Function of Sterilization." Birth Control Review October 1926: 299.

Web.
. The Pivot of Civilization. London: Forgotten Books, 1922. Print.
Plato. (1991). The Republic of Plato (Allan Bloom Translation). Basic Books.
Dogmatic Liberalism
de Tocqueville, Alexis. 2000. Democracy in America (Mansflield Translation).
Chicago.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1787-1788. The Federalist
Papers. New York.
Manent, Pierre. 1996. An Intellectual History of Liberalism. Princeton.
Toleration, Secularization, and the Crisis of the Modern Day Liberal
Locke, John, and William Popple. 1690. A letter concerning toleration. London:
Awnsham Churchill.
Manent, Pierre. 1996. An Intellectual History of Liberalism. Princeton.
Montesquieu, Charles de Secondat, baron de,. The Spirit of Laws. London. J.
Collingwood, 1823.
The Noble Illusion
Nagel, Robert F. Judicial Power and American Character: Censoring Ourselves
in an Anxious Age. New York: Oxford University Press, 1994. Print.
Kundera, Milan. The Unbearable Lightness of Being. New York: Harper &
Row, 1987.
Nietzsche, Friedrich W, and Walter Kaufmann. Basic Writings of Nietzsche.
New York: Modern Library, 2000. Print.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, and Walter Kaufmann. Thus Spoke Zarathustra:
A Book for All and None. New York: Modern Library, 1995.
Nietzsche, Friedrich Wilhelm, R. J. Hollingdale, and Friedrich Wilhelm
Nietzsche. Twilight of the Idols ; and, the Anti-Christ. London,
England: Penguin Books, 1990.
Feminism as a Logical Consequence of Liberalism
Jaggar, Alison M. Feminist Politics and Human Nature. Totowa, N.J: Rowman
& Allanheld, 1983. Print.
Mill, John Stuart Mill. "The Subjection of Women". Delmar, N.Y.: Caravan
Books, 1999.
References 210
A New Ideology of the Family

Brake, Elizabeth. "Creation Theory: Do Genetic Ties Matter?" Hannan, Sarah,
Samantha Brennan and Richard Vernon. Permissible Progeny?: The
Morality of Procreation and Parenting. New York: Oxford University
Press, 2015. 129-147. Print.
Velleman, J. David (2005). Family History. _Philosophical Papers_ 34 (3):357-
378.
Snip
Brown, Mark S. and Cheryl A. Brown. "Circumcision Decision: Prominence of
Social Concerns." Pediatrics, Vol. 80 No. 2 (1987).
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/80/2/215.
CBC News Online. David Reimer: The boy who lived as a girl. 10 May 2004.
https://web.archive.org/web/20120807123535/http://www.cbc.ca/
news/background/reimer/. 15 March 2017.
Kotz, Deborah. AMA opposes legal restrictions on infant circumcision. 16
November 2011. https://www.bostonglobe.com/lifestyle/health-
wellness/2011/11/16/ama-opposes-legal-restrictions-infant-
circumcision/54Zh7RkjtHk3VZ4LwSg6fN/story.html. 15 March
2017.
Morris, Brian J et al. Estimation of Country-Specific and Global Prevalence of
Male Circumcision. Population Health Metrics 14 (2016): 4. PMC.
Web. 15 Mar. 2017.
Organization, World Health. "Male circumcision - World Health Organization."
2008.
http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/43749/1/9789241596169_
eng.pdf.
Rights Babble
Campaign, Donald Trump. Donald Trump: 'Two Americas: Immigration' Campaign
2016. 19 August 2016.
<https://www.washingtonpost.com/video/politics/donald-trump-
two-americas-immigration-campaign-2016/2016/08/19/b2091a70-
6607-11e6-b4d8-33e931b5a26d_video.html>.
Clinton, Hillary. The Choice is Clear: Hillarys Stronger Together America vs. Trumps
Dark and Divisive Vision. n.d.
<https://www.hillaryclinton.com/briefing/videos/2016/11/02/the-
choice-is-clear-hillarys-stronger-together-america-vs-trumps-dark-and-
divisive-vision/>.
Glendon, Mary Ann. Rights Talk: The Impoverishment Of Political Discourse. New
York: The Free Press, 1991.
Silvestri 211
Lawrence v. Texas. No. 539 U.S. 558. The Supreme Court. 26 June 2003.
Moody, Chris and Alexander Rosen. Bernie Sanders' American Dream is in

Denmark. 17 Feburary 2016.
<http://www.cnn.com/2016/02/17/politics/bernie-sanders-2016-
denmark-democratic-socialism/>.
Sanders, Bernie. Bernie Sanders On Twitter. 13 February 2016.

<https://twitter.com/berniesanders/status/698673532411056129>.
. Health Care Is A Right, Not A Privellege. n.d.

<http://www.sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/video-audio/health-
care-is-a-right-not-a-privilege>.
Team, The Economist - Data. Young v old votes for Bernie and Hillary in the 2016
primaries. 27 April 2016.
<http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2016/04/daily-
chart-19>.
Tocqueville, Alexis de. Democracy In America. London: Saunders and Oatley,

1835.
Trump, Donald. "Donald J. Trump is calling for a total and complete shutdown...". 2015
December 7.
<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LRxozK6Bpvk>.
Commitment
Goldsmith, Jack. 2007. The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the
Bush administration. New York: W.W. Nortan & Company.
Hersh, Seymour. The Killing of Osama Bin Laden. New York: Verso, 2016.
Print.
Wittes, Benjamin. 2008. Law and the Long War: The Future of Justice in the
Age of Terror. New York: The Penguin Group.
Go It Alone
Goldsmith, Jack. 2007. The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the
Bush administration. New York: W.W. Nortan & Company.
Hersh, Seymour. The Killing of Osama Bin Laden. New York: Verso, 2016.
Print.
Pfiffner, James P. Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press, 2008.
References 212
Step Up
107th Congress. 2001. "USA PATRIOT Act of 2001." October 26.
107th Congress, First Session. 2001. "Anti-Terrorism Act of 2001." September
19.
Abramowitz, David. 2002. The President, The Congress, and Use of Force:
Legal and Political Consdierations in Authorizing Use of Force against
International Terrorism. Harvard International.
Babington, Charles, and Jonathan Weisman. 2006. "Senate Approves Detainee
Bill Backed by Bush." Washington Post, September 29.
Boyer, Dave. April 24, 2013. "Bush policies still alive in Obama White House."
The Washington Times.
Calabresi, Steven G., and Christopher S. Yoo. 2008. "The Unitary Executive:
Presidential Power From Washington To Bush." 413. New Haven,
CT: Yale University Press.
Cheney, Dick. 2011. In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir. New York:
Threshold Editions.
Curry, Tom. June 6, 2013. "Obama continues, extends some Bush terrorism
policies." NBC News.
Gerstein, Josh. June 23, 2011. "W.H.: Defense Bill 'Micromanages'." Politico.
Goldsmith, Jack. 2012. Power and Constraint: The Accountable Presidency
after 9/11. New York: W.W. Nortan & Company.
. 2007. The Terror Presidency: Law and Judgment Inside the Bush
administration. New York: W.W. Nortan & Company.
Hamilton, Alexander, James Madison, and John Jay. 1787-1788. The Federalist
Papers. New York.
Hulse, Carl. 2016. Executive Branch Overreach? Lawmakers Blame
Themselves. February 8.
Myers, Steven Lee, and Philip Shenon. August 27, 2007. "Embattled Attorney
General Resigns." New York Times.
Pfiffner, James P. 2008. Power Play: The Bush Presidency and the Constitution.
Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press.
Savage, Charlie. February 17th, 2009. "Obamas War on Terror May Resemble
Bushs in Some Areas." New York Time.
. 2015. Power Wars: Inside Obama's Post-9/11 Presidency. New York:
Hatchette Book Group.
Silvestri 213
Tushnet, Mark. 2005. "Controlling Executive Power in the War on Terror."

Harvard Law Review, Vol. 118 2673-2682.

Capehart, Jonathan. Steve Schmidts brutally honest assessment of Sarah Palin.
12 March 2012. https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-
partisan/post/steve-schmidts-brutally-honest-assessment-of-sarah-
palin/2011/03/04/gIQA9ewZ7R_blog.html. 18 April 2017.
Carter, Jimmy. Keeping Faith: Memoirs of a President. New York: Bantam
Books, 1982.
Cheney, Dick and Liz Cheney. In My Time: A Personal and Political Memoir.
New York: Simon & Schuster, Inc., 2011.
Game Change. Dir. Jay Roach. Perf. Julianne Moore and Sarah Paulson. 2012.
HBO.
Goldsmith, Jack. The Terror Presidency. New York: W.W. Norton &
Company, 2007.
Goldstein, Joel K. The Modern American Vice Presidency: The Transformation
of a Political Institution. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1982.
. "The Rising Power of the Modern Vice Presidency." Presidential Studies
Quarterly, Vol. 38, No. 3 (2008): 374-389.
Hamilton, Alexander. The Federalist Papers No. 68. New York: J. and A.
McLean, 1788.
Hansen, Richard H. The Year We Had No President. Lincoln: University of
Nebraska Press, 1962.
Heilemann, John and Mark Halperin. Game Change: Obama and the Clintons,
McCain and Palin, and the Race of a Lifetime. New York: Harper
Collins, 2010.
Maynard, Micheline. As Trump Leans On Ford And GM, How Reagan And
Other Presidents Shaped The Auto Industry. 3 January 2017.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2017/01/03/cove
ring-the-ceo-president-donald-trump-takes-aim-at-the-auto-
industry/#7c0794967628. 30 April 2017.
Moe, Richard. "The Making of the Modern Vice Presidency: A Personal
Reflection." Presidential Studies Quarterly, Vol. 38, No.3 (2008): 390-
400.
References 214
Rainey, James. Choosing Sides on Sarah Palin. 18 February 2012.

http://articles.latimes.com/2012/feb/18/entertainment/la-et-
gamechange-20120218. 30 April 2017.
Stark, Caitlin. By the Numbers: Vice Presidents. 5 July 2012.
http://www.cnn.com/2012/07/05/politics/btn-vice-presidents/. 1
May 2017.
The Lenore Annenberg Institute for Civics. Annenberg Classrom - Twelfth
Amendment. n.d.
http://www.annenbergclassroom.org/page/twelfth-amendment. 29
April 2017.
The New York Times. Obituaries: Richard H. Hansen, Lawyer, 61. 12 January
1991. http://www.nytimes.com/1991/01/12/obituaries/richard-h-
hansen-lawyer-61.html. 4/30/17 April 2017.
"The Vice Presidency." Milkis, Sidney M. and Michael Nelson. The American
Vice Presidency: Origins & Development, 1776-1993; Second Edition.
Washington, D.C.: Congressional Quarterly Inc., 1994. 411-432.
Traub, James. The New York Times Magazine: After Cheney. 24 November
2009. http://www.nytimes.com/2009/11/29/magazine/29Biden-
t.html. 30 April 2017.
Anonymous. "An Open Letter to Denise Maybank." 8 December 2015. The
State News. http://statenews.com/article/2015/12/an-open-letter-to-
denise-maybank.
Associated Students of Michigan State University, 53rd Session. "Bill 53-71; A
Bill To: Support the Sexual Assault Task Force Recommendations."
30 March 2017. Associated Students of Michigan State University.
http://asmsu.msu.edu/wp-content/uploads/2016/04/Bill-53-71-SA-
Task-Force-Recommendations.pdf.
Berman, Laura. An unwanted touch. Two lives in free fall. A dispatch from the
drive to stop sexual assault on campus. 19 January 2017.
http://www.bridgemi.com/talent-education/unwanted-touch-two-
lives-free-fall-dispatch-drive-stop-sexual-assault-campus.
Chandra, Meena Morey. "Resolution Letter re: Michigan State University." 1
September 2015. United States Department of Education: Office for
Civil Rights. https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-
releases/michigan-state-letter.pdf.
Cody, Jason. MSU Hires Office of Institutional Equity Director, Title IX
Coordinator. 4 November 2015.
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/msu-hires-office-of-
institutional-equity-director-title-ix-coordinator/.
Silvestri 215
. "MSU Improves Timeliness of Title IX Investigations as Government

Report Released." 1 September 2015. MSU Today.
http://msutoday.msu.edu/news/2015/msu-improves-timeliness-of-
title-ix-investigations-as-government-report-released/.
Kurrie, Alex. GEU: Denise Maybank shouldn't have power to overturn sexual
assault investigations. 10 February 2016.
http://statenews.com/article/2016/02/geu-releases-petition-on-
maybank.
Lansing State Journal Editorial Board. Editorial: Title IX process should be top
priority for MSU officials. 9 April 2017.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/opinion/editorials/2017/
04/09/editorial-title-ix-process-top-priority-msu-
officials/100176054/.
Linstroth, Joe and Kate Wells. "Sexual assault investigations at MSU: a broken
system, and the efforts to fix it." 9 November 2015. Michigan Radio.
http://michiganradio.org/post/sexual-assault-investigations-msu-
broken-system-and-efforts-fix-it.
Mencarini, Matt. At MSU: Assault, harassment, and secrecy. 15 December
2016.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2016/12/15/
michigan-state-sexual-assault-harassment-larry-nassar/94993582/.
. MSU official reduced punishment in 12 Title IX case. 30 March 2017.
http://www.lansingstatejournal.com/story/news/local/2017/03/30/
michigan-state-university-appealed-title-ix-cases-denise-
maybank/99447894/.
Michigan State University. 2014 Sexual Assault and Relationship Violence
Policies and Program Task Force. 6 April 2015.
http://oie.msu.edu/documents/2014%20Sexual%20Assault%20and
%20Relationship%20Violence%20Policies%20and%20Programs%20
Task%20Force.pdf.
. Relationship Violence & Sexual Misconduct Policy, Appendix H: Student
Conduct Sanction and Appeal Procedures. 31 August 2016.
https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-procedures/university-
wide/documents/AppH_StudentConduct-Sanction-Appeal-
procedures.pdf. 5 May 2017.
. "Resolution Agreement." 28 August 2015. United States Department of
Education: Office of Civil Rights.
https://www2.ed.gov/documents/press-releases/michigan-state-
agreement.pdf.
. RVSM Policy, Appendix I: Description of MSU Disciplinary Procedures.
2016 August 31. https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-
References 216
procedures/university-
wide/documents/AppI_DisciplinarySystem.pdf. 5 May 2017.
. University Policy on Relationship Violence & Sexual Misconduct. 31
August 2016. https://www.hr.msu.edu/policies-
procedures/university-wide/documents/RVSMPolicy.pdf. 5 May
2017.
. University Policy on Sexual Harassment. January 2011.
https://acadgov.msu.edu/sites/default/files/content/University-
Council/2011SexualHarassmentPolicyRevisions-3.pdf.
Michigan State University, Department of Student Life. Spartan Life: 2015-2016
Student Handbook and Resource Guide. 2015. Print.
. Spartan Life: 2016-2017 Student Handbook and Resource Guide. 2016.
Print.
Michigan State University, Office of General Counsel. News and
Announcements: Relationship Violence & Sexual Misconduct Policy.
31 December 2014. http://ogc.msu.edu/important-
announcements/relationship_violence_sexual_misconduct_policy.htm
l.
Norris, Jessica. 2015-2016 Title IX Annual Report Cover Letter. 29 September
2016. http://titleix.msu.edu/_files/documents/2015-2016-annual-
report-cover-letter.pdf.
. Title IX Annual Report, 2015-2016 Academic Year. 29 September 2016.
http://titleix.msu.edu/_files/documents/msu-title-ix-report-print-
layout.pdf.
Office for Inclusion and Intercultural Initiatives, Michigan State University.
Annual Report on Sexual Misconduct, August 2013-2014. 9 December
2014.
http://oie.msu.edu/documents/Annual%20Report%20on%20Sexual
%20Misconduct%20August%202013%20-%20August%202014.pdf.
Office of Institutional Equity. New Office of Institutional Equity at MSU. 1
September 2015. http://oie.msu.edu/news/news-page.html.
Simon, Lou Anna K. "Statement on Sexual Assault." 1 September 2015.
Michigan State University, Office of the President.
http://president.msu.edu/advancing-msu/presidents-statement-on-
sexual-assault.html.
The State News Editorial Board. Editorial: For student safety, Maybank
shouldn't be able to overturn sexual assault cases. 26 February 2016.
http://statenews.com/article/2016/02/admin-should-strip-maybank-
of-ability-to-overturn-sexual-assault-cases.
Silvestri 217
Washington, Alice. Interview on Alice Washington's OIE Intake with Tyler

Silvestri. 1 May 2017.
Wilbur, Ray. MSU's attempt to patch broken sexual assault policies draw
criticism. 27 January 2016.
http://statenews.com/article/2016/01/michigan-state-sexual-assault-
ocr.
Silvestri 218
Occasional Writings
2013-2017
219
On Taylor Swift and Spotify

Letter responding to The State News, 12/1/2014
Im pleased that The State News and Anthony Herta are willing to have
an open, honest dialogue about an issue that desperately needs to be talked
about. The debate surrounding streaming music is an incredibly important
one that we should be focusing on.
Unfortunately, however, I vehemently disagree with nearly every point
Herta made in last weeks article. The landscape of the music industry is
rapidly evolving thanks to technology, and Taylor Swifts decision to pull her
music from Spotify only does a disservice to herself and to her fans.
In high school, I pirated more music than most people I knew. I didnt
see the point in paying for music when I could just get it for free. I attended
concerts, bought artists merchandise, and bought the physical version of an
album if it really struck a proverbial chord with me. But a vast majority of
music on my iPod had been pirated.
Fast forward a few years to the day when I couldnt remember the last
time I pirated something. I discovered Spotify, and five minutes into my free
trial of the premium version, I realized that I couldnt afford not to have the
service.
For just $10 a month, I had unlimited music at my fingertips, and when
they slashed the price in half for students, I was overjoyed. I still attend shows
and buy merchandise, but in todays climate, the music itself only serves as
an indicator of whether or not I should support the artist. Music became a
service instead of a good.
The issue at hand isnt purchasing vs. streaming, but purchasing vs.
piracy. Say what you will about the royalties Spotify pays, the decreased sales,
or the morphed economics of music; all of these current paradigms are better
than they would be under total piracy. Spotify (and Netflix, if you change the
form of the media) made me happy to pay for something I used to get for
free.
On Taylor Swift and Spotify 220
As a songwriter and recording artist myself, I want people to have easy

(albeit free) access to my songs, like the music, and come out to a show.
Id rather this happened in place of someone not getting a chance to listen
to me at all because they didnt want to risk paying for something they
wouldnt like. You cant beat the pirates with legal threats and misinformed
op-eds; you have to provide a better service.
Cultural attitudes regarding music have changed, and we need to deal with
that. Just as video killed the radio star, piracy has killed the album sale, and
as The Buggles made clear We cant rewind. Weve gone too far.
Additionally, I took issue with Hertas assertion that admitting he bought
the physical version of 1989 might make him lose [his] man card. I am
willing to shout unabashedly from the rooftops that I also own the deluxe
edition of 1989, and confess that it might just be the best thing thats ever
been mine. Suggesting that someone is less masculine for listening to an
album, artist or genre of music propagates gender stereotypes that we should
have left behind a long time ago. Like the things you like, gender be damned.
Lets face the fact that the economics of music are different, and that we
need to adjust to that or be left behind. All Miss Swift did by removing her
catalog is lose potential listeners. As much as it pains me to say it, shes on
the wrong side of this debate. Taylor, theres a blank space on my Spotify
where your name should be.
221
Letter to
I Can Make It! Camp
Leadership
7/18/2015
To Whom It May Concern,
Im writing today to expound upon some of the remarks I made in my Staff

Survey for the 2015 I Can Make It! Camp. As someone who has been involved
with the camp since 2005, I feel it necessary to voice some concerns I have with
the direction and goals the camp has taken in recent years.
I was ten years old when I came to I Can Make It! Camp for the first time. I
was terrified, and did my best to memorize the way back home in case the
counselors were mean and I had to run away. When my mother dropped me off,
I sat and cried for nearly an hour in front of the large tree that once stood in
front of the lodge. My cabin resident, Nick Barney, comforted me, and told me
that by the end of the week, I would be dreading going home; no part of me
believed him.
Ten years later, I serve as a testament to how right Nick Barney was. Year
after year, I came back to the grounds of Camp McGregor, eager to not only
learn more about math and science, but to develop new skills, gain new friends,
and make new memories with both the staff and the students. When I became
too old to be a camper, I was selected to be a Junior Counselor, and eventually I
served as a cabin resident and assistant teacher. But it pains me to say that the
camp I fell so in love with is not the same camp I attended this week.
Somewhere over the course of eleven camps, we lost sight of the principles
I Can Make It! Camp was founded on. We became a glorified day care instead of
an avenue for learning. The students no longer care to learn about the science
behind the projects they are doing, and so the teachers no longer care to teach
them. We became so concerned with making sure kids had a good time that we
Letter to I Can Make It! Camp Leadership 222
eschewed our responsibility to instruct them. The week is now spent trying to
make kids want to come back the next year, rather than trying to make them care
about manufacturing.
But the students who are eager to come back to a camp where so little
learning takes place are not the kids who make a learning-conducive environment
thrive. I can only speculate that the high-quality students that once attended I
Can Make It! Camp became disillusioned by the lack of education going on.
When we put on sub-par camps, we cant expect on-par campers. I suspect that
this vicious cycle repeated for a number of years, ultimately leading to the state
of affairs I experienced this week.
This is not, of course, entirely the fault of JAMA. It is well-documented that
kids today arent what they used to be, and there simply isnt much we can do
about that. But what we can do (and perhaps must do) is account for the new
dynamic that exists when children engage with mathematic and scientific
concepts.
I Can Make It! Camp needs a complete rebranding. We need to foster better
relationships with our local schools, and we must make them excited to send
their best and brightest to our camp. We should make it a priority to not only
target kids that have potential, but to hold camps that do not disappoint them.
This week, multiple campers asked me when they could do real science instead
of making arts and crafts. We have gone too far in the wrong direction. Campers
do not understand what the name I Can Make It! means, failing to grasp the
message of manufacturing entirely.
Its been said that growing up means watching your heroes turn human in
front of you; I grew up this week more than Id have liked to. I Can Make It!
Camp is largely responsible for many important parts of my life. It was there that
I met my best friend, learned to solve problems, and gained a new understanding
of the world around me. It would not be incorrect to say that I Can Make It!
Camp changed my life. We did not change lives this week. Campers surveys may
well indicate that they had a good time, and I have no doubt that they did. But if
we failed to impress upon them the importance of math, science, critical thinking,
and manufacturing, we have failed to achieve our goals.
I feel somewhat jaded, and am skeptical that I will return next year; this is a
sentiment shared by many of our staff. I cannot sit idly by while the camp that
meant so much to me becomes a shadow of its former self, let alone take part in
Silvestri 223
it. As such, I am offering a few suggestions from the perspective of someone

who has been both a camper and a counselor:
1. I Can Make It! Camp needs to be repackaged and resold to parents
and students alike. This may or may not include a name change or
even taking a year off to nail down a philosophy.
2. We must have a clear mission statement. What are we trying to teach
campers and why? Are we succeeding in doing so?
3. A staff training would be helpful. This should take the form of an I
Can Make It! Camp-centric session where staff are made aware of the
goals, procedures, and philosophy of the program. This goes beyond
learning to deal with unruly students; it should emphasize the mission
statement and remind each of us why we do what we do.
4. Institute a one-year waiting period between being a camper and being
a counselor-in-training. Its difficult for young teenagers to operate in
a leadership capacity over the same campers who were their colleagues
just one year earlier. Blurred lines like that are not conducive to
positive camper-counselor relations.
I would again emphasize that the paradigm shift that occurred in our camp is
not the fault of any one employee or branch at JAMA or I Can Make It! Camp.
It is a result of a change in our organizational culture. My goal in writing this
letter is not to provide all of the answers, but to start asking the questions. We
need a reminder of the purpose and function of I Can Make It! Camp, and need
to honestly and candidly evaluate whether or not we are living up to it.
Please let me know if there is anything I can do to assist in making I Can
Make It! Camp a better experience for campers and staff alike. I encourage you
to contact me with any follow-up questions or comments you may have. Thank
you for your help in creating the camp I loved, and I hope you can help me in
re-creating what we once had.
Best regards,
Tyler Silvestri
224
First Case Recap

Student Defenders, Fall 2015
The latest chapter in my time as a Student Defender unfolded in a

predictably unpredictable way. It began at my first meeting with my client,
who Ill call Edward Norton. Ed is a James Madison freshman, and the
incident he was involved in occurred during his first semester at MSU. Ed
explained the facts of the case to me, and I left our meeting thinking that he
needed a lawyer, not a Student Defender.
At some point in early November, Ed and his friends, Brad Pitt and
Jared Leto, began arguing about who was physically stronger. To resolve
this dispute, the parties put on thick sweaters and hockey gloves and began
to wrestle in a friendly manner, according to Ed. There was a
misunderstanding in the rules of this off-campus fight club regarding the
permissibility of punches to the face. Ed thought face-shots were allowed,
while Brad did not; predictably, Ed punched Brad in the face three times. The
fight ended, and the parties continued to be friends.
A few days later, on November 12th, Ed, Brad, and Jared were playing
video games in Eds room when Edward asked Brad if Brad had any plans to
pay back a $40 loan Edward had extended a month earlier. Brad said he was
no longer required to pay back the $40 since Ed had punched him in the face.
Edward disagreed with this assessment, and the pair began to argue.
Eventually, Brad stood up quickly, which Edward interpreted as a threat. Ed
put his hands around Brads throat and placed Brad back in his chair. A verbal
argument continued from there, until an RA knocked on the door. Jared let
the RA in, and explained that Ed had just choked Brad. The RA asked Brad
if he thought the police should be contacted, and Brad said yes. Seconds
later, Brad asked the RA not to call the police, but the RA said it was too late.
The police came, but Brad did not want to press charges, so they left.
I began to prepare some sort of strategy based on begging for leniency,
but Edward revealed an unexpected twist: Brad was willing to be a witness
Silvestri 225
for him. The pair had continued being friends after the incident, and Brad
didnt want to see anything bad happen to Ed as a result of the fight.
Throughout this meeting and one subsequent one, Ed appeared stoic and
almost ambivalent about what was going on. I tried to express the seriousness
of what was going on, but Brad didnt seem to care. At our second meeting,
it became clear to me why: Ed was planning to transfer to the University of
Michigan in the Fall of 2017. All that mattered was that he wasnt dismissed
or suspended, and he would be happy to accept any punishment short of that.
It was also at this point that he informed me of an extenuating circumstance:
on November 1st, Ed had been caught with marijuana in the residence halls
and had been placed on probation. Because of this, dismissal became a very
real possibility for Ed.
My first thought was to suggest Ed accept responsibility and take a lesser
sanction, but the fear of dismissal loomed over us. Then the degree of luck
we had been blessed with occurred to me: the victim in this case was willing
to say he thought no sanction was necessary. Someone in the administration
needed to take that into account when deciding a sanction, but there is no
formal process by which Edward could admit responsibility and still call
witnesses. As risky as it was, denying responsibility was the best choice.
Fast forward to the hearing. With the help of Josh [Kenny, the Director
of Student Defenders], I prepared an opening statement for Ed, which he
delivered flawlessly. In it, he expressed regret for the role he played in the
incident, but noted that extenuating circumstances made most sanctions
inappropriate.
Ed called two witnesses, Brad and Jared, both of whom I had met with
and gone over sample questions. Through Brads questioning, we were able
to present a victim on the side of his aggressor. Through Jareds questioning,
we were able to corroborate Eds version of the events.
After both of our witnesses had been called, Eds tone changed. He
appeared incredibly remorseful, and answered all of the boards questions
apologetically. Eventually, a board member asked why he was denying
responsibility when he appeared to recognize he was responsible. Ed
explained he thought it was important to call witnesses. The board seemed
confused, but accepted his answer.
First Student Defenders Case Recap 226
During my closing statement, I tried to clear up some of the confusion. I

explained that there was no formal process by which we could call witnesses
and accept responsibility. Rick Shafer, the facilitator of the proceedings,
confirmed that I was correct. At this point, the board turned to Rick, asking
why there was no common sense process Edward could have operated
within. Somehow, I had made the board angry at the University, not my
violence-inclined client. It was, in a word, amazing.
I finished up by pointing to the principles of restorative justice. I
explained that the needs of the victim had been met, as we heard from the
victim himself. I argued the needs of the aggressor had been met, as Edward
had voluntarily undergone counseling and would continue to do so. I then
suggested that the needs of the community could be met by placing my client
on an extended probation until graduation; this is a harsh punishment for a
freshman, but we were so confident that Edward had learned from this
experience, it didnt bother him. Of course, I knew something the board
didnt: Edward wouldnt be at MSU long enough for the probation to have
any real effect.
The board agreed with me, and extended Eds probation to graduation,
allowing him to continue living in the residence halls. To recap, Ed received
probation for starting a fight club, punching someone, and choking the same
guy a few days later, all while already on probation for a drug charge. I confess,
I did not see that coming.
Silvestri 227
Tylers Narrative on Learning

An Excerpt of a Paper by Andrew Hua
for EAD 861, Fall 2015
For this assignment, I decided to conduct an interview with an

undergraduate student, Tyler Silvestri. When requesting Tylers participation
in my assignment, I allowed Tyler to select the location and time that was
most comfortable for him. Tyler and I met at approximately 10:00 p.m. in his
residence hall. Tyler answered a total of six questions within a span of 35
minutes. Five of the six questions focused on what, where, how, and why
Tyler learns as an adult learner; the final question focused on getting to know
Tyler and capturing any salient identities that may have played a role in his
learning process.
The Learner: Tyler

In my interview with Tyler, Tyler reported that he is currently 20 years
old and has lived his entire life in Michigan. In addition, Tyler is currently a
junior studying Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy; Tyler is also
working toward a minor in Philosophy and Law. Tylers educational career is
focused on exploring non-governmental approaches to various social
problems through a classical liberal philosophy lens.
Tylers Learning Environments

Tyler shared that his learning occurs both inside and outside the
classroom environment. Tylers learning outside of the classroom is heavily
focused on the learning through the mechanics of interpersonal
relationships. Tyler stated that the structure of his classes is conducive to
his learning because the professors role is not to teach necessarily, but to
facilitate discussions. Tyler expressed that the discussion amongst his peers
stimulates his learning because he has the opportunity to hear different
perspectives, reflect upon his classmates views, and evaluate what new
information or viewpoints he may have gleaned from the discussion. After
classes, Tyler stated that he spends the next day or two pondering upon the
Tylers Narrative on Learning Andrew Hua 228
discussion that was held in the class. Based on our conversation, Tylers
experience aligns with concepts associated with Kolbs Model of Learning
Styles. When Tyler engages in class discussions, Tyler uses logic and concepts,
and often, compares new experiences to old ones to discover similarities
and differences, and then develops his own concepts to describe ideas about
these comparisons (Mackeracher, 2004, p. 84). Because Tyler tends to reflect
upon the learning that occurs in the classroom and then tries to make
meaning of the experience, Tyler seems to be skilled in using reflective
observation (Mackeracher, 2004, p. 85). Therefore, I can conclude that Tyler
is an assimilative learner a learner that prefers feedback on assignments and
being provided an adequate amount of time to think over things before
expressing their opinions (Mackeracher, 2004).
Tylers learning is not confined to the parameters of a traditional
classroom; Tyler shared that he also learns outside the classroom amongst
his colleagues. Tyler currently holds various positions on campus, including
being a Resident Assistant for Michigan State Universitys (MSU) Residence
Education and Housing Services, a Student Defender for Associated
Students of Michigan State University, and President of a campus political
organization. Tyler shared that his experiences in his various roles have
challenged him to think differently and expand his perspective. Merriam and
Bierema (2014) stated that the role of experience in learning is crucial to
understanding the concept of adult learning. Furthermore, the ability to make,
understand, and change meaning are essential aspects of adult development
that continuously occur in todays society (Wlodkowski, 2008).
Tylers Motivations
Initially, when I asked Tyler why he chooses to learn and expand his
knowledge, he shared that learning is inevitable and that he does not have a
choice, [because he is] constantly learning something just by responding to
the world around [him]. Tyler also pointed to a more pragmatic rationale;
by identifying better approaches to address certain experiences, Tyler believes
he can take what he has learned and apply it to future situations to create
better results. In addition, Tyler indicated that he learns for the sake of
learning because, [t]he universe has existed for something like 13 billion
years, and I will leave it in 60 to 70 [years]. The fact that I am here for such a
Silvestri 229
small sliver of time is quite the opportunity and an exciting thing. I want to
learn as much about [the world] as I can while Im here, simply because I
wont have the chance to do it anymore in a relatively short amount of time.
Overall, Tyler shared that he chooses to learn because learning brings him
pure enjoyment, which insinuates that Tyler is a learning-oriented learner
an individual who is, focused on developing new knowledge for the sake of
learning (Merriam & Bierema, 2014, p. 151).
Identities
During Tylers interview, I asked if there were any particular social
identities that played a role in his learning process. Tyler shared that his
identities as a white, straight, male, combined with the fact that he is not a
first-generation college student has influenced his learning process. Tyler
believes that because he has a college-educated mother who works as an
elementary reading teacher, he had a distinct advantage when he entered the
educational system. Tyler stated he excelled in the classroom, especially when
he was challenged to read a book that was above the average reading standard
for his age. Tyler also stated that his dominant identities being a Caucasian,
heterosexual man do carry some level of privilege and impact the way he
thinks. Tyler does not recognize quite how his learning has been affected,
however Tyler believes that there is some level of privilege he receives and
unique perspectives he can offer with his intersecting identities.
References
Hansman, C.A., & Mott, V.W. (2010). Adult learners. In C.E. Kasworm, A.D.
Rose, & J.M. Ross-Gordon (Eds.), Adult and continuing education, 13-21. Los
Angelos, CA: SAGE Publications.
Mackeracher, D. (2004). Making sense of adult learning. University of Toronto Press.
Merriam, S. B., & Bierema, L. L. (2014). Adult learning: Linking theory and practice. San
Francisco, CA: John Wiley & Sons.
Wlodkowski, R. J. (2008). Enhancing adult motivation to learn: A comprehensive guide for
teaching all adults. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.
230
Letter to 2015-16
Mason-Abbot
Resident Assistant Staff
4/29/2016
Dear Owls,
Im writing today to thank each of you for the role you played in giving
me the most exciting, unpredictable, wonderful, exhausting, and more than
anything incredible year.
I entered the year expecting to hate being a Resident Assistant. I didnt
think Id like programming, bulletin boards, building relationships with
residents, or living with the people with whom I worked. As fate would have
it, I did end up hating bulletin boards and programming; but I learned to love
the residents of Mason-Abbot, and I couldnt help but love my staff members.
Upon starting Fall training, I saw the level of commitment and care
everyone had for their jobs. You emanated positivity and professionalism,
and I immediately felt like I couldnt let you down. The last thing I wanted
to be was the weakest link on such a great team. The returners did such a
great job of welcoming the owlets and never creating an us vs. them
mentality, and I so appreciated that.
I remember being frightened at how much I liked you guys from the get-
go. Whether it was because of campy activities like Cross the Line or just
because youre all great people, we got excessively close very quickly. Theres
something to be said for putting a group of people through a grueling
experience like training. It was refreshing to have friends who werent in my
major and who had markedly different interests, hobbies, and talents than
me. By the time our residents moved in, my list of best friends had expanded
greatly; this, like most things, made me intensely uncomfortable.
Silvestri 231
I kept waiting for that closeness to end. I figured that as classes started
and our real friends moved back, wed grow apart. But we didnt. The fact
that I ate dinner with the same people every night for almost a year is
staggering. The fact that I had 17 people I could count on for nine months
is truly something special.
I look back on some parts of the year and almost cant believe theyre real;
residents are just weird. Ill never forgetas hard as I may tryabout the
snakes we found in rooms, the arrests that just seemed to keep escalating, the
pursuits through the hallway, or the times we couldnt figure out if a smell
was pot or perfume. I cant express how grateful I a.m. that I had a team like
ours to help me through the shenanigans.
Our highs were high. I have never smiled more than I did this year. How
many times do you think we sang Raspberry Beret or Build Me Up,
Buttercup at the top of our lungs? How many times did we laugh
uncontrollably and forget why? And be honesthow many times did you
catch yourself humming Space Facts? Im not exaggerating when I say that
this year was the best year of my life, and that is largely due to the lot of you.
But our lows were low. We started off with some confusion as to who
exactly was in charge, and went through a number of leadership changes. As
the year went on, we dealt with personal, professional, and academic struggles.
The very real concern of mental health crept its way onto our floors and into
our community, and we had to pick up a lot of the pieces. But we did it
together. I think I speak for everyone when I say that without the team we
had, a number of us would not have handled this year as well as we did.
Ive enclosed a short note to each of you explaining how you individually
impacted me. I would not be the person I am today without the influence of
each you, and Id like to detail that a little bit.
In short, please know that each of you had a tremendous impact on me
as an RA and as an individual. We will never be able to replicate this incredible
year. To those of you coming back, I hope youll join me in giving the new
RAs an equally amazing experience. And to those leaving, understand that
while REHS has filled your position, your role in our lives can never be
substituted. I did not expect this job to be the defining experience of my
collegiate career. Id wanted to be in Case Hall, and was upset I was placed
Letter to Mason-Abbot Staff 232
in a small building Id never heard of; because of you, Ive never been so
happy to not get my way. Thanks for everything.
With love,
Tyler Silvestri
233
Letter Regarding
The Great North1
9/20/2016
Ms. Hancock,
First and foremost, welcome to North Neighborhood. Weve heard much

about your successes as Neighborhood Engagement Director for River Trail,
and were excited to see what we can do during our first year together. The
North is full of driven, hardworking, and (as you probably noticed from our
neighborhood meeting) impassioned individuals, and we cant wait to work
with your office to give our residents the best possible experience.
In the spirit of welcoming you to North Neighborhood, we wanted to
make it clear why we think of ourselves as The Great North, as well as
what that designation means to many of us. For numerous students and staff
living North of the Red Cedar, Great North is not a statement of arrogance,
but a fun, spirited way of taking pride in the place we call home; this isnt
done to discredit the amazing achievements of other neighborhoods, but to
create a bond between the residents of our own. Despite the fair amount of
disagreement surrounding it, your presentation last night has undeniably
made us reflect on the values and traditions that make North great, and we
thank you for that.
Wed like to help you understand why so many of the Wolves, Bears, and
Owls ardently defend our identity as the Great North. North is known for
1 Editors Note: For context, Michigan States North Neighborhood was often
called The Great North by residence hall staff. Jodi Hancock, whom I continue
to respect greatly, entered North Neighborhood in a new position, and remarked
that North would no longer go use the nickname, because she felt it was arrogant. I
authored the following response after seeking feedback from my colleagues.
our drive, our residents high return rates, and our gorgeous scenerywe
take serious subjects seriously. But we also know how to play just as hard.
Last year, North Neighborhood was the venue for numerous exciting events
and initiatives. We held the expansive, neighborhood-wide Great North
Games, challenging ourselves and each other to be the best we could be. We
pooled our resources together to hold Fall Fest and a Spring Carnival, with
Sparty himself making an appearance at each. We created a Facebook
campaign called Humans of the Great North featuring interviews with our
residents (some of our favorites can be found at http://bit.ly/2cXxy09). This
summer, a group of Mason-Abbot/Snyder-Phillips RAs wrote and recorded
a musical about Resident Assistants and residence hall life. Residents in our
neighborhood held prestigious internships, wrote plays, authored bills in
ASMSUs General Assembly, pioneered programs, and put their talents to
work in innumerable other ways around campus.
One of our staff members shared his experience moving to the Great
North: I lived in South Neighborhood for two years, and it always felt like
an extended summer camp; it was where I slept, but it wasnt home. I will
never forget my third day in North Neighborhood, when I walked into my
room and couldnt help but grinI regretted every second I didnt live in the
North.2 Another staff member, new to the North this year, found the sense
of community in her first weeks here remarkable. I felt so welcomed and
supported being added to The Great North. I had the sense that there was
a substantial community that I was now a part of, and I was instantly proud
to be on board.
So when its said that the Great North has an attitude of arrogance, we
cant help but feel off-put, especially when, by your own admission, the
phrase didnt bother you until you were saying it yourself. We dont blame
you for feeling strange when saying The Great Northyou werent here
last year to help us make it great, by no fault of your own. You didnt cheer
on your neighbors during the Great North Games, laugh with us during our
dozens of events, or cry with us during our disproportionate share of
tragedies. For someone who wasnt here last year to discredit our successes
2 Editors Note: This was me.

Silvestri 235
is very offensive to those who worked so hard to achieve them. Your

presentation should have served as a reminder of why we call ourselves
great, not a challenge to the idea itself.
Let us be clear: you are absolutely correct in saying that North is not
perfect. No one is more abundantly aware of that than the people who spend
every day in Norths halls. So, lets talk candidly about the two most prevalent
problems the North Faces: our lack of diversity and our disproportionate
number of mental health issues.
In the Fall of 2015 (the last semester that sociodemographic data is
publicly available), 75% of North residents were Caucasian, compared to the
campus average of 63%. This 12% disparity is unfortunate, and our RAs and
ICAs (in the years they are assigned to North) work hard to make sure
residents of all backgrounds feel comfortable and included. We do this
through one-on-one conversations with residents, hosting community
meetings regarding race and gender, educational bulletin boards, and taking
advantage of resources like MRULE. Could we do better? Certainly. Does
this statistic preclude us from being great? Certainly not. The complex factors
that cause the lower minority representation in North Neighborhood
(including the new self-selection of rooms for freshmen, the placement of
ICAs in neighborhoods, and the historical stereotypes associated with the
neighborhood) cannot all be solved by REHS staff, but the efforts we have
been taking and will continue show great potential.
The same is true for the unfortunate precedence of mental health issues
in our community. There are RAs from other neighborhoods who can talk
about never dealing with a suicide ideation; last year, many members of our
staff handled them monthly. North was the venue of two completed suicides
last year, and multiple unsuccessful attempts. These tragedies hit hard and
deep in our buildings, but we persevered; our greatness lies in the fact that
when the North falls down, we get back up again. We dont have the solution
to the mental health crisis on college campuses, but we do an admirable,
meaningful, and great job dealing with the fallout from these incidents.
Nobody blames you for not understanding Norths greatnessthere are
undeniable issues that we have a responsibility to address, and you werent
here to witness many of our successes. But we ask that you try to understand
what those successes mean to us.
In a year where so many institutional changes are happening within REHS,

from leadership shifts to the introduction of the Residential Learning Model,
the one thing North staff felt safe in was our identity as the Great North; that
identity was undermined at our meeting. This change in language made
many members of our team feel disrespected, disenfranchised, and as if their
voice as community participants had been erased. When the new direction
was questioned, we were told that we as a staff were not representative of
campus; no one in a student-staff role has any control over their placement,
and this remark led us to further question our role in the community. In fact,
many cite this as the point when they changed perspective from bothered
but willing to discuss to angry and unwilling to continue. We have no
doubt that this was not your objective, but we are respectfully asking you to
own your impact as well as your intention.
In the spirit of restorative justice, we want to focus on moving forward.
It is our hope that our year together is characterized by the success of our
residents, not by the events of one meetingfor this to occur, we believe
that our identity as The Great North should be respected, and that our
voice as staff members should heard before decisions regarding community
identities and philosophies are made.
In the mile between Abbot and Williams, we have more than 2,600
incredible residents, and scores of hard-working, dedicated student staff
members. If you wonder why North is great, please ask any one of them. No
matter what adjective we use, North is an incredible place to live and work,
and were so glad that youre here to take part in the experience with us. Our
hope is that over the course of the next year, we can work together toward
student success. We are confident that after your first year as a member of
our community, saying the Great North will come as naturally as saying
your name.
Respectfully,
Members of The Great North
237
An Open Letter to
Friends Considering
Voting for Trump
10/20/2016
Ill come right out and say it: Im writing this in an effort to dissuade you
from voting for Donald Trump come November 8th. If youre the sort of
person who has been on the Trump Train since Day 1, this probably isnt for
you. If youve ever called our former First Lady and Secretary of State
Crooked Hillary, youre probably not the target audience. But if youre
open to hearing new ideas and changing your opinion, Id like to give it a
shot. Ill be focusing on three main arguments that pro-Trump folks make:
The Supreme Court, the religious viewpoint, and a lack of a better option.
The Supreme Court is my jam. As an aspiring attorney, student of political
theory, and frequent SCOTUSblog reader, Im particularly sympathetic to the
argument that we have to elect Trump because Clinton would appoint a few
very liberal judges to the Bench. But that claim looks a lot better on the
surface than when you actually delve into it.
First of all, its tough to nail down exactly what kind of judges Trump
might appoint. Hes provided a list of potential appointees, but Trumps not
exactly been the best at sticking to his word. Trump has had fairly liberal
leanings in the past (even calling himself very pro-choice), and Im skeptical
that hes as principled as his supporters make him out to be.
But assume he does stick to the list; theres still no guarantee the nominees
get appointed. If Merrick Garlands stalled confirmation is any indication, the
Senate is pretty much calling the shots here. I wouldnt be surprised if we
stick with eight Justices for a while, regardless of who wins.
But if we further assume he sticks to the list, and that his nominees get
appointed, its still difficult to argue that Trumps vision of America will be
advocated for. The Supreme Court case in which the Affordable Care Act
Letter to Friends Considering Voting for Trump 238
(Obamacare) was upheld was decided by a tie-breaking vote from Chief

Justice John Roberts, who, I neednt remind you, was appointed by President
George W. Bush, a Republican. Legal philosophy is a funny thing; judicial
theories sometimes lead to weird results, and theres no promise that Trumps
appointees will advocate for conservatism effectively. Im not alone in this
thought; joining me is former Republican presidential nominee John McCain
and dozens conservative law professors and legal scholars. And in any case,
the Supreme Court is the most democratic branch of government, at least
according to legal commentator Jeffery Rosen. Rosen has argued extensively
that the Supreme Court is frequently just playing catch-up with the feelings
of the American populace. How else do we explain the diametrically opposed
interpretations of the past and present on issues like marriage equality, gun
rights, and even slavery. The Court has generally sided with the conclusion
that most Americans already supported. Rosen calls the idea of,
antidemocratic courts protecting vulnerable minorities against tyrannical
majorities a romantic myth, and points out that unpopular Supreme Court
decisions are frequently overturned. If youre worried about the Supreme
Court ruling in a way you dont like, youre better off becoming a community
activist to sway people to your side than voting for Trump.
But enough about the Courtlets let Jesus take the wheel. I frequently
hear devout Christians supporting Trump. This blows me away. Few people
strike me as less Christ-like than Donald Trump. Some of his nonsense (like
calling 2 Corinthians two Corinthians rather than second Corinthians) can
be attributed to the stresses of being on the campaign trail, I suppose. But
much of what he espouses seems so strikingly in conflict with the teachings
of Christ. Allow me to borrow from the Huffington Posts excellent article
on this subject for a moment; where Jesus says, I have not come to call the
righteous, but sinners to repentance, Trump retorts, Why do I have to
repent, why do I have to ask for forgiveness if [Im] not making mistakes?.
Where Jesus instructs, Love your neighbor as yourself, Trump decides he
will, build a great, great wall on our southern border, and I will make Mexico
pay for that wall. Jesus wants you to, Love your enemies, bless those who
curse you, do good to those who hate you, while Trump recommends that,
when people wrong you, go after those people, because it is a good feeling
and because other people will see you doing it. I always get even. This is not
Silvestri 239
a man who has taken Christs teachings to heart. Conservatives are

advocating for a man who has never sought forgiveness from Jesus, a practice
that is, of course, a key tenet of the Christian faith.
But dont take my word for it; listen to prominent Christian leaders.
Popular evangelical author Max Lucado has been nothing short of savage
toward Trump, arguing that he does not pass the decency test he gives
potential suitors of Lucados daughters. Such insensitivities wouldnt be
acceptable even for a middle school student body election. But for the Oval
Office? And to do so while brandishing a Bible and boasting of his Christian
faith? If a public personality calls on Christ one day and calls someone a
bimbo the next, is something not awry? And to do so, not once, but
repeatedly? Unrepentantly? Unapologetically? Can we not expect a tone that
would set a good example for our children? We stand against bullying in
schools. Shouldnt we do the same in presidential politics?
Russel Moore, President of the Southern Baptist Conventions Ethics and
Religious Liberty Commission, argued that, If racial division, misogyny,
sexual debauchery, demagoguery, authoritarianism are secondary issues for
you, thats not values voting.
Lets talk seriously about religious liberty. Religious liberty has become
a rallying cry of conservatives, and I dont blame them. Its very important to
me, and its one of the main reasons Im so ardently opposing a Trump
presidency. Trump has repeatedly called for a a total and complete
shutdown of Muslims entering the United States. He has also refused to rule
out (and arguably supported) a database of all Muslims already in the country,
as well as using surveillance tactics on mosques.
What could be more of an affront to religious liberty? Imagine if a
President banned Christians from entering America and attempted to surveil
churches. We would (rightfully) lose our minds. We need to stick to our
principles here. America was founded on the idea that the government
shouldnt be involved with the practice and exercise of religionwhy is that
standard different for Muslims?
But Im really conservative, you might say; the bad news is that Trump
isnt. Hes bad on free speech, bad on religious liberty, and bad on
conservativism generally. He is vulgar, crass, predatory, and offensive to
nearly anyone with any viewpoint or convictions whatsoever. And the worst
Letter to Friends Considering Voting for Trump 240
part is that hes going to kill your party. Republicans are increasingly being
associated with hatred and bigotry, in no small part due to the incendiary
rhetoric of Trump. This sort of attitude is dying out, and the Republican Party
needs to adapt its message if it is to survive. Trump is a sure step in the
opposite direction.
Note that I have not recommended voting for Hillary Clinton thus far.
This wasnt an oversightIm not going to. I cant stand Hillary Clinton, and
will almost certainly not vote for her. She is a seriously flawed candidate, and
I dont want her to be the President. Hillary Clinton represents everything
wrong with politics; but Donald Trump represents everything wrong with
humanity.
Personally, Ill likely vote for Gary Johnson, the two-term governor of
New Mexico who is currently polling around 7%. If a third party gets 5% of
the general vote, they are entitled to funds from the Presidential Election
Campaign Fund, which would go a long way in ending the two-party system.
But if Johnsons not your speed, dont vote for him. I get that. Vote for
the candidate that best matches your views and who isnt a repugnant human
being. The fact is, Hillary Clinton will almost definitely be the next President
(an 86.9% chance according to Nate Silver of FiveThirtyEight.)1 You can go
down in history as having voted for a candidate who wont win, but was at
least defensible, or you can vote for one of the most dangerous, least-
qualified, and blatantly offensive candidates to ever seek the highest office in
the land.
Vote. Just dont vote for Trump.
Much love,
Tyler
1Editors Note: Alright, I called that one wrong. Nonetheless, I stand by the rest
of the piece.
Silvestri 241
Response to
The State News
Endorsements of
William Deary and
Dan Kelly
11/3/2016
I was very disappointed to read your endorsements of MSU Trustee

candidates William Deary and Dan Kelly. Youve argued that because
undesirable things happened during the tenure of incumbents Diann
Woodard and Dianne Byrum, they do not deserve to be re-elected. This a
weak argument, especially given the specific objections you raised to their
performance.
In endorsing the Republicans on the ballot, you charge Trustees Woodard
and Byrum of being, woefully poor at fulfilling a duty to students because
tuition has been raised while they have sat on the board. This completely
ignores the fact that Trustee Woodard voted against tuition increases.
Furthermore, Trustee Byrum identified tuition increases as the top issue
facing MSU, saying, we should encourage undergraduate degree completion
within four years; provide support to reduce drop-out-rates; and maintain
university-supported scholarships to ensure the high value of an MSU
education. The State News is calling to replace the trustees who are actually
on our side.
In their stead, you have endorsed two conservatives who demonstrate a
striking ignorance of what makes MSU great. Both William Deary and Dan
Response to The State News Endorsements 242
Kelly have spoken unfavorably of those students who come to MSU

internationally or from out-of-state. Mr. Deary has called for a cap on out-
of-state and international students, and Mr. Kelly has decried the rise in
prevalence of such students, despite the fact that 77% of MSU students hail
from Michigan.
To Mr. Deary and Mr. Kelly, I have one thing to say: We are all Spartans.
Some of our best and brightest here at MSU have come to us from outside
of Michigans borders, including Connor Cook, Lou Anna Simon, Adrian
Payne, and Mark Dantonio. MSU should be concerned only with admitting
the best potential Spartans; to set a cap on out-of-state or international
students is xenophobic and discriminatory.
Furthermore, Mr. Kellys intense views on social issues should not be
seen as a mark in his favor. At a time when campus climate is so volatile
and especially given the vitriol with which you have criticized organizations
like ASMSU for a perceived lack of diversity a candidate whose views
alienate students should not be seen as a welcome change, but as a threat
to the values MSU holds dear.
In your endorsement of Presidential Hillary Clinton, you derided Donald
Trump for, his alienating rhetoric, usually racially-charged and teeming with
ignorance, calling it, uncharacteristic of American ideals and the type of
backward thinking that is a detriment to a free society. I would encourage
you to consider Mr. Kellys positions similarly. Our current Board has
problems, without a doubt. But replacing our allies on the Board with people
directly in conflict with the values of todays Spartans is not the answer.
243
James Madison College

Student Commencement
Speech
5/6/2017
When friends and family ask me to describe James Madison College, I

never stop at a public affairs-focused liberal arts education. Inevitably, I
tell them about my first year at Madison, so that they learn about it the same
way I did.
On my first day in James Madison College, Professor Louis Hunt
facilitated a discussion on the book Tent of Miracles, which all members of my
class had been assigned to read over the summer.
I had not done the reading.
Feeling bold, I raised my hand and took a stab at what I thought the theme
of the book might have been, based only on the cover and the comments of
classmates who had actually done the reading.
After my shot in the dark inevitably went awry, Professor Hunt turned to
the class and said, Its clear to me that some of you did not do the reading.
I suggest you do so from now on. In that moment, my Madison education
began.
I spent the next couple weeks avidly combing every assigned page in
hopes I could avoid repeating my first class. I also tried to figure out my
professors political views, believing that if I wrote things they agreed with,
Id receive better grades. After deducing what I thought to be Professor
Kleinermans views on Abraham Lincoln, I smugly turned in my very first
Madison paper, criticizing the President over a perceived lack of concern for
civil liberties.
The next day, Professor Kleinerman strolled into class and shared an
anecdote from the previous evening. His daughter had asked him who his
Student Commencement Speech 244
hero was, and he responded proudly, President Lincoln. I was convinced I

had just failed my assignment. After two weeks of stress, we received our
papers back. At the end of mine, Professor Kleinerman had written, This is
a well-argued and well-reasoned paper. I disagree with every single word.
3.75.
It was then that I learned what Madison was all about. The JMC faculty
wasnt trying to force their views on impressionable young freshmenthey
were challenging us to refine our own. From that moment on, I committed
to saying only that which I truly believed, even if I was the only one saying it.
And if theres one thing Madison students are good at it, its saying what
we think. Of the 22 student-written letters published by the State News since
last June, 64% were written by Madison studentsthat is a true, non-
alternative fact. Subject matter included diversity of thought, sexual assault,
the campus climate regarding race, and other critical issues Spartans of all
majors grappled with. In fact, I wrote one during my sophomore year after
Taylor Swift removed her music from Spotify; admittedly, not all letters were
of equal gravity.
That eagerness to get involved is the Madison difference. If theres one
thing that can be said about every member of the Madison student body, its
that we all care. A lot. Every one of us has our own pet projects and causes
that we care more about than virtually anyone else. For me, it was advocating
for student rights within the University judicial system; for the last two years,
my classmate Mitch Bild and I worked with (and occasionally against) the
University administration, defending students accused of policy violations,
and reforming university-wide regulations.
Now, I can absolutely see why that doesnt appeal to everyonebut thats
the beauty of a Madison education. We were given the tools we needed to
succeed at whatever we set our minds to. Many of you had a passion for
issues like the environment, mental health reform, diversity, and inclusion.
Some of you spent your time at MSU fighting for progressive causes on small
and large scales, while others advocated for the conservative principles you
hold dear. Whatever our goal, Madison students go after it with precision,
assurance, and acumen.
Ill confess that some of my non-Madison friends have more ostensibly
tangible skills than I do. But Madison fostered an environment where we
Silvestri 245
were encouraged to challenge ourselves and each other, and honed our
writing, reading, and speaking skills so that we can confidently approach any
new situation with our wits about us. Because of James Madison, I know that
even if I dont know exactly what Im doing when Im facing some new
challenge, Ill figure it out shortlyI cant say the same of some students in
other majors.
Speaking of our friends in Lyman Briggs, I feel obligated to address an
epidemic that Ive seen plaguing our campus recently. Why is it that every
Briggs student who has heard Hamilton thinks theyre qualified to speak on
The Federalist Papers? First of all, we read them before they were cool. And
secondly, every one of us knows that all the best ones were written by
Madison.
In all seriousness though, I have to attribute so much of the drive that
was instilled in us to our incredible faculty and staff. I have never encountered
educators so dedicated to educating. Even Dean Garnett can be seen
wandering the halls and classrooms of Case. Although when asked how hes
doing, he generally says hed tell you but hed have to kill you, and then
disappears to the Ukraine for a month.
As my four years as a Spartan come to a close, I am so grateful for all the
opportunities afforded to me. In the future, I can only hope to be surrounded
by people as bright, passionate, andif were being honestintense. The
drive, debate, and diligence Ive witnessed during my time at Madison have
floored me. I cant wait to see how the members of our class impact the world.
In such politically tumultuous times, its uncertain where life may take us
but I am certain that no matter where the world goes, Madison students will
be at the front.
Thanks very much.
A recording of this speech can be found at

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nV0h8zF3bpg.
Student Commencement Speech First Draft 246
First Draft
When friends and family ask me to describe James Madison College, I
never stop at a public affairs-focused liberal arts education. Inevitably, I
tell them about my first year at Madison, so that they learn about it the same
way I did.
On my first day in James Madison College, Professor Louis Hunt
facilitated a discussion on the book Tent of Miracles by Jorge Amado,
which all members of my class had been assigned to read over the summer.
I had not done the reading. Feeling bold, I raised my hand and took a stab at
what I thought the theme of the book might have been, informed only by
the cover and the comments of classmates who actually did the reading. After
my shot in the dark went awry, Professor Hunt turned to the class and said,
Its clear to me that some of you did not do the reading. I suggest you do so
from now on. In that moment, my Madison education began.
I spent the next couple weeks avidly combing every assigned page in
hopes I could avoid repeating my first class. I also tried to figure out my
professors political views, believing that if I wrote things they agreed with,
Id receive better grades. After deducing what I thought to be Professor
Kleinermans views on Abraham Lincoln, I smugly turned in my very first
Madison paper, criticizing Abraham Lincoln over a perceived lack of concern
for civil liberties. The next day, Professor Kleinerman strolled into class and
shared an anecdote from the previous evening. His daughter had asked him
who his hero was, and he responded proudly, President Lincoln. I was
convinced I had just failed my assignment. After two weeks of stress, we
received our papers back. At the end of mine, Professor Kleinerman had
written, This is a well-argued and well-reasoned paper. I disagree with every
single word. 3.75.
It was then that I learned what Madison was all about. The JMC faculty
wasnt trying to force their views on impressionable young freshmenthey
were trying to challenge us to refine our own. From that moment on, I
committed to saying only that which I truly believed, even if I was the only
one saying it.
And if theres one thing Madison students are good at it, its saying what
we think. When we werent busy being mercilessly teased by the Black Sheep,
Silvestri 247
Madison students took to the State News to address the issues facing our
campus, state, and country. Of the 22 student-written letters to the editor
since last June, 64% were written by Madison studentsthat is a true, non-
alternative fact. Subject matter included diversity of thought, sexual assault,
the campus climate regarding race, and other critical issues Spartans of all
majors grappled with. In fact, I wrote one during my sophomore year after
Taylor Swift removed her music from Spotify; clearly, not all letters were of
equal gravity.
To me, that eagerness to get involved is the Madison difference. If theres
one thing that can be said about every member of the culturally and
intellectually diverse Madison student body, its that we all care a lot. Every
one of us has our own pet projects and causes that we care more about than
virtually anyone else. For me, it was advocating for student rights within the
University judicial system; for the last two years, my partner-in-crime,
graduating Madison senior Mitchell Bild, and I worked with (and occasionally
against) the University judiciary and administration, defending students
accused of policy violations, and reforming the university-wide regulations.
Now, I can absolutely see why that doesnt appeal to everyonebut thats
the beauty of a Madison education. We were given the tools we needed to
succeed at whatever we set our minds to. Many of you had a passion for
issues like the environment, mental health reform, diversity, and inclusion.
Some of you spent your time at MSU fighting for progressive causes on small
and large scales, while others advocated for the conservative principles you
hold dear. Whatever their goal, Madison students go after it with precision,
assurance, and acumen.
Ill confess that some of my non-Madison friends have more ostensibly
tangible skills than I do. Saying that I learned to truly read and write in college
rarely inspires awe in my peers. But Madison fostered an environment where
we were encouraged to challenge ourselves and each other, and honed our
writing, reading, and speaking skills so that we can confidently approach any
new situation with our wits about us. Because of James Madison, I know that
even if I dont know exactly what Im doing when Im facing some new
challenge, Ill figure it out shortlyI cant say the same of some students in
other majors.
Student Commencement Speech First Draft 248
Speaking of our friends in Lyman Briggs, I feel obligated to address an

epidemic that Ive seen plaguing our campus recently. Why is it that every
Briggs student who has heard Hamilton thinks theyre qualified to speak on
The Federalist Papers? First of all, we read them before they were cool. And
secondly, every one of us knows that all the best ones were written by
Madison.
In all seriousness though, I have to attribute so much of the drive that
was instilled in us to our incredible faculty and staff. I have never encountered
educators so dedicated to educating. Honestly, if you dont want to be Ron
Dorr when you grow up, its because you havent met him. And who could
forget the wise of words of Eric Petrie other than, well . . . Petrie? Who
among us hasnt entered Jeff Judges office in a panic, only to leave twenty
minutes later with our entire futures planned out? But lets be honest: the
best part of vising Mr. Judge is seeing Ms. Donna Hoffmeister. Even Dean
Garnett can be seen wandering the halls and classrooms of Case. Although
when asked how hes doing, he generally says hed tell you but hed have to
kill you, and then disappears to the Ukraine for a month.
As my four years in James Madison come to a close, I am so grateful for
the incredible opportunities afforded to me. In the future, I can only hope to
once again be surrounded by people who are so bright, passionate, andif
were being honestintense. The drive, debate, and diligence Ive witnessed
during my time as a Spartan have floored me, and I cant wait to see how the
members of our class impact the world. In such politically tumultuous times,
its uncertain where life may take usbut I am certain that no matter where
the world goes, Madison students will be at the front.
Thanks very much
Introduction by Professor Benjamin Kleinerman
I have been asked to introduce our student commencement speaker, Tyler

Silvestri. He has been asked to keep his speech short. Fittingly, I have been
asked to keep my introduction even shorter. So, as hard as it is for a professor
to speak briefly, I am going to keep my introduction painfully short.
Its painful to keep it this short because Id like to go on and on about
Tyler. As I told him recently, he ranks among the very best students I have
had in my fifteen years of teaching. He ranks that highly not just because he
is exceptionally intelligent and thoughtful. He ranks among the very best
because of his combination of a genuine openness to education with a
genuine interest in applying his education.
His speech will relay an anecdote from his first class with me. I think he
is too self-deprecating in that anecdote. He was aggressively critical of
Lincoln in his first paper because Tyler was then, and while perhaps
somewhat less so now, aggressively libertarian. He saw in Lincoln a
proponent of a strong and even tyrannical government and took him to task
for it. First of all, it says much about the quality of that paper and the quality
of Tyler as a student that I can still remember it. And, second, it says even
more that I saw Tylers understanding of Lincoln and, more generally, his
understanding of himself as a thinker evolve over the next four years.
Tyler remained consistently open to both sides of any argument. For
instance, although I wouldnt quite call him a JMA,1 we did all watch once as
he literally debated himself in my War on Terror seminar. As I said, he is also
impressive in wanting to apply what he has learned. That commitment is
revealed by his noble interest in becoming a criminal defense lawyer in the
future. Im sure youll all enjoy the speech he is about to give, and I have
relished the opportunity to introduce the student who will give it.
1 Editors Note: JMA refers to James Madison All-Star, or, less frequently,
James Madison Asshole. In either case, it is a derogatory term used by Madison
students and faculty referring to students who talk too frequently and pompously in
class.
251
Reflection on Freshman Year

4/30/2014
Today is the last day of my freshman year of college, so Ive decided to

post an open letter to the Tyler from twelve months ago:
Tyler,
If my math is right (and it rarely is), youre graduating in two days.1
Youre excited, nervous, and a little scared of what comes next, and Id be a
little concerned if you werent. I know youve had a hard month, but rest
assured, things turn out to be pretty great.
But before the happiness comes some hardship. The summer is full of
unexpected twists and turns, few of which are positive. Youll end some
relationships youve fostered for years, but it ends up being for the best.
The most important lesson youll learn this is summer is to let go of
destructive relationships, and to stop worrying about things you cant fix.
Youll burn some bridges, but none that dont need to be. Conversely, youll
mend some broken friendships that desperately needed to be fixed.
Youll sing Dan Campbells lyric Im not sad anymore/Im just tired of
this place/and if this year would just end/I think wed all be okay to
yourself a thousand times before the summer is over, and it turns out to be
true.
Right now, you think that if you can just get out the small town youve
been living in your whole life, you could finally be the person you know you
were meant to; youre partially right. The world is an exciting, dynamic place
that you should take part in. Youll end up going to Chicago twice in one
month, once with your new friend Leon Drolet for a Students for Liberty
Conference, and once with Uncle Tim for Riot Fest. Both are incredible.
Youll also stop in Washington, D.C. and Cincinnati before the years end.
But dont think that your wanderlust is the reason for your shortcomings;
this year will teach you a lot about the way you interact with people, and
what you need to do differently regarding that.
With all your new-found independence comes big changes. Youre going
to lose touch with a lot of the people you swore you never would, and it
1Editors Note: My math was wrong. I graduated high school on June 1st, 2013,
not May 1st.
Reflection on Freshman Year 252
will sting. But nothing gold can stay, and youll find a host of opportunities
in front of you.
You should know that the first semester of your time at Michigan State
University is the happiest of your life. You meet incredible people like
Lucas Joncas, Josh Kenny, Steven Jorgensen, and Ali Van Overbeke. You
become a considerably better writer under the tutelage of Ron Dorr,
although it takes you a while to realize it.
Youll become immersed in libertarianism through the Michigan State
College Libertarians. At the end of your freshman year, youll be named
Vice President of the organization, as well as a Campus Coordinator for
Students for Liberty.
You become a smarter, more articulate person, who is also open to the
opinions and ideas of others. Youll be told you lack tact (more often than
you are now), but it doesnt bother you.
You'll pull eight all-nighters, and spend a vast majority of your time in
the library. But secretly, you won't mind.
You will have a mild breakdown halfway through the year regarding
your major, Political Theory and Constitutional Democracy. Just calm
down. Youll want to take on a double major in Human Resource
Management, but youll quickly talk yourself out of it. Go with your gut.
I know youre concerned about your (lack of a) love life; that doesnt
change. Youre exactly as awkward and nervous as always, but youll learn
to embrace it. Once you stop worrying about it, you start to get a lot of
clarity in the other aspects of your life.
You still havent finished that album you and Adam Jank are working
on. But youll get to it.2
Your math skills do not improve. Youll do terribly in Math 116, but
that too will pass.
Youll learn that Breaking Bad is amazing, and you were stupid for ever
thinking otherwise. How I Met Your Mother ends in April, and you cry. A lot.
The biggest lesson you learn during your freshman year is to stop
worrying about the things you cant change. You have roughly 80 years on
this planet; do you want to spend them stressed? Try to laugh as many
times as you can before you die, because, nobody lives to see the future,
as Eric Victorino puts it.
2
Editors Note: I did not.
Silvestri 253
Ron Dorr teaches you to, live intensely a life of love with integrity and
of gratitude, and from the moment he utters those words, youll try to do
so.
The year will not be without its share of hardships, but I have faith in
you. Youve been through a lot, and you likely will again, but I think youve
got what it takes to do something meaningful with your life. Maybe
[youre] a dreamer, but [youre] not the only one, says John Lennon.
Set your principles and stick to them, but dont be afraid to change
when youre wrong.
I know youre scared, but rest assured, youre going to have an
incredible year.
Best regards,
Tyler
254
2015:
An End-of-the-Year Reflection
12/31/2015
I'm going to go out on a limb and say 2015 was my best year yet. I learned
a lot, travelled to some neat places, released an album, laughed more than I
ever have, and experienced new things. I started a great job, and met some
of the best people I've ever had the pleasure of knowing. Also, the new Star
Wars exceeded my expectations. Not much to complain about on my end.
As I sit in this Boston hotel room, I have only the highest hopes and
expectations for 2016. Happy New Year.
255
2016:
An End-of-the-Year Reflection
12/30/2016
Friends,
The end of 2016 is just about here, and its been a rollercoaster of a year.
On December 31st of last year, I posted a message saying that Id had the best
year of my life, and that I had, only the highest hopes and expectations for
2016.
Im not going to go that far.
Obviously, this year was a rough one for a lot of people, myself included.
We lost loads of important people (celebrities, gorillas, and otherwise). We
had breakups and fallings-out with people who matter to us. Maybe worst of
all, the electionhappened.
But thats not to say it was all bad. I want to focus on the ways that this
year excelled.
I started my job as the Assistant Director of Student Rights Advocates,
and I couldnt be happier. I go to work every day excited to defend student
rights and advocate for policy change. I leave knowing I did good work that
Im proud to have done, and I do it alongside a group of incredible people.
Also, it came with a faculty parking pass, and thats just the best thing ever.
While I did lose some of my wonderful RA staff from last year, I was
fortunate enough to gain a whole new crew of awesome people to work
alongside this year, and I got to keep a number of my best friends around
too!
I stepped out of my comfort zone a bit and wrote a musical, which a
ridiculously talented group of people helped me record and release. It remains
the thing that I am most proud of. (Shameless plug Duty: The Musical is
available on Spotify, iTunes, SoundCloud, and such if you havent heard it
yet.)
A few of the folks from Duty have been brought onboard as Tagalongs,
and are helping me with my upcoming record, Picturesque I got to flex my
production muscles by producing the new Bluffing the Ghosts EP, Arsenal.
I also finally got to see blink-182 and Kanye West live.
My amazing dog Molly died after years of unforgettable companionship,
and that was hard. But in the wake of her passing, Ive been introduced to
Cooper, the most lovable and loving (albeit annoying) golden retriever puppy
that has ever existed.
Ho finalmente fatto con classe di italiano. Grazie a Dio.
I took my LSAT, and ended up getting a 75% scholarship to Michigan
State Universitys College of Law. While Im not sure if Ill end up being a
Spartan for a few more years, I know that I have at least one incredible
opportunity ahead of me.
I got ANOTHER Star Wars movie this year, and it was excellent.
I had the single best week of my life this month.
2016 introduced me to quite a few people that I cant believe I lived so
long without, and renewed my friendships with folks Ive known forever.
And while I parted ways with many friends this year, Ive been so proud and
excited to see what theyve done since embarking on their own paths.
Im not going to say that this was the best year, and Im certainly not going
to bet that 2017 is going to be excellent. But if 2016 taught me one thing, its
the value of silver linings. If I (and by extension, we) made it through this
year, then I have no doubt that were going to make the best of the next one.
Im going to spend New Years Eve with a group of my best friends, and Im
almost definitely going to give a sappy toast to the adventures weve had and
will continue to have. I encourage you to do the same.
Much love,
Tyler
257
Dance in the Rain

A Record by The Tagalongs, Released 3/6/15
1. Everything
2. Napkins
3. Wanderlust (Brand New)
4. Right Where I Belong
5. The Birds
6. Call It A Night
7. The Backyard
8. Forever Seventeen
9. Remember Your Name
Personnel
Tyler Silvestri Lead vocals, backing vocals, acoustic guitar, electric guitar,
ukulele, synthesizer, piano, programmed bass, programmed drums
Tommy Plural Bass on Tracks 2, 3, 5, and 8
Matt Butler Drums on Tracks 4, 5, 6, and 8
Travis Valentine Vocals on Tracks 1, 7, 8, and 9
Connor Davis-Green Drums on Track 2
Henry Koperski Saxophone on Track 7
Damjon Kapor Bass on Track 6
Produced by Tyler Silvestri and Travis Valentine

Tracks 1, 4, 6, 7, and 9 engineered by Travis Valentine and Tyler Silvestri at
Learning Backwards Studios
Track 2 engineered by Tyler Silvestri, Tommy Plural, and Connor Davis-Green
at GTG House/Connors bedroom
Tracks 3, 5, and 8 engineered by Tommy Plural at GTG House
Mixed by Tyler Silvestri, except Track 2, mixed by David Levy
Mastered by David Levy
Music and Lyrics by Tyler Silvestri
Album art by Hannah Bahia and Tyler Silvestri
Released via Broke Dad Records
Dance in the Rain 258
20 Questions with a Tagalong

Interview by Travis Valentine, 3/4/15
I interviewed Tyler Silvestri of The Tagalongs in a 20 Questions format

in anticipation for his Broke Dad Records debut on Friday (March 6th).
1.) State your full name for the record.
A.) Tyler Silvestri
2.) How many instruments can you play and what are they?
A.) My instrument of choice is guitar, but I am capable of playing
bass, ukulele, piano, and synthesizers.
3.) When did you start playing and writing?
A.) 2009, during my freshman year of high school.
4.) Do you come from a musical family? How did you get into music?
Anyone lead you there? Did you take lessons?
A.) No. My uncle took me to a number of concerts when I was
in high school, so I spent a lot of time with him learning about
1980s hair-metal bands. The credit goes to him for exposing me
to the idea that music could be more than just background noise
when driving, but a something you could have a legitimate
passion for.
5.) Did you take lessons?
A.) I learned rudimentary guitar chords on the internet originally.
I took a guitar class my school offered, but after a few weeks, I
realized Id already learned more than they were going to cover
during the semester. I havent taken lessons since.
6.) How old are you?
A.) Twenty.
7.) How many shows do you think youve played total/ever?
A.) I played just shy of forty with my old band, One Dance Left.
On my own, I played three shows, and the album release party
on Friday marks the second show for The Tagalongs. So, the
answer is just north of forty.
8.) What was the first song you ever learned to cover? What are your
favorite songs to cover?
Silvestri 259
A.) The bass part to Dance, Dance by Fall Out Boy was the
first. I really enjoy playing a mellow version of OutKasts Hey
Ya. When I do so, I like to introduce it as a really serious song
about divorce and the effect a strained relationship has on
families. Im also fond of playing Bleachers I Wanna Get Better
and Whitney Houstons How Will I Know?
9.) What bands or artists do you consider your favorites and your
biggest influences?
A.) When I began playing, my influences were obviously reflected
in what I wrote; these included Fall Out Boy, Blink-182, All Time
Low, and Cheap Trick. As I progressed, however, the influences
inspired me more philosophically than sonically. The biggest
influences on Dance in the Rain were Kanye West, Taylor Swift,
The All-About, Aaron West and the Roaring Twenties, and
Madonna. While my songs dont necessarily fit on a playlist with
any of these artists, each of them had an impact in the writing
process because of their attitudes. Whether its Kanyes
simultaneous bravado and self-doubt, or Aaron Wests narrative-
based writing, the themes each musician touches on impacted
this record heavily.
10.) What are some of the weirder things youve ever written about?
A.) While I generally prefer the listener to derive their own
meaning from the song, I can touch a little bit on one of the
songs from the record. When I was writing The Birds. I
intended for it to be a straightforward love song, but as I wrote
it, the lines seemed to suggest something more nuanced. While it
wasnt what I intended to write about, I interpreted the song as a
story about Jewish prisoners in concentration camps who are
gay all of it taking place during the Holocaust. Theyre trying
to stay positive in the face of their impending end. My favorite
part about it is that the story is abstract enough for it to still be
accessible to the casual listener.
I also once wrote a song about being upset that it was unlikely
Jenifer Aniston would ever marry me, as well as the fact that my
friends hated me because I liked Tron.
11.) Can you name any bands or artists you HATE?
A.) Radiohead comes to mind first. When I was 17, Rolling Stone
rated Kid A the best album of the decade. I hadnt heard it, so I
bought it on CD. Kid A is garbage, and I was entirely
disappointed.
I find The Smashing Pumpkins utterly unlistenable. I am

convinced that anyone who says they like Pitbull is lying to me.
Additionally, I sincerely believe that Metallica owes me a personal
apology for letting any of their discography into the world.
12.) What are some of your favorite movies?
A.) The Lion King is unquestionably the best movie of all time.
Shortly behind are The Shawshank Redemption and The Dark Knight.
13.) What would you say is your favorite song off of your new record
and why?
A.) My favorite on the album is probably Call It A Night. The
song really captures the hopelessness that comes up at the end of
a relationship, and it has some of my favorite vocal melodies Ive
ever written. The Birds and Forever Seventeen are
contenders for runner-up.
14.) What is your favorite food?
A.) Tacos.
15. What would you classify yourself as in terms of genre?
A.) Imagine the idea of genre as a suit. My jacket and pants are
straightforward pop. The shirt has a slight rock and roll tinge to
it. My tie is one of those piano ties, representing the synth-pop
elements of my music. And the cufflinks are super punk.
16.) What is your strongest feature in terms of being musician?
A.) My songwriting, specifically my vocal melodies. I constantly
find myself with my own melodies stuck in my head.
17.) What are some of your all-time favorite TV shows?
Silvestri 261
A.) Arrested Development takes the top slot, but Friends, House of
Cards, Breaking Bad, White Collar, The Office, Parks and Recreation,
and Will and Grace are worth noting.
18.) What or who are your biggest non-musical influences?
A.) John Lockes political philosophy, The Great Gatsby, bits and
pieces of stoicism and existentialism, and Taco Bells Cheesy
Gordita Crunch.
19.) Favorite books?
A.) The Great Gatsby, Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy, Tocquevilles
Democracy in America, and George Orwells 1984.
20.) Tupac or Biggie?
A.) Kanye.
Looking Back on Dance in the Rain

By Travis Valentine, 11/18/17
When I first met Tyler Silvestri, it was certainly a strange thing, likely
for both of us. Circumstances came together in an odd clash and I, then
a twenty-four-year-old man with a wife and child, found myself shaking
hands with a sixteen-year-old high school student. Its not something that
I make a habit of doing, even though I certainly meet or have professional
interactions with young musicians in my line of work as a local music
promoter. But Im seldom drawn to their personality and seek out a
friendship with them the way that I did with Tyler.
Tyler had two distinctive things that drew me to him right off the bat.
The first one was (and I dont want to be overly abrasive or mean about
this) that his singing voice was awful. The other thing that was
immediately noticeable was that he was an excellent guitar player who had
a better command of pop hooks and songwriting than men twice his age.
After I introduced myself to him when he got off stage, I bought a
copy of his demo and we traded information. After that, like you do with
all new people that you meet at a show, we became friends on the internet.
It was interacting with him here that I noticed a third thing about him: he
was smart. Smarter than anyone his age I had ever met. As Ive since told
Tyler repeatedly, never, not for a second, did I EVER feel like I was
talking to a child when I spoke with him. He has ALWAYS been smarter
than I am and thats including when he was sixteen years old and I was
twenty-four.
With a mind for intricacies, debate, language, and art, Tyler was a
fascinating person, and once I got to know him, it was hardly a surprise
that he understood what it took to make pop music. It did NOT, however,
change the fact that his singing voice was truly atrocious. Im not the sort
of person to just say that to someones face though, so I complimented
what was great about his pop songs, which was generally just the melody
and his clean, original guitar riffs. I played a couple of shows with his high
school band, One Dance Left, and appreciate that bands album, Even If
She Kills Me, for what it is. I valued him more as a friend than as a
musician friend.
Silvestri 263
After high school, Tyler went to James Madison College at Michigan

State University which is in the Lansing area, where Ive lived with my
wife since 2007. Our proximity to each other increased by a ton, but we
still never really hung out. One day, I saw him post a video of himself
performing the song I Will Follow You into the Dark by Death Cab
for Cutie on Facebook. The thing about that cover was that it was good.
By good, I mean that his voice was perfectly in key and smooth. He
had learned how to sing, and I felt like an investor who had put his money
on some junk company that had somehow grown into a real thing. I got
nothing from this development but a solid sense of satisfaction, but I
definitely felt it strongly.
Eventually, I asked him to play on one of the bills that I was booking
at Macs Bar, near Michigan State University. My booking him on my
shows became a periodic thing, and we talked about what he was working
on He mentioned that he was working on solo material that he was self-
recording, and I offered to connect him with some of my other Lansing
friends, mainly Tommy Plural McCord of The Plurals and Lansing-
based GTG Records and GTG House. I offered to sign him to my
fledgling label, Broke Dad Records, and to help pay for some local session
musicians, promote the album, get it some local press, organize a release
show, order some promo material (they were buttons), and do a few other
things. This is how I became an executive producer of sorts on Tylers
album Dance in the Rain.
My memories of the time when Tyler was working on Dance in the Rain
are spread into bits and pieces. I remember when we went to GTG House
to have Tommy do some session work and engineering on a handful of
tracks. Mostly I sat off to the side and watched while Tyler did his thing.
I am not, what you might call a hands-on sort of label guy, so I just let
Tyler do what he thought was best. This included him not always staying
with his own click track. Tommy is a pretty hands-off engineer as well.
Hes got more of the punk spirit, wherein you get in the booth and make
what you feel. You dont often want to be told what to do with punk
music, and thats where Tommy lives as a musician and producer. He did
what he could to nudge the tracks around in post-production to try and
get them in time with the click, but Tyler definitely noticed, and was upset
that we didnt stop and correct him. The GTG House sessions included
one instance where I stepped into the booth and provide some guest vocal
to the record.
Tyler was always bouncing mixes off of me, asking for input. I helped
out in the ways that I could, telling him things I knew that could help and
booking him on shows. I was always marveling at his intelligence and,
even more than that, his resourcefulness. If Tyler doesnt know how to
do something, he has a drive to learn, and he can teach himself skills better
than anyone Ive ever met. I wouldnt say that things just come naturally
to him. Its more that he just possesses a will to put in the work and
reading to learn how to do things, and can make do with whatever he has
to work with.
At one point I remember sitting with Tyler in the Taco Bell on
Trowbridge Road, just outside of MSU, and listening to him tell me how
hed commissioned a soprano saxophone solo for one of his songs from
some guy on the internet. The fact that hed done that blew my mind. If
I wanted someone to perform some instrumentation on one of my
records, I would need to find a friend who could play that instrument who
was willing to do session work for me. Tyler had solved the problem of
wanting a Kenny G-style sax solo on his record for a matter of a few
bucks and a couple e-mails.
He did the same for drums on several tracks, as well as some of the
mixing and all of the mastering. He had not yet, at that point, taught
himself to mix and master to the level that hes at now. He did end up
mixing all but one of the tracks, but the sound on that record doesnt
represent what hes capable of now. He did some of his own bass, and I
provided a few backing vocals.
With regard to how the album turned out as a whole, Im proud to
have been a part of it. I would have done some things differently, but
Tyler and I have absolutely NEVER been the same kind of musician. Im
very folky and I take things low and slow, whereas Tyler is pop and
melody all the way. Bombast and new sounds are his area; he makes
everything bigger. I pull him back when I think hes stacking the blocks
too high, and he helps me put more layers on my stuff. Weve got a
complimentary relationship. This record was the first time that Tyler and
Silvestri 265
I had really collaborated on composition and production for a record, so

I was really hesitant to really play my role in that equation. There are things
I wish I had done differently. In hindsight, the album comes off as far
more hit-or-miss than I would have liked. So many tracks feel like they
NAIL the mark for me, but when I listen to others, certain things sound
off. Sometimes the drums feel out of time. Sometimes I wish Id urged
him to use less layering in the vocal of certain parts. But one of my favorite
songs off that record will forever be The Birds, and Ill always cherish
the memories of when he and I would perform it together live.
Working with Tyler on Dance in the Rain was an experience for me as
much as it was a service to him. I learned a lot about my limitations during
the process, and I learned what I was doing with my skill set in life. Tyler
Silvestri is pretty heavily responsible for who I am today, and that record
has a great deal to do with it. I learned that music is where I give the most,
and I discovered that going for what you care about is more important
than anything. Ive not looked back since.
Travis Valentine is a Lansing-based musician, concert promoter, and artist.

He performs under the moniker Bluffing the Ghosts.
266
Reflection on
Dance in the Rain
I both love and hate Dance in the Rain more than Id like to admit. At the
outset, Ill say that it so obviously should have been titled Remember Your Name.
That theme comes up in a few songs, and makes much more sense than titling
the record after a random lyric in The Birds.
Throughout the writing of this record, the band was supposed to be called
Tyler and the Tagalongs, but I decided that was pretentious, and while at a
show where we were billed with my name at the front, I changed the name
of the band onstage.
This was my first real shot at producing albums, which Ive learned to
love more than actually writing them. My mixes here definitely have plenty
of room for improvement, but its fun to look back at the on-the-job training
I forced myself to receive.
One of my favorite memories of writing this record is scrawling the lyrics
to Napkins on literal napkins. At the time, I worked a job swiping peoples
IDs to let them into the dining hall, and I was left with a lot of down time,
which I spent writing the lyrics to the record. Id come home at night with
my pockets full of lyric-filled napkins, and then transfer them to my computer.
Its fascinating listening to ways my writing and production have changed,
as well as seeing where theyve stayed the same. Forever Seventeen sounds
like what I imagine One Dance Lefts second album would have sounded like;
I just dont write bridges or verses like that anymore. But in other ways, I see
the seeds of my forthcoming record, Picturesque, littered throughout Dance in
the Rain. The low/high vocal combinations in the chorus of Remember
Your Name, the acoustic guitar/synth juxtaposition on The Backyard,
and the I-V-IV chord progression on Wanderlust (Brand New) appear
frequently on Picturesque.
Its an odd feeling to listen songs written about people I dont speak to
anymore. I distinctly remember writing the second verse of Call It A Night
in an Uber on the way to the studio after a fight with a girl I was dating.
Silvestri 267
This album is where I learned the importance of taking your time, and is
probably why Ive spent years writing and producing Picturesque. I remember
frantically mixing Everything the morning of the records release.
Organizing a release show before you finish the record is not a smart move.
Wanderlust (Brand New) doesnt have drums because I ran out of time to
commission any.
I also learned the importance of collaboration while recording Dance in the
Rain. On One Dance Lefts Even If She Kills Me, the band essentially
performed exactly what I told them to. Here, I gave Tommy, Matt, Travis,
and the rest of the gang a vague outline of what I was going for, and then
told them to run with it; the record is better for it. For example, Remember
Your Name initially featured a bombastic opening riff, but Travis insisted
on getting rid of it, as he felt the song needed to build to its maximalist outro.
He was right, and I got rid of it.
All-in-all, while I sometimes cringe at the obvious production errors or
glaring vocal failures, I love listening to Dance in the Rain. Its a telling snapshot
of where I was at twenty, and I flashback to my sophomore year of college
every time I hear it. Having said that, I completely understand why this record
sold approximately six copies.
268
Duty: The Musical

Released 8/26/16
Act One
1. Welcome Week
2. Icebreakers (Get to Know You)
3. Rounds
4. Support and Backup
5. How to Make College Guys Like You
6. The Best That You Can Be
7. The Luau
8. Mid-Year Reviews
9. Finals Week
Act Two
10. Back from Break
11. Rounds (Reprise)
12. Potentially Actionable
13. The Prisoners Dilemma (Screwed)
14. Look the Other Way
15. The Conduct Process
16. Growth
Starring:
Tyler Silvestri as Peter Thompson
Carley Henke as Lauren Chernow
Clara Lepard as Alice Washington
Elizabeth Beckett as Claire Bentley
Trever Daniels as Kevin Williams
Seth Rowles as Nick
Natasha Sprau as Michelle
Catherine Washington as Hope
Music and Lyrics by Tyler Silvestri

Produced by Tyler Silvestri
Album art by Nic Antaya and Tyler Silvestri
Duty: The Musical runs 47 minutes, and is available on Spotify and iTunes.
Silvestri 269
A Review of Duty: The Musical

By Kattie Hallup, 9/3/16
Welcome to Westwood University!

The first song of Duty: The Musical takes us into Westwood University,
and introduces us to the RAs in Kimberly Hall. The song is called Welcome
Week, and allows us to meet two of the three RAs. We meet Peter and
Lauren who are polar opposites. Peter (voiced by Tyler Silvestri) is the golden
boy of Westwood; he never hesitates to write up one of his residents. Peter
has never broken a rule in his life, and holds his residents to the same
incredibly high standard to which he holds himself. Lauren (voiced by Carley
Henke) is the apathetic, badass RA who is only in the game for the free room
and board. Although Lauren is considered a "bad RA," she's willing to cut
her residents some slack, and look the other way in order to help them out.
Peter, on the other hand, is almost perfect to the point of being flawed. In
his efforts to be the perfect RA, he ends up alienating his residents, and doing
more harm to them than good.
In the second song, Icebreakers, we meet Alice (voiced by Clara
Lepard), the new RA in Kimberly Hall. Alice is not confident in her RA
abilities, but she genuinely wants to help her residents and change their lives
for the better. As the plot progresses, Alice is the heartbeat of the musical,
and epitomizes the pure, idealistic leader which every RA aspires to be when
they're first starting out. She admires Peter, and trusts him to show her the
ins and outs of being a good RA. In Icebreakers, we're also introduced to
Kevin (voiced by Trever Daniels). Kevin is the Hall Director of Kimberly
Hall, and the manager of the RAs in Kimberly. Perfectly cast, Trever Daniels
has the strong, deep voice of authority which is required of the character,
Kevin.
In the fourth song, Support and Backup, we hear the musical
monologue of a resident who is having some trouble during her first real time
away from home. Meet Claire Bentley (voiced by Elizabeth Beckett). As a
resident of Lauren's, Claire hasn't received any information or support from
her RA and feels incredibly lost. Perfect Peter comes to her rescue and offers
her the support she's so desperately craving. Adding the romantic aspect to
Duty: The Musical, as well as another plotline, Claire develops a crush on Peter
and wants to spend more time with him. But Peter, being the rule follower
that he is, rejects all of Claire's advances.
In the sixth song, The Best That You Can Be, we see development in
Alice's character as she makes a name for herself as an RA. This slower,
sweeter ballad showcases two cameos from residents who Alice has helped,
including a short monologue from the resident named Hope (played by
Catherine Washington). With Alice's encouragement and guidance, Hope
discovers who she is, and is able to snag a date with a girl who seems great,
giving a small shout out to the LGBT community. The resident named
Michelle (voiced by Natasha Sprau) also sings of Alice's praises, noting how
Alice encouraged her to take care of her mental health by seeking professional
help. Alice sings that "even when you're in trouble, you deserve all my love,
and you deserve to be helped not judged." It is in this song, The Best That
You Can Be, where we see all the things an RA should be: caring,
compassionate, supportive, and non-judgmental, solidifying Alice as the true
perfect RA, not Peter. It is in this song where Alice comes up with the idea
for a "Get to Know You Luau" where residents can meet new friends and
meet all the RAs.
At the Luau, Peter and Lauren continue their constant theme of bickering,
this time it's over who is responsible for the success of the Luau. Hall
Director Kevin gives all the credit to his favorite RA, Peter who graciously
accepts all the praise. Lauren is mad that she didn't get any credit, and Alice,
whose idea it actually was, stays uninvolved. Peter and Lauren's fighting
intensifies and reaches a boiling point when Lauren says "You obnoxiously
hound all my girls, it's not fair. I didn't know you did anything but check out
Claire." Keep in mind, all of this heavy bickering is set to the tune of a catchy
and fun song, making it incredibly entertaining.
During Mid-Year Reviews, each of our three RAs is evaluated by Kevin
the Hall Director. As expected, he praises Peter heavily. Also, as expected,
Kevin tells Lauren that she needs to improve in every area. It seems Peter
can do no wrong, and Lauren can do no right. It's also during Mid-Year
Reviews that Lauren admits she's short on cash and requests some extra
money from the RA budget, but Kevin denies her.
Silvestri 271
In the ninth song, Finals Week, Duty: The Musical takes a turn for the
romantic as things begin to heat up between Peter and Claire. Claire
continues to express her interest in Peter, and after Peter tries to fight it for
some time, he starts to give in, and we see his perfect exterior cracking. Peter
begins to convince himself to just go for it with Claire, and can even be heard
unknowingly quoting Lauren of all people from Rounds when she says,
"it's not a crime, for young consenting adults to have a good time." Peter and
Claire end up having sex (finally!) and the pair agree to keep it a secret, just
between them.
But shortly after they were both sworn to secrecy, Peter gets a call from
Alice. Alice heard Claire in the background and put two and two together,
but she wasn't even phased by the news of Peter having sex with a resident
because Alice had much bigger news. The money generated from the luau
was missing, and Alice has reason to believe that Lauren stole it.
In song 10, Back from Break, the residents and RAs of Kimberly Hall
are returning back to the dorms after their Winter break. The melodies in this
song are consistent with the rest of the musical but have a festive, holiday
flair to them, going as far as to sample Deck the Halls. It is here that two
things are revealed.
First, Peter is filled with regret about what happened with Claire. It was
so unlike him to give in like that, and he tells Claire that it's over between
them. Claire is understandably, really confused and her feelings are hurt. We
find out later that Peter was her first, and she feels used and taken advantage
of. Claire vows to make Peter's job a living hell.
The second thing that is revealed is that Lauren has embezzled over $400
from the RA budget for her own personal use. Peter decides to confront her
about it, and hopefully get her fired.
In song 11, Rounds (Reprise), things take a turn for the scandalous, as
if they weren't already! The RAs on-duty, Peter and Alice, get an urgent call
that an incredibly drunk resident is passed out on Lauren's floor. They run to
her rescue only to find an extremely sloppy Claire, trying to drink all her
Peter-related sorrows away. Claire is a mess, and is spouting off every
embarrassing detail about what happened between her and Peter. Peter is
trying to calm her down, and not let any bystanders hear his secret, but Claire
cannot be calmed. She even goes so far to say that even though Peter was her
first, he was the worst. She doesn't even know what bad sex is, but she knows
she had it with Peter. Ouch.
Peter doesn't write Claire up, even though he's known for writing up
residents for a lot less. He lets Claire off the hook for many reasons. The
audience of Duty can figure out for themselves that by letting her go, Peter
believes that Claire will be more likely to not rat him out. Plus, he probably
feels a little bad for her; he did have feelings for her after all, and he just wants
this ordeal to be over and for Claire to be safe in bed. Peter knows Alice will
keep his secret and he thinks he's safe. But is he?
In song 12, Potentially Actionable, an obscure resident from Welcome
Week and Rounds explodes onto the scene. A character named Nick
(voiced by Seth Rowles) comes to Lauren for help. Nick is very bitter because
after being caught for drinking wine in his dorm and being written up by
Peter, he lost all of his scholarships and was banned from playing sports.
Nick comes to Lauren with vengeance on his mind. Nick happened to see
the entire incident with Claire being drunk in the hall, and he heard Claire
spill the beans about her and Peter's relationship. And of course, the icing on
the cake: he knew that Peter never wrote Claire up.
Lauren now possesses the information that she needs to destroy Peter.
At this point in the musical, both Peter and Lauren think that they're going
to take each other down. Peter has the information about Lauren embezzling
money, and Lauren has the information about Peter and Claire's relationship.
But in song 13, The Prisoner's Dilemma, the two rival RAs confront each
other, fight, and then agree that in order to both keep their jobs, they should
keep each other's secrets. If they both stay quiet, they can both stay safe. Both
RAs recognize that, at the end of the day, nobody stays clean. There's much
more to the job than meets the eye. The song ends with Lauren saying, "Peter,
you are so trusting." This foreshadowing does not bode well for Peter.
In song 14, Look the Other Way, Claire is once again mourning over
Peter. Claire is trying to convince herself that the best thing to do is ignore
Peter, and act like she doesn't know him. Claire calls Peter a coward. She says,
"There's a storm coming, and it's coming straight for you!" In this song, we
see the recurring theme of looking the other way, only this time it's literal.
In the last two songs of Duty, the story reaches its dramatic conclusion.
Lauren ends up exposing Peter's wrongdoings, and also her own. Under the
Silvestri 273
impression that she had immunity, Lauren was not afraid to admit she was
embezzling money from the RA budget. But that's not how it works, and
Kevin kicks Lauren to the curb without a shred of sympathy for her. Kevin
is so disappointed in his prodigy, Peter. He's sad to see him go, but he knows
that it's only right to fire him.
The final song highlights Alice as the only good RA in Kimberly Hall, and
a jaded, bitter, Peter, telling Alice that although it might seem easy, things are
bound to only get harder for her down the line.
An underlying theme of the musical is that the job is much more than
meets the eye. Although Alice was able to remain pure and uphold her ideals
as the caring, compassionate RA who is a guidance counselor, leader, and
friend to her residents, we can't help but wonder if she'll be able to stay this
way. After all, we never thought Peter would make a mistake, but at the end
of the day, nobody stays clean.
The ending of Duty leaves the audience hungry for a sequel. Will Claire
and Peter ever get the timing right between them? With no cash and nowhere
to go, what will happen to Lauren? And the most important question: Will
Alice fall to the corrupt side like most RAs before her, or will she blaze a trail
of her own and be able to remain the amazing RA that she has the potential
to be?
Duty: The Musical will ring true in the minds of anyone who has ever went
away to college. From the social anxiety that residents face during their
freshman year, being away from home and seeking solace in your RA, to your
first college crush and the heartbreak that sometimes comes along with it,
Duty is incredibly relatable.
Duty offers a new perspective to college life: The RA's point of view. It's
so easy to see your RA as the "bad guy" or someone who only exists to make
trouble for you, but Duty shows us that not only are RAs students just like us,
with the same problems, they truly want to help. It's tough to balance being
a friend and also being responsible to enforcing rules on the floor. Much like
being a parent, RAs have to walk that fine line.
I truly believe that Duty deserves the full five-star rating. It's not often we
see a musical that combines drama, romance, comedy and manages to tell a
story that desperately needs to be told. The musical is able to keep up three
plotlines and lest we forget, it's all set to a catchy, original soundtrack.
A big shout out to Tyler Silvestri, who had to be able to tell a story and
simultaneously write a song. The soundtrack to Duty flows beautifully
throughout the entire performance. Each song spills perfectly into the next,
which still managing to have its own distinct traits and identifiable rhythm.
The voice actors each did a great job. They were able to bring each
character to life and transform the characters from just an "idea" coming
from the brain of the writer, into what felt like tangible people who could be
living in your dorm. With distinct personalities, big feelings, and real-life
problems, Peter, Lauren, Alice, and Claire are each relatable and lovable. The
actors bring this musical to life and make Duty: The Musical a must see.
Silvestri 275
Original Story Outline, 6/15/16

An Unedited Reproduction
Act 1, Scene 1: Welcome Week

Students arrive at Kimberly Hall of Westwood University. Peter, a third-
year veteran RA, welcomes his new resident
with vigor, emphasizing the importance of Characters in the scene:
safety and security. He does not, however, give Lead: Peter, Lauren
the resident a chance to speak. Lauren, a Backing: Nick, company
second year RA, tells her residents that shes
more of the cool RA type, and is considerably more lax than Peter. For
this reason, Peter and Lauren dont get along.
Peter continues ranting about RA life and the importance of his job.
Safety and security, Ive sworn to protect the halls of Kimberly and youll
just have to accept/that Im your buddy, Im your pal/I am your confidant,
whether you like it or not
Peter begins to call Nick his good friend, but realizes he hasnt actually
asked Nicks name yet.
Takeaway: Peter is obsessed with his job, and is kind of a jerk. Lauren
doesnt care about her job, and is kind of a jerk.
Act 1, Scene 2: Round 1

Peter meets Alice, a new RA on staff. Peter pompously reminds her that
he won RA of the Year, and says to follow
his lead. Peter hears wine glasses clinking in Characters in the scene:
a room, and knocks on the door Nick Lead: Peter, Lauren, Alice
answers the door. Peter writes him up. Backing: Nick, company
Lauren says that Peter takes himself too
seriously, and needs to relax. Her philosophy is that if no ones dead, she
doesnt care whats going on. She says, were just resident assistants, which
is completely at odds with Peters conception of their role.
Peter tells Lauren not to corrupt Alice, as Alice has potential. Peter says
that being an RA means not looking the other way.
Alice interjects saying that she thought RAs were there to help foster
emotional, academic, and personal growth. Lauren and Peter laugh her off,
calling her an idealist.
Takeaway: Peter and Lauren have opposite views of how to do their job.
Theyre both wrong. Alice is stuck between two equally incorrect
philosophies.
Act 1, Scene 3: [untitled]

Peter meets Claire, one of Laurens residents. Claire flirts with Peter, and
Peter is initially receptive.
Claire: You know, Ive got a thing for guys with keys.
Peter: You know me, baby, enforcing
policies. Characters in the
Claire gives Peter her number in case she has a scene:
roommate conflict, since she doesnt feel Lead: Peter, Claire
comfortable going to Lauren. But Peter has a
personal policy of not dating residents. He brushes it to the side. A
relationship between them wouldnt be illegal or against department policy,
but it would be heavily frowned upon.

After a few weeks, Alice, who also serves as Kimberly Halls treasurer,
builds relationships with her residents, and sees the good RAs can do. She
feels that she is being the best RA she can
Characters in the scene:
be, and doesnt understand why the
Lead: Alice
returning staff is so hostile toward her
Backing: Peter, Alices residents
conception of a good RA.
Peter, who is also the Halls president, asks Alice to make sure the RAs
budgets are in order for a luau/study night event the RAs are putting on.
Act 1, Scene 5: The Luau [working title]

Kevin, the Hall Director, meets with Peter to congratulate him on putting
on such a great event. Peter brown noses like no other, saying he couldnt
have done it without Kevins leadership.
Silvestri 277
Lauren confronts Peter, saying that she did just as much on the event as
Peter, and that she deserves as much credit. Characters in the
Peter tells her that when she learns to do her scene:
job, hell consider recognizing her as an equal. Lead: Peter, Lauren
Lauren understandably reacts poorly. Backing: Kevin, Claire
Peter, youre such a suck up.
The fall will only be harder when you inevitably fuck up.
Lauren leaves, and Claire approaches Peter, flirty as ever. Shes just
Peters type, and hes conflicted.
I major in English but all Im thinking is biology/
Bet shes as wild as the animals that she studies in zoology
Act 1, Scene 6: Finals Week

Its Finals Week. Claire approaches Peter again.
Claire: Baby, I could use a partner.
Peter: A study partner Characters in the
Claire: Maybe if we get time. scene:
Peter gives in, and they sleep together. Lead: Peter, Claire
Peter: Shes lying on my bed, and I dont look Backing: Alice
the other way.
He rolls over and listens to a voicemail from Alice. Theyre missing a lot of
money from the budget for the luau event.
Act 2, Scene 1: Back from Break [working title]

Over winter break, Peter decided to call it off with Claire. It could
potentially put him in a compromising position, and his role as an RA is the
most important thing to him. Claire says she feels used.
Characters in the
scene:
Lead: Peter, Claire
Act 2, Scene 2: Round 2

The duty phone rings (the opening melody
from Round 1). Some of Laurens residents tell Characters in the scene:
Peter and Alice that a resident has gotten Lead: Peter, Claire, Alice
drunk and is yelling in the hallway. Upon Backing: The girls
arriving, the pair realize the resident is Claire.
Rather than writing her up, Peter sends her to bed and, ultimately, looks the
other way.
But the residents that called were watching through a peephole (Lyrically,
theres a people/peephole pun).

The girls go to Lauren and tell them about Characters in the scene:
Peters indiscretion. Lauren jumps at the chance. Lead: Claire, the girls,
She asks Claire why Peter might do that, Lauren
suggesting that they may have slept together.
Claire comes clean about her encounter with Peter.

Alice tells Peter that shell keep what
happened on the down low, since she felt that Characters in the scene:
Claire wasnt in any danger. Alice also tells Lead: Alice, Peter, Lauren, Claire
Peter that she thinks Lauren embezzled Luau
funds for herself since she was mad about not getting credit.
Peter jumps at the chance. He confronts Lauren, saying that hes going
to tell Kevin.
Peter: Did you really think the president wouldnt notice your
embezzlement?
Lauren: Youre one to talk, Mr. I-Nailed-A-Resident
Peter tries to defend himself, saying he didnt do anything wrong. Lauren
recognizes this, but then reveals she knows about the incident from earlier.
They agree to keep each others secrets.
Peter confronts Claire for telling Lauren. who reiterates that she felt used
and that Lauren had already put it together.
Silvestri 279
Act 2, Scene 5: The Conduct Process [working title]

Lauren decides shes had enough of Peter, despite their agreement. She
goes to Kevin, and, in exchange for immunity
for her failings, tells Kevin everything. Kevin Characters in the scene:
points out that he is not a prosecutor, that any Lead: Kevin, Peter, Lauren
immunity deal he made is obviously not
legitimate, and that Lauren should accept her termination as infinitely better
than an arrest for embezzlement.
Kevin calls Peter into his office, and confronts him.
Pete, youve always been the best/Ive got a lump in my throat, a stone in
my chest/But you have to be an example, show that we cant excuse such a
gaffe;/ Thompson, we cant keep you on staff.
But Kevin is gracious, and lets Peter move into a room within Kimberly
Hall rather than kick him out like he did to Lauren.

Peter talks with his new RA, Alice. Shes smug, and deserves to be. She
says shes going to be the RA that Lauren
Characters in the scene:
and Peters residents deserved. Shell
Lead: Alice, Peter
show him the ropes, and encourages him
to apply again at the end of the year.
Musically and lyrically: similar to Welcome Week. Alice: Im so glad that
you have to stay on my floor
Takeaway: A lesson in mediation. Dont let status go to your head. But

realize your job is important, and do it.
Reflection on
Duty: The Musical
As of this writing, Duty: The Musical is the thing I am most proud of.
Stepping out of my comfort zone to write a musical was challenging in and
of itself, and the insane pace at which I wrote it certainly didnt help. In just
twelve days, I wrote the entirety of Duty. While there are things I might
change about it (e.g., the drums, as well as my own vocal performance), the
very fact that I took the initiative to undertake the project makes me
incredibly proud of it.
The idea first came about in Spring 2016, when a group of my fellow
resident assistants were discussing that some aspects of our job were so crazy
that they could be the basis for a sitcom. We joked about writing and filming
a pilot, but it never materialized.
A few months later, I found myself with an excess of time and ambition,
and decided to take a shot at writing a musical. Having written pop albums
before, I wasnt entirely unfamiliar, but the narrative structure was a challenge.
At this point, my experience with musicals was severely limited, having only
heard Hamilton and Book of Mormon and seen one production of Grease.
I recruited some friends (all of whom were actually RAs), and we recorded
Duty over the course of two months. The project stretched my writing,
recording, and producing skills like nothing else ever had, and I think I am
considerably better for it.
Many have expressed interest in a sequel to Duty, but Ive always been
hesitant to write one. Quite simply, Im not sure where Id take the story. Ive
also considered shooting a pilot akin to the one originally discussed, but most
of the original cast has moved away. As a result, Ive begun work on a
novelization of Duty, which I may or may not finish. Furthermore, I started
a musical called Ballot Box that took place in the Westwood universe (even
featuring Lauren as a main character), but that musical has since become the
basis for a potential novel, which I also may or may not finish.
While I was annoyed by my friends frequently singing lines and melodies
from Duty to me while in the dining hall, I am proud to have created
something my friends were able to enjoy so much.
281
Rsum Upon Graduation
Tyler Silvestri
517.262.1715|TylerSilvestri53@gmail.com
Education
Bachelor of Arts at Michigan State Universitys James Madison
College
Majored in Political Theory & Constitutional Democracy with a
minor in Philosophy & Law
3.24 Cumulative GPA
Experience
Assistant Director |Student Rights Advocates & Legal Services
|August 2016 May 2017
Duties included advising students through the University conduct
process, speaking on behalf of students at judicial hearings, editing
appeals written by students, and proposing amendments to
University policies. Responsible for directly supervising six
undergraduate interns, as well as maintaining FERPA compliance.
Resident Assistant |Michigan State University - Abbot Hall |August

2015 May 2017
Responsible for ensuring a safe and secure environment in Abbot
Hall, assisting residents with academic, personal, and community-
oriented concerns, facilitating floor-wide and building-wide events,
and fostering an inclusive and accepting community.
President |Mason-Abbot Hall Government |April 2016 May 2017

Elected to represent concerns of Mason-Abbot residents to the
University at large. Initiatives included improved building
infrastructure, organizing events, and re-writing the Mason-Abbot
Hall Government Constitution.
Intern |State Representative Klint Kesto|January 2015 April 2015

Interned in the Michigan House of Representatives for State
Representative Klint Kesto, 39th District. Duties included responding
to constituent questions and concerns, scheduling meetings and
Rsum Upon Graduation 282
events, and researching policy initiatives.
Campaign Manager|Kevin Commet for State Senate|May

2014 November 2014
Managed State Senate campaign in Michigans 16th District. Duties
included managing media appearances, coordinating social media
outlets, writing speeches and press releases, responding to voters
letters and emails, calling potential donors, overseeing
interns, and designing the campaign website.
Campaign Manager| Thomas Wilson for School Board|May

2014 November 2014
Managed successful school board campaign in Napoleon, MI,
resulting in the election of the youngest school board member in
Napoleons history. Entailed maintaining a healthy social media
presence, coordinating with the media, and overseeing voter
relations.
Committee Appointments
University Council | September 2016-May 2017
Sat on the University Council of Michigan State, whose
membership includes the Universitys President, the Provost, faculty,
Chairpersons of standing committees, and several collegiate deans.
University Council discusses and votes on university-wide issues.
University Committee on Student Affairs | November 2016-May 2017
Served as a voting member of Michigan State Universitys advisory
committee to the Vice President for Student Affairs and Services.
Duties included serving as chair of the Subcommittee on Policy,
which proposes amendments to university-wide regulations.
Interests
Recorded and produced four albums since March 2014
Wrote, recorded, and directed a musical about resident assistants
during Summer 2016
Awards and Honors

Rookie RA of the Year, 2015-2016
Campus Leader RA Award, 2016-2017
Senior Class Council Outstanding Senior
James Madison College, Student Commencement Speaker

"In The Shadow of Beaumont Tower: An Anthology" by T. A. Silvestri

Diunggah oleh

Informasi Dokumen

Judul Asli

Hak Cipta

Format Tersedia

Bagikan dokumen Ini

Bagikan atau Tanam Dokumen

Opsi Berbagi

Apakah menurut Anda dokumen ini bermanfaat?

Apakah konten ini tidak pantas?

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

"In The Shadow of Beaumont Tower: An Anthology" by T. A. Silvestri

Diunggah oleh

Hak Cipta:

Format Tersedia

1

In the Shadow of Beaumont Tower is an edited

For any inquiries, contact Tyler Silvestri at TylerSilvestri53@gmail.com.

Edited by Tyler Silvestri.

First Edition: November 2017 by Tagalong Publishing, East Lansing, MI, in

An Open Letter to Friends Considering Voting for Trump 237

I F DEMOCRACY CANNOT BE DEFENDED BY

why didnt he simply make compensated emancipation a federal law? At

heavily oppressed the people. Beginning in 1967, civil dissatisfaction with

In Defense of Democratic Integrity was originally written for MC 201,

Dark Blue was submitted as a descriptive essay, assigned by

Margaret Sanger, the Pill,

D URING THE 1960s, A CULTURAL REVOLUTION WAS

It was the dawn of a new day in my life . . . I went to bed

The narrative of oral contraceptives would be drastically different if

We should hire three or four colored ministers, preferably with

I admire the courage of a government that takes a stand on

Conferences Second International Eugenics Congress in September of

I think you must agree . . . that the campaign for birth

Where Life Matters Most

P RESIDENT JOHN F. KENNEDY, THE 35th PRESIDENT

miserable life before I had help to build my home; now I have

RD: That that was a real blow, a shock to Americans. I think

before I was to go to Georgetown for Peace Corps training, I

But I had to let Kennedy age, and I had to age, before I

Mr. Ron. See you tomorrow if there is a tomorrow. That

familial integrity. That meant that Kennedy was able to pull

thats true, that when those two loving relations occur,

Ron Dorrs Journal Entry on Friday, November 22, 1963

Just standing there, listening, silently, thinking, at a loss to do anything,

I stand by all of the comments I made in the 2014 Remarks section of

S OCRATES IDEAL REGIME, AS LAID OUT IN PLATOs

inclinations, and shortcomings. 6 For a majority of citizens, tending to

incapable of minding said business, they are therefore incapable of doing

Liberalism as Collectivism is a classic example of what college is all about:

Liberalism as Collectivism was originally written for MC 270, taught by

A LEXIS DE TOCQUEVILLE, PIERRE MANENT, AND

designed would be sufficient to check the more unsavory parts of human

force on each other. The cultural convictions in America allow the

a generally uniform religion to be the key to a successful American polity,

Christianity is a particularly desirable religion because it only propounds

understood forth are bound up in the independence of man.25 It is human

Dogmatic Liberalism was originally written for MC 271, taught by

W HEN CONSIDERING THE PROPER ROLE OF

that the suppression of religious choice is ultimately against the long-term

one to condemn behaviors they find objectionable.16 Locke might have

tongue-in-cheek condemnation of the role religion has in child-rearing, a

Montesquieu sees the overarching moral fabric of the community as more

war.26 Conversely, Locke often saw the establishment of a national church

consistent killing in the name of religion for hundreds of years is what

Toleration, Secularization, and the Crisis of the Modern-Day Liberal was

The Noble Illusion

C ENTRAL TO ROBERT NAGELS JUDICIAL POWER AND

Nagels poignant description of a scene in which abortion activists

tyrannical, Justices could use a command of the law defense in ruling

republic that is still responsive to democratic change. This is the ultimate

The Noble Illusion is one of my favorite papers in this collection. This is

C LASSICAL LIBERAL THEORY, WHICH HAS LARGELY

person is irrelevant to their status as a human, provided they are capable

[is] a pointlessly circular procedure.22 This is exactly the point of the

Jaggar also sees abstract individualism as sexist because it doesnt

I am a feminist because I am a liberal. This paper was an effort to

Feminism as a Logical Consequence of Liberalism was originally written for