Conversations With Interesting People, Video

In Conversation with Sara Lawrence Lightfoot

Leave a comment

On April 11, 2013 Jonathan Fanton sat down with acclaimed sociologist Sara Lawrence Lightfoot for a conversation about her career and reflections on learning, culture, and relationships. To view the video, click here.

Sara Lawrence Lightfoot Introduction

Thursday April 11, 2013

Good evening. I am Jonathan Fanton, Interim Director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute and it is my pleasure you welcome you to a very special evening. Many of you have been here before to enjoy book discussions like Ira Katznelson’s Fear Itself, hear world leaders like former Prosecutor of the ICC, Luis Moreno Ocampo, or talk presidential politics during our recent conference entitled Ike Reconsidered: Lessons from the Eisenhower Legacy for the 21st Century.

Tonight is different. I have been long wanted to have a series of conversations with the most interesting people I know personally. Ed Koch was my first guest, followed by former MoMA President Agnes Gund, Vartan Gregorian of the Carnegie Foundation, philanthropist Rita Hauser, and, most recently, James Lipton of Inside the Actor’s Studio.

 

But tonight is a very special to me as I sit down with my friend and colleague, Sara Lawrence Lightfoot. Sara and I made common cause at the MacArthur Foundation when she was Board Chair and I President. She is the best Board Chair I know and I have known a lot. I learned a great deal from her — how to ask probing questions in a nice way, how to listen deeply, how to explain the foundation’s work through stories rather than dry statistics of impact. Sara knows how to build a community based on mutual respect, open but civil discourse, and deep personal relationships. She moves easily among disciplines, geographies, cultures, always eloquent, ever-inspiring. I have seen her in action from the Chicago board room to New York City neighborhoods, from Fiji to Nigeria to India and many places in between.

Sara is the Emily Hargroves Fisher Professor of Education at Harvard where she has been teaching since 1980. She has written 10 books with titles that invite you in: Balm In Gilead: Journey of a Healer, I’ve Known Rivers: Lives of Loss and Liberation, Respect: An Exploration, Exit: The Endings That Set Us Free, and The Essential Conversation: What Parents and Teachers Can Learn from Each Other.

My idea for this series of conversations was inspired by that book and I see each conversation as a learning experience for all of us here.

As you will see, Sara is a modest person, unpretentious, fun to be with. When you meet her, you feel the warmth, the empathy, the interest in hearing what you have to say. And always a desire to help. And yet, here I am facing a winner of the McArthur Prize Fellowship, someone recognized with 28 honorary degrees, a recipient of Harvard’s George Ledlie prize for “research and discovery” that make the “most valuable contribution to science” and “the benefit of mankind.” And that’s just a sample.

She is a devoted and gifted teacher. I know her students come first. And she is a thoughtful and productive scholar who has advanced our understanding of how personal development, family, community and pedagogy come together to create enabling learning environments.

But somehow she finds time for public service, Chair of the MacArthur Board, now Deputy Chair of the Atlantic Philanthropies, member of the boards of WGBH in Boston, the Berklee College of Music, her alma mater Swarthmore, the Coalition of Essential Schools, Bright Horizons Family Solutions and much more.

Let me close with a sample of her work, from her book Respect, which she sees as…

“Symmetric and dynamic.… (It) supports growth and change, encourages communication and authenticity and allows generosity and empathy to flow in two directions…. (It is) visceral, palpable, conveyed through gesture, nuance, tone of voice and figure of speech…. It is more than civility…. It penetrates below the polite surface and reflects a growing sense of connection, empathy and trust. It requires seeing the other as genuinely worthy…. Respect is not just conveyed through talk, it is also conveyed through silence.  I do not mean an empty, distracted silence.  I mean a fully engaged silence that permits us to think, feel, breathe, and take notice – silence that gives the other person permission to let us know what he or she needs.”

After Sara and I talk for a while we will broaden the conversation to include all of you.

Foreign Policy, Roosevelt House Introductions, Video

A Brief Talk with Luis Moreno Ocampo

Leave a comment

On March 19, 2013 Luis Moreno Ocampo came to the Roosevelt House to discuss his former role as Commissioner of the International Criminal Court (ICC) and previous experiences with human rights issues abroad. Dr. Fanton introduced Mr. Ocampo (below) and sat down for a brief talk with the former Commissioner after his remarks.

Good Evening. I am Jonathan Fanton. Interim Director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute. It is my pleasure to welcome the former Prosecutor of the International Criminal Court, Luis Moreno Ocampo, back to Roosevelt House for a reflection on his nine years as the court’s first prosecutor.

Roosevelt House has developed an outstanding undergraduate program on human rights and international justice, now enrolling 70 students who are doing internships with Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, the ACLU, the Museum of Tolerance, and the Legal Aid Society. We also have a vigorous program for the public to discuss human rights issues with people like Kofi Annan, High Commissioner for H.R. Navi Pillay, US Special Ambassador for War Crimes, Stephen Rapp, former prosecutors in the Yugoslav tribunals Richard Goldstone and Louise Arbour and current Rwandan Tribunal Prosecutor Hassan Jallow to name a few of our distinguished guests.

The International Criminal Court is the first permanent court to deal with genocide and mass atrocities. It builds on experience from the Nuremberg Trials and the international criminal tribunals for Yugoslavia and Rwanda.

Luis Moreno Ocampo bore the responsibility of translating the vision of the Treaty of Rome which brought the Court to life into reality. On his watch the number of countries which are members of the Court grew from 89 to 121. During his time as Prosecutor 30 indictments were issued covering situations in Northern Uganda, the Democratic Republic of Congo, the Central African Republic, Darfur, Kenya,  Libya and Côte d’Ivoire. And the Court won its first conviction in March 2012 against Thomas Lubanga Dyilo and has trials proceeding against Germain Katanga of the DRC, Jean-Pierre Bemba of the Central African Republic and President Laurent Gbagbo of  Côte d’Ivoire. The Court also has opened investigations in in Mali,  and preliminary  examinations in a number  of countries including  Afghanistan, Georgia, Nigeria, and Colombia.

The existence of the Court has raised the quality of justice in member states which have improved their judicial systems to conform to the ICC standards. The Prosecutor will talk with us about the “shadow of the Court,” its role in deterring bad behavior by political and military leaders fearful of being prosecuted.

At his swearing in ceremony in 2003, the Prosecutor said, “We must learn: there is no safe haven for life and freedom if we fail to protect the rights of any person in any country of the world.” Well, 10 years later we can say that the quality of justice and protection for human rights has improved because of the successful work of Luis Moreno Ocampo. There will only be one Founding Prosecutor and we are fortunate that his adherence to the highest judicial standards, careful choice of cases, political skill in building support for the Court and eloquent advocacy for international justice has produced a Court that is indeed permanent.

Luis Moreno Ocampo was well prepared for his historic challenge.

Born in Argentina and a graduate of the University of Buenos Aires Law School, Luis Moreno Ocampo rose to prominence during the early 1980s as the assistant prosecutor in the Trial of the Argentine Junta.. He was responsible for prosecuting nine senior government figures – including three former heads of state – for the  human rights atrocities while they ruled the country under a military dictatorship. He also took on the Buenos Aires Police Force for perpetrating gross human rights abuses, and later prosecuted other members of the military elite who attempted to overthrow the government during the late 1980s and early 90s.

In 1992, he established a successful private practice that specialized in corruption control, criminal law, and human rights law. In addition to his practice, he became a Professor of Criminal Law at the Buenos Aires Law School and has also been a visiting professor at the Stanford and Harvard law schools.

He is now in private practice in New York, focusing on defending whistleblowers and prosecuting fraud.

But he remains vitally interested in international justice and human rights education for young people.

The Prosecutor will share his reflections, then he and I will have a conversation and then we will open to the audience.

Remembrances

Dwight Fanton Memorial

Leave a comment

Dwight Fanton

March 16, 2013

This morning we laid Dwight to rest in Easton’s Center Street Cemetery where he joined his parents, Willard and Ethel, and his grandparents, Iverson and Emma. Indeed he is surrounded by Fantons who settled in Weston in the 1680s. A few years ago he and I did  an oral history , traveling from his early home in New Rochelle, to Yale, through Bridgeport and Trumbull where we lived after the war and then all around Weston, Easton and Fairfield.

My most vibrant memories of my father go back to the late 40s and early 50s – our modest house at 11 Edgewood Avenue in Trumbull, our cocker spaniel, Rusty, the backyard vegetable garden, sailing at the Black Rock Yacht Club, catching crabs off my uncle’s boat in Chesapeake Bay, going with my father to Yankee games, Saturday afternoons at the Loews Poli Theater in Bridgeport, doing my Sunday school lessons with him, attending my first political rally. He liked Ike and so did I.

How fortunate I was to have a father so deeply engaged in every part of my life, always there for me.

And how fortunate we all are that Dwight was our friend, our mentor, our anchor in good times and bad for almost 98 years. Early on I knew there was something special about him. A warmth, an empathy, a love deeply felt if not always expressed.

I saw his ability to mediate difficult labor disputes in post-war Bridgeport because both sides trusted him, respected his fairness, his ability to bridge differences without compromising core principles.

He loved Bridgeport, working a lifetime at Pullman and Comley, chairing the Red Cross and United Way, helping build the University of Bridgeport, representing good companies like Hubbell and hospitals like Bridgeport and St. Vincent’s. Building community and giving back were core values I learned from him.

I watched him as a prosecutor and judge in the Trumbull Town Court, admiring his intelligence, perceptive insight into people’s character and motivations, and good judgment in resolving disputes.

As I speak, I can see lively conversations with Bill Pearl, with whom he worked on the prosecution team at the Dachau Tribunals pursuing justice for senior Nazi military officers.  It pleased me some years later to connect him by phone to the Prosecutor of the new International Criminal Court who acknowledged the critical role of Nuremberg and Dachau in laying the ground work for the International Criminal Court.

Justice was a central theme in Dwight’s life as he pursued a more just and humane world at peace. He inspired my own work in human rights which strengthened the bond between us as I pursued his vision of a democratic Europe free of authoritarian rule.

I am grateful for all I have learned from him – optimism beats despair, humor brings perspective, hard work is essential, a competitive spirit is liberating, patient courage of your convictions will prevail, helping others is the greatest reward, humility is a source of strength, and there is nothing more important than family and friends.

He was blessed with a family who loved and respected him. And with colleagues and friends overflowing this church who filled his life with joy and challenges which kept him razor sharp until the very end. I especially appreciate his warm welcome when Cynthia joined our family, two lawyers who instantly connected.

And Roma, your devotion to Dwight is one of the most moving love stories of all time. My last conversation with him alone was about you, his respect for your intelligence, his admiration of your character, his appreciation for your love and loyalty.

All of us who love Dwight are in your debt.

Let me close with a reflection from Yale Chaplain William Sloane Coffin:

“The one true freedom in life is to come to terms with death, and as early as possible, for death is an event that embraces all our lives.  And the only way to have a good death is to lead a good life.  Lead a good one, full of curiosity, generosity, and compassion, and there’s no need at the close of the day to rage against the dying of the light.  We can go gentle into that good night.”

Dwight lived a good life and now has gone gently into the good night.

Domestic Policy, Roosevelt House Introductions

Opening Remarks, CORO Neighborhood Leadership Program

Leave a comment

On March 12, 2013 Jonathan Fanton remarked on the mission and values of the CORO Neighborhood Leadership Program, which trains individuals working in various New York City organizations to build networks and attain the skills necessary to strengthen local neighborhoods. For more information on CORO, click here.

CORO Leadership
March 12, 2013

1). It is a pleasure to welcome you to the home of Franklin and Eleanor Roosevelt, now the Hunter College Roosevelt Institute of Public Policy.

There are actually two houses, built by Franklin’s mother Sara in 1908 who gave one to Eleanor and Franklin as a wedding gift.

Roosevelt heard of his election to the Presidency in this house and later put together his cabinet and formulated the early New Deal right here.

He understood the importance of community development. Hear his words in a 1933 Fireside Chat talking about employment creation and economic development. Our program “will succeed if our people understand it — in the big industries, in the little shops, in the great cities and … small villages. There is nothing complicated about it and there is nothing particularly new in the principle. It goes back to the basic idea of society and of the nation itself that people acting in a group can accomplish things which no individual acting alone could even hope to bring about.”

He and Eleanor would be pleased that a new generation of leaders dedicated to making New York City a pathway of opportunity for all gathers here to reflect on your Fellowship experience.

I was reading over your short bios  and am impressed with the work you are doing all over the city and the many creative projects underway. And a special welcome to Felicia from Union Square Partnership.

2). As you know, Rob and I worked together at the Union Square Local Development Corporation and BID for many years and I learned a lot from him, lessons that inspired the MacArthur Foundation’s substantial Investment in reviving Chicago’s poorest but promising neighborhoods.

MacArthur joined with other foundations and financial institutions to form The National Community for Development Initiative now called Living Cities which worked with LISC and Enterprise in 23 cities across the country.  What we did in Chicago was studied and often replicated across the country.

They called it the Chicago Model.  But I called it the 14th Street Union Square Model because the key elements came from my work with Rob.

3). The transformation of Union Square from a “needle park” haven for drug dealers to a family friendly gathering place for recreation and relaxation, food and fun, commerce and conversation is a thrilling story.

Looking back here are some of the key drivers for change, factors you will recognize in your own neighborhoods.

Institutional leadership matters, in our case the largest business employer Con Ed and the most significant institution, The New School.  Presidents Charles Luce and Jack Everett and their staffs quickly recruited neighborhood leaders and businesses to help.

Getting the footprint right is important, in our case anchored by Union Square and several blocks either way on 14th Street formed a natural neighborhood.

Achieving some early victories to show that improvement is possible if we work together, in our case holding events in Union Square Park for children and families to show that it was a clean and safe place to come and promoting new business openings through ribbon-cutting events to broadcast that Union Square was open for business.

Forging an alliance with city agencies is critical, in our case the 4 precincts that come together in the area, the Parks Department, City Planning.  The sensible zoning changes in the mid 1990’s were critical to economic development at the right scale. Along the way we got a lot of help from people like Henry Stern and Joe Rose.

Getting the balance right between economic development and preservation of the community and its values is critical.  Also having a plan, block by block, building by building is essential even as a base line from which reality often departed.

Vision is critical.  Mid-way in my 17 years as co-chair we stopped to clarify what our values and characteristics were.  From that exercise came, for example, the concept of diversity — residential, commercial, institutional, the arts, a mix of people by class, race and age, a transportation hub where people from all over the city meet and mix.

And from the vision came a consensus about the future.  For all the high theory about community development what matters most are the people.  We were neighbors and colleagues but more importantly friends.  A couple of years ago Rob organized a 30th reunion of the Local Development Corporation with an amazing turn out, spirits that surpassed high school and college reunions. And a great appreciation to Rob for his leadership which was indispensable for all we accomplished. He brought the best out in all of us, built our commitment, lifted our spirits, bridged differences, made things happen.

A final thought:  time and patience is essential and, vigilance, so progress achieved is maintained.  The job is never done.  A healthy community is resilient, able to absorb adversity, grasp opportunity and embrace change.

You are all younger than I by some years.  Looking back over my career I can say my work with the Union Square – 14th Street Local Development Corporation at BID ranks at the top of what gives me a feeling of pride and satisfaction.  So I salute you for the work you are doing to make our city stronger one neighborhood at a time – a city that is more just and human with opportunity for all.

Domestic Policy, Presidential Leadership Conferences

Opening Remarks at “Ike Reconsidered: Lessons from the Eisenhower Legacy for the 21st Century”

Leave a comment

On March 7-8, 2013, The Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute hosted an academic conference on the Eisenhower presidency entitled, “Ike Reconsidered: Lessons from the Eisenhower Legacy for the 21st Century.” Panels consisting of notable Eisenhower biographers and scholars examined several aspects of the Eisenhower Administration’s foreign and domestic policy, including civil rights, science, highway development, Middle East policy, and nuclear proliferation. Jonathan Fanton set the stage for the second day of the academic conference by remarking on Eisenhower, and his connection to Franklin Roosevelt, below. For more information on “Ike Reconsidered,” click here.

FDR and Eisenhower

I am Jonathan Fanton, Interim Director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute and it is my pleasure to welcome you to the second day of our conference on “Lessons from the Eisenhower Legacy for the 21st Century.”

Among the lessons we will explore today is the importance of balance as a strategy for getting things done, keeping expectations in line with real possibilities, making choices in the present that enhance future opportunities.

We gather in the homes of Eleanor and Franklin Roosevelt and Franklin’s mother, Sara. Sara built these twin townhouses and gave one to Franklin and Eleanor as a wedding gift in 1908.

This is where the Roosevelts raised their family, Franklin began his law career, recovered from polio, and planned his re-entry into public life as Governor. And it was upstairs in the second floor parlor by the fireplace that he made his first address to the nation as President-elect on November 9, 1932 on NBC radio.

When you walk around be sure to visit FDR’s study, also on the second floor, where the New Deal was shaped, Cabinet secretaries like Frances Perkins recruited, and commitments made to programs like Social Security.

The houses came to Hunter in 1942 after Sara’s death, made possible by an initial gift from Franklin and Eleanor. The houses were an interfaith and student center from then until 1992 when they closed in disrepair.

Thanks to the vision and determination of Hunter President Jennifer Raab, the Roosevelt Houses were renovated three years ago and now host the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute. The Institute offers two undergraduate programs, one in Public Policy and the other in Human Rights. And it sponsors a robust program of lectures, conferences and discussions of important domestic and international issues meant to bring scholars and policy makers together with the general public.

Our conference last year on the domestic accomplishments of Lyndon Johnson’s presidency yielded practical lessons for those in power today about how to make Washington work. And we hope that this reconsideration of the Eisenhower presidency will offer us another model for leadership.
While our conference focuses on Dwight Eisenhower, it seems appropriate to reflect for a moment on the relationship between Eisenhower and FDR.  Ike, after all, achieved military fame under Roosevelt, opening a path to the White House that would have otherwise been unlikely. Even though Eisenhower did not place Roosevelt among the presidents he most admired, we can identify certain parallels between them.

Hear the President’s words at a rally in the public square in Cleveland.

“… what has your Government been doing? In virtually every area of human concern, it is moving forward.  Government has had a heart as well as a head. … I hope you will not take it that I am boasting. There will never be room for boasting … until there is not a single needy person left in the United States, when distress and disease have been eliminated. I am talking about progress …  Social Security has been extended to an additional 10 million Americans – unemployment compensation to an additional 4 million Americans. Our health program has been greatly improved…. Research into the causes of crippling and killing diseases has been markedly stepped up. The minimum wage has been increased, even though my recommendation for its wider coverage was not acted on in the Congress…”

When that quote started, I thought I was listening to Franklin Roosevelt. Only near the end did I recognize Dwight Eisenhower. His embrace of core New Deal programs gave them bipartisan legitimacy, strengthening the foundation for government’s responsibility for human security and opportunity.

Yet there was no special warmth between the two men, perhaps the result of something that happened early in World War II.  Eisenhower had risen very quickly to high rank, due to his own gifts as a military planner and the sponsorship of General George Marshall.  Ike was placed in command of the first major Allied amphibious operation of the war, the invasion of North Africa, then under Vichy French control.  The landings had gone about as well as could be hoped, and he also had shown skill in his dealings with the various French factions.

But his initial performance as a commander of troops in the field had been lackluster.  He had failed to prevent German reinforcements to Tunisia and American troops suffered a humiliating defeat in early 1943 at Kasserine Pass.  There were real doubts in Washington and London about whether Eisenhower had the “right stuff” to run major military operations.

Roosevelt let Eisenhower dangle for a while, refusing to promote him or confirm that he would command the upcoming invasion of Sicily.  The President wanted to see more.  Though his caution was rational, Eisenhower could not have been happy about it.  In the end, of course, Allied forces prevailed in North Africa, and the American troops improved quickly.  But a coolness may have lingered.

Ike also was not happy about some of the political decisions Roosevelt made.  Roosevelt decided to demand the unconditional surrender of Germany and Japan.  Although Eisenhower understood that the Nazi regime had to be eradicated root-and-branch, he also believed that the announcement of the policy would make German troops fight harder and cost more American lives.

But no doubt, Eisenhower witnessed in Roosevelt a political master at work.  We can reasonably conclude that some of the lessons influenced Ike’s own leadership style.  Consider his own unpleasant experience in North Africa.  Roosevelt showed that a president must set high performance expectations for his key subordinates – the fate of his administration, and the nation, depend on it.  Being president requires a measure of ruthlessness.  FDR had it, and Eisenhower experienced it.

FDR also recognized the importance of freedom of action.  As Andrew Polsky points out in his recent book, Elusive Victories, this was the cornerstone of Roosevelt’s wartime leadership.  He made a point of holding meetings with his military chiefs at which no notes were taken so he could backtrack when necessary and leave no fingerprints on controversial decisions.  He had an elaborate vision for the postwar world, but he never laid it out in a speech and always left room to adjust to new international conditions along the way.  He carefully juggled domestic constituencies ranging from conservative Southern Democrats to organized labor to big business.

Eisenhower, too, would nurture his freedom of action when he became president.  The “hidden hand” leadership style that Fred Greenstein has described was carefully calibrated to help Ike avoid the kinds of public stands and commitments that leave a president trapped, without options.  While this style, to the public, can appear to lack boldness and assertiveness, it is also one that stirs less opposition, alienates fewer political allies, and enables political leaders get things done.

It is very appropriate, then, that we gather in the home of one distinguished chief executive to examine what we can learn today about another.  Rarely do we think of Roosevelt and Eisenhower together.  Certainly they were not friends.  But Eisenhower spent the crucial war years observing a political master, and he absorbed some useful lessons along the way.

Either Roosevelt or Eisenhower could have concluded “We live in a shrunken world, a world in which oceans are crossed in hours, a world in which a simple minded despotism menaces the scattered freedoms of scores of struggling independent nations. … There can be no enduring peace for any nation while other nations suffer privation, oppression, and a sense of injustice and despair. In our modern world, it is madness to suppose that there could be an island of tranquility and prosperity in a sea of wretchedness and frustration.” So said Dwight Eisenhower in 1956 to the Republican Convention.

XXX

This conference is a partnership between Hunter College’s Roosevelt House and the Eisenhower Foundation whose President, Dan Sharp, first proposed it. After Dan offers his perspective, Professor Andrew Polsky will frame the day’s program. Professor Polsky did a magnificent job in organizing the conference and recruiting our outstanding group of panelists to take a critical look at the Eisenhower legacy. Julia Kohn, Director of our Public Policy Program and Ellen Murray, our Research Associate, and Roosevelt House Deputy Director, Fay Rosenfeld, deserve our thanks for putting this conference together.

Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome Dan Sharp.

Domestic Policy, Roosevelt House Introductions, Video

Ira Katznelson, “Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time”

Leave a comment

On March 4, 2013 Jonathan Fanton introduced Professor Ira Katznelson who discussed his new book, Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time, with Professor David Nasaw. These two distinguished scholars spoke on a wide range of issues including the development and limitations of the American social welfare state, U.S. foreign policy, the role of Congress in furthering social reform, and the nature of liberal democracy in the mid-twentieth century. The Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute hosted this event. For more information on The Roosevelt House, click here.

INTRODUCTION FOR BOOK TALK WITH IRA KATZNELSON

March 4, 2013

Good evening. I am Jonathan Fanton, Interim Director of the Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute. It is my great pleasure to welcome you to our discussion on Ira Katznelson’s Fear Itself: The New Deal and the Origins of Our Time.

How appropriate we gather today, the 80th anniversary of FDR’s first inaugural address. Hear his words: “This is preeminently the time to speak the truth, the whole truth, frankly and boldly … let me assert my firm belief that the only thing we have to fear is fear itself – nameless unreasoning, unjustified terror which paralyzes needed efforts to convert retreat into advance.”

Fear Itself tells a fresh story about the development and influence of the New Deal both at home and abroad. The New Deal is, in Katznelson’s words, a “rejuvenating triumph” in its reaffirmation of representative democracy and its ability to create more expansive notions of citizenship rights. Yet, as he notes, representative democracy also meant that progressive forces often had to compromise with their more reactionary, often southern, counterparts who hoped to maintain racial discrimination within New Deal legislation, perpetuate the segregation of public places, and offer American support to repressive anticommunist regimes.

In looking at Congress’s – not just FDR’s – role in shaping the New Deal, Professor Katznelson offers a fine-grained analysis that allows us to see the inner-workings of American politics.  “Of the New Deal’s many achievements,” he writes, “none was more important than the demonstration that liberal democracy, a political system with a legislature at its heart, could govern effectively in the face of great danger.” Both domestic and international.

FDR understood the process of democracy could be frustrating, involve compromises, produce uncertainty, enable reactionary forces bent on resisting change.

Hear his words at the Democratic Victory Dinner on March 4, 1937:

“My great ambition…is to leave my successor… a Nation which has thus proved that the democratic form and methods of national government can and will succeed…Democracy in many lands has failed for the time being to meet human needs. People have become so fed up with futile debate and party bickerings over methods that they have been willing to surrender democratic processes and principles in order to get things done. They have forgotten the lessons of history that the ultimate failures of dictatorships cost humanity far more than any temporary failures of democracy…In the United States democracy has not yet failed and does not need to fail. And we propose not to let it fail…Nevertheless, I cannot tell you with complete candor that in these past few years democracy in the United States has fully succeeded. Nor can I tell you, … just where American democracy is headed … . I can only hope.”

Both FDR and Ira Katznelson see democratic progress and reform as a continuous process in search of a more just, fair and tolerant society.

Professor Katznelson, the Ruggles Professor of Political Science and History at Columbia and President of the Social Science Research Council, is a distinguished scholar who has written extensively on American politics, political theory, race, class formation, urban affairs, social movements, European studies and more.

Among his books are: When Affirmative Action Was White: An Untold History of Racial Inequality in Twentieth-Century America and Desolation and Enlightenment: Political Knowledge after Total War, Totalitarianism, and the Holocaust.

Ira Katznelson and I made common cause thirty years ago to rebuild the New School’s Graduate Faculty of Political and Social Science. There I came to admire his capacity to listen, to appreciate complexity, to embrace intellectual puzzles, and to construct narratives that advance our understanding but also stimulate further discussion and debate. He is a master at putting public policy in historical perspective and I am pleased that he has just joined the Board of the Roosevelt House.

It is also my pleasure to introduce tonight’s moderator, Professor David Nasaw, the Arthur M. Schlesigner Jr. Professor of History at the CUNY Graduate Center. Professor Nasaw received his PhD from Columbia University, where he studied French intellectual history. But his scholarly work has focused on American History, publishing, most recently, award-winning biographies on William Randolph Hearst, Andrew Carnegie, and Joseph Kennedy – examinations of some of the most powerful and complex men in our nation’s history. He has been chair of the CUNY Center for the Humanities and is currently Chair of the Advisory Board for the Leon Levy Center for Biography.

Let me close with a passage Professor Katznelson quotes from Tocqueville’s The Old Regime and the French Revolution: we “are far enough from the Revolution to feel only fleetingly the passions that troubled the view of those who made it” but “we are… still close enough to be able to enter into and comprehend the spirit that brought it about.” That could just as well be said about those of us in the room that stand at about the same distance from Franklin Roosevelt’s New Deal.

It is a special honor to have these two distinguished historians here with us tonight to help us understand the competence, compromises, courage and complexity that characterized the New Deal.

Ladies and Gentlemen, David Nasaw and Ira Katznelson.

Introductions at Student Seminars

Adam Wolfensohn Introduction

Leave a comment

On February 27, 2013 Adam Wolfensohn, an environmentalist who works with businesses and government agencies to enact sound environmental practices, spoke with Hunter College undergraduate students about his work. Jonathan Fanton introduced Mr. Wolfensohn before his talk.

Adam Wolfensohn Introduction
February 27, 2013

I am Jonathan Fanton, Interim Director of Roosevelt House and it is my pleasure to welcome you to a conversation with Adam Wolfensohn, Managing Director at Wolfensohn and Company, an investment firm that focuses on investments in emerging market economies. Mr. Wolfensohn leads the firm’s environmental markets initiative, helping invest in environmentally-sound, low carbon energy companies.

He is an active member of the Roosevelt House Board of Advisors, which is guiding the development of our Public Policy Institute. From time to time we invite members to meet with students and share their experiences.

Adam Wolfensohn’s life work resonates with President Roosevelt’s vision 74 years ago. He comes to us with a unique perspective of environmental issues. He received a Masters in Environmental Management from Yale and is a board member of EKO Asset Management Partners, an investment firm that helps landowners, government agencies and businesses become more environmentally-conscious. Mr. Wolfensohn also serves on the board of the Verdeo Group, Inc., which aims to reduce carbon emissions in North American gas, oil, and mining sectors and is a trustee of the Alaska Conservation Foundation, which helps preserve Alaskan wildlife. Mr. Wolfensohn recently brought this expertise to the Board of Directors of the Rockefeller Philanthropy Advisors as one of its new members.

What sets Mr. Wolfensohn apart from other environmentalists is his commitment to broadening the public concern with climate change.  Trained as a musician at Princeton University, Mr. Wolfensohn — the composer of numerous film and television commercials — has fused his artistic talents to his push for sounder environmental practices. In 2002 and 2003, he worked with Conservation International to make the 2003 Pearl Jam concert tour carbon-neutral. He produced “Everything’s Cool,” a documentary on climate change that debuted at the 2007 Sundance Film Festival. It illuminates the struggles of scientists to educate and mobilize an otherwise sleepy public to action against global warming.

Yet public action and mobilizing cannot do it alone. As Mr. Wolfensohn noted in a recent interview, government and legislative leadership is crucial to limiting the harmful and dangerous impact we as humans can have on our natural surroundings.

“Many of these debates [about the environment],” he says, “come down to how we can best transform our culture, politics, and economy. Is it a bottom up or a top down process? Do we need marches on Washington and mass localization to stir the hearts of millions? Or do we need strong leadership from Washington and public acquiescence that follows that leadership? I think the latter is the more likely scenario.”

It is this sentiment that makes Mr. Wolfensohn’s talk here today so fitting. Energy conservation and protection of the environment were central themes in our work at Roosevelt House. President Roosevelt would be pleased we are having this conversation in his home. He built upon the achievements of previous progressive leaders to institute striking environmental reform. His New Deal created the Civilian Conservation Corps, which was designed, in his words, to “conserve our precious natural resources,” and he formed the Soil Conservation Service and enacted the Federal Wildlife Restoration Act to preserve some of the nation’s endangered species and non-renewable resources.

And he imagined an America where legislators prioritized the study of our natural environment and took action. Hear his words in 1939 as he implores Congress to begin a comprehensive study of energy conservation. (Transmittal to Congress of a Study of Energy Resources, February 16, 1939):
“…We now use more energy per capita than any other people, and our scientists tell us there will be a progressively increasing demand for energy for all purposes. Our energy resources are not inexhaustible, yet we are permitting waste in their use and production. In some instances, to achieve apparent economies today, future generations will be forced to carry the burden of unnecessarily high costs…

In the past the Federal Government and the States have undertaken various measures to conserve our…resources. [But] each of those efforts has been directed toward the problems in a single field: toward the protection of the public interest in the power of flowing water in the Nation’s rivers; toward the relief of economic and human distress in the mining of coal…It is time now to take a larger view: to recognize—more fully than has been possible or perhaps needful in the past—that each of our great natural resources of energy affects the others.”

So without further ado, let me turn the floor over the Mr. Wolfensohn, who will lead us in what I’m sure will be a rich conversation.

Foreign Policy, Scholars at Risk, Tunisia

Tunisia: Inspiring Possibilities for Academic Freedom and Strong Universities

Leave a comment

On February 21 and 22, 2013, Jonathan Fanton spoke at the University of Manouba in Tunisia on the subject of higher education in the country. Along with other distinguished guests, Dr. Fanton outlined how universities promote academic freedom and serve as the bedrock for democratic development. To see the conference program for “The University and the Nation: An International Dialogue on Safeguarding Higher Education in Tunisia and Beyond,”  click here: SAR TUNISIA POSTER AND PROGRAM

Tunisia: Inspiring Possibilities for Academic Freedom

and Strong Universities

Jonathan F. Fanton

I had the honor of addressing the conference at the University of Chicago in June 2000 which gave birth to Scholars at Risk. I opened with these words:

“I have a sense of being present at the creation of something very important for the building and sustenance of healthy democratic societies throughout the world. Do you know of a free and democratic society that does not respect academic freedom? Put another way, do you know of an authoritarian regime that dares to allow widespread artistic and intellectual freedom? Academic freedom and democracy go together as indispensable partners.”

We are present at the creation of a new and democratic Tunisia whose economic and political future depends on strong and independent universities and respect for academic freedom. I come here to listen and learn from your experience at this inflection point for Tunisia and to hear your ideas about how we can help.  But first I have been asked to share my own experience, and so I want to talk with you for a few minutes about the importance of universities to open and prosperous societies. Then we will open the floor to a dialogue about how we can work together to strengthen support for universities.

But first a personal comment.

As I look back on my career, protection of academic freedom and the independence of universities has been the central theme. While President of the New School in the 1980s, I helped organize underground seminars for dissident scholars in Poland, Hungary and Czechoslavakia. In 1933 the New School founded a University in Exile in New York to rescue scholars from Nazi persecution. As President of the MacArthur Foundation, I helped strengthen universities in key countries like Russia and Nigeria where MacArthur had offices. MacArthur is one of the largest global foundations working in 60 countries on human rights, peace and security, conservation and women’s health. I started Human Rights Watch’s International Committee on Academic Freedom which introduced me to Tunisia. In 1997 we protested the harassment of mathematician Moncef Ben Salem who was under house arrest for accusing the government of human rights abuses and hostility to Islam. After being forbidden to teach and living under constant surveillance for nearly twenty years, Ben Salem, as many of you know, was appointed the Minister of Higher Education and Scientific Research in 2011.  Likewise Human Rights Watch and Scholars at Risk both advocated on behalf of Moncef Marzouki, then a Professor of Community Medicine from the University of Sousse, who similarly suffered harassment and prosecution by the Ben Ali regime.  As we know, Professor Marzouki has since become President of the Republic.

The fact that these two men today are involved in shaping Tunisia’s future, although from different parties, perspectives and positions, highlights an important point: protection and security for higher education communities and their members benefits everyone, regardless of ideology or politics.

Organizations like Human Rights Watch, Amnesty International, and Scholars at Risk monitor the state of academic freedom around the globe, expose systemic abuses, and protect individual scholars in danger. This important work must continue. The needs are great. Witness over two dozen academics waiting to be helped by Scholars at Risk, from Syria to Sri Lanka, from Iran to Rwanda, from El Salvador to Zimbabwe and beyond. Perhaps universities here in Tunisia might agree to host some of these colleagues for 1 or 2 year visits on your campuses.  Perhaps some of your universities will join our Network.

In all, scholars from over 100 countries have sought help from Scholars at Risk. That tells me that this is not a problem limited to any one place or culture or political system.  This is a problem about the tension between ideas, and the change that comes from ideas, and those who resist or fear change, and try therefore to limit or restrict ideas.

But let us not be consumed with defensive measures after academic freedom has been breached. I believe history will judge that we live in a time of transition and opportunity as the pace of transition to democracy has accelerated the world over. Together, we can capture that opportunity.  And as we do, Tunisia will ever be a symbol of the dawn of a new era for academic freedom.

The eyes of the world are on Tunisia to set the example for the region. That is why we are here in Tunisia, and at Manouba. We know the hopes of the Arab Spring have turned to disappointment, even despair, for some. But if Tunisia can craft a model Constitution, and put its principles into practice, then it is possible that dreams deferred in other countries can be rescued by following Tunisia’s lead. And that model must include protection, security, autonomy and freedom for universities and scholars.

Fortunately, Tunisia has a rich experience of wrestling with the challenges of democratic transition, going back well before 2011.  Indeed, in the words of political scientist Alfred Stepan at Columbia University, Tunisia has “a usable past.”

Let us remember the Tunisia Constitution of 1861 was the first written Constitution adopted in the Arab world.

And “The Call from Tunis” in 2003, brought together a wide range of political and social actors, who articulated two basic principles: first that an elected government should “be founded on the sovereignty of the people as the sole source of legitimacy,” and second that, while showing “respect for the peoples’ identity and its Arab-Muslim values”,  the State should provide “the guarantee of liberty of beliefs to all…”[1]

The high ideals of the Call were carried forward in a document produced in 2005 by the four major parties together with many smaller parties. The “18 October Coalition for Rights and Freedoms in Tunisia” declared that the future ideal was for a democratic state that was “a civic state … drawing its legitimacy from the will of the people.”

The challenge now is to once again take leadership in the region in crafting a constitution with strong protection for academic freedom and independent universities.

There are new constitutions being written and old ones rewritten in many countries, an historic opportunity to embed humankind’s highest aspirations for freedom in law and normative values.  Tunisians have an opportunity to seize this moment.  And the current draft Constitution does a good job, so far.

For example, Article 30 states that “Academic freedoms and freedom of scientific research shall be guaranteed,” and goes on, “The state shall furnish all means necessary for the advancement of academic work and scientific research.”

Coupled with protections for basic human rights, including the right to education (Article 29), freedom of opinion and expression (Article 36), of access to information (Article 28), of assembly (Article 25) and of movement (Article 18), Article 30 provides a good model of broad protections in simple, clear language without limits and exception.  Tunisian scholars and higher education leaders need to be sure this language is approved in the final document.

And even after adoption, vigilance will be required to ensure that this simple language is given its fullest, broadest meaning, and not diminished by interpretation or limitations elsewhere in the text or later statutes. By doing so, you will again lead the way, being (we believe) the first Arab state to protect academic freedom with explicit language in its constitution.

We at Scholars at Risk, representing more than 300 higher education institutions in over 34 countries, stand ready to help you by sharing our comparative experience.  Even in countries like the United States with a long tradition of free universities, we still need to be vigilant in protecting them from intrusion and assuring the financial support they need to make good use of their independence.

So let us think together about how to make the affirmative case for the powerful link among economic development, democracy, independent universities and academic freedom.

Here is what I believe:   Democracy is not an event, but a process that takes years, even decades. It requires patience, as progress is measured little by little, day by day. For Tunisia, as well as for Egypt, Libya and elsewhere, that may mean improving  the constitution, strengthening the independence of the judiciary, consolidating a stable multi-party system, encouraging the right kinds of foreign investment, building a better transportation, energy and IT infrastructure, or reinforcing civilian control over the military.

There are many such building blocks but none more central to the process of strengthening democracy than education. This seems to me undeniable. For individuals, education is the ladder of opportunity; for communities, it is the base of common values that holds diverse people together; for nations, it is the engine of economic growth; and for all who believe in freedom, education provides the moral foundation for democracy guided by respect for individual dignity and the rule of law.

Let us be clear. First-rate universities are not a luxury; they are a necessity. It is essential to spend what it takes to establish and maintain them, because great nations grow from great universities, and Tunisia belongs among the great nations of the world.

But why is higher education so central to development and democracy?

University graduates tend to earn more money and are usually employed

under better working conditions, therefore enjoying better health and living

longer. More able to reason and communicate, their interests are broader

and their ambitions greater.

Studies demonstrate that graduates increase productivity in the overall

work force, providing higher skills and greater flexibility. Their children are

likely to perform better in school and are more likely to attend universities

themselves, and thereby multiply the benefits of a higher education down

the years.

Societies also benefit from the research that universities undertake that

brings technological advances to industry, communications, and agriculture.

All of this suggests how higher education is good for development. Just as important is the role a university can play in building and sustaining a democratic society.

There is, after all, nothing inherent or inevitable about democracy. Democratic habits must be learned, which means they must be taught. To understand how important this is, consider that bigotry, intolerance, and violence may also be learned and taught. No one is born hating anyone else. That is something we learn when the educational process is perverted and people are taught not how to think but what to think — not to seek knowledge but to accept whatever they are told.

The challenge every free society faces is to provide the kind of education that liberates, rather than imprisons, the mind.

The best universities cultivate in their students a capacity for critical thinking, a comfort with complexity, a commitment to civility — qualities essential to the democratic process and a bulwark against closed ideologies of all kinds.

Universities are, by their very nature, cosmopolitan connections to the larger world of ideas and diverse cultures, while at the same time they conserve and interpret what is distinctive about national and local history and tradition. At their best, they bridge between the local and the international, the traditional and the modern, the religious and the secular.

The finest universities also attract talented students from around the world, from every region of a country, from every ethnic and religious group, providing a venue where differences can be understood and respected, where national identity can be forged through shared ideals — not at the expense of the other.

A great university is characterized by democratic values of fairness, transparency, and wide consultation. It sets the standard to which all other institutions, public and private, should be held; it carries within itself the conscience of a society, keeping alive the vision of what the nation at its best can be.

So all who care about the future of Tunisia and its universities face a twin challenge. The first is to secure protection for academic freedom for universities and their members. This is best done in the constitution in simple, clear language without limits and exceptions. The second is to strengthen public understanding of the importance of strong independent universities in building a robust democracy and a vibrant economy.

We need to do our homework, spotlight examples from Tunisia and around the world of how universities have contributed to their societies. Then we need to make the case rooted in solid evidence of the positive role that high quality universities play the world over. And we need to show the indispensable link between academic freedom and the benefits universities confer on the nation.

Constitutional protections are the essential point of departure. But the future of higher education depends on informed public support backed up with the resources public and private, local and international, necessary to unleash and harness the tremendous talent of the Tunisian people and the people throughout this wonderful region.

All of us who care also have responsibilities, not because of the countries we come from, but because we are members of a shared community of universities, of knowledge.  And so we come here to Tunisia to listen and learn from your experience with these issues.  We came to ask what you need from us, to pledge our solidarity with you, and explore what we can do together to protect academic freedom, to protect autonomous universities and to protect individual scholars, not just in Tunisia, or Egypt, or Libya or North Africa, but all around the world.

[1] Alfred Stepan Tunisia Transition and the Twin Tolerations in Journal of Democracy, April 2012

Introductions at Student Seminars

Richard Ravitch Introduction

Leave a comment

On February 13, 2013 Jonathan Fanton, interim director of The Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute, introduced Richard Ravitch, the former Lieutenant Governor of New York, for a brown bag lunch discussion with students from CUNY Hunter College on the recent release of his report (co-authored with Paul Volcker) on the  fiscal future of New York state. For additional information on The Roosevelt House, click here.

Richard Ravitch Talk
February 13, 2013

Roosevelt House is fortunate to have a distinguished Board of Advisors who help the faculty and staff chart the course for our new Public Policy Institute. Today we welcome one of our most active members, Richard Ravitch. As you think about your own careers, here is a model to learn from.

He is a Yale trained lawyer who has been a businessman, head of state agencies, helped rescue New York from bankruptcy in 1975 and most recently served as New York’s Lt. Governor.

We all stand in awe of how the MTA recovered from Hurricane Sandy. Indeed, Joseph Lhota is running for Mayor on the strengths of its performance. But the real hero is Richard Ravitch who was chair of the MTA from 1979 to 1983. During his tenure he thoroughly overhauled the systems –  new subway cars and buses and significant renovation of tracks, signals, and stations.

He is at his best bringing private sector experience to public agencies. Affordable housing has been a central theme in his career. He worked for HRH construction Corp, which was responsible for the development of 45,000 affordable units in major cities including New York. Governor Carey appointed him Chair of the New York State Urban Development Corporation. He served as Chair of the Corporation for Supportive Housing, Co-Chair of the Millennial Housing Commission and back in 1969 LBJ appointed him to the Commission on Urban Problems.

Many talented people move seamlessly between the public and private sectors. He was chair and CCO of the Bowery Savings Bank rescuing it from bankruptcy. And he later was a partner of the famed Blackstone Group.

And busy public leaders also find time to help non-profit institutions. Dick Ravitch has been a Trustee of the Century Foundation and Mt. Sinai Hospital.

As Lt. Governor he spoke truth to power — and the public – about our state’s budget problems. We will be interested in his impressions of Albany, frustrations and all.

He was recently at Roosevelt House to release a report that he and Paul Volcker have supervised laying bare New York’s fiscal future. They studied 6 states finding a worrisome pattern: Medicare spending, rising rapidly, underfunded retirement promises, eroding tax base, negative impact of federal deficit reduction measures and local governments deeply stressed. I am sure he will tell us about the report and the concrete recommendations he is making to improve the fiscal condition of the state. Your futures depend on clear and courageous action now .

You can tell I am a fan of Dick Ravitch – all the more because his mother studied at the New School.

Mr. Ravitch will talk for 20 minutes and then open up for your questions.

Introductions at Student Seminars

Commissioner Matt Wambua Introduction

Leave a comment

On February 6, 2013 Jonathan Fanton, interim director of The Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute, introduced Matthew Wambua, Commissioner of New York City’s Department of Housing Preservation and Development. Commissioner Wambua led a brown bag lunch discussion with CUNY Hunter College students on the most pressing housing issues facing New York City today. For additional information on The Roosevelt House, click here.

Matt Wambua Brown Bag Lunch
Wednesday February 6, 2013

Good Afternoon. I am Jonathan Fanton, Interim Director of The Roosevelt House Public Policy Institute. It is my great pleasure to welcome you to a conversation with Commissioner Matthew Wambua of the New York City Department of Housing Preservation and Development.

When I was President of the MacArthur Foundation, I made the preservation of affordable rental housing a key program priority. And we assisted with the transformation of Chicago’s run down public housing system to new mixed income neighborhoods. In all we spent about a quarter of a billion dollars on housing, including a research network that established the connection between stable housing and other beneficial outcomes for individuals and families. As I wrote in 2009, “Research shows that children with a stable place to live are healthier and perform better academically; employment rates for adults are higher when they have a steady residence; and communities with longtime residents have a greater share of citizens actively involved in civic affairs and experience less crime.”
Here in New York we assisted vital institutions like the The New York City Acquisition Fund, which provides loans to real estate developers seeking to create and preserve affordable housing, and the Urban Homesteading Assistance Board, which helps residents own and maintain housing co-operatives.
I believe that housing is one of the most important investments cities can make to produce a healthy and productive citizenry. And a key element of the Roosevelt House mission is to help improve policy by bringing evidence to bear on decision-making and to foster a healthy public discourse on key issues.

And that is why we are so glad Commissioner Wambua can be with us here today.

Mr. Wambua heads the nation’s largest municipal housing agency. He is responsible for implementing Mayor Bloomberg’s landmark New Housing Marketplace Plan, which helps transfer recently foreclosed homes to new owners, and aims to create 165,000 new units of housing for middle and low-income New Yorkers by 2014. This is the largest affordable municipal housing program in U.S. history and is projected to provide affordable homes for 500,000 New Yorkers.
Commissioner Wambua received his Master’s in Public Policy from Harvard and has taught at NYU’s Graduate School of Public Service and at the New School’s Graduate School of Public Policy. Prior to assuming the leadership of HPD, he was the Executive Vice President of Real Estate and External Affairs for the NYC Housing Development Corporation, the financial arm of the HPD and one of the largest affordable housing lenders in the nation. There, he oversaw the financing of over 36,000 affordable housing units. Mr. Wambua also served as the Senior Policy Advisor to the Deputy Mayor for Economic Development and helped establish new planning initiatives in upper Manhattan and the Bronx.

I think that the Roosevelts would be pleased that Commissioner Wambua is here today to share his knowledge and expertise with us. It was President Roosevelt, after all, who signed the Wagner-Steagall Act into law in 1937, which provided over $500 million in loans to build low-cost housing throughout urban areas in the United States and helped subsidize the rent payments for thousands of American families and defense workers during World War II.

I leave you with FDR’s words just months before he signed that bill into law (January 14, 1937):
“We have come to realize that a Nation cannot function as a healthy democracy with part of its citizens living under good conditions and part forced to live under circumstances inimical to the general welfare…Today families taken from sub-standard housing are living happy, healthful lives…Ten years ago…fifty-one big, carefully planned community projects, replacing festering slum areas, would have seemed incredible. Yet we are doing this…If, indeed, the deeper purpose of democratic Government is to assist as many of its citizens as possible, especially those who need it most, then we have a great opportunity lying ahead in the specific field of housing.”

So without further ado, let me turn the floor over to the Commissioner who will lead us in what I’m sure will be a rich conversation.