Citizens of the World

[Update at the end]

Condoleezza Rice is giving the Commencement Address at Boston College today and her selection as speaker, as well as her receiving an Honorary Degree, have stirred up some controversy among the World of the Academic Left.   Theology Department Chair Kenneth Himes and theology professor David Hollenbach wrote a letter protesting the choice of Dr. Rice, and the reasons for their objection are worth quoting:

Condoleezza Rice Does Not Deserve a Boston College Honorary Degree

We, the undersigned members of the faculty at Boston College, strongly disagree with the decision of the university's leadership to grant Condoleezza Rice an honorary Doctor of Laws degree and to invite her to address the 2006 commencement. On the levels of both moral principle and practical moral judgment, Secretary Rice's approach to international affairs is in fundamental conflict with Boston College's commitment to the values of the Catholic and Jesuit traditions and is inconsistent with the humanistic values that inspire the university's work.

As a matter of moral principle, Rice maintains that U.S. foreign policy should be based on U.S. national interest and not on what she calls the interests of an "illusory international community." This stands in disturbing contrast with the Catholic and humanistic conviction that all people are linked together in a single human family and that all nations in our interdependent world have a duty to protect "the common good of the entire human family." [Emphasis mine-SW]

There is a bit more to the letter and you should read the whole thing.  Anil Adyanthaya, in Condi's Boston College Coup, does an excellent job of pointing out some of the more foolish aspects of the letter:

The authors of this letter, Theology Department Chair Kenneth Himes and theology professor David Hollenbach, seem to be arguing that any high U.S. official is unfit for a Boston College honorary degree. For what President, Vice President, or Secretary of State would not maintain that "U.S. foreign policy should be based on U.S. national interest"? Himes and Hollenbach betray their anti-American bias by assuming that the U.S national interest is somehow less concerned with "the common good of the entire human family" than is the "international community" interest.

He also points out that the language in the letter specifically (though indirectly) refers to the UN as the agent best suited for defining the "common good of the entire human family" and shows how they misuse and misunderstand the position of the Catholic Church to support their views.  Anil Adyanthaya"s article is also worth reading in full.

I was struck by a different aspect of the letter that I have not seen commented upon.  On NPR this morning, the news commentator reported that the letter writers objected to Rice's position that the United States foreign policy should be dictated by the best interests of the United States.  Since NPR could be considered partial to the point of view of the letter, I do not think this interpretation, which agrees with my reading of the letter, is a stretch.  This is a remarkable statement, and all too revealing.

There are several possible inferences one can make in reading this statement.

One reading would be that the letter writers do not see themselves and those who support Condoleezza Rice as belonging to the same country.  In such a case, it would be easy to understand why their interests would not coincide with Rice's interests or the National interests of the United States.  The problem with this formulation is that it implies their disagreements are over what define the best interests of the United States, yet they say it is the concept of "best interests of the United States" that is the problem.

Of course, it could just be that they do not support the current policies of the United States.  That would be fair enough and a reason to be unhappy with their University bestowing an Honorary Degree on someone who supports policies they object to; however, in that case, they could reasonably be accused of duplicity since they couch their objections in language that disguises their own interests while suggesting they are somehow above the fray.  This is disingenuous when their objections are basically political in nature rather than moral or ethical.

Another possibility is that the letter writers are actually committed pacifists and do not wish to be defended in any situation by the United States.  I suppose they are welcome to refuse protection from the Armed forces or other agents of the United States of America, but this is  a problem when they also identify their interests with preventing anyone else from defending the national interests of the United States.  Few Americans believe that eschewing self-defense is an ideal position for a nation to take.

The major possibilities would therefore seem to be that they do not see themselves as being Americans, they are pacifists, or they are disguising their political disagreements as moral disagreements. 

In order to prove their bona fides, to show that they truly believe that the concept of a nation acting in its own best interests is immoral, perhaps the professors involved could renounce their American citizenship and become citizens of the world community or some mythical country that does not act in ways which are consistent with their national interests.  I do not know of any such country, but perhaps one exists, and would certainly welcome their new, highly gifted and accomplished, citizens with open arms.

I will also include a bonus question for anyone who cares to try their hand at logic:  Construct an argument proving that one can be a patriotic American while opposing the United States acting in its own best interests.

Update: Take a look at Boston College and Condoleezza Rice: What the Media has Missed at the Democracy Project, by Rev. Paul W. McNellis, S.J., a member of the faculty at BC.  He also links to this wonderful letter by a graduating Senior who shows that my faith in the younger generation has not been misplaced.