Pages

Tuesday, November 20, 2012

University of California campuses among others where, Lesley Klaff says, 'There has been a lot of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activity (including actions and rhetoric) on American university campuses, especially since 2000'

Bullying Jewish Students on American Campuses: The first of a multi-part series of interviews



This introduction to the first of an going series of six or more interviews, each with Addendum consisting of relevant documents on the matter of bullying Jewish Students and the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964 in finding redress is an indication of the more strident and tense situation regarding bullying Jewish students on American campuses. This interview is the first of the series and is held with Lesley Klaff. The conversation via Skype from my home office in Mill Valley, California was held in two half hour sessions to her office in England


Article-Interview by Peter Menkin





Ken Marcus, author, of book on Civil Rights in America




Free speech is one type of cherished speech,
but there are others. Intelligent speech is just
as important, ideas of merit and weight,
based in fact, and accumulated knowledge.
Honest speech is essential. Telling lies and
cloaking them in historical or scientific
method is appalling. Manipulating or fabricating
debate is unacceptable. Civil speech is
critical, exchanging ideas in a safe environment.
Bad manners, intellectual intimidation,
and physical harassment have no place in
higher education.
From introduction, Executive Summary,
“Uncivil University”



Cover of book ‘The Uncivil University’ as it looks , though this is not the latest version called revised version. Title of most recent version: ‘The Uncivil University:Intolerance on College Campuses, revised edition,’ Gary A. Tobin, Aryeh K. Weinberg, & Jenna Ferrer,
Institute for Jewish & Community Research, San Francisco


INTRODUCTION BY THE RELIGION WRITER PETER MENKIN TO THE SERIES
The multi part series I’ve been working on since July, 2012 came to an end in November, 2012. I expect to post this series on the Jewish community’s complaint regarding bullying Jewish Students on University Campuses, and the new use of Title VI 1964 Civil Rights action to effect this problem of bullying students on University campuses. This standpoint of a large if not majority segment of the established Jewish Community in the United States is a report on a given point of view that finds Israel part of this conversation and also the point of view this behavior represents anti-Semitism.

This introduction introduces to the first of an going series of six or more interviews, each with Addendum consisting of relevant documents on the matter of bullying Jewish Students and the use of Title VI of the Civil Rights act of 1964 in finding redress is an indication of the more strident and tense situation regarding bullying Jewish students on American campuses. This interview is the first of the series and is held with Lesley Klaff. The conversation via Skype from my home office in Mill Valley, California was held in two half hour sessions to her office in England.

… a collection of voices in interview from American Jewish Community regarding the real concern by them of bullying Jewish students on some University campuses plays a significant role in unmasking anti-Israel actions and behavior as anti-Semitism. That is the Jewish Community thesis and argument brought to legal remedy through Federal Law that is the theme of this series. The basis for this kind of hate and anti-Semitism, bad behavior at best and hateful activity at worst, is evident in the practiced belief that Zionism is an evil belief by those whose actions show them as performing the Jewish bullying.

No doubt there is essentially one viewpoint reported on in this series of interviews with reaction and response to it, but after all Title VI requires by law response. Hopefully, readers will follow other interviews where some response of an opinion kind is given by people outside the Jewish Community who is the prime subject of source for this report.  The Title VI Civil Rights remedy is the new tool used by the Jewish community, and its use itself is newsworthy. Many years of effort by the Jewish Community on mainly a national level, led by people like Ken Marcus, the leadership of JCPA, as well, Zionist Organization of America, Ethan Felson of Jewish Council of Public Affairs (JCPA) in New York City, and significantly important other players worked successfully to get the U.S. Government to recognize, allow use of the 1964 Civil Rights Act with Jewish Americans as subject group in this regard of bulling Jewish students. This success of use of the Civil Rights Act, Title VI,  is bearing success, a tool for redress not heretofore available to the public.

I hope this piece will illuminate the Jewish community’s actions and position on these issues of bullying Jewish students on University campuses, and garner interest among a wide group of people who find this subject so controversial and essential. In a nutshell, the significant subject of the series states that the Jewish Community in America believes there is too much hateful anti-Semitism on many American University campuses, and they must take action.



INTERVIEW BY PETER MENKIN WITH LESLEY KLAFF…BY SKYPE
Lesley Klaff tells about herself as this description appears Sheffield Hallam University, England:
http://www.shu.ac.uk/research/lrg/sp-lesley-klaff.html

I am a senior lecturer in law at Sheffield Hallam University, where I serve as module leader on the ‘English legal system and skills’ and ‘Legal and social theory’ modules. I also serve as a faith advisor on the University’s multi-faith chaplaincy.
I was previously a visiting associate law professor at: Cleveland State University (Ohio, USA), the University of Akron (Ohio, USA), the University of Miami (Florida, USA) and St. Thomas University (Florida, USA). I was also a member of the law faculty at the University of Westminster, London.

I currently act as a reviewer for English Legal System and Skills texts and Jurisprudence texts for Oxford University Press and Pearson Longman publishers.
I research in the area of contemporary anti-Semitism with particular emphasis on its manifestations in higher education in the UK.

I am on the Advisory Board of The Berlin International Center for the Study of Antisemitism (BICSA).  I am a member of United Kingdom Lawyers for Israel (UKLFI). I am a member of the UK branch of the International Association of Jewish Lawyers and Jurists (IAJLJ). I am a member of the SPME Legal Task Force, and am on the Advisory Board of the Louis D. Brandeis Center for Human Rights Law.

Question by Peter Menkin: In your lengthy review of the study Jewish Identity and Civil Rights in America by Ken Marcus and published by Cambridge 2010, the report summary available here. In another report by Institute for Jewish and Community Research, San Francisco, Aryeh Weinberg writes this other report, not part of your review but still relevant enough to include as reference in this interview with you Professor Lesley Klaff:

Marcus then discusses what it means to be an anti-Semite. He does this by suggesting that instead of bias victims having to prove that they are members of the group that Congress intended to protect, which places an unfair burden on the victim and is frequently analytically difficult as in the case of Jews, that the courts and agencies like the OCR should take a subjective approach and ask whether the perpetrator of the bias is racially motivated. In discussing the advantages and disadvantages of this approach, Marcus offers a thorough exposition of the racial character of anti-Semitic conduct. Again, this is fascinating material, which highlights the extent to which the racial character of anti-Semitic conduct is not always readily apparent, especially in the context of anti-Zionism and anti-Israelism.
 
Finally, Marcus discusses what it means to be the victim of Jew-hatred by suggesting a novel approach to the question of whether anti-Semitism is “discrimination on the basis of race.” He suggests that, instead of focusing on whether Jews are a “race” or whether the perpetrators are “racist,” we can ask whether Jewish students suffer a distinctly “racial” harm as a result of the climate of anti-Semitism that exists on some university campuses. He draws on recent work in the fields of cultural studies, race theory, and Critical Jewish Studies to explain the possible range of such harms. These include the injurious aspects of “racial formation” and “re-racialization” that occur when groups are subjected to racial stereotypes, group defamations, and resulting forms of racial misperception.
 
This material is not only interesting from an academic point of view but also has a strong resonance for any reader who has experienced anti-Semitism, whether traditional or contemporary. With respect to the latter and much more prevalent manifestation of anti-Semitism in today’s post-racist world, Marcus deconstructs the new anti-Semitism as “a technology of dehumanization”
[Lesley Klaff says] … A victim of the new anti-Semitism myself, and having researched and written about it in the context of the UK campus, I believe that this is an accurate and perceptive characterization, which breaks new ground.
 
Please expand these comments in a more contemporaneous way that shies from the study itself and in the opportunity to expand on your remarks, talks to readers about what is the contemporary form of anti-Semitism Ken Marcus refers to in his study as you understand it. Give us some news.
 
In order to answer your questions, I shall need to give you some background information. There has been a lot of anti-Israel and anti-Zionist activity (including actions and rhetoric) on American university campuses, especially since 2000, which has caused Jewish students to feel humiliated and degraded. In some instances Jewish students have even been on the receiving end of violence. Of course, non-Jewish supporters of Israel have also been subject to the same harms. Students so affected have had their university experience and their educational opportunity compromised. Yet there has traditionally been a reluctance to address the problem, both on the part of university administrators and on the part of the Office of Civil Rights Department of Education, which is charged with, among other things, protecting equality of educational opportunity. The reason the OCR has traditionally refused to intervene to provide legal redress for these Jewish students is because the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title VI, only provides redress for discrimination on the basis of “national origin” and “race” and the OCR considered Jews to be nothing more than a religious group. There is no legislation protecting students from discrimination on the basis of religion. So Marcus’s book is concerned with the nature of Jewish identity and he forcefully argues that Jews are an ethno-religious group (which involves racial and religious characteristics) and also that Title VI does indeed extend legal protection to Jews because of the original intent of the Civil Rights Act 1866, as interpreted by two Supreme Court cases. As a result of Ken Marcus’s activism and his book, the OCR does now actively investigate and prosecute claims of “hostile environment harassment” against Jewish students on campus under Title VI. This has been the case since October 2010. The most offending universities in America are UC-Irvine, UC-Berkeley, UC-Santa Cruz, Rutgers University (New Jersey), Hampshire College, and Evergreen State in Washington.


Professor and book reviewer Lesley Klaff
 
 
We have exactly the same problems on English university campuses with attempts to delegitimize the State of Israel, but we fortunately do have legislation which has been interpreted judicially to classify Jews as a ‘racial group’, so when Jewish students are harmed by the anti-Zionist activity on campus they can invoke the law to seek redress for racial discrimination, specifically alleging hostile environment harassment. I’ve written two articles myself on the problem of anti-Zionism on the UK university campus and how the law can provide a means of redress for Jewish students who are harmed by it. The editor of the Journal for the Study of Anti-Semitism read my articles and asked me to review Ken Marcus’s book.

Now that I have given you the background, I can address your question in relation to the first paragraph quoted above. As I said, Ken Marcus’s book focuses on why Jews can be regarded as a ‘racial group’ for the purposes of the Civil Rights Act 1964 Title VI. In other words, he addresses the nature of Jewish identity. This is why it is such a fascinating book because Jewish identity is not straightforward. It is also a very important book because classifying Jews as a ‘racial group’ is essential in order to protect them from anti-Semitism. The problem is that to get protection from Title VI, the complainant has to prove that he is a member of a ‘racial group’, and it is difficult for Jews to do this because of the nature of Jewish identity and the disinclination to regard Jews as a ‘race’ because of the atrocities committed by the Nazis. So what Marcus proposed in his book is that, instead of requiring a victim to prove that they are a member of a ‘racial group,’ it is for the court to determine whether the perpetrator was motivated by ‘racial bias’, that is, whether he had ‘racial animus’. The question would be: “Has the victim been discriminated against because the perpetrator perceived him to be a member of a disfavored race?” This would take the onus of proof off the victim and redirect the court’s focus onto the perpetrator. The problem with this proposal is, as Marcus notes, that in our post-racist world it is not always easy to discern a distinctly racial animus, especially in the case of Jews. Anti-Semitism is often subtle and may be difficult to identify. Also, much opposition to Israel looks like mere political criticism. Another problem is that much racial animus is unconscious in the sense that even the perpetrator is not aware that he is motivated by racism.

The second paragraph quoted above offers another alternative suggestion to requiring the victim of discrimination to prove he is a member of a ‘racial group’ for the purposes of civil rights protection. In the case of Jews, Marcus suggests that anti-Semitism can be classed as discrimination on the basis of race because the nature of the injury it inflicts is “racial.” He points out that anti-Semitism harms the development of the individual and the group as perceived by both in-group and out-group members. This is because anti-Semitism incorporates harmful stereotypes and defames Jews in a way that affects their self-perception and the way others perceive them. This in turn affects the reality of Jewish lives. For instance, many Jewish students are afraid to identify as Jews and as supporters of Israel on campus for fear of being defamed.

Question by Peter Menkin: Sometimes people fail to put together a criticism of Israel with a hatred or dislike of Jewish people, especially those who practice their faith. Why is there this connection in the mind of a large number of Jewish Americans between Israel and being Jewish, especially if this is so among young people and those who are still in College?
The so-called “new anti-Semitism” or “contemporary anti-Semitism” amounts to the DE legitimization of the State of Israel. The aim of the delegitimizers is to bring about the eradication of Israel as a Jewish State. They advocate a one-state solution to the Israel/Palestine conflict. It’s important to remember that Israel’s supporters are not saying that Israel cannot be criticized. Indeed, many of Israel’s supporters and many Israelis are themselves critical of Israel. What Israel’s supporters are saying is that the criticism of Israel must be legitimate. Once the criticism become illegitimate it crosses the line into anti-Semitism. Illegitimate criticism of Israel employs anti-Semitic tropes, some old and some new, and applies them to Israel. There are various tests for deciding when criticism of Israel becomes illegitimate and therefore anti-Semitic. It is said that whereas the old anti-Semitism wanted to rid the world of the Jew – expressed as Judenrein – the new anti-Semitism wants to rid the world of the Jewish State – expressed as Judenstaatrein. The delegitimizers transfer the stereotypes and tropes about Jews onto the Jewish State when they describe Israel’s behavior in relation to the Palestinians. The medieval “blood libel” is resurrected by incorrect claims that Israel slaughters Palestinian children and poisons the Palestinians’ water supplies and refuses to let Palestinian ambulances through check points. The classic conspiracy trope is resurrected by incorrect claims that Israel is furthering its own interests by taking more and more Palestinian land and by claims that the “Jewish lobby” influences American foreign policy in relation to Israel. The classic trope of “Jewish criminality” is resurrected when Israel is wrongly accused of war crimes and of stealing Palestinian water. And so it goes. Essentially, all Israel’s perceived faults are attributed to its Jewish character. While anti-Semitism is not acceptable in its old form, that is, in the form of hating Jews per se, it is acceptable in its new form, that is, in hating Israel. Why Israel? Well, Israel is regarded as the Jewish collective, the uber Jew, or the Jew among nations. In sum, the delegitimizers demonize Israel in the same way that the anti-Semite used to demonize the Jew.
This demonization plays out very well on university campuses. Pro-Palestinian students celebrate “Israel Apartheid Week” on campus every year. Describing Israel as an “apartheid state” has become a frequent trope of contemporary anti-Semitism. During this particular week, student delegtimizers erect a fake security barrier, which they call the “apartheid wall,” on campus and use this to claim that Israel is a racist, apartheid state. They will also set up fake check points and use student supporters to enact bloody and brutal scenes at the hands of the IDF. Ken Marcus’s book describes other examples of the anti-Semitic, anti-Zionist activity that has taken place on American campuses, as do several of the articles in Volume 3, Issue 2 of the Journal for the Study of Antisemitism.
There is research which shows that people who are anti-Semitic are more likely to be anti-Israel and vice versa. It is also true that many Israel delegitimizers are not conscious of their anti-Semitism and, in fact, claim to be anti-racist. But the connection between a dislike of Jewish people and a dislike of Israel is well documented.

As far as the connection between Israel and being Jewish is concerned in the minds of many American Jews, it is because Jews have a strong identity with Israel. They have a spiritual connection and they pray to the God of Israel. They also have a historical connection because they inhabited the land. Most Jews today have geographical ties to Israel in that they have family living there and they visit the country themselves. They see Israel as a refuge, a place to go if ever they should suffer persecution. They have a very strong emotional connection to Israel for all these reasons. So hearing Israel described as “racist”, hearing claims that the IDF “slaughter Palestinian children” causes Jews to feel pain. As I indicated earlier, when Israel is defamed on campus Jewish students become susceptible to psychological injury which prevents them from taking full advantage of their educational opportunity. This is a civil rights issue. These so-called “racial harms” have also been identified with African American students as a consequence of being subjected to hate speech on campus.
 
Question by Peter Menkin: Thank you for your time today giving us a chance to learn something about contemporary anti-Semitism on American campuses, what is characterized as bullying. What is the difference between anti-Semitism and bullying? And as we end this brief interview, if I have missed anything, please take the opportunity to talk about what I may have missed.
 
I think that the difference between anti-Semitism and bullying is that anti-Semitism is a state of mind in which the anti-Semite hates Jews but takes no action against them. Bullying is where the anti-Semitism takes the form of conduct directed at a Jew or a group of Jews, or at those the bully considers to be Jewish. In other words, the bully is racially motivated and there are adverse consequences for the victim(s). It’s also the case that speech is considered to be conduct as well. Hurtful words can constitute an act of bullying. In the context of Jewish students on campus, they are said to suffer “hostile environment harassment” as a result of the delegtimization campaign. “Harassment” is the legal term and is just another word for bullying.

I’ll take the opportunity to comment further. The reason why the delegtimization of Israel is so prominent on university campuses is because the delegitimizers can invoke the doctrine of “academic freedom” to say what they want about Israel. They claim that the university’s very purpose is to further debate about controversial subjects and political issues, which in some sense it is. But in fact the reason the delegitimizers use university campuses is in order to politically indoctrinate young minds and to recruit young people to their cause. This is why there are many groups coming on to campus to advocate boycott, divestment, and sanctions against Israel. They actually abuse the concept of academic freedom.

Another related point is that many claim that conducting anti-Israel expression (both words and conduct) on campus is perfectly acceptable because it is nothing but a political viewpoint. They say that if the delegitimizers criticize Israel, call Israel an apartheid state (for instance), then all the Jewish students need to do is to respond with a counter argument. After all, the campus is a place where political debate is supposed to take place. However, the problem with this view of the situation is that because the anti-Israel arguments are polluted with anti-Semitic stereotypes and tropes, and because they are sometimes accompanied with threats of violence and actual violence, the Jewish students remain silent. The anti-Israel expression actually has a so-called chilling effect on Jewish students. It does not encourage them to make counter arguments. In the context of the UK university campus, Jewish students are very low in number compared to other groups who affiliate with the anti-Zionist cause, and this is another reason why they are intimidated.

I would recommend that anyone who is interested in the issue of campus anti-Semitism reads Ken Marcus’ book. It is very well informed in the sense that he uses his background as an academic and as a practicing civil rights lawyer and as a policy maker to make the practical realities of campus anti-Semitism evident to the reader, including the lay reader. He also provides fascinating insight into the nature of Jewish identity. Readers can take a look at my review of Ken Marcus’s book in Vol 3 Issue 2 of The Journal for the Study of Antisemitism. The review is found here:  Readers may contact Lesley Klaff by sending her an email                          l.d.klaff@shu.ac.uk .




ADDENDUM


Berkeley, California
JOEL H. SIEGAL 703 Market Street, Suite 801
ATTORNEY AT LAW Central Tower Building
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: (415) 777-5547
Facsimile: (415) 777-5247
Email: joelsiegal@yahoo.com
NEAL M. SHER
ATTORNEY AT LAW 132 East 43rd Street, Suite 304
New York, NY 10017
Telephone: (646) 201-8841
Email: nealsher@gmail.com
July 9, 2012
Thomas E. Perez
Anarima Bhargava
Franz Marshall
Whitney Pellegrino
Assistant Attorney General
United States Department of Justice
Civil Rights Division
Educational Opportunities Section
950 Pennsylvania Avenue NW
Patrick Henry Building, Suite 430
Washington, DC 20530
Arthur Zeidman
Russlynn Ali

US Department of Education
Office of Civil Rights
50 Beale Street, Suite 7200
San Francisco CA 94105-1813

Re: TITLE VI COMPLAINT AGAINST THE
UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA-BERKELEY

Dear Messrs. Perez and Zeidman:
The undersigned represented plaintiffs in the recently concluded case, Jessica Felber and Brian Maissy v. Regents of the University of California (U.S. District Court, Northern District of California, San Francisco Division, Case No. CV-11-1012-RS). Through our representation of Ms. Felber and Mr. Maissy, we have become acutely aware of, and have obtained substantial evidence demonstrating, a pervasive hostile environment towards Jews on the campus of the DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 2'

University of California, Berkeley (“Berkeley” and “University”). Such hostile environment is based on actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic identity as Jews. As you know, one difficulty with private relief in federal Title VI litigation is that once students such as plaintiffs Felber and Maissy graduate and leave the university, they cannot obtain injunctive relief and the opportunity to effectively eliminate hostile racist environments on campus. Also, they lack standing to compel the educational institution to engage in more effective reporting, and administrative and educational opportunities to combat racism on campus. As we discuss below, such proactive enforcement measures were recently instituted by your departments in the resolution that your departments negotiated following the “Compton Cookout” at University of Claifornia, San Diego,.

Indeed, Ms. Felber, who was physically assaulted on campus because of her religion (Jewish) did not want to bring an action while she remained on the campus, and she waited until her premature graduation to bring an action. Thus, we file this Complaint with your agencies. The issue of a racist anti-Semitic environment on the Berkeley campus persists today. It is broader than a week-long Apartheid Week – an event strikingly analogous to the infamous “Passion Play” depicting Jews as blood-thirsty barbarians – which is University sanctioned and performed in the midst of the most heavily traversed portion of the campus, “Sather Gate.” The most recent on campus Apartheid Week/Passion Play occurred in March 2012, within the 180 day filing period. There are, however, dozens of other occurrences on campus, such as unequal enforcement of campus rules and regulations as they relate to groups with an anti-Jewish bias, to the unauthorized use of campus computer platforms to broadcast an anti-Jewish agenda.

As stated. we are also very well aware of the “Resolution Agreement” recently entered into with the University of California, San Diego. We applaud that investigation and measures undertaken in response in part to the offensive and racist events at that campus, especially the notorious “Compton Cookout,” an off campus event which portrayed the entire campus African-American community in a racist stereotype. By confronting the hostile racist environment created by the condoning of such an offensive event, and by instituting effective reporting and educational requirements, you have faithfully implemented the Title VI mandate of your offices. Indeed, that Resolution Agreement was most encouraging and in no small measure contributed to our decision to file this Complaint against Berkeley. We also took particular note that your San DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 3

Diego investigation probed deeply into events occurring well before the Compton Cookout. We believe that the hostile environment at Berkeley deserves an investigation at least as broad and far ranging as that successfully undertaken at San Diego. The hostile environment against Jews on the Berkeley campus is no less offensive than the racist “Compton Cookout” at UCSD, or the sexist taunts at Yale University where a fraternity was disciplined for requiring that their pledges chant “no means yes and yes means anal” (see attached materials).1

The Berkeley Apartheid Week can only be seen as a modern day version of the “Passion Play”, the notorious anti-Semitic performance, initially performed at Oberammergau, Bavaria which portray Jews as bloodthirsty and treacherous villains. It was performed initially in 1264, and has been performed very four years. After each performance, the level of anti-Semitism in the surrounding communities increased geometrically as Jews were beaten and persecuted as a result of the performance. When Hitler came to power in the 1930’s, he himself attended an applauded the Passion Play, and recognized it as an effective propaganda tool and tool to propagate violence against Jews, and to increase anti-Semitism in the surrounding communities. (See Oberammergau by Prof. James Shapiro, Vintage Books, 2001.)

During Berkeley’s Passion Play, student activists from the Muslim Student Association (“MSA”) and Students for Justice in Palestine(“SJP”) – both officially recognized student organizations which operate with the blessing of school officials – portray themselves as Jews by wearing Stars of David, yarmulkes (skull caps), fringed garments (tsizit), and their depictions of Jews are clearly racist and anti-Semitic Moreover, they have been authorized by the University to carry realistic looking assault weapons which they brandish as they interrogate innocent students on campus about their religious and ethnic backgrounds. All this in an effort to convey a portrayal that “all” Jews are blood-thirsty barbarians. Ms. Felber, Mr. Maissy, and a host of other Jewish students, report that for weeks after Apartheid Week they are afraid to wear symbols which identify themselves as Jews, for fear of retaliation.

1 We should point out that the Justice and Education Departments have special significance to the undersigned. As you may know, for many years Neal Sher was the Director of the Office of Special Investigations in the Criminal Division of Justice. The Department of Education is equally significant for us, as we both serve as Legal Advisors to the Louis Brandeis Center of Civil Rights, founded by Ken Marcus, who is recognized as a driving force in the development of Title VI.DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 4

However, we would make clear that, as was done in the San Diego case, your departments should undertake a broad inquiry into the environment at Berkeley. Like the “Compton Cookout,” the Berkeley Apartheid Week/Passion Play is patently offensive and racist. Indeed, the Berkeley situation presents an even stronger case than San Diego, because the offensive activities of Apartheid Week occurred on campus by registered student organizations with the permission and imprimatur of University officials; the “Compton Cookout,” by comparison, was off campus with no official University involvement.

The Berkeley “Passion Play,” masquerading as a political protest, is nothing short of racist hate speech in clear violation of Title VI. It is at least equal in legal odiousness to use of the “N” word or similar racist and sexist expressions. However, unlike the Oberammergau Passion Play in Germany, which is preformed on a traditional pay-to-view stage setting, the University has allowed – in fact has been part of the planning and execution of – the racist outbursts which have taken place at the center of an important public campus crossroad and which have included hostile confrontations and violence against students such as Jessica Felber and Brian Maissy, and we fear will occur again in March 2013.

BACKGROUND
On March 5, 2010, Jessica Felber, a twenty year old Jewish student at Berkeley was attacked and injured on the Berkeley campus. The attack came in the middle of Apartheid Week. The clear purpose of Apartheid Week is to delegitimize the existence of the State of Israel and to equate her with the system of government in place in South Africa between 1948 and 1993. While parts of Apartheid Week might be considered protected free speech, certain actions, such as the establishment of checkpoints where students brandish realistic-looking assault weapons, place barbed wire on campus walkways, and interrogate students as they pass, are not protected. Moreover, they create a hostile environment for Berkeley students and interfere with their education, freedoms and privileges.
Felber was assaulted because of her Jewish ancestry and religious affiliation while she was peacefully holding a sign stating “Israel wants Peace.” The assailant, Husam Zakharia, also a Berkeley student, was then the leader of SJP. SJP and Zakharia have been involved in other incidents on campus to incite violence against and intimidate Jewish and other students. DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 5

Importantly, Berkeley officials had detailed prior knowledge of this history of incitement and intimidation, but took no reasonable steps to adequately control Zakharia or other student members of the SJP to protect against the hostile environment created for Jewish students.
The SJP conspires and coordinates with another Berkeley RSO, the MSA, which has a publicly documented history of affiliation with and support of organizations deemed “terror organizations” by the United States Department of State. In fact, eleven students from those groups were convicted under California law of unlawfully inciting and disrupting a speech given by Israeli Ambassador Michael Oren, at University of California, Irvine.

Also attached is a Declaration of Brian Maissy describing events on campus which make him and other Jewish students feel endangered, intimidated, and harassed.

THE HARASSMENT, INTIMIDATION AND ASSAULT ON MS. FELBER WERE ORCHESTRATED BY THE STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE AND OTHER LIKE-MINDED STUDENT ORGANIZATIONS, INCLUDING THE MUSLIM STUDENT ASSOCIATION AND MUSLIM STUDENT UNION; THOSE ACTIONS HAVE EFFECTIVELY BEEN CONDONE BY THE UNIVERSITY

In order fully to appreciate the situation at Berkeley, it is important to understand the background and objectives of the student groups which organize Apartheid Week and other events which create the prohibited hostile environment.

STUDENTS FOR JUSTICE IN PALESTINE (SJP)
SJP is a national student organization that was founded at Berkeley in 2001. Its primary aim is to persuade academic institutions to divest their financial assets from companies that conduct business with Israel, and to organize boycotts of Israeli goods and services, including academic boycotts. Unfortunately, a review of the Cal Daily for the past several years confirms that SJP does not limit its protest to events about Israel. They disrupt Jewish hip hop concerts, Passover, cedars and other religious events. DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 6
The SJP is overtly political, and accounts for the majority of anti-Israel activism and anti-Semitic posturing among students at the academies where there are chapters. At Berkeley the SJP and MSA not only co-sponsor events and cooperate on strategic projects, but they even share the same office and campus facilities.

The members of SJP have often employed aggressive tactics, and sometimes commit acts of violence. As described on SJP’s Facebook page (the resolution of the plight of the Palestinians): “…includes the full evacuation of Jewish occupants from all illegally held Palestinian lands.” As confirmed by the Declaration of Tenured Professor Mel Gordon, the SJP has been a violent force on campus.

FORMATION AND EARLY ACTIVITY OF SJP
“Students for Justice in Palestine” first appeared in the Berkeley campus paper, The Daily Californian, on October 25, 2000, when it was described as “a coalition of campus groups.” At that time the organization had not yet been registered with the Associated Students of the University of California (ASUC), although soon it would be. The coalition’s leaders called for an international boycott of all Israeli products and an end to U.S. economic support of Israel.

Four months later, the newly born SJP staged its first mock checkpoint protest in connection with “Apartheid Week.” We understand that the campus newspaper condemned the checkpoint of the demonstrators as violating Berkeley’s Code of Conduct by posting materials on University property without permission and interfering with University activity. However, checkpoint protests continue, with the most recent occurring in March 2012. In fact, during Apartheid Week 2011, a student in a wheelchair was accidentally entangled in the barbed wire. See the Declaration of Brian Maissy, Exhibit A, including an email from the Dean of Students, Jonathan Poullard. Also attached to the Maissy Declaration as various exhibits are photos depicting “Apartheid Week” and campus checkpoints for several years leading up to the March 2011 events.

On April 24, 2001, thirty-two SJP demonstrators who called for cutting economic ties with Israel were arrested for obstructing access to Wheeler Hall during a six-hour siege. In violation of fire codes and other regulations, the SJP had chained closed nine of the twelve doors to the building and linked their arms to block the remaining entrances. At that demonstration, DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 7

Professor Gordon was beat up so severely that he needed to be hospitalized. The assault on Professor Gordon did not occur because he is “pro-Israel.”

It is not without significance that the SJP has been involved in numerous other violent, anti-Israel, anti-Semitic demonstrations on several campuses of the University of California System. In January 2011, SJP and MSA protestors were so disruptive at a speech given by the Israel Ambassador, Michael Oren, that the District Attorney in Orange County has brought conspiracy indictments against eleven students. As stated by the Orange County District Attorney on February 4, 2011, and reported in the Orange County Register, “…These defendants meant to stop this speech and to stop anyone else from hearing his ideas.” The students were convicted. Disrupting the free speech of others is a “modus operandi of these groups.”

THE NATIONAL MUSLIM STUDENTS ASSOCIATION (MSA)
The Muslim Students Association (MSA) was created in January 1963 at the University of Illinois Urbana-Champaign. According to its Constitution, its aims and purposes are “to serve the best interest of Islam and Muslims in the United States and Canada so as to enable them to practice Islam as a complete way of life.” According to MSA’s Facebook page, the initial leadership of the MSA, “came from Arabic-speaking members with the Muslim Brotherhood’s help to establish the group. A Saudi Arabian charity, the Muslim World League, provided early funding for the group.”

THE MSA AT UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA, BERKELEY
Founded during the 1986-87 academic year, the MSA at Berkeley (which is also known as the Muslim Student Union (MSU)) has become one of the largest and most active chapters in North America. Ostensibly its mission is to support those who wish to understand, appreciate, and practice their Islam without compromising their morals and beliefs; to educate non-Muslims about the misconceptions regarding Islam and the Islamic way of life; and to foster a social community for Muslims.

The MSA is a funded organization on campus, and received $9,040.14 from the Associated Students of the University of California-Berkeley (ASUC) for the 2008-09 academic year. The group received $8,500 for 2006-07, $7,840.35 for 2005-06, and $8,250 for 2004-05. The MSA publication AI-Bayan, founded in 2000, was allocated $1,225 in 2008-09, $1,255 in 2006-07, and $935 in 2004-05. These sums are supplemented by monies that are raised from DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 8

fundraising events, or allocated from MSA National. Student groups that are political in nature, receive less money than religious or cultural associations. The political activities of the MSA, outlined below, have not negatively affected its public funding allocation.
In recent years, the MSA at Berkeley does not merely promote social networking, encourage observance of Islam, and plan religious, cultural and charitable events; it engages in political activism and mobilizes Muslims, both on and off campus, for activist projects. The Constitution of the Muslim Student Union of Berkeley states one objective is to “develop activism of Muslims on campus and in the community.” The chapter has its own Political Action Committee. Significantly, a sub-section of the National MSA manual entitled “Political/Campus Action” urges members to “consider forming committees for certain issues that need to be addressed on the campus or larger level. The MSA on campus has been actively involved in “Apartheid Week,” and has been instrumental in creating the hostile environment complained of herein and in which the University has acquiesced.

UC BERKELEY HAS LONG BEEN ON NOTICE THAT MEMBERS OF THE SJP AND MSA POSE THREATS ON CAMPUS AND THAT THEY CREATE AN IMPERMISSIBLE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT
 
The March 5, 2010 assault against Jessica Felber was not the first time that Husam Zakharia and others from SJP acted violently against Jewish students. Physical intimidation and violence were frequently employed as a tactic by SJP and other campus groups in an effort to silence students on campus who support Israel, and who attend Jewish and non-Israel related events. In addition, the University has consistently failed to discipline and effectively condemn SJP and its affiliate RSO, the MSA. Moreover, the University had ample notice of harassment, intimidation, incitement and violence committed by the SJP and MSA against Jewish students at Berkeley. Such incidents continue to the present.

At the Berkeley campus, the SJP and MSA have at several times staged an armed “checkpoint” which are pictured in Exhibit B, attached hereto, flaunting and brandishing realistic-looking assault weapons. Also attached are the following: Exhibit C are photos of the March 17, 2011 checkpoint barbed wire and interrogations; Exhibit D are photos of SJP and MSA demonstrators with coffins blocking campus walkways; Exhibit E are photos of the 2009 DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 9

checkpoints; Exhibit F are photos of the 2010 checkpoints; Exhibit G are photos of the most recent 2011 checkpoint (referenced in the Declaration of Maissy); Exhibit H are photos of vandalized Jewish signs on campus. Jessica Felber’s assailant Husam Zakharia is pictured at the checkpoint talking to Campus Police on May 7, 2008 in Exhibit B. At the checkpoint, Berkeley students are confronted and demanded to state their religious affiliation, specifically if they are Jewish. Although many students have complained to the University, it has done nothing to prevent the continuance of these hostile “checkpoints.”

On information and belief in or about November 2008, the SJP and MSA, lead by Zakharia, disrupted a concert organized by a campus Jewish group on the Berkeley campus. Zakharia assaulted a Jewish Berkeley student. Zakharia and two other SJP activists were cited for battery by Campus Police. However, the University failed to effectively discipline SJP or Zakharia, such that the University’s actions allowed and encourage the SJP and MSA to continue and amplify their aggressive and violent threats, plans and activities. This incident was reported on publicly; however, there was no effective means for resolving the dispute and hence the hostile environment festered.

On February 24, 1995, at the Berkeley campus, the MSA conducted a rally in support of Hamas, the Middle East extremist group. This took place soon after a series of bus and sidewalk bombings in Israel. Students from several northern California campuses carried signs depicting an Israeli flag with a swastika and proclaimed their willingness to serve as future suicide bombers. A Jewish observer was spit on by one of the demonstrators. Berkeley officials neither condemned nor took any meaningful measures in response to actions in support of a known and officially designated terrorist group. On information and belief, there was no effective condemnation by the University, even though officials were well aware of the incident as it was reported on publicly.

On October 2000, the president of UCLA’s MSA led a crowd of demonstrators at the Israeli consulate in chants of “Death to Israel!” and “Death to the Jews!” This incident was reported on publicly. DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 10

In December 2001, a member of Chabad, a Jewish religious group at Berkeley, was assaulted on campus near the Chabad house. During spring break of 2002, the Hillel window was smashed and graffiti stating, “Fuck the Jews,” was painted on the building. This too was reported on publicly.
In the Fall of 2002, Berkeley established a course, entitled “The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance” offered in the Department of English: According to the Fall 2002 course catalogue, Course # R1A, to be offered in the Department of English, was titled “The Politics and Poetics of Palestinian Resistance.” An excerpt from the course description: “The brutal Israeli military occupation of Palestine, [ongoing] since 1948, has systematically displaced, killed, and maimed Palestinian people. And yet, from under the brutal weight of the occupation, Palestinians have produced their own culture and poetry of resistance. This class will examine the history of the [resistance] and the way that it is narrated by Palestinians in order to produce an understanding of the Intifada …. This class takes as its starting point the right of Palestinians to fight for their own self-determination. Conservative thinkers are encouraged to seek other sections.” The class was to be taught by graduate student Snehal Shingavi, a leader of the SJP.

On March 3, 2008, the SJP sponsored a “die-in” purportedly in response to Israel’s decision to defend its citizenry against rockets that were launched into Israeli towns from Gaza. During the event, approximately 30 to 40 SJP student activists lay on the ground on Sproul Plaza, obstructing traffic and blocking the walkway. They held signs accusing Israel of starting another Holocaust,equating Israelis with Nazis. When the SJP held anti-Israel rallies and events on the Berkeley campus, Jewish students peacefully gathered and held up signs to counter the false and hateful messages that the SJP promotes about Jews and Israel. The SJP has deliberately interfered with those rights, blocking the Jewish students’ signs and attempting to destroy them.

On November 13, 2008, at a university approved student pro-Israel “hip-hop concert” at Eshleman Hall on the Berkeley campus, , SJP student activists deliberately disrupted that concert by draping two Palestinian flags from the Eshleman Hall balcony directly over the stage and thus precipitated a riot needing response from Campus Police. This event was also reported on publicly. While the conduct of the SJP activists apparently was in violation of university policy, officials did nothing, thus making a mockery of whatever policy might have been in place. DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 11

Many Jewish and non-Jewish students have complained to Berkeley Dean of Students Jonathan Poullard about the SJP’s threatening and intimidating conduct, and about the group’s violations of Berkeley’s Code of Student Conduct. Several Jewish students spoke up at an ASUC senate meeting on March 3, 2008, at which Dean Poullard was present. Student after student described being harassed and intimidated by members of the SJP. They described the SJP’s refusal to follow multiple requests by Campus Police and faculty to stop their intimidating tactics. And they described how unsafe they felt on their own campus. No effective resolutions were proposed.

Berkeley’s Dean Poullard acknowledged that those who violated Jewish students’ personal space and threatened their personal safety engaged in a Student Conduct violation. These infractions have occurred repeatedly. However, no effective disciplinary proceedings against SJP have been taken, and the SJP and MSA aggressive and offensive conduct continues. Indeed, as evidenced by the Declaration of Maissy, as of March 17, 2011, checkpoints on campus with barbed wire and realistic-looking assault weapons continue; and a student in a wheelchair became accidentally entangled in the barbed wire without apparent appropriate concern from the Administration.

Chancellor Birgeneau has commented on the need to limit hate speech which incites violence following the assassination attempt of Congresswoman Giffords in Tucson in January 2011. Yet each year on the Berkeley campus, with the checkpoints which are an integral part of “Apartheid Week,” the University and its Administration condones hate speech which endangers the health and safety of Jewish students.

In 2007, Egyptian-born author, Nonie Darwish spoke at Berkeley about her experiences growing up in Egypt and immigrating to the United States. The film “Obsession” (about the rise and dangers of radical Islam) was also screened. During her speech she was repeatedly interrupted by the SJP student activists. According to The Daily Californian, Ms. Darwish could not begin her speech for about a minute because of the heckling. The student paper noted that Campus Police had to escort several “loud opponents” out of the lecture hall at various points during the event. DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 12

SJP student activists staged another disruption when Middle East scholar, Dr. Daniel Pipes, was invited to speak at the Berkeley campus in 2004. Although signs were posted outside the lecture hall, warning that no banners, signs, shouting or violence would be permitted, SJP student activists violated these rules without any condemnation by the University. SJP student activists drowned out Dr. Pipes’ speech several times, by chanting and jeering inflammatory slogans, including “Death to Zionism,” “Zionism is racism,” and “Israel out of Palestine.” The protestors screamed “Zionist Jew” and “racist” at Dr. Pipes, and “racist Jews” at the audience, chanted “Seig Heil” and gestured the Nazi salute. The disruptions continued until the Campus Police finally had to eject many SJP student activists.

The University had no known official response to the aforementioned disruptive conduct staged by the SJP. Hence, the hostile environment remains as the University refuses to deal with this serious problem.

This history makes it quite clear that the SJP and MSA and their supporters have no interest in civil dialogue; their modus operandi is harassment and intimidation. To its shame, the university has turned a blind eye to the problem and has effectively endorsed a hostile environment. The intervention of your respective offices is the only way to cure this intolerable situation.

ADDITIONAL ACTIONS DEMONSTRATING A BLATANT HOSTILITY TOWARDS ISRAEL AND HER SUPPORTERS WHICH FUEL THE HOSTILE ENVIRONMENT FOR JEWS

On October 26, 2010, the “Muslim Identities and Cultures Working Group” of The Townsend Center for the Humanities, situated at Berkeley within the College of Letters and Sciences, was the co-sponsor of the event entitled “What Can American Academia Do to Realize Justice for Palestinians” (see, http://www.mecaforpeace.org/events/ berkeley-ca-what-can-american-academia-do-realize-justice-palestinians). The focus of the event was to promote a boycott Israeli academics and institutions as well as United States corporations which do business with Israel. The event was organized partially by the SJP. The event’s speakers: Lisa Taraki, Associate Professor at Bir Ziet University and co-founder of the Palestinian Campaign DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 13

for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, and Hatem Bazian, a Lecturer at UC Berkeley. Co-sponsors were the Israel Divestment Campaign, the U.S. Campaign for the Academic and Cultural Boycott of Israel, and the Middle East Children’s Alliance. These political organizations aggressively campaign against Israel and Jewish American academics, scholars and students. These academic programs, viewed in combination with the yearly sanctioned and supported checkpoints as part of “Apartheid Week,” create an environment where Jewish students feel endangered.
Said political campaign is an infringement of academic freedom as described by the American Association of University Professors. Said campaign is anti-Semitic according to the Working Definition of Anti-Semitism of the European Monitoring Center on Racism and Xenophobia as adopted by the U.S. State Department.

A CHILLING REMINDER OF
THE DARKEST CHAPTER OF HISTORY
 
The aforesaid conduct, acts and omissions of the University to tolerate and condone the aggressive and violent and threatening on-campus activities of the MSA and SJP against Ms. Felber, Mr. Maissy, and other students of Jewish religion and ancestry is particularly ominous because the University’s actions and omissions present a disturbing echo of incitement, intimidation, harassment and violence carried out under the Nazi regime and those of its allies in Europe against Jewish students and scholars in the leading universities of those countries during the turbulent years leading up to and including the Holocaust..

Ms. Felber, Mr. Maissy, and other students of Jewish ancestry, at University of California campuses are entitled to the highest levels of tolerance and respect for their religious beliefs, practices, traditions and identity. However, due to the pattern and practices of the University to condone and allow the acts of aggressive MSA and SJP violence, confrontation and harassment alleged, Ms. Felber, Mr. Maissy, and other Jewish students, are despairing that the tragic lessons of history have not yet been learned by the University. They fear that the University of California campuses are no longer places of hope and dignity, of academic and personal freedom, or of peaceful life and personal safety. DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 14

There has been on the part of the University a deliberate indifference to the development of a dangerous anti-Semitic climate on its campuses. They have failed utterly to adopt and implement policies, regulations and student organizations procedures to prevent threats, intimidation and harassment by the anti Semitic/anti-Israel SJP, MSA and MSU, all of which that threatens and endangers the health and safety of the University’s Jewish students. Moreover, there is no escaping the conclusion that the University has adopted a double standard when dealing with Jewish students, as the University provides greater protection against hostile acts directed against blacks, females, and gay students, than they provide for Jewish students.

The activities at Berkeley have created a hostile environment for Jews based on their actual or perceived shared ancestry or ethnic identity as Jews and warrant a full investigation by your respective departments. Moreover, as is made clear from the emails between Mr. Maissy and the Berkeley Dean of Students, as well as Ms. Felber’s complaints to the Dean of Students about having been spat at by anti-Jewish students, Berkeley officials – just like those at San Diego – must be required to uphold the protections under Title VI.

Since the University has failed to eliminate the hostile environment – indeed its behavior has served to strengthen it – the Justice and Education Departments represent the only hope in requiring Berkeley to fulfill its obligations under Title VI.

As part of our complaint, we include the following binder of exhibits:

Exhibit “A”: Maissy Declarations and E-mails
Exhibit “B”: STP and MSA Students
Brandishing Realistic-Looking Assault Weapons
Exhibit “C”: March 17, 2011 Checkpoint at Sather Gate
Exhibit “D”: STP and MSA Demonstrators
with Coffins Blocking Campus Walkway
(Not an “Apartheid Week” Event)
Exhibit “E”: 2009 “Checkpoint” part of “Apartheid Week”
Exhibit “F”: 2010 “Checkpoint” part of “Apartheid Week” DOJ Office of Civil Rights DOE Office of Civil Rights July 9, 2012 Page 15
Exhibit “G”: 2011 “Checkpoint” part of “Apartheid Week”
referenced in the Maissy Declaration
Exhibit “H”: Vandalized Signs on Campus
Exhibit “I”: Declaration of Ronald Sandee
Exhibit “J”: ZOA October 11, 2004 Complaint
Exhibit “K”: ZOA December 30, 2008 Letter
Exhibit “L”: Declaration of Jessica Felber
Please feel free to call if you have questions or concerns.
Respectfully submitted,
__________________________________
JOEL H. SIEGAL
__________________________________
NEAL M. SHER





THE LAST WORD OF THE FIRST INTERVIEW-ARTICLE ON BULLYING JEWISH STUDENTS ON CAMPUSES: SONG ABOUT NO BULLYING






This article-interview appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London. Contact the writer Peter Menkin: pmenkin@att.net

Wednesday, November 07, 2012

Movie Review: Filmic reflection titled 'Be Home Soon' as screened Mill Valley Film Festival





Movie Review: U.S. Army Chaplain Frederick 'Ted' Howden as seen through a film by his granddaughter Melissa Howden, screened Mill Valley Film Festival, October, 2012

Almighty God our strength and sustenance, Thou gavest Thy servant Frederick Howden the grace and courage to put the need and hunger of others before his own life and health. Inspire us with directness of purpose in the training of body, mind, and spirit that we may better serve Thee, our country, and our fellowmen.

Article-review by Peter Menkin







NOTES AND COMMENTS ON THE FILM ITSELF BY THE RELIGION WRITER
This artful film Be Home Soon, with its strong imagery and documentary style, held great hopes and large ambitions in its conception and its creation by filmmaker Melissa Howden. Certainly a worthwhile film about a family, and man who went to war as a volunteer in World War Two, and the viewpoint of a granddaughter finding out about her family, herself, and what it is for a man, even for a Chaplain in the U.S. Army, to die in the service of his country.

The film did not meet such large ambitions and hopes as filmmaker Melissa Howden expressed them to this Religion Writer. Nonetheless, it is a successful film and hopefully will be available somewhere in distribution or at other film festivals than at its maiden launching at The Mill Valley Film Festival, north of San Francisco held in the early half of October, 2012.

Said with a kind of rancor, and maybe even a contempt of a kind for Christianity and the Episcopal Church, Melissa Howden says in one conversation by phone from her second home in New Mexico, she was “….confirmed at Cathedral (St. John’s), Baptized Washington, D.C.” As she explains about the film, one in which her grandfather is portrayed during the years he entered the U.S. Army as a Chaplain, and later died after surviving the Bataan Death March in a prisoner of war camp, about her connection to the Episcopal Church and Christianity, that she, “…was there to sing in the choir and be connected to my grandfather (great grandfather was Bishop).” She says, with a declarative conviction and even hope, “I am not a practicing member of the Episcopal Church.”

After the screening, a first time screening anywhere, of Be Home Soon, the filmmaker and granddaughter Melissa Howden visited that home Diocese of Chaplain Howden (Diocese of the Rio Grande) at Albuquerque, New Mexico’s General Convention and spoke before an audience just before screening Be Home Now for a second time after the film’s completion. In an email from Father Raymond Raney who wrote in response to an inquiry of how the talk she gave went (Father Raymond is press officer for the Diocese), he wrote in his email:
The Audience was made up of about 100 clergy and 200 lay delegates from the congregations of the Diocese. There also were about 30 visitors.
 
The Bishop thanked Melissa for coming to the Convention, and for sharing her work with us.
 
There was no recording of her talk. It was about 10 minutes in length. Melissa talked about the willingness of her grandfather to serve our country and his National Guard unit in time of war, and the sacrifice he made. Though he was offered the opportunity to flee Bataan before the fall, he chose to stay with the men whose souls were in his care.
 
I am told the screening was well attended. Even with two other events that evening, about 150 persons attended, and it received a standing ovation as well. I was unable to attend because of a previous commitment.
 
Chaplain Howland is commemorated annually in Episcopal Diocese of the Rio Grande as a man of holiness on December 11 of each year, and it is hoped he will be on the calendar in the national Episcopal Church, too. This is the text of the entry sent for use in the book, Holy Women, Holy Men:




THE RECOMMENDED TEXT FOR HOLY WOMEN, HOLY MEN
The Rev. Frederick B. ‘Ted’ Howden
Priest–Soldier–Martyr, d. December 11, 1942



Chaplain Howden in Priestly dress
 
 
 
Collect (traditional)
Almighty God our strength and sustenance, Thou gavest Thy servant Frederick Howden the grace and courage to put the need and hunger of others before his own life and health. Inspire us with directness of purpose in the training of body, mind, and spirit that we may better serve Thee, our country, and our fellowmen. Give us the vision to know what is right, and the courage to follow after it. Strengthen us with Thy Spirit for the duties of life that we may continue Thy faithful servants unto our life’s end, and at the last enter into Thy heavenly kingdom: through Jesus Christ our Lord who liveth and reigneth with Thee and the Holy Ghost, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.

Collect (contemporary)
Almighty God our strength and sustenance, you gave your servant Frederick Howden the grace and courage to put the need and hunger of others before his own life and health. Inspire us with directness of purpose in the training of body, mind, and spirit that we may better serve you, our country, and others in your name. Give us the vision to know what is right and the courage to pursue it. Strengthen us with your Spirit for the duties of life before us, that we may continue your faithful servants to our life’s end, and at the last enter into your heavenly kingdom: through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you and the Holy Spirit, one God, for ever and ever. Amen.


Preface of a Saint (2)

Isaiah 40:25-31
To whom then will you compare me, 
   or who is my equal? says the Holy One. 
Lift up your eyes on high and see:
   Who created these?
He who brings out their host and numbers them,
   calling them all by name;
because he is great in strength,
   mighty in power,
   not one is missing.
Why do you say, O Jacob,
   and speak, O Israel,
‘My way is hidden from the Lord,
   and my right is disregarded by my God’? 
Have you not known? Have you not heard?
The Lord is the everlasting God,
   the Creator of the ends of the earth.
He does not faint or grow weary;
   his understanding is unsearchable. 
He gives power to the faint,
   and strengthens the powerless. 
Even youths will faint and be weary,
   and the young will fall exhausted; 
but those who wait for the Lord shall renew their strength,
   they shall mount up with wings like eagles,
they shall run and not be weary,
   they shall walk and not faint.

Psalm 18: 1-6, 18-20
1 I love you, O Lord my strength, *
O Lord my stronghold, my crag, and my haven.
2 My God, my rock in whom I put my trust, *

my shield, the horn of my salvation, and my refuge;
you are worthy of praise.
3 I will call upon the Lord, *
and so shall I be saved from my enemies.
4 The breakers of death rolled over me, *
and the torrents of oblivion made me afraid.
5 The cords of hell entangled me, *
and the snares of death were set for me.
6 I called upon the Lord in my distress *
and cried out to my God for help.
7 He heard my voice from his heavenly dwelling; *
my cry of anguish came to his ears.
18 He delivered me from my strong enemies
and from those who hated me; *
for they were too mighty for me.
19 They confronted me in the day of my disaster; *
but the Lord was my support.
20 He brought me out into an open place; *
he rescued me because he delighted in me.

Matthew 25:34-40
Then the king will say to those at his right hand, “Come, you that are blessed by my Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world; for I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you gave me clothing, I was sick and you took care of me, I was in prison and you visited me.” Then the righteous will answer him, “Lord, when was it that we saw you hungry and gave you food, or thirsty and gave you something to drink? And when was it that we saw you a stranger and welcomed you, or naked and gave you clothing? And when was it that we saw you sick or in prison and visited you?” And the king will answer them, “Truly I tell you, just as you did it to one of the least of these who are members of my family, you did it to me.”


NOTES AND COMMENTS BY THE FILMMAKER MELISSA HOWDEN 
When talking by phone in that same background conversation with filmmaker Melissa Howden, who lives most of the year in Oakland, California near San Francisco) she talked of her interests in developing themes for the movie. This quote is if not perfect, holds the intent of what she has to say on that theme as she wanted to develop it. When we talk, she had not yet the final cut for screening of the work.
This was done in a real shoe string. When I went to the Philippines there was me and a photographer.
It’s also about my family inherited and what was passed down as a result that he left and didn’t come home.
 
I felt that the film never gets done.
It was a personal, experiential documentary. It is as much about my personal journey; it was a pilgrimage. I used his letters as my map. I didn’t really know what I would find. I didn’t have a goal. It’s a personal, exploratory documentary.
I grew up being a very sad person all the time. I realized one day that the sadness wasn’t mine. But that I’d inherited it from my father and my grandmother. It was really an investigation of where that came from. I knew that his fate was not going to be changed (grandfather). I just knew that maybe some piece would come out of it for me.
My grandmother did not want him to go. ..
What was hard for him was that he felt he always had to live up to this standard, this ideal (father said). My grandmother asked my father what he thought. Should they bring the body back? My father didn’t want to, because there would be more ceremonies where he would have to stand there and be the big man of the family.
 
Whenever someone goes out to war, the effect is very strong…What are the costs to their children? Whatever those children are experiencing, a culture must consider that before someone being sent off to war.
The effects of war are not just with that person who went off to war, but they extend beyond.
 
FROM MY NOTEBOOK, AND THOSE NOTES TAKEN DURING THE SCREENING
The comfortable theatre was a packed house. It was a dedicated audience in that they expected an art film, and were enthusiastic ticket holders who obviously enjoyed The Mill Valley Film Festival, that was in its 35th year at the time of the screening of Be Home Soon. The chief programmer of the Festival, a woman named Zoe Elton, gave the introduction to the screening. Then began the cross generational stories of the film in what the Festival declared was a World Premiere for the film.
Be sure the film held a vein of sorrow, a kind of sense of the legacy of war, and this was accomplished with family photographs introduced with craftsman skill during the first part of the film, and during the second and last part use of war documentary footage mixed with footage shot for the director, filmmaker Melissa Howden.

This Religion Writer thought the work of narrator and voice over talent Peter Coyote in speaking the dialogue lines over pictures, as voice of Chaplain Howden, was performed excellently. Peter Coyote seemed to have just the right kind of voice for a Chaplain in the military. The whole narration was done in one during a three hour period.

During and by this narrative we are introduced to the film, its story, and brought to better attention of understanding of the images that are artfully presented in Be Home Soon. The Chaplain died December 11, 1942 and was buried at the prisoner of war camp gravesite. He was a self-sacrificing man of God who served with a Christ-like willingness to help and support his men during this terrible time of the march and prison, to the point of giving up his own food for some, and ending up giving up his life in the service of his men, God, and Country.




Filmmaker Melissa Howden, granddaughter of Chaplain Howden
 
 
 
FILMMAKER’S STATEMENT DESCRIBING THE FILM

This documentary is a story not just of my grandfather, but a story of the collective memory of this generation of Americans at war – and the inherited grief of their families. It is about the weight of war on families. Documenting one of the cornerstones of modern American (indeed World) history through the experience of one man and his family.
 
Historically much attention has been paid to the events in Europe during World War II, and also Pearl Harbor and subsequently the dropping of the atomic bombs. What is rarely known is the state of New Mexico lost more men per capita than any state in the Union. The men who went to the Philippines were left to fight the Japanese with leftover WWI artillery and supplies. For better or for worse, the United States government left them to fend for themselves while the government focused all of its resources on the European theater. The surrender in the Philippines to this date is the largest surrender of an American army in history. For the most part, the men in the Philippines did not die in battle. Rather after the surrender (on April 6, 1948 — the largest army to surrender in U.S. History) they died on what has come to be known as The Bataan Death March and in prison camps thereafter.
 
My grandfather, who was 40 years old at the time, survived the death march and died a year later in prison camp of diseases associated with malnutrition. His actions during this time lead the Southwest Diocese of the Episcopal Church to canonize him noting the day of his death — December 11th as his day on the church calendar.
 

THE FILM MAKER’S VIDEO ASKING FOR MONEY TO MAKE THE FILM, NOW FINISHED

INTERVIEW WITH FILMMAKER MELISSA HOWDEN
  1. 1.     You said about the making of your film, Be Home Soon, “The effects of war are not just with that person who went off to war, but it extends beyond.” This ambitious pilgrimage you were on about your family, and in specific your grandfather’s leaving as a volunteer Chaplain in World War II began where in your life? Please tell us some about the pilgrimage, and some thoughts you held during it about your life and relationship to this special man, and celebrated Army Chaplain, Frederick “Ted” Howden.
 
 
 
My personal pilgrimage probably began probably the day I was born.
I say this because I was born into a family that never really recovered emotionally from the space my grandfather left. The family built themselves around that space but it was never filled. 3 young boys grew up without their father. My father and uncles were raised by a woman with a broken heart, which seemingly never really healed.
Emotional memory is passed on wittingly or unwittingly. My father didn’t grow up with a father consequently he was making up how to be a father as he went along. My father also did what he could, consciously or unconsciously to avoid situations which would bring up painful memories. It was a different time. People didn’t talk about their feelings; rather they did what they could to pull themselves up by their bootstraps. And as a family they weren’t alone in their experience or feelings. So a whole generation was raised in a kind of pain that for the most part was never addressed.
My contention is this has an effect on our culture, because the state of emotional limbo or in some cases paralysis plays out in all manner of ways. As the first child born into my family after the war (first grandchild for my grandmother, first child for my father who was the eldest son) I was born into a situation in some respects of numb pain. I don’t mean to imply I was not loved and welcomed. I was. But the lack of emotional reconciliation is felt. It is passed on. I’ve spent my entire life unraveling this in one way or another.

As for my relationship with my grandfather, I didn’t have one except as a mythic figure who was dead, survived the Bataan Death March, and gave away his food and so on. Someone asked if my relationship with him had changed after doing this film.
Yes to the extent that the process humanized him.  Yes he was no doubt good, but he was human. I am sure in addition to performing noble acts and acting as the bearer of hope for the soldiers he was with, he also had regrets; he was also probably afraid many times, and likely very sad when it became clear to him that he was not going to make it home.

If when you say pilgrimage you actually mean the journey of following my grandfather’s letters…I think my film says pretty much everything I have to say about it. Anything else I would write would be redundant.
 
  1. 2.     I note that your grandfather was an Episcopalian, and that you do not consider yourself a practicing Episcopalian: “I was there [in Church] to sing in the choir and be connected to my grandfather. I am not a practicing member of the Episcopal Church.” It is noted that your great grandfather was a Bishop in New Mexico, too. Your grandfather was a distinguished Churchman held in high esteem as a consecrated person who led a considered holy pilgrimage himself through his Chaplaincy as part of the Bataan Death March and death in a prisoner of war camp. He was a man of God who was sacrificial, sacrificing and caring for the men he cared for with religious and spiritual help and support. Why did you not become a more religious person of the Church, and how did you find your spiritual path of self-examination and faith? This is not to get personal, per se, but to get an understanding of how faith and in this case the Episcopal Church’s, has spoken to you in your life. Say something about your grandfather’s faith as a military Chaplain, too.
Each person’s spiritual longing and practice manifests in a number of different ways. Mine happened to take place outside of the Episcopalian Church. For me the spiritual path is basically at its essence a longing not to be separate, to be connected with my own heart, and to be a reflection of an awakened mind. Philosophically my beliefs are derived primarily from Vedanta (The Upanishads, The Bhagavad Gita) and Kashmir Shaivism (the Siva Sutras).
In other words one does not need to be Episcopalian to be distinguished, to lead holy pilgrimages, or to access a bigger way of being. The capacity for love, fortitude, faith, patience and compassion is available to all no matter their race, color, creed, sex, sexual preference etc.
I believe my grandfather shared this belief. He did not distinguish whom he would serve based on their religious affiliation, belief or disbelief in God. His heart was open to all.  He was an Episcopal Priest; his good friend Father Braun was a Catholic Priest. Their God was one in the same. In this respect to believe doesn’t have anything to do with following a standard set out by one religion or another, rather it moves us into a bigger way of being. Everybody finds their own way.
  1. 3.     Your art film, Be Home Soon, is a picture of compelling images with its excellent narration play by the likes of Peter Coyote, who was the voice of your grandfather the chaplain. What was the source of your inspiration and in your work as film maker and director. Speak of how you came upon these two techniques in the making of and final edit of your Be Home Soon documentary. This Religion Writer did get to see the work at The Mill Valley Film Festival when shown in its first screening, anywhere. (The Mill Valley Film Festival, in its 35th year, is located north of San Francisco by about 14 miles in Marin County’s town of Mill Valley. The film of yours itself played at the non-profit art film theatre in San Rafael, California owned by the California Film Institute. That San Rafael theatre is six miles north of Mill Valley by car.)
I am a filmmaker, artist and writer so for me it made sense to make a film of my journey. I don’t know how else to say I came upon these techniques in terms of the source of my inspiration. Creatively I find film to be a powerful medium to work in as it joins image and word in ways that are greater than the sum of its parts. The process of creating is when I feel the most whole. It is a flow, which is rooted in openness, which gives birth to manifest form in this case a film.
 
  1. 4.     What are the plans for distribution of the film, and because it is about a Chaplain of great faith and action in his ministry for the spiritual needs of his troops, will you be talking about the generation to generation effect on your family of a man’s life for service to his country and men in peril and death. Give readers a taste of this viewpoint as it is played out in the film as part of your filmic statement? That family statement is your intention of main theme for the film, so you said in a background conversation from New Mexico where you own a home, to my home office in Mill Valley, California.
The path of distribution for this film is not yet clear. I have JUST finished the film and it was an intense period of post-production in order to finish in time for the Mill Valley Film Festival premiere. So I would like to just sit and catch my breath for a moment.
I will send the film to festivals, which is usually the first step. It seems to be the kind of film that art and history museums are interested in screening. The thing about Be Home Soon is it has a number of different potential audiences.
What I have learned from the three screenings I have had to date is that the film strikes a universal chord as a meditation in motion on grace, memory and healing. The form and style of the film appeals to artists, the content appeals to a general audience, historians, people of faith, and people whose lives have been altered by wars present and past. But I don’t feel that the audience is at all limited to special interest groups.
I will make the film available for purchase to individuals and groups, and I will make myself available to go with the film and speak with groups after viewing the film.
In general I think I will let the film speak for itself. As an artist I don’t want to say, “This film is about… and now let’s watch it.” I want people to have their own experience of the film. Thus far I have found out that there are as many interpretations of the film as there have been people who viewed it. Ultimately, I just hope that each person who sees the film finds something that is meaningful to him or her. I have been told that the film inspires thought and discussion. What more can I ask for?
  1. 5.     It has been a pleasure to make your acquaintance this creative way and get to see the first screening of your film Be Home Soon. As we come to the end of our conversation in interview, please remark on anything missed. Add what you want to add that you like at this point to close out the conversation.
If people are interested in the film they can go to the film website
www.behomesoonthefilm.com and also the Facebook page for the film
Be Home Soon: Letters from My Grandfather. I will post updates, screenings and any information pertinent to the film there.  Once the film is launched I will begin work on a book that will be more all-encompassing, as the film is just one story. There are many related stories to tell.
 
 
INTERVIEW WITH U.S. ARMY CHAPLAIN GRIFFIN

Chaplain Corp


 

 


 
QUESTIONS
  1. 1.     In many ways Chaplain Ted Howden who served and died in World War II in a prisoner-of-war camp after the Bataan Death March shows the way of sacrificial and some say holy work aiding and guiding the spiritual and physical needs of men under his responsibility as a Man of God in Uniform. Please let readers know something of today’s role of the Chaplain, in service and work, including those who have combat experience. In your answer please indicate the key job of the Chaplain as it was in World War II and in contemporary American service.
The role of the Chaplain in service and work in World War II and today is still very similar.  It’s changed very little.  That role is primarily to provide for the free exercise of religion for those soldiers that we serve.  We had that same mission in World War I:   to perform or provide religious services for all soldiers, regardless of their faith group.

Providing for the free exercise of religion came to life [through] Title 10, U.S. Law. establishes the position of the Chaplain in the Army.  This was established by the U.S. Congress, and it is public law that requires Chaplains to provide religious services for personnel of their assigned command.  For our command we perform worship services, and since I’m a Protestant Chaplain, I cannot perform services for other faith groups, such as those for Catholic soldiers.  So I must ensure a Catholic Chaplain is available to conduct mass for my soldiers.

That’s the legal precedence for the Chaplaincy and for the Chaplain.  And, it’s a commander’s responsibility to see that [his soldiers] are not only fed or housed, but also to see to their religious needs.  A Chaplain either provides that himself, if it’s consistent with his or her faith group, or sees that it is provided by a Chaplain of that soldier’s faith group.  That was the role in World War II for the Chaplain, and that is the primary role of the Chaplain today.

We have a large diversity of Chaplains in the United States Army that range from liturgical Christians such as Episcopalians to Methodists, to non-liturgical Christians, such as Baptist or Assembly of God.  We also have Jewish, Muslim, and Buddhist Chaplains—and we’re responsible to provide for free exercise of religion for all soldiers.  The Army is a reflection of American society, and if you find it in America you are going to find it in the Army as well.

In addition to providing for the free exercise of Religion, we also advise the Commander.  Chaplains serve on the commander’s personal staff, and advise him or her on numerous issues like morale, or any issues impacting the welfare of the unit.  Chaplains conduct command climate assessments to determine the state of morale in a unit.  In addition to advising the commander, we provide support to the command on all matters of religion, morals, and morale as affected by religion.  This includes the impact of religion on military missions.

We also advise commanders on moral and religious issues impacting their units, and of course, we provide a wide range of events, such as prayer breakfasts, that promote the spiritual growth of our soldiers.  We also provide relational skills training with programs such as Strong Bonds that strengthens our married couples and their families, along with our single soldiers.  By promoting spiritual, moral and relational training and counseling, we help our soldiers and their families develop resilience that helps them overcome the stresses they encounter.

We also assist the commander in the area of suicide prevention.  We conduct suicide prevention classes, as well as help detect the warning signs of suicide and serve as a source of referral in helping our soldiers get help.



Shown is Chief Military Chaplains, not Chaplain J LaMar Griffin of Fort Eustis, VA
 
 
Wherever we are around the world, in whatever unit we serve, the three-fold mission of the Chaplain Corps has remained the same:  to nurture the living, care for the wounded and honor the fallen.  Just as we did during WWII, Chaplains conduct funerals and memorial services and ceremonies.
We’re responsible for all the religious needs of soldiers in our military. If they have counseling needs, we can perform those or provide them by finding a Chaplain of their faith group or a professional counselor.  We assist every soldier, whether they are affiliated with a religious group or not.
 
  1. 2.     One theme in the movie is how a family over more than one generation feels about the loss of an important male figure because of military service in wartime. Let us know of other Chaplain’s in the service of their American men in uniform who, too, were exemplary in their work. Are any similar in their actions and dedication to God and man as was Chaplain Ted Howden. My reason to ask this part of the question is to elicit ways in which Chaplain Ted Howden was himself in the exemplary and spiritually wonderful service of people in his “flock.”
Our families are deeply impacted when our soldiers go off to war.  There are many hardships that we deal with, including separation from our spouses and children.  We miss birthdays, anniversaries, and holidays while we’re away.  But it’s part of the Chaplain’s calling.  The families feel the effects of a soldier’s absence just like other families, and deal with the related issues of grief, fear of loss, and the pain of separation and loneliness.

And some of our Chaplains have been killed during war.  Chaplain Charlie Watters was killed during the Vietnam War and was a Medal of Honor Recipient.  While he was performing ministry to wounded soldiers, a bomb hit Father Watters and the soldiers he was ministering to.  He had been active throughout the battle, bringing in wounded soldiers, and his sacrifice remains a great example to our Corps.

Chaplain Emil J. Kapaun is another example.   During the Korean War, when his unit was overrun by the enemy, he chose to stay with his wounded soldiers, was taken prisoner and later died in a prisoner of war of camp in 1951.

Another example of that is Chaplain Dale Goetz , who served with his unit in Afghanistan.  Chaplain Goetz went out on a convoy to provide religious support for his soldiers and was killed by an IED (explosive device: Improvised Explosive Device, which has caused many casualties in Iraq and Afghanistan).  Chaplain Goetz was the first U.S. Army Chaplain to be killed in action since the Vietnam War.

In addition to our Chaplains, we have Chaplain Assistants that support and serve alongside us, whether in garrison or deployed.  We have also lost Chaplain Assistants during war.  Both Chaplain Assistants and Chaplains uphold the Army values, such as selfless service.  One of those is Staff Sgt. Chris Stoudt, who was killed while supporting his chaplain in Afghanistan.  We couldn’t perform our ministry without them.  Chaplains are non-combatants, but our chaplain assistants are not.  They carry weapons and provide security and protection for their chaplains, along with other religious support duties.
 
  1. 3.     What is the role of the Chaplain’s family, and if you know, talk a little about their part as support and even what effects that work of Chaplaincy has on them—even to later generations? Readers may even guess that the Chaplain is a man or woman who serves his soldiers in spiritual and religious ways and his family is not literally part of that specific work. Nonetheless, even letting us know something of their military life and place in the mission of Chaplain in the U.S. Army.

Families are essential to our support personally and for other families in the unit. That’s normally through Family Support Groups or programs such as Strong Bonds which provide encouragement and strength to Soldiers and Families. Also, families and others volunteer through ACS (Army Community Services), chapel programs, and other civic organizations. These great efforts                               provide support of the Army and military community at large.



 BIOGRAPHICAL TEXT PROPOSAL FOR USE IN HOLY WOMEN, HOLY MEN: CELEBRATING THE SAINTS
Frederick Bingham Howden, known to his family as Ted, was born January 27, 1902 in Cumberland, Maryland, one of seven children of the Rev. Frederick B. Howden, Sr. and Angelica Constance Faber Howden. He was twelve years old when his father was consecrated Bishop of the Missionary District of New Mexico and Southwest Texas, and the family moved to Albuquerque, New Mexico. He attended preparatory school at the Kent School in Kent, Connecticut, graduated in 1925 from Yale University, and then completed three years of seminary training at General Theological Seminary in New York City. His father ordained him Deacon at St. Clement’s Church in El Paso, Texas on June 10, 1928 and Priest, also at St. Clement’s, on January 13, 1929.

Immediately thereafter, Fr. Howden was called to serve as the Rector of St. Andrew’s Church in Roswell, New Mexico. During his tenure at St. Andrew’s he served as Vicar to Lincoln County Episcopalians from 1929 through 1941, and as a supply priest to St. Paul’s Church in Artesia, New Mexico. He also held occasional services in the developing towns of Hobbs and Lovington, and served as the Chaplain at the New Mexico Military Institute. On April 21, 1932 he married Elizabeth Fegan in St. Mark’s Church in San Antonio, Texas.

Beginning in 1929 Fr. Howden led services of Evening Prayer in the schoolhouse in Glencoe and frequently celebrated Holy Communion at the Church of the Transfiguration which met in the Navajo Lodge in Ruidoso, New Mexico. He began a fund-raising drive to build an Episcopal chapel in Lincoln County, the result of which was St. Anne’s Chapel in Glencoe. It is now the oldest Episcopal Church in Lincoln County, and at the time of its consecration on June 3, 1934 was the only protestant church of any denomination within the 150 miles between Roswell and Alamogordo.

When World War II broke out Fr. Howden held the rank of Captain in the New Mexico State Guard, and was the Chaplain to the 200th Coast Artillery when it was federalized and sent to the Philippines in September 1941. A friend who was with him daily said he was always walking over the hills of Bataan holding open air services here and there and doing everything possible to help the men who affectionately called him “Chappy”. He was, however, a real soldier as well as a chaplain which all the more gained him admiration and respect as he moved from battery to battery, holding services and distributing candy, soap, and cigarettes he had foraged for the troops. He was a spiritual presence to his men, and in him they saw demonstrated love, goodness of life, and joy in serving others in the Lord’s name and for His sake.

At the Fall of Bataan and Corregidor to Japanese forces in April 1942, Fr. Howden and his fellow soldiers were made prisoners of war and were forced to endure the Bataan Death March during which some 18,000 died. During imprisonment in several prison camps including Camp O’Donnell and Cabanatuan and finally at Davao Prison Colony on Mindanao, his heroism and faith were always apparent through the humanitarian care he gave to those he served. At great cost to himself he often gave his own portion of food to others whom he insisted needed it more than he.

Fr. Howden died of dysentery and starvation-induced pellagra on December 11, 1942, but his family were not notified until June 1943. He was buried by his men in a small cemetery in the shadow of the Mindanao jungle a mile or so from the camp at Davao. After the war, in 1948, his remains were reinterred in an Albuquerque, New Mexico cemetery.

The prayer that Fr. Howden wrote for the cadets at New Mexico Military Institute was printed for many years in the cadet handbook.

Our Father in heaven, inspire, we beseech Thee, all members of this School with directness of purpose in the training of body, mind and spirit that we may better serve Thee, our country, and our fellowmen. Give us the vision to know the right, and the courage to follow after it. Strengthen us with might by Thy Spirit for the duties of life before us. And grant that we may so lay to heart the lessons of training and discipline here that we may always continue Thy faithful soldiers and servants unto life’s end. Amen.
 

This article-interview appeared originally Church of England Newspaper, London. Write the author-interviewer Peter Menkin, pmenkin@att.net .