The Alarm over Oil: A Not So Recent Issue

This is an article I wrote for History News Network, which can be found here.
In his recent State of the Union address, President Bush urged America to look towards better energy sources and away from oil. He remarked, “Keeping America competitive requires affordable energy. And here we have a serious problem: America is addicted to oil, which is often imported from unstable parts of the world. The best way to break this addiction is through technology.” He also noted that by improving our technology we could reduce the amount of Middle East oil imports. With the recent issue of gas prices in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, many may think that the oil issue is a recent phenomenon, but they are mistaken. In fact, there have been other times in our nation’s history when the crisis was worse and past presidents had to deal with them as well. In addition, presidents have stated the importance of Middle Eastern oil.
To set the stage, we must go back to the 1950s and the Eisenhower Administration. In his 1957 State of the Union address, Ike noted the importance of a free Middle East as he stated that the economies of Europe could be adversely affected should the Middle East fall into enemy hands. Ike also noted this concern in a January 5, 1957 speech on the Middle East. It must be noted that the Middle East had experienced turmoil both prior to and during Ike’s administration. In 1956, Egypt seized the Suez Canal. In addition, Iran had been in turmoil during the early part of the decade as fearing communist takeover, the U.S. and Great Britain backed a coup that placed the shah in power. These events support Eisenhower’s view that a stable Middle East supplying oil was good rather than one under enemy (Soviet) influence (the Soviets had controlled part of Iran during World War II, but gave it back in 1946). While this does not deal directly with the issue of oil independence, it does illustrate that even 50 years ago, the world was very much dependent on Middle Eastern oil.

The Kennedy and Johnson administrations did not deal with oil in their State of the Union addresses. This may be in part due to domestic events like the civil rights movement and turbulence of the late 1960s, as well as our involvement in Vietnam. Also, the price of oil was relatively low, roughly around $15/barrel in 2004 dollars during their administrations and was decreasing in price as well.

Gerald Ford’s first State of the Union address had much to say about oil. The year was 1975 and America was in the oil crisis set off by the embargo by the Arab states in response to the 1973 Yom Kippur War. Ford described a situation of surplus in the 1960s, whereby the U.S. could control prices by trading to other nations from its own surplus. Ford stated the following:

Economic disruptions we and others are experiencing stem in part from the fact that the world price of petroleum has quadrupled in the last year. But in all honesty, we cannot put all of the blame on the oil-exporting nations. We, the United States, are not blameless. Our growing dependence upon foreign sources has been adding to our vulnerability for years and years, and we did nothing to prepare ourselves for such an event as the embargo of 1973.

Ford outlined the following solution to the problem:

First, we must reduce oil imports by 1 million barrels per day by the end of this year and by 2 million barrels per day by the end of 1977.
Second, we must end vulnerability to economic disruption by foreign suppliers by 1985.
Third, we must develop our energy technology and resources so that the United States has the ability to supply a significant share of the energy needs of the free world by the end of this century.

Clearly, Ford was facing a crisis and needed to find a solution for it. The world price of oil at this time was between $30-40/barrel in 2004 dollars, which may not seem like much compared to today, but the price had increased to this from around $15/barrel in about a year, which would translate into oil being priced at probably $90-140/barrel today.

By the 1976 State of the Union (SOTU), Ford still noted that the price was too high and our dependence too great, but also mentioned his recent signing of his national energy bill, which was part of the program he mentioned in the 1975 SOTU. Oil was an issue in 1977 as Ford stated that, “In 1973 we were dependent upon foreign oil imports for 36 percent of our needs. Today, we are 40-percent dependent, and we’ll pay out $34 billion for foreign oil this year.” He also noted that, “Of the major energy proposals I submitted 2 years ago, only half, belatedly, became law.” This raises the question of whether Congress was against the proposals because of politics.

Jimmy Carter echoed much of what Ford had stated about foreign oil dependence in his State of the Union addresses. However, the continued repetition of the issue in his addresses can lead one to believe that with regard to oil independence the president was all talk and no action. During the Carter administration, the world price of oil per barrel doubled from around $30 in 2004 dollars to almost $65, which would translate to oil costing us today almost $100/barrel and the price would have approached $150/barrel right after Hurricane Katrina. Imagine what gas prices would be if oil did cost that much.

The 1980s brought a new president with new ideas into office. Ronald Reagan stated an interesting solution to our dependence on oil in 1981; allow private industry to build plants to make fuels, like gas, from coal. In 1982, Reagan noted that deregulation of oil allowed us to “come closer to achieving energy independence and helped bring down the cost of gasoline and heating fuel.” Reagan did not mention oil in any other State of the Union addresses in his administration after 1982. This may be in part due to the dramatic collapse of the price of oil in the years after. The price fell from about $65/barrel to around $20/barrel in 2004 dollars. If this were to happen today, the price of oil would eventually fall to around $18/barrel, which is about a 70% decrease in price.

President George H.W. Bush made little mention of oil in his addresses only noting the decrease in oil prices after the Persian Gulf War in 1991. His successor, Bill Clinton did not mention oil at all as again prices were low.

In closing, President Bush is not the first president to address the issue of our dependence on foreign oil. However, through examining the State of the Union addresses for many presidents since Eisenhower, one thing is clear: presidents only address the issue when it becomes a major problem and prices are high. This is because of the negative effect high prices and low supply has on our economy. A president will not survive if the economy weakens under his watch. Unlike his father, President George W. Bush faces a period of higher prices which until recently have not had much impact on economic growth, but he will have to act soon before the impact (if prices increase more as they are currently lower than they have been) is really felt.

Note on sources: For this article, I utilized C-SPAN’s website on the State of the Union, which contained the transcripts for all State of the Union addresses since President Truman. It is found at http://www.c-span.org/executive/stateoftheunion.asp. Special thanks goes to Mike Westbrook, reference librarian at Illinois College who helped me find an Eisenhower speech from Vital Speeches of the Day (pp. 200-203). I also utilized a graph on oil prices from http://www.wtrg.com/oil_graphs/oilprice1947.gif to obtain the price figures mentioned.

The Incident at My Lai: Questions and Answers on a tragedy in Vietnam

This is another History News Network article, which can be found here. 

     There are many sides in the ongoing historical (and political) debate on America’s longest war, the war in Vietnam. There are those who are not sure, those who felt it unnecessary, and those who believe that the war was a necessary one in the battle against communism during the Cold War. Note: In the interest of full disclosure, this author believes that the war was necessary to combat communism. Recent press into the possible killings of Iraqi civilians at Haditha, which is still under investigation by the military, brings up an event from the war that ended over three decades ago. The event in question is the killings of South Vietnamese civilians at the village of My Lai (also known as Son My) in 1968. Many questions will be answered that will help in understanding this event in our history.

Where is My Lai? My Lai is a small hamlet within the Son My village in the Quang Ngai province of South Vietnam (now Vietnam). A map from http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_MAPS.html is shown below.

When did the event occur? The incident at My Lai occurred on March 16, 1968. It was a part of an operation to clear the area of Viet Cong (VC) forces.

What led up to the event? A brief history on the war is in order so that this question may be better answered. Until 1954, Vietnam was a French colony part of French Indochina (during World War II it was controlled by the Japanese and liberated by the British who turned the area back over to French control). The French faced difficulties in maintaining control and soon were defeated in 1954 at the Battle of Dien Bien Phu by the Viet Minh, who were led by Ho Chi Minh. It must be noted that a number of Vietnamese sided and fought with the French, as they were not supporters of communism, which Ho was. After the defeat of the French, Vietnam was divided in to a communist North Vietnam led by Ho and backed by the Soviet Union, and a democratic South Vietnam backed by the United States.

North Vietnam soon attempted to take over the South as election attempts failed to unite the country, which resulted in the Eisenhower administration sending military advisors to help train the South Vietnamese army, known as the Army of the Republic of Vietnam (ARVN). President Kennedy continued sending advisors, but by the time Johnson was President, the situation required combat troops to be sent in 1965. By the time of My Lai, America was at the high water mark of commitment in Vietnam.

The operation surrounding the incident at My Lai was to clear the area of Viet Cong presence. It is because of concentration of communist sympathizers and VC that the area earned the nickname “Pinkville” by the soldiers that operated there. Prior to the incident, the soldiers involved were briefed to expect engagement with Viet Cong forces. It was expected that the women of the village would be gone and the men would possibly engage the successful 48^th VC Local Force Battalion. However, this would not be the case.

What transpired at My Lai? Company C of the 1^st Battalion, 20^th Infantry, which was part of the 11^th Infantry Brigade, 23^rd (Americal) Division was commanded by Capt. Ernest Medina. His men, expecting to find the VC force instead found women, children, and old men. Although an eventual board of inquiry would not try to determine cause of the incident, many cite the frustrations of the soldiers over loss of comrades to snipers and booby traps as well as poor leadership as possible reasons for the incident in question. What occurred was Medina’s men; particularly those in 1^st Platoon led by 1^st Lt. William Calley, Jr. ran wild. The men supposedly indiscriminately shot people and then rounded up survivors, led them to a ditch and shot them. More villagers would be killed as huts and bunkers were destroyed by fire and explosion. The killing only ceased when helicopter pilot Warrant Officer Hugh Thompson reportedly landed his helicopter between the soldiers and the fleeing Vietnamese. According to a museum at My Lai 504 Vietnamese perished that day.

What occurred after My Lai? An attempt to cover up the incident only lasted for a year, then an Army investigatory board took charge. Out of 30 persons, who were mostly officers (including the division commander) who were listed as having known of the event, only 14 would be charged with crimes. All except Calley would have their charges dismissed or be acquitted by courts-martial. Calley, whose platoon supposedly killed 200 civilians at My Lai, was charged and found guilty for murdering 22 civilians and sentenced to life at hard labor. This sentence was reduced to 20 years by the Court of Military Appeals, then ten years by the Secretary of the Army. Finally, having been deemed a “scapegoat” by the public, Calley would be paroled by President Nixon in 1974. One positive would come from this tragedy, as in 1998, Hugh Thompson and two other members of his chopper crew that had intervened to stop further killing were awarded the Soldier’s Medal for gallantry, which is the seventh highest award that a soldier can earn.

How did My Lai compare to what the enemy did? According to Lam Quang Thi, a former South Vietnamese general, in his book The Twenty-five Year Century, the press coverage of the war by the U.S. was biased. For instance, while My Lai received much media coverage (not that it did not warrant coverage), Viet Cong atrocities, like the murder of 4,000 civilians in the city of Hue during the 1968 Tet offensive received very little coverage.

How does My Lai compare to the incident at Haditha? News reports refer to a massacre at Haditha, but how does it compare? History notes an event known as the Boston Massacre, in which British soldiers killed five persons in March of 1770. When examined, Webster’s defines massacre as “the wanton killing of a large number of human beings”. While the killing of one person is a bad thing, the term massacre does not accurately describe the event in Boston. It does however properly describe My Lai in which hundreds were killed, but does it apply to Haditha: maybe, but maybe not as 24 were supposedly killed. It depends on what determines large in terms of people killed.

Another key difference beyond number of victims is situation. In Vietnam, American and ARVN forces faced a regular North Vietnamese Army (NVA) as well as the Viet Cong, who primarily relied on guerilla tactics. In Iraq, there is no standing regular enemy army facing our troops. Rather, they face a terrorist force that uses tactics similar to the VC with the addition of their own tricks, which makes determining friend or foe very hard for the men in combat, as terrorists can easily blend into regular society.

Many lessons can be learned from My Lai that must be applied to the Haditha incident. Journalists and politicians must wait for the investigation into Haditha. My Lai cannot be disputed as to whether it occurred as an investigation concluded that something wrong had occurred, but Haditha has yet to be fully investigated. Rush to judgment will only lead to trouble for the troops on the ground. In addition, we must not ignore the atrocities of the enemy and only highlight those carried out by a few bad apples. My Lai was a tragedy that had major consequences for our involvement in Vietnam as while we won the war on the ground, we lost it here at home. Haditha, unless caution is used could have disastrous consequences, which would only be made worse if investigations reveal events contrary to press reports. My Lai and Haditha have been and will be lessons in journalistic and ultimately historical responsibility.

Sources:

Definition of massacre from Webster’s Dictionary.

Tucker, Spencer C., Ed. “My Lai Massacre”. The Encyclopedia of the Vietnam War. Oxford University Press, 1998. 280-1.

Lam Quang Thi. The Twenty-five Year Century. University of North Texas Press, 2001. 192.

Map courtesy of http://www.law.umkc.edu/faculty/projects/ftrials/mylai/MYL_MAPS.html

New CIA director is a student of history

This is another History News Network article, which is linked here.

Recently confirmed CIA director, Gen. Michael Hayden (USAF, Ret.) not only has intelligence credentials, having served as director of the National Security Agency (NSA) from March 1999-April 2005 and as Principal Deputy Director of National Intelligence from May 2005-May 2006, but also possesses history credentials as well.  Gen. Hayden graduated in 1969 from Duquesne University with a Master of Arts in History.  He also received his Bachelors degree there as well as being a distinguished graduate of the ROTC program.

While in his MA program, Hayden studied modern American History.  His thesis was entitled “The United States and the unity of Europe:  1945-1950”, which does not appear controversial especially given its age.  One of his professors while at Duquesne was Dr. Steven Vardy, who teaches in mainly European history.  His classes deal with topics like Imperial Russia, The Rise and Fall of the Soviet Union, The Cold War, and New American Immigration among others.  Vardy’s areas of teaching appear to conflict with Hayden’s major field of his MA, but they are related, and, this author suspects that Hayden may have had to take a class taught by Vardy as part of a cognate or minor field, or to supplement his major field of study.

Hayden drove taxis to get through college, which he still remembers even today.  Many of his teachers remember him, including George Sprys, who taught Hayden at North Catholic High School.  Sprys remembers Hayden being involved with both the student United Nations and school History Club, but that he also possessed great research skills.  Sprys noted, “He would probe deeply into the task that we were after.  Whether it was world history or Pittsburgh history, and he had an understanding of what research was all about”.  Hayden’s 10^th-grade World History teacher remembered Hayden as “one of the nicest kids I ever taught”.

These skills would certainly help him in his military career, which began in 1967 when he was promoted to Second Lieutenant.  During his long career in the Air Force, Hayden has worked at such places as the headquarters of Strategic Air Command, commandant of cadets for St. Michael’s College ROTC program, and as Director for Defense Policy and Arms Control for the National Security Council among others.  He has also attended the Academic Instructor School, Defense Intelligence School, and Armed Forces Staff College.  Hayden also received many awards from the Air Force, including the Defense Distinguished Service Medal, Legion of Merit, Bronze Star, Meritorious Service Medal, and Air Force Commendation Medal among others.  His thesis topic may have prepared him for an assignment as an air attaché at the US Embassy in Bulgaria.

With a distinguished academic background and career, Gen. Michael Hayden has used his training in history to advance his military career and now prepares to begin the next leg of his long journey of public service.

The following sources were used in this piece:

Biography of General Michael V. Hayden found at http://www.af.mil/bios/bio_print.asp?bioID=5746&page=1

Dennis B. Roddy.  “CIA nominee called down-to-earth, proud of Pittsburgh heritage”.  Pittsburgh Post-Gazette.  Tue. May 09, 2006.

Profile of Steven Vardy found at http://www.liberalarts.duq.edu/gradhistory/facVardy.html

Library card catalog entry for Hayden’s master’s thesis found at http://ducat.library.duq.edu/uhtbin/cgisirsi.exe/HOtDfELNb3/GUMBERG/58590318/9

Papal Past: How Cardinal Ratzinger dealt with Germany’s past

This article was written for the History News Network and is linked here.

In the latest issue of The New Yorker, Timothy Ryback examines the little known story of Joseph Ratzinger’s (now Pope Benedict XVI, which he will be referred to further in this article) visit to La Cambe, to commemorate the sixtieth anniversary of the D-Day invasion in 2004. La Cambe is a German cemetery in France where more than 20,000 soldiers are buried, including many members of an SS panzer division. Ryback notes how the visit is reminiscent of former-President Ronald Reagan’s visit in 1985 to a German cemetery near Bitburg, which was denounced by Elie Wiesel and others. The pope’s past and the effort of German Catholics to deal with Germany’s past, as well as the issue of forgiveness for those guilty of crimes committed by the Nazis, are all explored.

The pope’s membership in the Hitler Youth when he was a young man was an issue as many newspapers published on it shortly after he became pope. However, Ryback notes that the pope was enrolled, which may mean that it was involuntary. In addition to these areas, the pope’s reluctance to self-examine as many post-war Germans did has, according to Ryback received little media attention.

Before he became pope, Benedict had served in many capacities; one that Ryback notes was his archbishopric of Munich. Ryback mentions how Dachau concentration camp is near Munich and that some people criticized the pope for not visiting the site much while archbishop. However, supporters note that the pope was only archbishop for five years during which there were no notable anniversaries or events which would warrant his visit.

Part of the controversy about the visit may lie within the remarks made by the pope at the cemetery. He remarked that, “As Germans, we cannot help but be painfully moved to realize that their idealism and their obedience to the state were misused by an unjust government.” The pope also regretted a concept known as Pflicht, a blind and unquestioning obedience to duty, which was a typically German concept that was exploited for evil purposes under the Nazis. It must be noted that while many SS graves were at La Cambe, the pope made no mention of them in his visit, and, could not judge them in the belief that only God can adequately judge their consciences.

One other controversial aspect of the pope’s visit may lie in his leveling part of the blame for World War II on the Allies, particularly France. The pope leveled the charge that the Treaty of Versailles humiliated Germany and burdened the country with such debt that the country became radicalized. The pope also argued that the Germans were doubly victimized, both by the humiliation at the hands of the French, and by Nazi seduction and deception. The pope praised the efforts of the Americans in rebuilding Germany as well as the prevention of a repeat of the mistakes at the end of World War I and cited Europe’s “Christian traditions” with aiding in the healing process after the war.

The biggest area of focus for Ryback is in the relationship between the Catholic Church in Germany during and after the Nazis with the state and in dealing with the horrors of the Nazis. Ryback mentions the Reichskonkordat signed between Hitler and the Vatican, which called for Roman Catholic archbishops to swear allegiance to the state. In fact, the pope took the same oath when he assumed the archbishopric of Munich in 1977. Ryback notes that Catholic priests, like Archbishop of Munich Michael von Faulhaber also suffered under the Nazis when they tried to resist and that many were sent to Dachau. For instance, when Faulhaber met with Hitler to discuss his opposition to Nazi values, Hitler raised his voice and remarked of the “Church’s war” against the state, for which the archbishop would find himself in Dachau with other clergy. In fact, the pope, in a statement issued for the fortieth anniversary of the Kristallnacht in 1978, noted the suffering of the Jews, but also alluded to the Nazis’ war on the Catholic Church. He remembered how Cardinal Faulhaber faced mobs who cried “Send him to Dachau!” and “Arrest the traitor!” The pope in later years described the Holocaust as a “preliminary step” to the eradication of Christianity. In addition, the pope exposed the plight and injustice perpetrated against the Sudeten Germans, those Germans who lived in the Sudetenland of Czechoslovakia prior to the Third Reich, and who were expelled post-war to Bavaria and other places.

Ryback mentions views by Martin Marty, Lutheran pastor and teacher at the University of Chicago, who argues that it is “a pretext to honor German soldiers, especially members of the Waffen S.S., by saying that they were “simply following orders,” and leaving it to God to do the rest.” Marty accepts the view that German women, children, and even a then sixteen-year-old Ratzinger are victims, but not those who “voluntarily, even “gleefully” participated in the crimes of the Nazis.” Another view is that of Cardinal Avery Dulles, who argues that those who did what they knew was wrong still need to be prayed for, “especially if they are in a mixed cemetery that is not reserved for S.S. soldiers.” Dulles also stated that one can still pray that those who did what was wrong and against their conscience later found repentance and forgiveness, and that “The Gospel says you love everybody and hate nobody. You pray for your enemies and those who persecute you. Jesus said that if your enemy sins against you seven times and asks for pardon, you give him pardon.”

In the end, Siegfried Wiedenhofer, a former student of the pope, while noting that the pope’s comments at La Cambe “left something to be desired,” cautioned against misrepresenting the pope’s intentions. He stated, “He [the pope] wouldn’t deny that they German people have had a particular responsibility for what Hitler did, and that all Germans have a particular responsibility to learn from their history” and that the pope was not attempting to absolve the sins of the SS men, but “show understanding to those simple soldiers”. When questioned about how the pope would answer the question of whether or not an SS man can be forgiven, Wiedenhofer replied, “I think he would say, ‘You cannot exclude salvation. You cannot exclude it, because you are not in the position of God. In the Catholic Church, all you can say, regarding their salvation or their damnation, is that you cannot do that which belongs only to the authority of God himself.'” He went on to say that we could not look at a person’s conscience only God can. He concluded that the pope should have mentioned different levels of responsibility amongst the soldiers for the acts committed to avoid misunderstanding.

Ryback’s story draws from many unique and diverse sources to present a little know but controversial topic. He explores the man who is the head of the Roman Catholic Church, his past, his efforts to deal with that past, and his speech at a German cemetery to piece together a broader debate about forgiveness and the Nazis. Whether one chooses to agree with the points made in Ryback’s article, it raises the question of whether it is in fact our place to offer forgiveness, or, as several argued, is the issuance of forgiveness something that only rests with God.

Whatever Happened to the Plagiarism Charges Leveled Against Don Heinrich Tolzmann?

I wrote this article for the History News Network, while an unpaid intern. Here is a link to the article on the HNN website (click here).

In late 2003, Don Heinrich Tolzmann was accused of plagiarism. Tolzmann is the current director of the German-American Studies Program, Curator of the German-Americana Collection, and Bibliographer for Germanic Languages and Literatures, Slavic and Philosophy at the University of Cincinnati. He is also the President of the Society for German-American Studies and German-American Citizens League of Greater Cincinnati as well as an editor or contributor to several publications.

The accusations arose in a review of his book The German-American Experience by Robert W. Frizzell, which appeared on the H-Net website in Dec. 2003. It only came to the attention of HNN after being referred to on Correntewire.com. Frizzell notes in his review his meeting with Tolzmann years before, describing him as a “tireless promoter of German-American studies–a field stigmatized for much of the twentieth century and, even after the ethnic revival which began in the 1970s, much under-studied by American historians.” Frizzell then noted, “. . . it is a quite distasteful task to report that the book reviewed here is in no way up to the standards its author has set in his work, as the long-time president of a scholarly organization, and as a librarian.” Frizzell claims that Tolzmann “duplicated” much of the first half of the work from the earlier work by Theodore Huebener The Germans in America. Frizzell outlines the allegations as follows:

About half of both the substance and the wording of the first 180 pages of this book duplicate Theodore Huebener’s The Germans in America (1962). This process begins on page 36 of the work, where several lengthy sentences are repeated from page 3 of Huebener’s book. By page 39 of Tolzmann, only 29 of about 400 words on the page do not appear on pages 5 and 6 of Huebener. The next page of Tolzmann (page 40) has, by my count, only nine words that are not on pages 6 and 7 of Huebener.

To be sure, Tolzmann acknowledges Huebener. In the preface, he says, “I leaned heavily on Huebener, especially for the period from the American Revolution through the Civil War” (p. 12). But this is an entirely inadequate and quite misleading description of what was done in the production of this book. Most of the text on pages 65-78 directly duplicates pages 25-41 of Huebener, and this material concerns the period before the Revolution. Wherever he uses a long passage from Heubener, Tolzmann omits an occasional word, phrase, sentence, or even a couple of paragraphs. For example, on page 97, by my count, only 5 of the approximately 400 words on the page do not repeat pages 44-46 of Huebener, but at one point two paragraphs of the original are omitted and at another point, a sentence of the original is dropped. Sometimes Tolzmann inserts a word, sentence, or even paragraph of his own. Occasionally he reverses the order of two of Huebner’s phrases. Even in the first half of this book, there are sections as long as twenty pages that do not come from Huebener.

Huebener’s words are not put in quotation marks or indented. In addition, there are several cases where Huebener’s words are given with references to endnotes listing other sources. For example, the first sentence of the first full paragraph on page 39 of Tolzmann is identical to a sentence in Huebener. But the endnote following that sentence in Tolzmann cites two of Tolzmann’s own publications.

Clearly, these are stinging allegations that this author cannot comment on as to whether or not they are true as I have never read the work nor am I an expert in this field.

This review was noted in a short piece on Correntewire.com, where the author (known only as Tom) cites Frizzell’s review, and then compares the case to other more prominent cases of plagiarism, noting, “Unlike other more prominent plagiarizers, this guy apparently has just continued on like nothing ever happened.” Tom also adds that, “He’s still the director of a German-American studies program at a major research university!” This is still true; Tolzmann is still the director of the German-American Studies Program.

What does Dr. Tolzmann have to say about the charges? Tolzmann posted this response on HNN’s website:

Dear Editor,

Regarding the reprinted review of my book, The German-American Experience, by Robert Frizzell I thought I had made it clear three years ago when this issue first arose that in my preface I clearly stated that I had revised and expanded a work. Since then I have had a collegial discussion with the reviewer and have consulted with colleagues and scholars in this field of study. I apologize to those who found my preface inadequate in explaining my historical approach. I am always open for honest discussion of German-American scholarship and research.

With kind regards,
Don Heinrich Tolzmann

When contacted via email for a response to Frizzell’s charges, Tolzmann reiterated his post to HNN, stating:

Thanks very much for your note and your interest in this issue. I thought I had responded to this several years ago, but realize that my language should have been stronger in my preface as the issue will come up as the text is used. In subsequent printings I will make the wording stronger so that there is absolutely no question. I apologize if my methodology was unclear and take responsibility for any lack of clarity in this regard.

What issues may arise in the discipline of history from this are not known, but scholars may definitely examine this case when writing their works as it could have ramifications for them in the future.

Sources:

“Don Heinrich Tolzmann: Suspected of Plagiarism” http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/21766.html

“The one that got away” by “tom” http://www.correntewire.com/the_one_that_got_away

“Don Heinrich Tolzmann. The German-American Experience.” Review by Robert W. Frizzell http://www.h-net.msu.edu/reviews/showrev.cgi?path=104811076280447

“Don Heinrich Tolzmann: Response to allegations of plagiarism” http://hnn.us/roundup/entries/21824.html

Email from Dr. Tolzmann to Daniel Sauerwein

I would like to thank Dr. Tolzmann for his time in answering my email concerning this case.

Summer School: Should IC Provide It?

I am sure many of you have received the e-mail about summer school here on the Hilltop. While summer seems a long ways away especially with this cold weather, it is time to start thinking about the possibility of spending the summer learning instead of sunning. I spoke with Dr. Abernathy about the idea of summer school. He stated that he has received many responses to the idea and that many were positive. Most of those responses also stated that if summer classes were offered that they would only take a couple of classes. One of the questions in the message was whether students would live in the dorms. The responses were mixed, with some stating that they would live on campus, while others said that they would commute. When I spoke with Prof. Gardner (Span.) about the idea of summer school, he felt that it was a good idea and that by taking classes five days a week instead of three, students would get a much better understanding and in depth study of foreign language. The aspect of summer classes that I feel will be most attractive will be if students can complete their Bachelor’s degree in less than four years. While I do not believe that I will take summer classes due to working and going for internships, I believe that summer classes will be successful and hope that they are given enough support to become a reality. I think that students will benefit from being able to get their general studies in during the summer and then focus on their major and minor during the school year.

SAB Impact Committee to Hold Events Concerning Breast Cancer Awareness Month

October is National Breast Cancer Awareness Month, and the Impact Committee of SAB at IC is holding two events trying to encourage IC students to be AWARE and to support the cause of trying to find a cure for breast cancer. The first event will be held on Thursday Oct. 3^rd and is called, “No Denim Day”. Students are encouraged not to wear denim clothes this day in order to show their support for this cause. On Friday Oct. 4^th faculty will donate a certain amount of money to breast cancer research to wear jeans this day. Students are encouraged to do the same and wear denim, as this day will be, “Denim Day”. “Denim Day” will also be the start of Fall Break at the end of classes that day. I wholeheartedly encourage all students to take part in these two events because breast cancer has and will affect the lives of many here on the IC campus.

President Bush Campaigns for Fellow Republicans in Springfield

     President Bush made an appearance in Springfield on Sunday Nov. 3 at the Armory across the street from the Old State Capitol building. Several IC students attended this event; some students did not come to see the President and instead joined the protest outside the building. The protest was staged in cold, drizzlely weather, and the protesters received some taunts from Bush supporters leaving the event. President Bush encouraged everyone, whether Democrat, Republican, or Independent to get out and vote on Election Day. Mr. Bush endorsed several Republican candidates, including: Jim Durkin (Senate); John Shimkus (U.S. House); and especially Jim Ryan (Governor). The crowd was very enthusiastic, especially when they found out that Jim Ryan had closed the gap against his opponent, Rod Blagojevich, a U.S. Representative from Chicago. One of the key themes of the Republican speakers at this event was taking power away from the Chicago political machine and returning it back to the voters. The President’s message must have worked because many people turned out to vote, and, even though Ryan and Durkin both lost their elections, the President’s party did regain control of both houses in Congress. In the end, though the weather was not that great for those who attended the event, the memories would last a lifetime.

New Gender and Women’s Studies Minor Holds Great Promises for the Future of IC.

     With classes in full swing and the campus a buzz with the celebration of the centennial of women being on the Hilltop, a new and hopefully exciting program is starting here at IC. Now students have the option to minor in the new field of Gender and Women’s Studies. I spoke with Dr. Caryn Riswold, professor of Religion, and one of the faculty involved in setting up this new program to find out more.

According to the program’s mission statement, provided by Dr. Riswold, the goal of the new minor is, “. . . to bring students to an awareness of the diversity and fullness of all creation, social, physical, and spiritual’ . . .`to bring students to an awareness of the diversity of the world’s peoples and their cultures'” (Illinois College Mission Statement). The mission statement states that, this program, “is an interdisciplinary program that emphasizes a cross-cultural study of gender, maintaining connections with the study of race and class, in order to examine and understand the diversity and fullness of the world in which we live.”

This minor will draw upon courses from several departments, including: Religion, Sociology, Communications, Political Science, Business Administration, Environmental Studies, English, and Education. Students wishing to minor in Gender and Women’s Studies will take the three following courses: Intro. to Gender and Women’s Studies, Theory in Gender and Women’s Studies, and Human Sexuality. Students will then choose three more courses from at least two separate disciplines, with at least one course above the 300-level, for a total of 18 hours. Students will also be required to take a one-hour practicum (IDS-4xx).

Dr. Riswold also shared with me some other ideas for the future of this new program. These include, new courses in disciplines like: Economics, Math, Psychology, French, and Spanish, as well as new courses from each of the other disciplines already included. When asked about number of guys in the classes, Dr. Riswold said that in one of her classes, there are eight guys. As to whether or not this new minor will become a major, only time will tell. It is interesting to note that an attempt was made in 1977 to start a program similar to this, however the interest was not their at the time. One reason for this new program is to attract prospective students to come here. Up until now, Illinois College was the only school in our area amongst 15 other similar schools who did not offer a program such as this. If you are interested in learning more about this minor, stop by Parker Dining Hall (the one to the right just as you enter Cummings) at 5:30 P.M. on Wed. Feb. 6^th to meet the faculty and find out more information on the newest academic program on the Hilltop.

Meteorology Experiment Reveals One Hot Science Building

In Prof. Fred Pilcher’s Meteorology class, students are learning about the concepts of weather. Students who are in the lab section of the class have to complete one take-home experiment. Geoff Engleboch and Daniel Sauerwein conducted an experiment in Micrometeorology, which is the study of the difference in temperature at various heights near the ground. Geoff and Daniel set up two stations with thermometers on the ground, at two and one-half feet above the ground, and five feet above the ground. One station was placed on the roof of Parker Science Hall and the other was placed on the ground in front of the building on the side nearest the gym. The temperatures were recorded every hour from 6:00 a.m. until 7:30 p.m. some of the temperatures that were recorded were astounding, but not uncommon for a clear day. The experiment is half complete as Geoff and Daniel are still waiting for a cloudy day. So far, the weather has not been cooperating, but hopefully with the coming of fall, the experiment can be completed.

The readings were as follows:

Date:  Sept.  06, 2002     Sunrise:  7:06 am          Sunset:  7:50 pm

Time	Sky Conditions	Wind Speed MPH	Wind Direction	Temp. (°F) At Ground/Roof	Temp. (°F) At 2 and ½ Ft.	Temp. (°F) At 5 Ft.
6:00 am	Mostly clear	0.0	—	54	60	61
				48	56	57
7:00 am	Mostly clear	5.0	ENE	56	60	61
				49	57	58
8:00am	Mostly clear	3.0	ESE	78	74	77
				69	73	66
9:00am	Mostly clear	2.0	SE	83	76	76
				91	79	74
10:00 am	Mostly clear	4.0	SSW	100	84	82
				106	84	83
11:00 am	Mostly clear	4.5	WSW	117	87	84
				120.02	95	93
12:00 pm	Mostly clear	1.5	SW	152.42	89	88
				136.4	98	96
1:00 pm	Mostly clear	5.0	SW	138.2	97	96
				147.2	96	97
2:00 pm	Mostly clear	3.5	SE	124.7	96	97
				147.02	95.9	96
3:00 pm	Mostly clear	9.0	SE	122	96	97
				147.2	96	96
4:00 pm	Mostly clear	5.0	S	114	101	102
				119	96	95
5:00 pm	Mostly clear	6.0	E	100	94	95
				97	89	91
6:00 pm	Mostly clear	0.0	—	83	79	79
				82	81	85
7:30 pm	Mostly clear	0.0	—	68	73	77
				64	71	64

(Note:  The second set of temperatures recorded at each time are the temperatures at the Parker Science Hall roof station.)

These readings are what will normally occur on a warm, clear late summer day. When the second half of the experiment is completed, the results will be published for the experiment as a whole. An interesting thing to consider with these results is whether or not an egg could be fried on the roof of Parker Science Hall. If a student would like to try this in the future, be sure to talk to Prof. Pilcher and the President of IC before attempting.

In conclusion, this experiment proves that there are interesting differences in temperature, even within a few feet. Students planning on taking Meteorology are encouraged to try this experiment in Micrometeorology.