While being described as quiet, it may be hard to think U. Kansas senior first baseman Amanda Jobe could throw a punch if she needed to. But she did a lot more than that on her way to becoming a recommended black belt.

After starting tae kwon do when she was nine, she moved up to the rank of recommended black belt, the level which precedes the black belt and takes a year to complete, but she had to decide between tae kwon do and softball because of the time commitment each one required.

“I wish I would’ve been able to find the time to do both, but the level I got into in karate required a lot more time,” Jobe said.

Softball was the choice, and as she comes to the end of her softball career, she said she embraced the game by putting everything she had into it.

During her high school career, which included a state title and a state runner-up, Jobe said playing for Kansas was her goal. When Kansas offered her a scholarship her sophomore year in high school, she quickly committed.

“I grew up a Jayhawk fan my entire life. It was kind of a no-brainer,” Jobe said. “I committed really early because I knew if I was given the option, I would go here.”

Jobe became a four-year starter, and after being moved around her freshman year, she started at first base for the past three seasons. With Kansas fielding a young team this season that starts four freshmen, coach Megan Smith said Jobe was a great asset to help lead the team.

“She’s not very loud on the field, but she leads by example, and the underclassmen see how she conducts herself on and off the field,” Smith said. “We hope all of our players strive to be like her.”

Junior catcher Brittany Hile, who played with Jobe before they both went to Kansas, said Jobe has a great passion for the game, even if it may not look like it.

“She’ll make the plays, get outs and just not seem too excited,” Hile said. “She doesn’t show it much, but you know she has the drive to get it done.”

Being a four-year starter, Jobe has embraced being a student-athlete, being named on both All-Big 12 Second Team twice as well as Academic All-Big 12 First Team twice in her first three years.

Jobe said it got difficult balancing school and softball, and in one course alone, she has missed around 20 classes this semester.

“It’s hard because there’s really not much I can do about it,” Jobe said. “It’s a struggle, but my teachers and coaches have really been great.”

After Jobe gets her bachelor’s degree, she said she planned to apply to the University of Kansas Medical Center this summer, and has thought about either a family practice or sports medicine.

Jobe said with her final season coming to a close, she doesn’t know what life will be like after softball.

“I’ve played softball for so many years and involved in a system that really helped guide me through everything,” Jobe said. “I’m about to be at a point where I’m kind of all on my own.”

The story I’m about to tell is not easy to talk about. I’m sharing my experience, along with my name and photo, to put a face and a voice to a problem that too often goes unnoticed. I don’t want other women to go through this.

My story starts here in Bloomington, Ind. in the early hours of Saturday, Nov. 7. It was just after midnight and a girlfriend had just dropped me off at home after we danced at a bar. I’d consumed four or five drinks, but had stopped drinking a couple hours earlier. I was headed up the stairs to my apartment when I saw my neighbor standing in the hallway.

“What’re you up to?” I asked him.

“We’re hanging out over here if you want to come join.”

“Sure.”

I had hung out with this guy and his two roommates before, and though I didn’t know them particularly well, I’d never had a problem with any of them. They seemed like nice guys.

“Do you want anything to drink?” one asked when I walked into their apartment.

“No, but can I get a glass of water?”

“Help yourself.”

I poured myself a glass of water and sat on a sofa chair in the living room. A friend of my neighbors, a man I’d never met, was visiting. He sat down on the arm of the chair, and we introduced ourselves. I expected him to return to talking with my neighbors, but instead he lingered.

“Can I be your boyfriend?” he asked, leaning close.

“What?” I said.

“Am I your boyfriend?”

“No.” I laughed nervously. I had never been hit on in such a creepy way, and I wondered how much he had been drinking. Bottles of liquor were scattered across the coffee table.

Despite the strangeness of the moment, I stayed for another hour or so, talking with my neighbors and doing my best to ignore their friend. Two of us stepped outside to smoke a cigarette. When we went back to the living room, I took another sip of my water. I noticed it tasted slightly salty but didn’t worry about it. In an apartment of three men, I told myself, the dishes must not get very clean.

One of them waved a bong in the air. “Do you want to smoke?” he asked.

I took a hit and passed the bong.

“Man, I wish I could smoke,” said their friend, still hovering near me.

“Yeah,” said one of the other guys, “too bad you’re on parole.”

I looked at their friend, wondering exactly what that meant. “Why are you on parole?” I asked.

The room fell silent.

“Rape,” one of my neighbors blurted out, answering for their friend.

“Man, what the fuck?” said the friend.

The neighbor laughed. “I’m just kidding.”

“No,” yelled the friend. “That’s not cool. This girl is going to think I raped someone now.”

My neighbor told him to calm down. But their friend just got madder. An already uncomfortable situation had suddenly become frightening. I had to leave.

“I’m tired,” I said. “I think I’m going to head home.”

As I shut their apartment door behind me, the last thing I heard was the sound of laughter.

I think I was roofied

I was lucky that I left when I did. After I returned to my apartment, I suddenly felt extremely sick to my stomach and rushed to the bathroom and vomited repeatedly.

For a moment I thought I had fallen ill from drinking. When I realized I had not consumed alcohol for hours, I wondered if one of the men had slipped me acid.

By now it was a little after 2 a.m. As I continued throwing up, I began to fade in and out of consciousness. I felt as if I was caught in the undertow of a wave, trapped and unable to breathe. My thoughts became incoherent. I began to hear voices and see things. Though I am not a religious person, for some reason I could not stop thinking about God. As I leaned over the toilet, I looked into the water and imagined the dark shadow of a face looking back at me. I was certain it was Jesus.

My spurts of rational thinking became so few and far between that I was no longer sure where I was or what I was doing. Nothing looked familiar. My vision was severely blurred. Waves of confusion ran through me like static on a television screen.

As I felt myself blacking out again, I sobbed. I felt like a failure. Here you are, I told myself, dying alone on the floor of your shitty bathroom at the age of 21, never having accomplished anything you want with your life.

I moaned for my roommate. “Liz … Liz … Liz …”

When she appeared in the doorway, I was so confused that at first I did not recognize her.

“What’s wrong?” she asked.

In my mind, I was screaming for her to call 911. But all I could say, over and over again, was “I am not OK.”

Liz helped me to her room and told me to sleep. “I’m afraid I am not going to wake up,” I told her.

“For work tomorrow?” said Liz. “I promise I’ll wake you up.”

“No, forever.”

Drug-facilitated sexual assault

Although I can’t prove the intentions of the creepy man who apparently put something in my water, I know how vulnerable I was.

Unfortunately, experiences like mine are not uncommon.

The Journal of American College Health reports that 20 to 25 percent of college women are raped during their college careers, and 82 percent of students experiencing unwanted sexual intercourse in 2005 were under the influence of alcohol or other drugs.

Though alcohol is the most common drug involved in sexual assault, the number of drugs used has grown over the past 15 years. Reports of drug-facilitated sexual assault have steadily increased since date-rape drugs became prevalent in the mid 1990s. The best known of these drugs are Rohypnol — more commonly referred to as “roofies” — and GHB. Both are sedatives that act rapidly to cause passivity, loss of will to resist, relaxation of muscles, nausea and amnesia in victims.

Though these two drugs are most commonly associated with drug-facilitated sexual assault, a Southern Medical Journal article found that at least 20 different drugs have been used in sexual assaults. Many of these drugs, especially prescription drugs like Xanax and hydrocodone, are extremely common on college campuses across the country.

Because it’s difficult to find accurate statistics on sexual assault in general, it’s impossible to know exactly how often roofies and other drugs are used in sexual assaults. Victims rarely report assaults, and even when they do, detection of these drugs is difficult. Because date rape drugs are most commonly distributed at bars or parties and have the same symptoms as alcohol, it usually takes time for victims to realize what has happened. This delays or even prevents reporting of the crime.

“This is one of the most difficult types of sexual assault to prosecute, because usually when the person wakes up or comes to, they don’t have memory of being drugged.

The memory starts to come back in little pieces, and at that time, it’s often too late to do anything about it,” said Kellie Greene, founder and director of Speaking Out About Rape, a Florida-based group that runs national awareness and prevention programs to enhance public understanding of sexual assault.

An article published in 2000 by the U.S. Justice Department explains that the lack of national statistics and empirical data makes it impossible to determine how often drug-facilitated sexual assault occurs. This means evidence and understanding of this crime is primarily anecdotal.

These anecdotes are shocking, but they reveal something experienced by too many women. This is why I’m sharing not only what happened when I was drugged, but also the events that followed.

Bloomington police station

The next morning I woke up extremely groggy. I didn’t remember what had happened the night before, but as time passed it started coming back to me.

“What the hell happened to you?” one of my girlfriends asked.

“I don’t know,” I said. “I got really sick last night and started hallucinating.”
“Are you sure you weren’t roofied?”

I went online and found stories of people who had been roofied and experienced the same symptoms: vomiting, hallucinations, confusion and loss of consciousness. I decided to go to the Bloomington police.

Because I was still confused and shaken up, two friends — another girl and her boyfriend — drove me to the limestone station on Third and Washington streets. When the three of us opened the front door, we stepped into a tiny lobby. Another door that led to the rest of the station was locked. A sign on the door directed me to a nearby call box. As I walked over to the box, I noticed two men sitting behind me, talking loudly. Because the lobby was so small, they would easily hear every word I was about to say.

This is uncomfortable, I thought to myself. As I pressed the small gray button and waited for a response, the two men behind me stopped talking.

A man’s voice came over the speaker and asked how he could assist me. Trying to keep my voice low, I said I believed I had been drugged the night before.

“What?” said the voice on the other end.

“I think I may have been drugged.”

“Okay,” he said. “What exactly happened?”

I began to panic. Talking to the anonymous voice while the two strangers eavesdropped was so uncomfortable that I wondered if I should give up and go home.

“Is there anyway I can talk to someone in person about this?” I asked.

The voice told me yes and said to take a seat. I wondered to myself how much worse this experience would be if I had actually been sexually assaulted.

A male officer came to the door 10 to 15 minutes later.

“Who’s here about a possible drugging?” he called out. The two men stared at me. I stood and followed the officer into the station, accompanied by my friends.

I had expected to give my statement at the officer’s desk. Instead he led us into a small interrogation room and offered us seats at a table. Mounted on the wall beside me was a thick metal chain with a loop at the end. I assumed that when criminals were brought in for questioning, they were probably handcuffed to the loop. The idea was a little intimidating.

As I described my encounter with my neighbors’ strange friend, I watched the officer taking notes, his pen jumping across the page.

The officer was kind. When I told him that I had taken the one hit of marijuana, he didn’t judge me. He explained he had never dealt with a drugging but offered to go to my apartment to question my neighbors. This suggestion made me anxious. Because I still lived next to the men, I wanted proof before the police accused them or their friend of anything.

“Do you have to go talk to them right away?” I asked. “I’d like to figure out for sure if I was drugged or not.”

No problem, said the officer. He recommended that I go to Bloomington Hospital to have them test my blood and urine for drugs. He said he’d hold off on taking any action until he heard from me again.

I thanked him, and my friends and I left for the hospital. By this point I’d called my mom in Indianapolis and told her what had happened. She was already on her way and would meet us at the emergency room.

Protocol and pay for drug tests

Date-rape drugs can leave the system within 24 hours, and the best way to detect them is through urine samples collected within 48 to 72 hours of consumption, according to a report in the Journal of Clinical Forensic Medicine. This small window of time means response teams must act quickly.

Through his work with the California Coalition Against Sexual Assault, Chad Sniffens said he has learned that victims frequently run into problems if they decide to report the assault. Victims who work up the courage to go to the police get conflicting advice from law enforcement and local hospitals about what to do and where to go for help.

Many agencies, Sniffens said, lack a common protocol on what to do in such cases. A great deal of variation exists between how different agencies and hospitals collect evidence and test to see if victims have been drugged. Some don’t test at all.

Ross Wantland, assistant director of the Office of Inclusion and Intercultural Relations at the University of Illinois at Urbana Champaign, has created programs to educate students on drug-facilitated sexual assaults. He became interested in the issue after a friend went to the university health center thinking she could be tested for date rape drugs and was denied. Wantland explains that many universities lack the resources to test for these drugs, with cost posing a major problem. The test for GHB alone can be up to $150, a price Wantland said his university was not willing to pay.

Kellie Greene, from Speaking Out Against Rape, reports that many law enforcement agencies and hospitals do not properly train their response teams. Many responders do not know how to recognize the signs that indicate someone might have been drugged. The problem is largely ignored because media interest in date rape tends to cycle; no one’s likely to pay much attention until a high-profile case makes headlines. Until that happens, Greene said it’s important for college women to remember that this can happen to any one.

“The age group that’s most affected think they are invincible. We want to believe that it would never happen to us,” she said. “But the truth is, these criminals are looking for people that are vulnerable. All of us are vulnerable at some point. These criminals could prey on all of us.”

Bloomington Hospital

As I interviewed Greene and the other experts, I kept thinking — this is exactly what happened to me.

I had not been sexually assaulted. But I had been violated. As best I could tell, a predator had slipped something in my water, attempting to make me his prey. And when I went to Bloomington Hospital to get help proving what had happened, I ran into exactly the kinds of problems that the experts say are far too common.

That Saturday afternoon, after leaving the police station, my friends and I went to the emergency room. My mother soon arrived and joined me and my girlfriend in the exam room. I shifted nervously, ruffling the sheets of my hospital bed. The paper gown scratched against my bare skin.

As I waited, the events of the last 12 hours raced through my mind. It seemed like a long, drawn-out dream. My thoughts were interrupted when a nurse practitioner entered the room. She looked about my mother’s age, with long gray curls and glasses that hung against her medical scrubs. She asked me what brought me to the hospital.

“I think I was roofied last night,” I said. “I want to get tested.”

“You want us to test you for roofies?” she asked.

“Yes.”

“We can’t do that,” she said without emotion. “I don’t know what you want me to do for you.”

I felt like I’d been punched in the stomach. I told her the police had sent me to get tested. Couldn’t she help me?

“Bloomington Hospital doesn’t have any way to test for roofies,” the nurse practitioner continued. “I could test you for drugs like marijuana or ecstasy, but that’s it.”

My mother was growing angry. “What do you mean you can’t test for these drugs?”

“We don’t have the means to do that kind of a test here,” the woman repeated.

“What about taking her urine sample and sending it somewhere else?” my mom said.

“I don’t think that’s possible. I don’t know where we would send it.”

“There has to be something you can do,” my mom said.

The woman insisted there was nothing to be done. She left the room for a moment, and when she opened the door again, I saw the face of a younger nurse looking at me from behind her computer.

“I think I found a place online,” the young nurse said while holding up a phone. “I’m calling to find out.”

The nurse practitioner seemed irritated. “We might be able to test for roofies,” she said. “But in all my experience with victims who have been roofied they don’t remember anything at all, and you’ve been able to tell me some things.”

She seemed to be implying I was lying. As tears ran down my face, she stared past me.

Finally the young nurse determined that they could send my urine to a lab, and the nurse practitioner directed me to the bathroom with a plastic cup. After I filled it, I left as soon as possible. I had gone there wanting some proof, an answer, something. Now I just wanted to go home.

Follow up

After leaving the hospital I realized I’d made a mistake. When I researched date rape drugs online, I discovered that while “roofies” is the term loosely used for all such drugs, it is actually the name of one specific drug, Rohypnol. At the hospital, I had asked to be tested for roofies, not understanding I should have been asking them to test for a variety of other drugs. As a result, I was tested only for Rohypnol.

I learned that Rohypnol leaves a blue color in liquid, meaning it was probably not the drug slipped into my water, which was colorless. I felt stupid for not having known to ask about other drugs and angry I had lost my chance to determine what had happened.

I wrote a letter of complaint to Bloomington Hospital. “I went to your facility with trust and confidence that you could assist me, and I feel as though I was unwelcome and ignored. On a college campus such as IU, I find it hard to believe that my case is an uncommon one,” I wrote. “I only hope that the next time a scared, confused and hurting young woman comes to you for help, you are more willing to provide the services she needs.”

A representative from the hospital called me a couple weeks later to apologize. “In situations like yours, we have a test we’re supposed to run for all the possible date rape drugs,” he said. “I don’t know why that test wasn’t offered to you, but it should have been.”

I requested my medical records to see what had been documented from that day. The reports didn’t reveal much. The hospital recorded that they had cancelled the normal drug test and requested a test for only Rohypnol, and that I was a “poor historian.”

Several months passed without any word on my results. I called the hospital repeatedly but got nowhere. Finally, just last week, almost six months after the test, I went back to the hospital and obtained a copy of the test results, which were sent from a California laboratory. They were negative, but that didn’t surprise me, since they’d only tested for Rohypnol.

By then I was disheartened by the whole ordeal. I had hoped for some answers, and maybe some justice, and failed miserably.

The neighbors whose apartment I visited that night in November still live down the hall. I’ve stayed away from them because I don’t want to run into their friend, the one I’m convinced drugged me. In the months since that night, I’ve run into him a couple times in the hallway. Both times, I’ve ignored his attempts to start up a conversation.

“Oh, it’s the awkward girl,” he said once. I said nothing and quickly entered my apartment, locking the door behind me.

Atop his teammates’ shoulders, U. California-Berkeley lock Eric Fry let out a scream and hoisted his championship MVP trophy. It was time that the big guy got his due.

In a year where the Cal rugby team featured an experienced, explosive offense, it was the defense that carried the most important game of the season.

The Cal rugby team scored a season-low 19 points, but staved off stout, physical BYU to win its 25th national championship, 19-7. The Bears (26-0) reclaimed the championship at Stanford’s Steuber Rugby Stadium after losing to the Cougars in last year’s final, and finished their first undefeated season since 2002.

“It was an epic game,” coach Jack Clark said, fighting off tears. “I just couldn’t be any more proud of our guys � the boys really put their bodies on the line today. I just want to go hug them all.”

It was an emotional match that left both teams beaten and bloodied. Starters Andrew Mase and Tom Rooke each celebrated the win with an arm in a sling. Fullback Colin Hawley cried tears of joy with several bruises on his face. The players’ wounds were tangible remains of an 80-minute battle between the nation’s top two squads.

All year, Cal outsprinted and outfoxed its opponents with its speed and athleticism. Saturday, however, was a game played and won in the trenches.

No play embodied this better than Cal’s Drew Hyjer standing up BYU lock Vilami Vimahi to retain Cal’s then 13-0 lead.

The 6-foot-3 245 pound Vimahi broke free from a ruck just feet from the goal line with only Hyjer left to beat. A sure tackler all season long, Hyjer lowered his shoulders and knocked Vimahi to the turf, giving the Bears their most momentous defensive stop of the game.

The Cal forwards continued their ferocious defense by consistently bottling up massive BYU prop Mike Su’a, who fans called “the bowling ball,” throughout the game.

“This was one of the toughest games in all five of my years here,” Fry said. “Those guys never quit. We just played a hard, tough game today.”

Fry spent the whole match wrestling Cougar ball carriers to the pitch and freeing space for his teammates. Sophomore eight-man Danny Barrett showed both his offensive and defensive prowess by seldom missing tackles and pitching an assist to his brother, Neill. Prop Jeremy Deterding helped generate several big pushes up field out of Cal territory.

The scoring started in the fourth minute, with Fry barreling into the BYU try zone to give the Bears an early 5-0 lead. Flyhalf Keegan Engelbrecht added a penalty kick in the 21st minute to give Cal a slight 8-0 advantage.

Cougars’ scrum half Shaun Davies missed a 40-meter penalty kick attempt just four minutes later, and BYU would never come any closer to cutting into Cal’s lead. A 38th minute try from Neill Barrett gave the Bears a commanding 13-0 lead at the half, and the defense would take over from there.

The victory was why the team worked all season.

“There is a lot of trust and a lot of commitment,” Clark said. “Those are words that are used by people every day. When you’re on a sports team, those words become real. And each one of these boys lived up to their commitment.”

It is great to be here in the Big House, and may I say “Go Blue!”  I thought I’d go for the cheap applause line to start things off.

Good afternoon President Coleman, the Board of Trustees, faculty, parents, family, friends, and the class of 2010.  Congratulations on your graduation, and thank you for allowing me the honor to be a part of it.  And let me acknowledge your wonderful governor, Jennifer Granholm, your mayor, John Hieftje, and all the Members of Congress who are here with us today.

I am happy to join you all today, and even happier to spend a little time away from Washington.  Don’t get me wrong – it’s a beautiful city.  And it sure is nice living above the store; can’t beat the commute.  It’s just that sometimes, all you hear in Washington is the clamor of politics – a noise that can drown out the voices of the people who sent you there.  So when I took office, I decided that each night, I would read ten letters out of the thousands sent to us every day by ordinary Americans – a modest effort to remind myself of why I ran in the first place.

Some of these letters tell stories of heartache and struggle.  Some express gratitude, and some express anger.  Some call me an idiot, which is how you know I’m getting a good sample.  And some of the letters make you think, like the one I received last month from a kindergarten class in Virginia.

The teacher of this class instructed the students to ask me any question they wanted.  One asked, “How do you do your job?”  Another asked, “Do you work a lot?”  Somebody wanted to know if I wear a black jacket or if I have a beard – clearly getting me mixed up with that other guy from Illinois.  And then there was my favorite:  “Do you live next to a volcano?”

But it was the last question in the letter that gave me pause.  The student asked, “Are people being nice?”

Well, if you turn on the news today – particularly one of the cable channels – you can see why even a kindergartener would ask this question.  We’ve got politicians calling each other all sorts of unflattering names.  Pundits and talking heads shout at each other.  The media tends to play up every hint of conflict, because it makes for a sexier story – which means anyone interested in getting coverage feels compelled to make the most outrageous comments.

Now, some of this can be attributed to the incredibly difficult moment in which we find ourselves as a nation.  When you leave here today, you will search for work in an economy that is still emerging from the worst crisis since the Great Depression.  You live in a century where the speed with which jobs and industries move across the globe is forcing America to compete like never before.  You will raise your children at a time when threats like terrorism and climate change aren’t confined within the borders of any one country.  And as our world grows smaller and more connected, you will live and work with more people who don’t look like you or think like you or come from where you do.

These kinds of changes and challenges cause tension.  They make people worry about the future and sometimes they get folks riled up.

In fact, this isn’t a new phenomenon.  Since the days of our founding, American politics has never been a particularly nice business – and it’s always been a little less gentle during times of great change. A newspaper of the opposing party once editorialized that if Thomas Jefferson were elected, “Murder, robbery, rape, adultery, and incest will be openly taught and practiced.”  Not subtle.  Opponents of Andrew Jackson often referred to his mother as a “common prostitute,” which seems a bit over the top.  Presidents from Teddy Roosevelt to Lyndon Johnson have been accused of promoting socialism, or worse.  And we’ve had arguments between politicians that have been settled with actual duels.  There was even a caning once on the floor of the United States Senate – which I’m happy to say didn’t happen while I was there.

The point is, politics has never been for the thin-skinned or the faint-of-heart, and if you enter the arena, you should expect to get roughed up.

Moreover, democracy in a nation of more than three hundred million people is inherently difficult.  It has always been noisy and messy; contentious and complicated.  We have been fighting about the proper size and role of government since the day the Framers gathered in Philadelphia.  We have battled over the meaning of individual freedom and equality since the Bill of Rights was drafted.  As our economy has shifted emphasis from agriculture to industry to information and technology, we have argued and struggled at each and every juncture over the best way to ensure that all of our citizens have a shot at opportunity.

So before we get too down on the current state of our politics, we need to remember our history.  The great debates of the past all stirred great passion.  They all made some angry.  What is amazing is that despite all the conflict; despite all its flaws and frustrations, our experiment in democracy has worked better than any other form of government on Earth.

On the last day of the Constitutional Convention, Benjamin Franklin was famously asked, “Well, Doctor, what have we got – a Republic or a Monarchy?” And Franklin gave an answer that’s been quoted for ages: “A Republic, if you can keep it.”

Well, for more than two hundred years, we have kept it.  Through revolution and civil war, our democracy has survived.  Through depression and world war, it has prevailed.  Through periods of great social and economic unrest, from civil rights to women’s rights, it has allowed us slowly, and sometimes painfully, to move towards a more perfect union.

And now the question for your generation is this:  how will you keep our democracy going?  At a moment when our challenges seem so big and our politics seem so small, how will you keep our democracy alive and well in this century?

I’m not here to offer some grand theory or detailed policy prescription.  But let me offer a few brief reflections based on my own experiences and the experiences of our country over the last two centuries.

First, American democracy has thrived because we have recognized the need for a government that, while limited, can still help us adapt to a changing world.  On the fourth panel of the Jefferson Memorial is a quote I remember reading to Sasha during our first visit there.  It says, “I am not an advocate for frequent changes in laws and constitutions, but…with the change of circumstances, institutions must advance also to keep pace with the times.”

The democracy designed by Jefferson and the other founders was never intended to solve every problem with a new law or a new program.  Having thrown off the tyranny of the British Empire, the first Americans were understandably skeptical of government.  Ever since, we have held fast to the belief that government doesn’t have all the answers, and we have cherished and fiercely defended our individual freedom.  That is a strand of our nation’s DNA.

But the other strand is the belief that there are some things we can only do together, as one nation – and that our government must keep pace with the times.  When America expanded from a few colonies to an entire continent, and we needed a way to reach the Pacific, our government helped build the railroads.  When we transitioned from an economy based on farms to one based in factories, and workers needed new skills and training, our nation set up a system of public high schools.  When the markets crashed during the Depression and people lost their life savings, our government put in place a set of rules and safeguards to make sure that such a crisis never happened again.  And because our markets and financial system have evolved since then, we’re now putting in place new rules and safeguards to protect the American people.

This notion hasn’t always been partisan.  It was the first Republican President, Abraham Lincoln, who said that the role of government is to do for the people what they cannot do better for themselves.  He would go on to begin that first intercontinental railroad and set up the first land-grant colleges.  It was another Republican, Teddy Roosevelt, who said that “the object of government is the welfare of the people.”  He is remembered for using the power of government to break up monopolies, and establishing our National Park system.  Democrat Lyndon Johnson announced the Great Society during a commencement here at Michigan, but it was the Republican president before him, Dwight Eisenhower, who launched the massive government undertaking known as the Interstate Highway System.

Of course, there have always been those who’ve opposed such efforts.  They argue that government intervention is usually inefficient; that it restricts individual freedom and dampens individual initiative.  And in certain instances, that’s been true.  For many years, we had a welfare system that too often discouraged people from taking responsibility for their own upward mobility.  At times, we’ve neglected the role that parents, rather than government, can play in cultivating a child’s education.  Sometimes regulation fails, and sometimes its benefits do not justify its costs.

But what troubles me is when I hear people say that all of government is inherently bad.  One of my favorite signs from the health care debate was one that read “Keep Government Out Of My Medicare,” which is essentially like saying “Keep Government Out Of My Government-Run Health Care.”  For when our government is spoken of as some menacing, threatening foreign entity, it conveniently ignores the fact in our democracy, government is us.  We, the people, hold in our hands the power to choose our leaders, change our laws, and shape our own destiny.

Government is the police officers who are here protecting us and the service men and women who are defending us abroad.  Government is the roads you drove in on and the speed limits that kept you safe.  Government is what ensures that mines adhere to safety standards and that oil spills are cleaned up by the companies that caused them.  Government is this extraordinary public university – a place that is doing life-saving research, catalyzing economic growth, and graduating students who will change the world around them in ways big and small.

The truth is, the debate we’ve had for decades between more government and less government doesn’t really fit the times in which we live.  We know that too much government can stifle competition, deprive us of choice, and burden us with debt.  But we’ve also seen clearly the dangers of too little government – like when a lack of accountability on Wall Street nearly led to the collapse of our entire economy.

So what we should be asking is not whether we need a “big government” or a “small government,” but how we can create a smarter, better government.  In an era of iPods and Tivo, where we have more choices than ever before, government shouldn’t try to dictate your lives.  But it should give you the tools you need to succeed.  Our government shouldn’t try to guarantee results, but it should guarantee a shot at opportunity for every American who’s willing to work hard.

The point is, we can and should debate the role of government in our lives, but remember, as you are asked to meet the challenges of our time, that the ability for us to adapt our government to the needs of the age has helped make our democracy work since its inception.

The second way to keep our democracy healthy is to maintain a basic level of civility in our public debate.  These arguments we’re having over government and health care and war and taxes are serious arguments.  They should arouse people’s passions, and it’s important for everyone to join in the debate, with all the rigor that a free people require.

But we cannot expect to solve our problems if all we do is tear each other down.  You can disagree with a certain policy without demonizing the person who espouses it.  You can question someone’s views and their judgment without questioning their motives or their patriotism.  Throwing around phrases like “socialist” and “Soviet-style takeover;” “fascist” and “right-wing nut” may grab headlines, but it also has the effect of comparing our government, or our political opponents, to authoritarian, and even murderous regimes.

Again, we have seen this kind of politics in the past.  It’s been practiced by both fringes of the ideological spectrum, by the left and the right, since our nation’s birth.

The problem with it is not the hurt feelings or the bruised egos of the public officials who are criticized.

The problem is that this kind of vilification and over-the-top rhetoric closes the door to the possibility of compromise.  It undermines democratic deliberation.  It prevents learning – since after all, why should we listen to a “fascist” or “socialist” or “right wing nut?”  It makes it nearly impossible for people who have legitimate but bridgeable differences to sit down at the same table and hash things out.  It robs us of a rational and serious debate that we need to have about the very real and very big challenges facing this nation.  It coarsens our culture, and at its worst, it can send signals to the most extreme elements of our society that perhaps violence is a justifiable response.

So what can we do about this?

As I’ve found out after a year in the White House, changing this type of slash and burn politics isn’t easy.  And part of what civility requires is that we recall the simple lesson most of us learned from our parents: treat others as you would like to be treated, with courtesy and respect.

But civility in this age also requires something more.

Today’s twenty-four seven echo chamber amplifies the most inflammatory soundbites louder and faster than ever before.  It has also, however, given us unprecedented choice.  Whereas most of America used to get their news from the same three networks over dinner or a few influential papers on Sunday morning, we now have the option to get our information from any number of blogs or websites or cable news shows.

This development can be both good and bad for democracy.  For if we choose only to expose ourselves to opinions and viewpoints that are in line with our own, studies suggest that we will become more polarized and set in our ways.  And that will only reinforce and even deepen the political divides in this country.  But if we choose to actively seek out information that challenges our assumptions and our beliefs, perhaps we can begin to understand where the people who disagree with us are coming from.

This of course requires that we all agree on a certain set of facts to debate from, and that is why we need a vibrant and thriving news business that is separate from opinion makers and talking heads.  As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan famously said, “Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts.”

Still, if you’re someone who only reads the editorial page of The New York Times, try glancing at the page of The Wall Street Journal once in awhile.  If you’re a fan of Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh, try reading a few columns on the Huffington Post website.  It may make your blood boil; your mind may not often be changed.  But the practice of listening to opposing views is essential for effective citizenship.

So too is the practice of engaging in different experiences with different kinds of people.  For four years at Michigan, you have been exposed to diverse thinkers and scholars; professors and students.  Do not narrow that broad intellectual exposure just because you’re leaving here.  Instead, seek to expand it.  If you grew up in a big city, spend some time with some who grew up in a rural town.  If you find yourself only hanging around with people of your race or your ethnicity or your religion, broaden your circle to include people who’ve had different backgrounds and life experiences.  You’ll learn what it’s like to walk in someone else’s shoes, and in the process, you’ll help make this democracy work.

The last ingredient in a functioning democracy is perhaps the most basic:  participation.

I understand that one effect of today’s poisonous political climate is to push people away from participation in public life.  If all you see when you turn on the television is name-calling; if all you hear about is how special interest lobbying and partisanship prevented Washington from getting something done, you might think to yourself, “What’s the point of getting involved?”

The point is, when we don’t pay close attention to the decisions made by our leaders; when we fail to educate ourselves about the major issues of the day; when we choose not to make our voices and opinions heard, that’s when democracy breaks down.  That’s when power is abused.  That’s when the most extreme voices in our society fill the void that we leave.  That’s when powerful interests and their lobbyists are most able to buy access and influence in the corridors of Washington – because none of us are there to speak up and stop them.

Participation in public life doesn’t mean that you all have to run for public office – though we could certainly use some fresh faces in Washington.  But it does mean that you should pay attention and contribute in any way that you can.  Stay informed.  Write letters, or make phone calls on behalf of an issue you care about.  If electoral politics isn’t your thing, continue the tradition so many of you started here at Michigan and find a way to serve your community and your country – an act that will help you stay connected to your fellow citizens and improve the lives of those around you.

It was fifty years ago that a young candidate for president came here to Michigan and delivered a speech that inspired one of the most successful service projects in American history.  And as John F. Kennedy described the ideals behind what would become the Peace Corps, he issued a challenge to the students who had assembled in Ann Arbor on that October night:

“…[O]n your willingness to contribute part of your life to this country…will depend the answer whether a free society can compete.  I think it can.”

This democracy we have is a precious thing.  For all the arguments and all the doubts and all the cynicism that’s out there today, we should never forget that as Americans, we enjoy more freedoms and opportunities than citizens in any other nation on Earth.  We are free to speak our mind and worship as we please; to choose our leaders and criticize them if they let us down.  We have the chance to get an education, work hard, and give our children a better life.

None of this came easy.  None of it was preordained.  The men and women who sat in your chairs ten years ago and fifty years ago and one hundred years ago – they made America possible.  And there is no guarantee that the graduates who will sit here in ten or fifty or one hundred years from now will enjoy the same freedoms and opportunities that we do.  America’s success has never been a given.  Our nation’s destiny has never been certain.

What is certain – what has always been certain – is our ability to shape that destiny.  That is what makes us different.  That is what makes us American – our ability at the end of the day to look past all of our differences and all of our disagreements and still forge a common future.  That task is now in your hands, as is the answer to the question posed at this university half a century ago about whether a free society can still compete.

If you are as willing, as past generations were willing, to contribute part of your life to the life of this country, then I, like President Kennedy, still believe we can.  Congratulations on your graduation.  May God Bless You, and may God Bless the United States of America.

Dean of Harvard U. Law School Martha L. Minow denounced a law student’s e-mail circulated on school lists this week that suggested black people are genetically inferior to white people.

According to media reports, third-year law student Stephanie N. Grace’s private e-mail detailing her views on race was forwarded to the Black Law Students Association e-mail list earlier this week, and then circulated nationally soon after.

In her e-mail, Grace allegedly wrote that she “absolutely” does not “rule out the possibility that African Americans are, on average, genetically predisposed to be less intelligent.”

“Everyone wants someone to take 100 white infants and 100 African American ones and raise them in Disney utopia and prove once and for all that we are all equal on every dimension,” Grace allegedly wrote.

“I am merely not 100% convinced that this is the case,” the e-mail continued.

According to Professor Charles J. Ogletree, a BLSA adviser, the student—whom he declined to name—approached Dean of Students Ellen Cosgrove Wednesday upon learning that the e-mail was forwarded.

The student sent the e-mail to several friends in November, Ogletree said. Ogletree added that he was unsure why the e-mail had not been circulated until now.

Olgetree said he asked the student to come to his office, where the two “had a heart to heart and she profusely apologized,” he added.

Minow met with BLSA leaders Wednesday when the e-mail first surfaced. In a message she sent to the Law School yesterday morning, Minow wrote that the “circulation of one student’s comment does not reflect the views of the school or the overwhelming majority of the members of this community.”

Professor Ronald S. Sullivan said that the “unfortunate statement grew out of a very ugly part of our history where blackness itself was assigned physical meaning.”

Some students at the Law School mentioned that the media exposure and backlash has been unfair because Grace’s e-mail was intended to be private. But others said they felt the administration should not overlook the incident.

The student assumed the risk of her e-mail being widely circulated as soon as she sent it to multiple people, Sullivan said.

“The way this came out is unfortunate because it doesn’t facilitate open conversation,” said Jennifer Dein, president of the Law School’s student government.

According to legal blog Above the Law, Grace wrote an e-mail apology to BLSA that stated, “I am deeply sorry for the pain caused by my e-mail…I would give anything to take it back.”

Ogletree said that he “consider[s] the matter closed” following the student’s apology and Dean Minow’s response. “The Law School has done everything it could have done, and should have done,” he said.

Above the Law previously reported that BLSA is actively attempting to get Grace’s upcoming federal clerkship for conservative Judge Alex Kozinski rescinded. However, Minow and Sullivan said these reports were false.

“The Harvard community is strong. She is a part of it,” Sullivan said. “And I think our community will be even stronger after having worked through the pain that the e-mail has caused.”

Neither Grace nor BLSA officers returned repeated requests for comment.

While his classmates were in lecture on Tuesday, Jesse Cheng was in Sacramento fighting for their right to be in class.

He came back with a promise from Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to veto any budget that did not include funding for higher education.

While Schwarzenegger met with the top administrators from the state’s public higher education systems, about 250 students, board members and regents lobbied lawmakers alongside Cheng, the student regent designate and third-year Asian American studies student at U. California-Irvine.

“I think we educated a number of legislators on topics they didn’t know before,” Cheng said. “We got a lot of good feedback.”

Representatives from U. California schools, California State Universities and community colleges visited all 120 legislative offices throughout the Intersegmental Advocacy Day, according to Lynn Tierney, vice president of communications for the UC Office of the President. The event fell on the 50th anniversary of the Master Plan for Higher Education, which outlines policies for the state’s higher education systems.

“One of the advantages to intersegmental lobbying is that if your system doesn’t have something to offer to the legislators, another system does. If they didn’t go to a UC, they went to a community college,” said Sarah Bana, executive vice president of Associated Students of UC Irvine and a fourth-year quantitative economics student.

Student advocates stressed that investing in higher education aids the state in the long run. Studies have shown that for every dollar invested in the UC and CSU systems, the state gets back $5.67 and $4.41, respectively.

“We’re a multiplication factor. We’re a great investment for the state,” Cheng said.

The governor’s proposal would restore about $1.7 billion to California’s public higher education systems, alleviating part of the burden of the 32 percent student fee increase passed in November. But student advocates see this promise as a short-term reimbursement rather than a long-term increase.

“This government funding that we’re getting is not the money that we need to succeed, it’s what we need to stay afloat,” Cheng said.

Similarly, Steve Dixon, president of the California State Student Association, said the governor’s promises were a “bittersweet victory,” and that he would like to see a full restoration of the cuts made in the last 10 years.

Student advocates also fought to save the Competitive Cal Grant, said Christopher Santos, chairman of the Undergraduate Committee of the University of California Student Association and a third-year psychobiology student at UCLA. The governor currently plans to suspend the competitive grant and de-couple need-based grants from fee increases.

UCSA is supporting Assembly Bill 2447, which would institutionalize Cal Grants so they cannot be eliminated and increase financial aid according to the rate of inflation. Cal Grants are a big resource for community colleges, and many UCLA transfer students either benefitted from it or are still benefitting from it, Santos said.

With the budget up for revision in May, all three higher education systems have filed significant budget requests for their specific goals and collectively for the re-institution and full funding of Cal Grants, said Tierney.

“We’re in a very tough economic time, and the way we’re gonna get out … is by maximizing the number of people who are trained and educated,” she said.

The state will face a shortage of one million college-educated workers in 2025, according to the Public Policy Institute of California. These next 10 or 15 years are crucial for training the next generation of skilled workers, Tierney said.

But Tierney also stressed self-motivation in tackling the budget problems these institutions face.

“We have to do more ourselves, we have to be more efficient, and we have to search out ways that we can streamline operations or delivery so that we can still maintain access and opportunity,” she said. “The legislature has a finite amount of money and very, very significant demands on that money, and that’s only going to continue.”

Similarly, Steve Montiel, spokesman for the UC Office of the President, said Schwarzenegger’s statement was a definite step forward but that higher education is still looking for more.

“There is still a lot of advocacy needed to show how important education is and for there to be adequate funding,” Montiel said.

Although Tuesday’s efforts made progress, advocates are still pushing for more tangible results. Students are aiming for another intersegmental lobbying day within each district, Bana said.

“There are some underlying topics that are still going to affect students in one way or another, and that’s why we’re still fighting,” Santos said. “This conversation that they had (on Tuesday) really shows the influence that students have through the protests in September and November and all the advocacy that we’ve done this year.”

Last week Facebook, the social media platform, took two major steps in its apparent quest for Internet domination. At its F8 developer conference last week Facebook introduced the universal “like” button as well as OpenGraph technology that leaves you seemingly always logged into the Facebook world. Exactly what this means for the future of the Internet has yet to be deciphered, but a battle seems to be brewing over privacy rights and internet browsing.

In addition to changing the tag line on the incredible popular fan pages from “become a fan” to “like” Facebook is also debuting a “like” button for the Internet. For websites and blogs where the button is implemented, users of the Facebook platform will be able to “like” or “recommend” a page to their friends.

The button on Web pages counts how many users have liked the page in addition to how many of your friends have “liked” that page.

Facebook’s “share” was the old technology that would do this, but this new button is a more streamlined method of sharing the articles you think your friends would like. This innovation is not unlike something the Internet has seen before. Much like the real-time stream introduced in March of last year which was an idea taken from Twitter, the “like” technology is an idea taken from Digg and other social news aggregate websites.

It’s hard to say whether it was Digg’s failure at launching a real-time stream that will be its eventual downfall to the social media giant, a launch that was supposed to happen six months ago, or whether Facebook would have marched onto its soil regardless of what Digg had or hadn’t launched. Digg for the moment has the upper hand as there is no easy way to see the totality of what your friends have “liked” through the new button. Likebutton.me is a third party website that takes advantage of your social stream to aggregate this content but is in no means anything official.

To “like” some content on a Webpage, you must be logged into Facebook. Once you are logged in though, your Facebook information is available to any website that asks for it, thanks to Facebook’s second new innovation, Open Graph technology.

In what has been billed as “instant personalization,” this new feature allows websites like Pandora to customize the music they play to you based on the music you have listed in your music interests. The new technology launched with three partners, Pandora, Yelp and Docs.com by Microsoft.

The whole situation is developing into as big as a privacy disaster as the launch of Google Buzz which launched in February, maybe bigger. Senators and representatives across the country have spoken out about Web privacy. Facebook is blurring the lines between what is public data and private data on the Web.

Sen. Charles Schumer (D-NY) has written to the Federal Trade Commission, asking them to “examine the privacy disclosures of social-networking sites to insure they are not misleading or fail to fully disclose the extent to which they share information.” The heart of Schumer’s argument is that at the moment Facebook requires users to opt out of the new feature, not opt in.

There are two sides to this. The seemingly good side, that turns vanilla websites into ones that are personalized for you and with ads that are targeted to you. And the bad side, the underbelly that works in the background, which tracks your behavior on the Web and shares your information with websites.

Both developments are putting Facebook at the center of what you do on the Web. The company, who during one week in march had more traffic than current number one (Google) in the United States, is looking to extend its virtual network to cover the entirety of what you do on the Web as well as what you do offline.