Letter to a Young Woman

I recently had occasion to write a letter to my daughter on the subject of happiness. I thought I might share part of it on Viewpoint.

Hi Princess,

I've been thinking a lot about the talk we had the other night on what happiness is and how we obtain it, and I hope you have been, too. I wanted to say a little more about it, and I thought that since I was going to be away, I'd put it into a letter for you to read while I'm gone.

One of the things we talked about was that we can't assess whether we're happy based on our feelings because happiness isn't just a feeling. It's more of a condition or quality of our lives - sort of like beauty is a quality of a symphony. It's a state of satisfaction we gain through devotion to God, living a life of virtue (honesty, integrity, loyalty, chastity, trustworthiness, self-discipline), cultivating wholesome and loving relationships with family and friends, experiencing the pleasures of accomplishment in career, sports, school, etc., and filling our lives with beauty (nature, music, literature, art, etc.).

One thing is sure - happiness isn't found by acquiring material things like clothes and toys. It's not attained by being popular, having good looks, or being high on the social pecking order. Those things seem like they should make us happy, especially when we're young, but they don't. Ultimately they just leave us empty.

To the extent that happiness is a feeling we have to understand that a person's feelings tend to follow her actions. A lot of people allow their feelings to determine their actions - if they like someone they're friendly toward them; if they feel happy they act happy - but this is backwards.

People who do brave things, for instance, don't do them because they feel brave. Most people usually feel terrified when in a dangerous situation, but brave people don't let their feelings rule their behavior, and what they do is all the more wonderful because it's done in spite of everything in them urging them to get out of danger. If they do something brave, despite their fear, we say they have courage and we admire them for it.

Well, happiness is like courage. You should act as if you're happy even if you don't feel it. When you do act that way your feelings change and tend to track your behavior. You find yourself feeling happier than you did before even though the only thing that has changed is your attitude.

How can a person act happy without seeming phony? Well, we can act happy by displaying a positive, upbeat attitude, by being pleasant to be around, by enjoying life, and by smiling a lot. Someone who has a genuine smile (not a Paris Hilton smirk) on her face all the time is much more attractive to other people than someone whose expression always tells other people that she's just worn out or miserable.

One other thing about happiness is that it tends to elude us most when we're most intent on pursuing it. It's when we're busy doing the things I mentioned above, it's when we're busy serving and being a friend to others, that happiness is produced as a by-product. We achieve it when we're not thinking about it. It just tags along, as if it were tied by a string, with love for God, family, friends, beauty, accomplishment, a rewarding career, and so on.

Sometimes young people are worried that they don't have friends and that makes them unhappy, but often the reason they don't, paradoxically, is that they're too busy trying to convince someone to be their friend. They try too hard and they come across to others as too insecure. This is off-putting to people, and they tend to avoid the person who seems to try over-hard to be their friend. The best way to make friends, I think, is to just be pleasant, friendly, and positive. Don't be critical of people, especially your friends, and especially your guy friends, either behind their backs or to their faces. A person who never has anything bad to say about others will always have friends.

Once in a while a critical word has to be said, of course, but it'll be meaningless at best and hurtful at worst, unless it's rare and done with complete kindness. A person who is always complaining or criticizing is not pleasant to be around and will not have good, devoted friends, and will not be happy. A person who gives others the impression that her life is miserable is going to find that after a while people just don't want to hear it, and they're not going to want to be around her.

I hope this makes sense to you, honey. Maybe as you read it you can think of people you know who are examples of the things I'm talking about....

All my love,

Dad

RLC

The Case For Bombing Iran

Norman Podhoretz makes the case in Commentary magazine for bombing Iran. It is a thoughtful and important piece regardless of what you may think about his conclusions. It should be read by every American, if for no other reason than to understand the perils which face us a few short years down the road.

RLC

Sometimes We Hear

The local Sunday paper ran my guest editorial yesterday. It's the third in the series to which I was invited to contribute. Here's the column:

Judge John Jones, presiding in the Dover Intelligent Design trial, deigned to settle the controversy surrounding ID by pronouncing it a religious belief and thus constitutionally unfit for public school consumption. Those who approve of the judge's decision have ever since been intoning the refrain, "Judge Jones said it, I believe it, that settles it." I for one, though, am not convinced that the judge has settled anything, at least in this part of his decision.

As any philosopher or theologian will acknowledge, it's notoriously difficult to determine what exactly religion and religious belief actually are; so difficult, in fact, that it's not at all clear what it is that makes ID "religious."

Sometimes we're told that ID is religious because it invokes a supernatural entity. But what does it mean to be supernatural? Is something supernatural if it is outside the natural universe? If so, what is it about being extra-cosmic that makes it a religious entity? The belief, commonly discussed in science books, that there are other universes besides our own is surely not a religious belief yet these are entities which transcend our universe. If it's not religious to believe that there are universes which reside beyond our own, why is it religious to believe that there's an intelligence which resides beyond our universe?

Sometimes we hear that ID is a religious belief because the designer must be the Christian God. What does the critic mean, however, by the term "God," and why must the Christian God be the designer? The God of traditional theism is omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent, eternal, necessary, omnipresent, and personal. Why must the designer who creates the universe and life possess these same attributes? Why couldn't the designer be a being of considerable power and intelligence without being the omnicompetent God of Christian belief? To insist that the designer must be God, i.e. that than which nothing greater can be conceived, as St. Anselm famously defined him, is an inappropriate and illogical attempt by ID's opponents to force religion into a theory that is not inherently religious.

Sometimes we hear that ID is a religious belief because its advocates are frequently Christians. But if the metaphysical commitments of a theory's advocates are all that are necessary to make a theory religious why is the naturalistic Darwinian view not considered to be an atheistic belief since many of its advocates are certainly atheists? Furthermore, if the naturalistic view is indeed an atheistic hypothesis why is it permitted to be taught in our schools?

Sometimes we hear that ID is a religious belief because the entity that it posits can't be detected and has to be accepted on faith. But what is meant by saying that the designer can't be detected? Does it mean that we just can't see the designer and thus have no direct evidence that there is one? Or does it mean that the designer is in principle undetectable? If it means the former, we should point out that there are dozens of entities scientists postulate which cannot be directly observed - quarks, neutrinos, and dark matter, for example - but they can be studied and their existence inferred from their effects. Likewise, there is abundant evidence of design in our world from which we can infer the existence of a designer. It may be that we can't study the designer directly right now because our technology doesn't allow it, but that doesn't mean that we'll never be able to study it.

If the above claim means that the designer, being transcendent, is in principle undetectable then we might ask how that makes it different from the multiverse which is believed to transcend our world and the existence of which scientists nevertheless hold out hope of one day being able to confirm. Or we might ask how an undetectable designer differs in this regard from sub-atomic strings which are also in principle unobservable.

A century and a half ago there was very little we could learn about atoms, the cell, or the composition of the stars because we had no good way to observe these things, nor could we imagine ever being able to do so. Since then advances in technology have made them accessible to us. Perhaps a century from now technology will enable us to observe and study the cosmic architect - that is, if it still exists.

We don't know that the designer does still exist, of course, because ID, not being a religious belief, does not identify the designer with the eternal God of traditional theism who cannot not exist. Only those who don't understand ID or who choose to misrepresent it, two groups which include almost all of its opponents, some of its advocates, and Judge Jones, do that.

RLC

Stark Difference

Jerry Falwell seems almost to have stirred up more controversy in death than in life. There's an interesting contrast between the reactions of two men of the political left, one a Christian and one an anti-atheist, to Falwell's death.

The Christian is Jim Wallis who disagreed with Falwell politically, and even religiously, on almost everything. Here's what Wallis wrote (unlinked e-mail):

I watched much of the cable television coverage of Jerry Falwell's death and legacy. And I did a lot of grimacing, in response to both the uncritical adulations of his allies (who just passed over the divisive character of much of Falwell's rhetoric), and also the ugly vitriol from some of Falwell's enemies (who attacked both his character and his faith). And there were even some who attacked all people of faith. I ended up being glad that I had passed up all the invitations to be on those shows. On the day of Rev. Jerry Falwell's death, I was content to offer a brief statement, which read:

"I was saddened to learn that Rev. Jerry Falwell passed away this morning at age 73. Rev. Falwell and I met many times over the years, as the media often paired us as debate partners on issues of faith and politics. I respected his passionate commitment to his beliefs, and our shared commitment to bringing moral debate to the public square, although we didn't agree on many things. At this time, however, what matters most is our prayers for comfort and peace for his family and friends."

Two days later, I might add that Falwell, in his own way, did help to teach Christians that their faith should express itself in the public square and I am grateful for that, even if the positions Falwell took were often at great variance with my own. I spent much of my early Christian life fighting the privatizing of faith, characterized by the withdrawal of any concern for the world (so as to not be "worldly") and an exclusive focus on private matters. If God so loved the world, God must care a great deal about what happens to it and in it. Falwell agreed with that, and blew the trumpet that awakened fundamentalist Christians to engage the world with their faith and moral values. And that commitment is a good thing. Jerry and I debated often about how faith should impact public life and what all the great moral issues of our time really are.

But many conservative Christians are now also embracing poverty, HIV/AIDS, Darfur, sex trafficking, and even the war in Iraq as matters of faith and moral imperatives. It would have been nice to hear on those TV shows that Jerry Falwell, too, had moved to embrace a broader agenda than just abortion and homosexuality. Rev. Falwell, who was admittedly racist during the civil rights movement, was in later years honored by the Lynchburg NAACP for his turn-about on the issue of race, showing the famous founder of the Religious Right's capacity to grow and change. But two nights ago on television, I saw the pain on the face of gay Christian Mel White, who lamented that despite his and other's efforts, Falwell never did even moderate his strong and often inflammatory language (even if maintaining his religious convictions) against gay and lesbian people. They still feel the most wounded by the fundamentalist minister's statements; that healing has yet to be done.

Ralph Reed said that Jerry Falwell presided over the "marriage ceremony" between religious fundamentalists and the Republican Party. That's still a concern about the Religious Right for many of us, and should be a warning for the relationship of any so-called religious left with the Democrats. But perhaps in the overly partisan mistakes that Jerry Falwell made - and actually pioneered - we can all be instructed in how to forge a faith that is principled but not ideological, political but not partisan, engaged but not used. That's how the Catholic Bishops put it, and it is a better guide than the direction we got from the Moral Majority. But Falwell proclaimed a public faith, not a private one. And I am with him on that. As I like to say, God is personal, but never private. So let's pray for Jerry Falwell's family, the members of his Thomas Road Baptist Church, and all the students at his Liberty University. And let's learn from his legacy - about how and how not to best apply our faith to politics.

Now go here and listen to atheist Christopher Hitchens. The difference in tone and humanity couldn't be more stark.

Kudos, by the way, to Sean Hannity for his response to Hitchens.

RLC

Charles Townes

The man who invented one of the most useful pieces of technology in the 20th century, and who won the Nobel Prize for his work in 1964, turns out to believe that the universe is designed. This will not please such as Richard Dawkins who doesn't see how a scientist can be a theist, much less a scientist of the caliber and brilliance of Charles Townes.

There's an interesting piece on Townes at Uncommon Descent along with a link to an interesting interview with him.

RLC

How Certain Is She?

Richard Mouw discusses an article which appears in The Chronicle of Higher Education in which the editors asked a number of academics to imagine what would be "the core of the message" they would give if asked to be the commencement speaker this year at Virginia Tech. The results, according to Mouw, were rather banal.

In my opinion, one of the silliest came from novelist Lionel Shriver. Mouw says this about her imaginary speech:

The most blatantly "postmodern" preachment comes from the novelist Lionel Shriver. She acknowledges that the graduates may come away from this experience with a "leeriness" about other people, especially a distrust of "the strange, the suspiciously quiet" types in their midst. That posture of suspicion, she insists, can serve them well in life. But it will be most productive, she urges, if it is directed, not primarily toward others, but instead is directed inward. "Question your certitudes," she proclaims. "Never forget that the more fiercely you believe a thing, the more likely it is that you are wrong."

Hmmm. I wonder how certain Ms. Shriver is of that.

RLC

Beating Poverty

As the election season bears upon us we're likely to hear increasing talk, especially from candidates such as John Edwards, about the responsibility government has to do more to help the poor. This sounds compassionate and right until one pauses to ask what more government can do to help people mired in poverty. Most who are poor in America are not poor for any reasons that government is suited to remedy. They remain stuck in the underclass because they lack certain virtues which most of the non-poor possess and which government is ill-qualified to instill.

Find 100 men who are living under the poverty line. My guess is that at least 90 of them will be uneducated, unmarried, and in possession of both poor work habits and probably a substance abuse problem.

Find 100 women living below the poverty line and at least 90 of them will be poorly educated, unmarried yet with children, and perhaps shackled to a substance abuse problem.

What can government do for such people? They have already been offered twelve years (or more) of free education which most of them squandered. Government can't keep them from indulging in drugs and alcohol, nor can it force them to wait until they're married before they have sex, nor can it force them to get married.

Yet these are the keys to the gates of the middle class.

Until the underclass in America develops the virtues of prizing education, getting married and staying married, and avoidance of self-destructive behaviors, they and their children will remain impoverished, economically and culturally.

The best thing government can do, probably the only thing it can do, is to be as insistent in communicating this message as it has been in communicating the evils of smoking, unprotected sex, racism, and sexism.

Beyond this it can do little. Expecting government to solve the problem of poverty is like expecting hospitals to solve the problem of obesity.

RLC

Scientific Authority

Bill Dembski reports on a surprising fact about Richard Dawkins. The man who claims to be a scientist has only one peer-reviewed paper to his credit, a paper written the year he received his Ph.D and which has never been cited by any other scientist.

In other words, Dawkins' only claim to fame is that he has written popular works on evolution, but he himself has not done any actual research since his student days in the 1960s.

This is interesting because one of the (unfair) criticisms of intelligent design theorists is that they don't publish in peer-reviewed journals and don't actually do scientific research. Yet someone like Richard Dawkins, who has much to say about the controversy between Darwinism and ID and who really has no more scientific authority than "a suburban school teacher," are given immunity from such criticism.

RLC

Tough Questions

Here are some difficult questions to ponder concerning human embryonic stem cells:

1. You oppose the use of embryonic stem cells in research laboratories and in medical applications because in order to obtain the stem cells a human embryo must be destroyed. You and your spouse are having difficulty getting pregnant, however, and seek the service of a fertility clinic so that you can have children. The clinic tells you that they will produce several fertilized ova and that of these only one will be kept alive, the rest will be discarded. Do you forego having children rather than participate in this practice?

2. You object to destroying embryos for stem cell research, but fertility clinics destroy excess embryos anyway. Do you object to these embryos, rather than being discarded, being used instead by researchers trying to find cures for various diseases and disorders?

3. If you oppose killing embryos for stem cell research should you not also oppose the practice employed by fertility clinics of producing multiple embryos if only one is going to be implanted in the mother's uterus?

These are tough questions, even for those who lean to the pro-life side of debates over "life issues." One thing that some readers may not be clear on is that, contrary to popular opinion, there is nothing stopping researchers from using human embryonic stem cells in their labs. The only restriction is that the federal government will not subsidize the research. Private money is free to do whatever it wishes, though, and there have been some remarkable recent developments.

For instance, see this article for some interesting information about advances made in the use of human embryonic stem cells in the treatment of serious eye and heart problems.

One hopes that stem cells taken from other sources will prove to be even more fruitful in treating injury and illness, but even if other kinds of stem cells prove useful questions #1 and #3 above remain.

RLC

A Soldier's Perspective

U.S. Army Specialist Colby Buzzell offers a dramatic animated narrative of a typical operation in Iraq. God help our young men who have to endure this kind of stress day in and day out.

RLC

Without a Trace

You've no doubt heard of the case of the disappearing honeybees. This editorial offers a nice summary of the problem along with what many entomologists think are potential causes. Here are the key graphs:

As many as a quarter of the nation's commercially kept bees went missing last year, presumed dead, in a phenomenon now called colony collapse disorder. Inspector Paul Jackson said it is as much a mystery in Texas as it is in 24 other states and half a dozen nations. He said it happens overnight without warning signs of distress and with no evidence left behind. The bees simply disappear.

Jackson has yet to find a pattern in this worrisome phenomenon. One beekeeper may lose 5,000 hives in a day's time while another down the road 10 miles loses none. In Texas, as elsewhere, it is the large commercial colonies that are most affected.

Pollination is the name of the game. Beekeepers in Texas and several other states send thousands of hives to pollinate crops around the country, moving them from state to state and crop to crop. Texas hives are deployed as many as four or five times a year, carried about the country on 18-wheeler trucks.

This constant mobility has been cited as a possible cause for the disappearing hives. The resulting stress depresses bees' immune systems, making bees vulnerable to a host of diseases and parasites. And their road food diet of high fructose corn syrup has been compared to a human diet restricted to soft drinks. Other possible causes include pesticides and other poisons and genetically modified crops that might introduce pesticide into the pollen.

The penultimate sentence about the bees' road food diet has me concerned that my daughter might be in danger of suddenly disappearing.

RLC

Bad Science

In an article about the controversy surrounding global warming a couple of scientists are quoted on their view of what science is:

James Wanliss, a space physicist who teaches at Embry-Riddle ...[said] "I fear that attempts are being made to purposefully subvert the public understanding of the nature of science in order to achieve political goals," he wrote in an e-mail. "Science is not about consensus, and to invoke this raises the hackles of scientists such as myself. The lure of politics and publicity is no doubt seductive, but it nevertheless amazes me that so many scientists have jumped on the bandwagon of consensus science, apparently forgetting or ignoring the sad history of consensus science."

Another Embry-Riddle scientist, John Olivero -- professor and chairman of the department of physical science -- allowed that skepticism is an essential tool of the scientific method.

"Science lives with internal conflict all the time," Olivero said. "Part of what we have to do is continually challenge each other."

That process, they say, leads scientists closer to truths that may be elusive for lifetimes.

I see. Science is about dissent and conflict, not consensus. Does this mean that the Darwinians on campuses all around the country who are demanding that non-Darwinians be silenced because they stand outside the scientific consensus are acting in a manner harmful to good science? Perhaps merely to ask the question is to answer it.

RLC

Update on Guillermo Gonzalez

Readers interested in the case of Guillermo Gonzalez which we wrote about below (Paying the Price) can find a lot of additional information here. Go to the link and scroll down through the various articles on this travesty.

RLC

Gentle Darwinians

There is among devotees of both Nietzsche and Darwin a view that the two men were both gentle academics who would have been appalled had they seen how their writings were distorted and perverted to justify eugenics and nazism.

Peter Quinn, writing in Commonweal, puts the kibosh to such romanticizing and demonstrates that the subsequent history of Europe was not at all inconsistent with what both men believed and taught.

The article is a little long but, it's an important contribution to the debate over the consequences of atheism and naturalism in the modern world.

RLC

Wilson Vs. Hitchens

Christianity Today is hosting an online debate between atheist Christopher Hitchens, author of God is Not Great: How Religion Poisons Everything, and theologian Douglas Wilson. The topic is whether Christianity is good for the world. Round One can be read here and I have to say that I think Wilson already has Hitchens on the ropes, which is not an easy thing to accomplish with someone of Hitchens' intellectual gifts.

Read both Hitchens' opening statement and Wilson's response. It's well-worth the time and it'll cause you to eagerly anticipate Round Two.

UPDATE: Round II is here. Wilson continues to press the key issue: Hitchens wants to talk morality but he doesn't see that atheism undermines all notions of right and wrong. Here's Wilson on the subject:

Now my question for you is this: Is there such a thing as atheist hypocrisy? When another atheist makes different ethical choices than you do (as Stalin and Mao certainly did), is there an overarching common standard for all atheists that you are obeying and which they are not obeying? If so, what is that standard and what book did it come from? Why is it binding on them if they differ with you? And if there is not a common objective standard which binds all atheists, then would it not appear that the supernatural is necessary in order to have a standard of morality that can be reasonably articulated and defended?

So I am not saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to live as a responsible citizen. I am saying you have to believe in the supernatural in order to be able to give a rational and coherent account of why you believe yourself obligated to live this way. In order to prove me wrong here, you must do more than employ words like "casuistry" or "evasions"-you simply need to provide that rational account. Given atheism, objective morality follows ... how?

The Christian faith is good for the world because it provides the fixed standard which atheism cannot provide and because it provides forgiveness for sins, which atheism cannot provide either. We need the direction of the standard because we are confused sinners. We need the forgiveness because we are guilty sinners. Atheism not only keeps the guilt, but it also keeps the confusion.

Hitchens responds in Round III, but, as Wilson shows, his reply is completely inadequate.

RLC

Paying The Price

If ever you hear it said that there's no discrimination on campus against people who hold views in opposition to the reigning Darwinian orthodoxy e-mail them the story of Guillermo Gonzalez. The Darwinist clergy, like the inquisitors before whom Galileo stood, are determined to expunge all traces of dissent and heresy from the halls of academe which was once, before the left took over, a bastion of diversity and non-conformity. Now everyone must march in lockstep, or goosestep, or face the wrath of the guardians of the true faith.

Gonzalez is not the first to suffer excommunication from the academy, nor will he be the last, but just as shutting up Galileo did not prevent the facts about the cosmos from spilling out, denying Gonzalez tenure will not derail the march of truth either.

Read the story at the link and ask yourself how much more qualified can a scientist be than Gonzalez is and how much more of a narrow-minded bigot can a college president be than Iowa State's Gregory Geoffrey is.

RLC

Fred Responds to MM

Michael Moore, the left-wing Hollywood film-maker and political activist, has challenged Fred Thompson to a debate and lays out his reasons here. He's apparently miffed, inter alia, that Thompson criticized Moore's coziness with Cuban dictator Fidel Castro while himself enjoying fine Cuban cigars.

Thompson's 38 second reply is a political work of art. It's hard to imagine any other candidate of either party being able to pull off such a riposte, and it's impossible, unfortunately, to imagine President Bush even trying it let alone succeeding.

I don't know if Thompson would be a good president, but he sure would be a good "communicator."

RLC

Swimming in a Cesspool

Even were I inclined to more secular liberal political views I think I'd abandon them when I realized who I'd be sharing the bed with. A good man dies and many on the secular left are dancing with delight. The moral depravity of these people, their utter inhumanity, is enough to turn one's stomach. Consider a few excerpts from around the blogosphere:

"F**k Jerry Falwell, too bad he didn't die years earlier. Enjoy your time in hell, you racist, homophobic a*****e. Hopefully someone runs a train on your corpse."

"Morning [sic] the death of Jerry Falwell is like morning [sic] the death of Adolf Hitler."

"screw you, Jerry and your whole Christian Taliban 'community'."

"whatever it was that got him was so excruciatingly painful that he went screaming in pain and terror. And now that he's roasting on the Ninth Level of Hell where he belongs...Today is a good [day] for an a*****e to die!!"

"F**k You Falwell.. hopefully Pat Robertson is next."

"So how soon is the funeral, and where? Some serious grave-dancing is in order, here."

"Burn in hell, a*****e."

The reaction from the reporters? Grins and chuckles mostly. One grizzled veteran journalist said, "I hope they (CNN) remember all the horrible things he said." Another reporter simply said, "It is a good day."

For such as these politics is total war and disagreement over politics or religion makes one a mortal enemy. Your opposition to their politics or their atheism makes your death a denouement fervently to be desired. You deserve no respect, no kindness. To them the fact that you hold views different from their own makes you nothing but scum and pus.

Jerry Falwell was not the most adroit spokesperson for Christianity, but he was a man who tried all his life to do good. He had a big heart as even Larry Flynt, of all people, attests. But none of that matters to those consumed by hatred for all things Christian and/or conservative. The man's death and the grief of those who loved him is cause for celebration and gloating. What is it about left-wing ideology and/or atheism that attracts such people?

They are more to be pitied than condemned, however, for they have chosen a path in life that leads them to be deeply unhappy and miserable. Despite their obnoxious response to Jerry Falwell's death, we should hope that they will somehow find their way out of the moral cesspool they have chosen to swim in.

RLC

Third Anniversary

Just a word to mention that today marks the third anniversary of Viewpoint. Our first post went up on May 16th, 2004. Today, 3,380 posts and some 185,700 reader visits later, I want to thank all who have taken an interest in what we've been doing here and especially thank my brother Bill for his help in keeping the site up and running. Without him there'd be no Viewpoint.

RLC

Jerry Falwell

Jerry Falwell was found dead today in his office at the age of 73. Falwell had a habit of saying the most indefensible things that became skewers in the hands of those wishing to discredit Evangelical Christianity, but he was a man whose heart was in the right place even when his mind wasn't. He accomplished a lot of good for the Church and for our country not the least of which was his success in encouraging fundamentalist Christians to forsake their traditional aversion to politics and to get involved in public debates.

He was a man of great optimism, vision, and enthusiasm, and his death will be a great loss to both the church and the university which he founded.

RLC