Missing you, Namhee

Dr. Namhee Han, organist

The spirit of Namhee Han lingers in the sanctuary of Westwood Presbyterian Church two years after this talented organist took her last breath.  

As we return to live worship and hear organ music echo against the stone walls, many of us think of her.

She died on March 27, 2020, from sudden complications in a two-year battle with cancer.

Watch her play Bach's Third Intermezzo on this Youtube post from June 2010 at St. Cyril of Jerusalem Church in Encino.

Find a tribute and links to more of her music on this Facebook Post by Stan's Music Parlor.

A native of Seoul, South Korea, she performed nationally and internationally.  Katherine Crosier, an organist in Hawaii, wrote this blog post, which includes Namhee's obituary in The American Organist, July 2020.

Here is Namhee Han: A Remembrance written by Xavier Quintana, her fiance, on December 20, 2020, and published on the website of Classical Crossroads, Inc., whose mission is to make live classical music available to the public on a free or low-cost basis in southern California. 

We're thinking of you, Namhee, and we miss you.

From Constance Baker Motley to KBJ

 

It's been a stressful week watching the disrespectful confirmation hearings of Judge Ketanji Brown Jackson--not to mention continued slaughter in Ukraine.

But let's talk for a moment about Judge Jackson's heroine and role model, Constance Baker Motley.  

Judge Jackson cited this prominent Black female judge during her acceptance speech after President Biden nominated her to be the next justice added to the Supreme Court.

"She was the first African American woman to argue a case before the Supreme Court, and the first to serve as a federal judge," according to this article on uscourts.gov.  

Judge Motley would have been an excellent nominee to the Supreme Court, but the nation wasn't there yet.  She wrote much of the 1954 decision Brown v. Board of Education.

Terry Gross featured an interview with Constance Baker Motley's biographer Tomiko Brown-Nagin on NPR's Fresh Air, Feb. 16.   

Brown-Nagin mentions that Motley knew civil rights activist Medgar Evers and mourned deeply when he was murdered.

Here's an article about her on Politico.  And an NAACP article.  

I also heard this report on NPR's Code Switch, which mentions that Judge Motley avoided the term "feminist" in the 1970s and '80s, but she argued cases that were very important for women's equality.

"Despite the Ludtke v Kuhn case, and other efforts to provide equal consideration for women in the workplace, Motley rejected the label feminist—even though some famous feminists, like Shirley Chisolm and Bella Abzug—were friends and colleagues", the report says.

Civil Rights Queen: Constance Baker Motley and the Struggle for Equality is the title of Brown-Nagin's biography, which came out in January, 2022.  Judge Motley also wrote her own autobiography.  

Here's a historical note to ponder: there were no confirmation hearings for the first 127 years of the Supreme Court.  White men were just nominated and debated a little in the Senate; then the vote took place on whether to confirm them.

In 1916 when a Jewish man was nominated, the Senate decided to hold a hearing to thoroughly vet this alarming new kind of nominee. See the history explained in the Insider.

John Knox vs. "the Monstrous Regiment of Women"

Yikes!  I never really looked at this title page of John Knox's pamphlet before.

I'd glanced at it but not given it a second thought.  Yeah, misogyny.  What else is new?  

Today, however, I read that title page carefully, and the Bible verse cited there jumped out at me--the same verse being used today to keep women from being ordained as pastors in some churches.

1 Timothy 2:12 "But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man."

I read further in Wikipedia's summary of The First Blast of the Trumpet against the Monstrous Regimen of Women.

John Knox first published it in the summer of 1558, a few months before young Elizabeth became queen of England.  Bad timing, Rev. Knox.

Furthermore, he did so anonymously and in Geneva, without first showing it to John Calvin.

Here's how a Wikipedia author summarizes the result: 

In England, the pamphlet was officially condemned by royal proclamation. The impact of the document was complicated later that year when Elizabeth Tudor became Queen of England. Although Knox had not targeted Elizabeth, he had deeply offended her, and she never forgave him.

Of course she never forgave him.  Nor would I have.

Many scholars since then, however, have made excuses:

• Knox was just expressing what many believed in those days.
• He liked his mother-in-law.
• He respected the views and piety of many women.

And so forth.

No one besides John Knox, however, went on a huge campaign against queens, basing his work on 1 Timothy 2:12.

I was sitting in the membership class last Sunday when the pastor (a woman!) mentioned that John Knox, a founder of the Presbyterian church, went to Switzerland and learned Reform theology from John Calvin there.

Somehow I never knew that these two holy men of the Protestant reformation had met.

A few days later I found myself searching John Knox on the internet.  That's how I came across his interaction with Mary Queen of Scots and Elizabeth I.

Frankly, he sounds like leaders of the Council on Biblical Manhood and Womanhood, founded in 1987 to oppose biblical feminists.  In the spectrum of opinion about women being queens, Knox was the man most against female rule.  Monstrous.  Unnatural.

Now I'm asking, "Why am I about to affirm membership in the Presbyterian church, founded by John Knox?"

I don't know.  Maybe I won't.

The Presbyterian Church (USA) has been ordaining women since 1956, but it still honors good ol' John Knox.

That's like southern states still having statues of Confederate generals. 

The anti-female churches among us

Yelp reviews on this church

On the surface, Pacific Crossroads Church is a friendly, Bible-believing church that meets on Sunday mornings in the big auditorium at Santa Monica High School.  What's not to like?

But if you check its website, you find that it's part of the Presbyterian Church in America (PCA). 

When you scroll down to look at the Pacific Crossroads leaders, you may notice that there are no women pastors or elders there--maybe even no deacons.  

If you check out the PCA on Wikpedia, you find a complicated history on attitudes toward women.  For many years PCA interpreted the Bible to forbid women in leadership (never mind the many women mentioned as leaders, including Junia "prominent among the apostles" - Romans 17:6).  

But in 2016, the PCA voted to reconsider, and more recently they voted to allow women to be ordained; they also allowed any member churches who disagreed to continue refusing to ordain as a matter of conscience.  Then the PCA voted to rescind the "conscience clauses," so some churches that objected to women pastors left the denomination.

Pacific Crossroads looks like a church that continues to refuse having women in leadership though it retains ties to the PCA, which has so recently changed.  

Maybe Pacific Crossroads just hasn't gotten around to electing a woman as elder or hiring a woman pastor.  Or maybe it's holding out against these changes.

Whatever the case, you need to know these things when you decide to join this friendly group of Bible-believing Christians.

There so many of these community churches founded as outreach from anti-female denominations (like the Southern Baptists) that never include "Presbyterian" or "Baptist" in the local name of the church.  

They cover up their denominational ties and history until newcomers are well involved.  That's secrecy, lack of transparency.  On the other hand, they do preach the Gospel and help many people.  

The cost of having a policy of male rule is great.  Women lose self-esteem and are held back from the call of the Holy Spirit.  But also the whole church can be hurt.

For example, one man at Pacific Crossroads (Rankin Wilbourne) became the pastor in 2006 and gained too much power; he abused many people (spiritually and emotionally) and was finally forced to resign by the PCA in Feb. 2020.  

Wilbourne was forbidden from ever being a PCA pastor again, but he went to the Midwest and then Florida, becoming a pastor at other churches.  On appeal, his deposing by the PCA may have been rescinded on some procedural error. The details of his abuse of the 30-40 people who testified are sealed by the PCA--can't be released.

Would a church with more male/female equality have tolerated coercive abuse by a male pastor for so long?  Maybe--but I don't think so.  

For comparison, look at the Catholic church and how it has done in keeping nuns and other compassionate women out of the leadership.

Stanford's role in Katie's suicide

 

Katie Meyer in photo by Lindsay Radnedge,
SU Athletics (LA Times)

Stanford soccer player Katie Meyer was a defender in soccer and in life.

In soccer, she defended the goal, and in some kind of altercation off the playing field in the past year, she defended a teammate.  

She got in trouble for it.  Maybe she told her parents initially, but she could not tell them about a development in her case on March 1, just three months before she was to graduate.

Did Stanford threaten not to let her walk on graduation day?  Or not to let her graduate?

Her mother spoke about the surprising tragedy in an interview on CNN:

"...the only thing we can come up with that triggered something," she said, was some form of disciplinary action at school. Katie recently had defended a teammate on campus over an incident and she was facing repercussions because of it, her parents said, pointing to that as the possible turning point for their daughter.

One issue is the pressure placed on student athletes as discussed by CNN in this report on March 13.

But the greater issue is how Stanford handled the process of "disciplinary action." Someone in the administration sent Katie an email hours before she took her own life.  

Katie's mother Gina Meyer added a few more details in the Today Show interview, as reported on Today.com: "We have not seen that email yet," Gina said. "She had been getting letters for a couple months. This letter was kind of the final letter that there was going to be a trial or some kind of something. This is the only thing that we can come up with that triggered something." 

Once a child turns 18, schools and therapists do not let parents know anything about their lives: their grades, their health, their mental health, their legal crises. They are considered adults, no matter how fragile they may be emotionally. 

Katie's parents wish they had had a chance to intervene between the Stanford administration and Katie, the report by Today.com continues:

The Meyer family hopes to start a conversation about opening up communication between parents and college administrators. Parents often aren't alerted about what's happening with their children because most university students are over 18 and considered adults, but the Meyers feel they missed a chance to potentially save their daughter if they only knew about what she was going through.

I've been in the position of her parents, worried about a student but unable to know anything or intervene.  

My daughters somehow survived the terrible twenties; my heart aches for Katie and her parents and her two sisters.  

All college students face pressures, but Katie is the fourth Stanford student to take her own life in 2021 and 2022, according to the Palo Alto Daily Post:

Meyer, a senior majoring in International Relations, is at least the third Stanford student to die by suicide in the last 13 months. Medical student Rose Wong, 25, died in her dorm on Feb. 2, 2021. Undergraduate Jacob Meisel, 23, was killed by a train in Palo Alto on Aug. 2. And law student Dylan Simmons, 27, was found dead in his dorm on Jan. 20. The cause of Simmons’ death hasn’t been released.

I blame Stanford University for Katie's death.  Difficult news should not come by email.  Someone could have invited Katie to her office, explained what decision the university had come to, and offered ways to mitigate the consequences.

In the past several months, the administration should have brought Katie's parents into the problem or at least provided emotional and legal counseling to her.  Apparently they did neither.

All universities and other institutions protect their status and hush up issues.  I remember when I was teaching at Whittier College near Los Angeles in October, 1987, and a 5.9 earthquake occurred nearby.  

"No problem--classes will continue tomorrow" the administration announced though there were three deaths, five related deaths, and 200 injuries in LA County.  There was a 5.2 aftershock three days later.

Stanford's instinct after Katie's death is to protect its reputation and its administration.  Parents, alumni, and the public need to demand changes in the way disciplinary issues are handled.  

As an alumna myself, I know Stanford is a jock school.  Athletics is a very big deal at this college and a big source of income, but we must protect student athletes who get into some kind of trouble.

Did Katie push or punch another student in her defense of her teammate?  Stanford should have reported the incident to the police, who would have recorded the incident and been required to offer legal counsel.  Her parents would have known.  

Whatever the initial event, Stanford tried to handle the problem through its own administrative channels, resulting in a months-long period of building pressure and secrecy. 

That was wrong, and Stanford must change.  We must call the university to account.

If there is a misdemeanor or crime of some sort, let the local police and judicial system handle it--not the university's Office of Student Affairs.

Keeping the whole thing inside the college deprives the student of resources available to persons charged with a crime.  It isolates the student from legal and psychological support, and it tempts the college to engage in coverup.

Below are further comments made on the website of the Palo Alto Daily Post:

"The university owes it to Katie to be truthful, even if it hurts their image." - RG, March 2.

"Stanford has this student discipline system that includes kangaroo courts in which the accused has the burden of proof. No wonder she was upset. Anyone who is falsely accused and can’t fight the accusations is depressed. Hopefully the administration will put an end to this sham court, but I won’t hold my breath." - Class of 19, March 5.

"Many elite universities have a sham student conduct process and there is little in the way of fairness to the student. It is difficult to truly grasp until you live through it. The pressure on a student is indescribable. It is definitely a “guilty until proven innocent” approach where a student is barraged with constant letters — repeatedly accused of even the smallest of infractions and threatened with probation, suspension and ultimately expulsion. There is little in the way of due process and the student conduct process typically ignores many of the basic rules of law that we expect from our legal system. All of a sudden, a student feels like an outcast. Those that are innocent feel so cornered that they capitulate and admit to the charges. What many students don’t realize is that if they intend to pursue graduate, law, medical school is that they will forever have to disclose this transgression on all sorts of future applications. You can’t even bring an outside attorney to these hearings. If you find yourself or your child in a similar situation, seek competent legal advice immediately. You can’t afford not to. It is amazing that this occurs at institutions of “higher learning” in this country with particularly those with supposedly top tier law schools. I sadly speak from direct experience. I can understand how this event may have caused a deep sense of despair for Katie. My heart breaks for her family. For every Dean out there involved in the student conduct process, it’s time to revamp and change they way that students are treated and parents or designated guardians should very much be part of the process. Surely, just like you can authorize medical release of records the same should hold true for educational records." - S. Gonzales, March 6.

"Thank you for enlightening us with your post…" - REM/TA, March 7.

"I wonder whether Katie was considering a career in the CIA or FBI after her graduation in a few months? (It was stated that she was interested in international relations, specifically security). The pending disciplinary action “could” definitely “ruin” those future plans for her. This is so very sad. I wish she would have told her parents of Stanford’s pending disciplinary actions and showed them the emails. They could have sought legal counsel for her and supported her through this situation. Hoping the family gets to the bottom of what happened. I’m so very sorry for your loss, Meyer Family." - Anonymous, March 8.

"I can’t agree more. These elite schools’ disciplinary systems (especially, Stanford and Princeton) usually have a committee of 5 members: 3 are students while 2 are professors. The students in the committee are just sophomores or juniors with few experiences and can’t go against professors in the committee. So the decision of the committee of 5 is often led by one professor with a loud voice and strong opinion. The committee is supposed to make a decision based on “clear and persuasive” evidence, but its definition is any set of evidence that the committee “FEELS” clear and persuasive. If the committee feels a blurry image of an animal is a cat, then the image becomes clear and persuasive evidence that it is a cat while it is, in fact, a dog. A student can appeal to the judicial committee. The problem is that the judicial committee members are also professors who will, of course, be on the professor’s side. Even more serious is that the membership rotates every 2 or 3 years. Thus the members of the judicial committee are not EVEN familiar with the school’s written “rights, rule, and responsibilities” and don’t carry any responsibilities for their decisions. Even if their decision is found to be wrong, just like Katie’s case, nobody in the committees will be fired, and nobody will be responsible. Students cannot bring an outside lawyer, and thus there is literally no way to fight against an unfair decision and unreasonable process when falsely accused. The system would be so much better if there is an office of student integrity and if only the employees in the office — who are familiar with the written rules, will interpret rules as written, and will be responsible/fired when found wrong — handle cases. This is the system used in many state schools." - CoDNeeds Change, March 7.

"And Stanford hides behind confidentiality which hides what could have been a biased process finding Katie guilty. The school is the judge and jury in the process accountable to no party unless Katie’s parents hire a lawyer and find a way to take Stanford into a court of law. But before that Stanford will try to do a deal with Katie’s lawyers that will keep their process confidential with maybe her parents knowing but keeping their investigation and the likely reason for Katie’s death unknown to the community. No transparency or accountability for her death. Probably a Title 9 investigation." - John, March 7.

"If the settlement is kept confidential, Stanford will never feel any community pressure to change its ways. I hope this isn’t swept under the rug like so many other problems at Stanford!" - Peter K., March 7.

"I’m hoping Katie shared her pending disciplinary action from Stanford with some of her friends, fellow students, professors, coaches and teammates.

They might be able to shed some light on her state of mind?
Also, the teammate “she stuck up for” in the altercation would probably have much information.
Did the person whom Katie had the altercation with, have friends in high places at Stanford?
Does this person’s family donate a lot of money to Stanford?
Was this disciplinary action a personal vendetta to ruin Katie’s future?
Was Katie being threatened?
Was Katie told what was going to happen to her?
Was she afraid of what might happen?
These are questions that should be explored.
Also, even though Katie would not be allowed an attorney at the Stanford University hearing, legal counsel could advise her on “how best” to answer questions and perhaps help her to compose a letter to read to the court. Or, better yet, help her send a letter prior to the school court. hearing. Perhaps advise her on writing an apology letter?
A young woman with so much to offer the world. So so sad! RIP dear Katie." - Anonymous, March 8. 

"Stanford should show more responsibility.

Frankly, sometimes I have the feeling that being at this university is like being in a cult. If someone does not behave, not complying with their regulations, the person is out, in a very cold way (eg https://padailypost.com/2019/12/06/dad-takes-his-own-life-after-meeting-with-stanford-boss-family-fears-it-will-lose-home/). This university should change its philosophy as everyone is a human being including the board of trustess. I doubt they are all perfect. In general, some universities have somehow lost their real purpose, to help the world with a big heart…" - How many more students suicides, March 5.

"Hope you guys stay on this story. Stanford has some explaining to do. The few comments above describing university disciplinary boards – Bolshevik style show trials – are spot on." - Alvin, March 8.

Losing People

People marching for Ukraine, Feb 27, Santa Monica CA

Once in a while, people lose family members.  A war comes or an earthquake or a famine, and people flee, losing track of where their parents or children or uncles and aunts and grandparents are.

This happened to Boris Furman's family during the Holocaust.  People were torn from each other and separated by geography, some separated by death without other family members knowing.

On Dec. 31, 2021, This American Life featured Boris's story as told to Dana Chivvis (Act 3 of Episode 757 "This Must Be the Place."

In Hebrew, tikkun means repair.  In Judaism tikkun is an important concept meaning the redemption of a tragic situation or even the repair of the world-- tikkun ha Olam.

Boris's family needed repair for being pulled apart during the Holocaust.  His mother lost her entire family as she fled to the US, where she met and married Boris's father, also a survivor with no family.

"When I grew up, I didn't have any extended family," says Boris. "I didn't have any. My kids have a gazillion cousins and aunts and uncles. I had one."

Years later as he married and his children grew up and left home, he began tracking where each person was every day and even calculating a "family average location."  

As he talks to Dana, she observes that his obsessive recording of each person's location and calculating an average location is actually kind of "a math prayer."

It's a way of saying, "We exist--we know where we are."  

"It's not to record where they are but that they are," she concludes.

Right now in Ukraine, people are fleeing, fighting, and losing touch with family members.  Sometimes there is no cell signal.  Phones are lost, or there's no electricity to charge them.  

People are dying: young Russian soldiers, Ukrainian citizens, visitors, students from other countries studying at Ukrainian universities.

May each family find tikkun... may our world in March 2022 be repaired.