Last Thursday, Sept. 15, SLU celebrated Constitution Day. The departments of communication and political science organized a panel discussion to discuss “liberty and the Constitution.” Students and faculty traced the progression of the Constitution over the years and applied the historic document to current events. Wynne Moskop, the chairperson of the political science department and moderator of the discussion, brought six panelists together in Carlo Auditorium in Tegeler Hall.

However, the idea did was not suggested by Moskop or by any other faculty member or student organization or student. In fact, the day was not suggested at all.

Constitution Day is a new federal requirement for any school that receives federal funding.

The idea for Constitution Day was launched by Louise Leigh. The senior citizen was inspired after taking a Constitutional course with the National Center for Constitutional studies.

“I became acutely aware of the uniqueness, the greatness, and the miracle of our Constitution. Until the 1800s, every American child could recite all the freedoms guaranteed in the Constitution, which is not done today,” Leigh said.

A student at Washington University conducted a survey to test students’ knowledge of the Constitution and found “21.2 percent knew how many senators serve in the U.S. Senate, but 81.2 percent knew how many members were in the music group Hanson.”

As low as these statistics are, they are not out of the ordinary. Students today may receive this basic knowledge in an introductory politics class-if they are required, that is. Otherwise, students today must continue to rely on their memory of School House Rock’s “America Rock the Preamble.”

To rectify numbers similar to those above, President Bush signed a bill in December 2004 designating Sept. 17 as the official day to commemorate the day the Constitution was signed in 1787.However, because the 17th fell on a Saturday this year, schools could celebrate the day either the week before or the week after.

SLU’s celebration began with three 10-minute presentations from faculty. Then, three students sitting on the discussion panel responded to each faculty member in turn, raising questions to facilitate the audience discussion that followed.

Steven Puro, Ph.D., of the political science department, spoke first on “liberty and self-government,” two forces that are in frequent conflict. Our Constitutionally guaranteed rights have changed each decade-from search and seizure to end-of-life issues.

What is most important is to maintain a “mixture of rationality and fairness under the Constitution,” Puro said.

Elisia Cohen, Ph.D., of the communication department, talked about “Suppression of Constitutional Liberties During Times of National Crisis.”

She discussed three moments of national crisis: the alien and sedition acts passed by the federalists while the French Revolution was going on across the Atlantic, Japanese internment during World War II and the Patriot Act following the Sept. 11 attacks.

The government must choose between “acting judiciously versus acting expeditiously” when they create protective legislation during these times, she said.

Currently, the government does not seem to be exerting the same media intimidation that we saw during the times of the Federalists and during WWII, Cohen said.

Eloise Buker, Ph.D., of political science, discussed “The Constitution and Liberty: Expanding the Freedom and Responsibility to Participate in Government.” She called the Constitution “a living document of our values” that defines who we are as a people.

She traced, over the course of American history, who has “counted” as an individual–it was originally only adult white males, but now it’s every citizen over the age of 18.

She encouraged the members of our University to take responsibility for this right we’ve been given by educating ourselves about the issues and people we’ll be voting for.

Buker said that we should re-interpret this document because, if we don’t, we’ll only be listening to the original voices of the signers.

“As members of a Jesuit university community, we have a unique perspective to add, which is ethics and responsibility for others,” she said.

The panel of undergraduate students consisted of representatives from three academic departments: Andrew Ivers, senior, responded to Puro on behalf of political science, Annie Boken, senior, responded to Cohen as a communication student and Jared Vandergriff, also a senior, responded to Buker from the vantage of the English department.

The discussion that followed touched on the necessity of keeping informed and staying aware so that we can participate in public American discourse, because, as one student said from the audience, “Criticism is not unpatriotic.”

Constructive criticism does require a background, even if that means starting at square one.

By the way, 100 senators serve on the U.S. Senate.