One Perspective's Appeal To Our Shared Humanity While consuming recent journalism-the object of much humanitarian ambivalence-this week,

I have read many disparaging words on Dr. James St. James, a beloved professor and head of MU's Behavioral Sciences department. Alarming headlines such as "Millikin Professor Linked to 1967 Triple Murder," "Innocence Lost," and "From James Wolcott to Professor St. James" undoubtedly engaged the shock and interest of all those connected to Millikin, Decatur, and now Chicago communities. The overwhelming response, as studied by the social-media-voyeur-journalist in me, was not one of reflection or challenge. Instead, community members quickly hypothesized about negative implications, consequences, outcomes, and present perceived dangers of this man's tenure at their alma mater. Musings on James' hidden deficits, secret darkness, and problematic idiosyncrasies all underscore the impulse to discredit a man for a past truth, with intensity and urgency, and without the hesitation of thorough inquiry and reflection. The author of the first whistle-blowing article, Ann Marie Gardner, states her purpose for exposing this story from James' past as a desire to equip those who encounter him with all of the information necessary to choose whether or not to pursue a relationship. The author also wishes to update estranged others on the post-Texas life he has since built for himself, to satiate their perceived curiosity on this mystery from the distant past. Gardner suggests both internal and community dialogues on justice for James, his parents and sister, and extended family. Without a doubt, having access to resources which may inform sound decision is an ideal in our complex and often confusing world. And, without a doubt, justice is a concept and practice that our shared humanity inspires us to pursue. I advocate for these values as well, however the means utilized to enact these ideals may be profoundly dissimilar. The swift and near-viral postings of these articles led me to question the integrity of its circulation; increased access to personal information about another's life comes with increased social responsibility. For what are the possible consequences on other's sacred, personal lives when these once-private narratives become public knowledge? To what information are we entitled about lives that

are not our own? How much energy do we invest in the consideration of the purpose, utility, and benefit of the information we consume and circulate? Authors of these articles share concerns regarding the potential for James' repeated violence. These concerns are based on a crime committed in 1967, a year separating us from the present by nearly five decades; these fears are not reactions to observations of his present. Throughout the past forty-six years, Dr. St. James has devoted concentrated energy to the the creation of his present, preferred identity. He has not committed crimes, but rather committed himself to a chosen life of active service to the community, to the expansion of behavioral science research, to the future pursuits of psychology and human service students, and advocacy for continued learning and practice. Writers and circulators seemingly hold a worldview that validates and emphasizes predictive risk factorsfactors from the past that predict undesirable outcomes. This ideology promotes the idea that past behavior is effective in predicting risky future behaviors, such as impulsive violence. Some neglect to make the connection between James' past impulses and present protective factors- those mechanisms which protect individuals from undesirable future behaviors. Some evidence-based protective factors include: a sense of belonging, sense of purpose, feelings of security, productivity, supportive community, and a healthy sense of identity. Dr. St. James' place at Millikin, a safe and sacred realm that hosts rewarding work and connection, may be valued as a strong and meaningful protection for James. The introduction of this information to the public sphere presents the possibility of an intense threat to a man's feelings of value and security. In the face of these threats to one's present reality, individuals have been known to experience feelings of anger and hopelessness. Is the accessibility of this shocking past narrative worth the potential consequences of such a surprise attack on his well-being? This act feels greatly unjust. Why actively rob a man of his identity, protection, and security? Opinions intended as journalism have circulated sharing the perceived truth that James "has not paid" for his crimes. Chicago Sun Times' article by Dave McKinney shares citations supporting this perspective

that are closely linked to themes of ownership, achievement, and possession: James' handsome house, large[r] office, and professional awards and credentials. As if we can detect and measure suffering by taking an inventory of a life exclusively on what we can see with our eyes. As if payment for crimes always includes a dollar sign. Not a single reporter has suggested the possibility of James' interest in the behavioral sciences and psychology fields as a self-healing mechanism, as a resource to support himself in a quiet, private, daily struggle to reconcile his old and new evolving selves. Does a possible challenge such as this one not qualify as a natural consequence, a payment for past acts? I wonder which definition of justice our human community holds as ideal. Do we define justice as lifelong punishment for past crimes committed? Do we define justice as eternal shame for past wrongdoings? Or does our society aim to rehabilitate once-troubled individuals into a life of purpose and social contribution? Would we prefer to have a fifteen-year-old fated to a lifetime of isolation, or given the opportunity to rebuild himself into a life of social inclusion, service, and generativity? Do we wish for him to have nothing, to pay with concrete money and abstract emptiness? Each day we hear the echoes of our comrades idealizing the American opportunity to become self-made, to be all one can be, to make meaningful contributions, to pursue freedom and abundance. Do these ideals not apply to all groups, individuals, and identities? I invite you to question your entitlement to the stories of others' pasts, question the integrity and validity of all perspectives, and appeal to our shared humanity in all you explore, assess, circulate, and support. Choose thorough considerations of justice, and maintain the loving space to reflect on humanity's boundless capacities for change, growth, and possibility. Perhaps James should be left to be his chosen self, in a name possibly chosen to will the integrity of the divine in a reformed path to greater light