Of the 328 pieces of mail addressed to Lodge during the first week in April, 209 expressed

4.2.12 WC: 191694 Of the 328 pieces of mail addressed to Lodge during the first week in April, 209 expressed opposition to world calendar reform on religious grounds. These were the result of a postcard campaign instituted by the Inter-Yeshiva HS Council. The article went on to point out that Lodge had also received letters from the Oklahoma students who favored the proposal, as did some legislators. However, the opposition of religious groups to calendar reform—and it came from all faiths—prevailed. The U.S. informed Secretary General Hammarskjold that it did not favor any action by the UN to revise the present calendar. ‘Large numbers of the US citizens oppose the plan,’ the U.S. note said. “Their opposition is based on religious grounds...”” We were thrilled that our campaign—involving hundreds not quite the “large numbers” reported—had succeeded. We regarded it as a victory for religious freedom. It persuaded me that even small efforts could have an impact on large organizations—a lesson that has stayed with me over my career. And it enhanced my admiration for the U.N., which had shown sensitivity to religious minorities. During my high school years, my class made several visits to the U.N., where we watched the General Assembly in action. We debated whether “Red China should be admitted to the U.N.” I took the affirmative side. Several of us joined “the United Nations Association,” and we participated in “model U.N.” sessions, playing the role of representatives from particular countries. No one could have predicted, in those days, how the UN would soon become an organization dominated by human rights violators and a bystander to, if not a facilitator of, genocide, terrorism and other human wrongs by so many of its own members. What are human rights? During my college and law school years, most of my focus was on domestic civil rights. I marched, attended rallies, trained for civil rights work in the South, and briefly traveled to points of confrontation in several southern cities, while carefully remaining out of harm’s way. After becoming a teacher and a lawyer, my involvement in the human rights movement broadened, both academically and politically. In my academic work, I began to explore the meaning of the term “human rights,” as contrasted with “civil rights,” “civil liberties,” and “political rights.” To be an advocate of “human” rights meant to me going beyond one’s particular group. A Jew who fights only against anti-Semitism is an advocate for particular rights, as is an African-American who struggles only against racism, a woman who only opposes sexism, or a gay person who limits his advocacy to gay rights. These are commendable activities, but they do not qualify as advocacy of human rights. Just as joining “The First Amendment Club” requires the active defense of expression one deplores, so too, joining “the Human Rights Club,” requires an active commitment to the universal rights of all 319 HOUSE_OVERSIGHT_017406