# Posted 8:13 AM by Ariel David Adesnik  

REFLECTIONS ON A CENTURY: This year marks the 100th anniversary of the Rhodes Scholarship. To celebrate, the Rhodes Trust has organized four days of reunion events in Oxford and London, events that have drawn more than 1500 scholars (and their companions) back to the British Isles.

In general, I avoid commenting on the fact either that I am a Rhodes Scholar or on the significance of that fact to me. I do so because announcing that I am a Rhodes Scholar says very little about who I am or what I believe.

However, the Rhodes Scholarship is a recognizable landmark in American life. Thanks (or no thanks) to President Clinton and others, saying that one is a Rhodes Scholar has important connations, both positive and negative.

As my younger brothers never tire of reminding me, becoming a Rhodes Scholar entails a definite measure of self-promotion and self-aggrandizement. However, that is a very American perspective on the scholarship.

At Oxford, no one cares all that much if you are a Rhodes Scholar. There are 250 of us here at any given time, so everyone at Oxford has gotten used to seeing us on a regular basis. However, the culture of the Rhodes Scholarship entails constant reflection on what it means to have one's education paid for by the estate of Cecil John Rhodes.

Rhodes was the brutal imperialist who brought southern Africa into the British Empire and made his fortune on the broken backs of South Africa's native population. Thus, Rhodes Scholars never dare forget that their education is being paid for with blood-soaked cash.

Being a Rhodes Scholar at Oxford entails a burden of guilt and responsibility. Everytime we consider asking the trust for an increase in our stipend, the Rhodes e-mail list floods with messages discussing whether the necessary funds would be better spent on charitable works in South Africa.

Every time there is a formal dinner at Rhodes House, we ask whether we couldn't have fed hundreds of starving South African children instead of enjoying one more five-course banquet. No matter how many times we tell ourselves that we will redeem our scholarship through public service in the decades to come, we still ask whether we are doing enough right now to repair that damage that has already been done.

As such, one might expect that that the Rhodes Centenary would focus on this central dilemma of Scholarly life. But it has not. Last night in the Houses of Parliament, all 1500 guests at the reunion gathered for the privilege of being addressed by Tony Blair, Bill Clinton and Nelson Mandela, as well as brief remarks by the Chancellor of Oxford University, the Chairman of the Rhodes Board of Trustees, and the Chairman of the DeBeers diamond mining corporation (founded by Rhodes in the 1888).

All of the speakers were careful to point out that Rhodes was a very bad man who happened to do some very good things, such as endowing the Scholarship Fund. However, not one of them addressed the significance of that contradiction for those of us who have been educated at Rhodes' expense. Not one of them sought to explain how it is that a man whose wealth rested on the brutal exploitation of his workers could wax eloquent about the importance of encouraging young idealists to "fight the world's fight" and better the lot of all humanity.

While some might dismiss such concerns as anachronistic self-flagellation, the fact remains that such concerns still exert an overwhelming influence on the behavior of the Rhodes Trust. It is not just the Scholars but also the Trustees and the Warden who are in constant search of forgiveness.

Toward that end, the Trust has devoted £10 million to establishing the Mandela Rhodes Foundation, a charity focused on strengthening civil society in South Africa. As the Foundation's name implies, Mr. Mandela himself was deeply involved in its establishment and in setting its priorities.

While a number of the speakers at last night's event made passing remarks about how the names of Mandela and Rhodes is a sign of reconciliation and of "closing the circle" of South Africa history, none of the them addressed the fundamental perversity of naming the Foundation after both a brutal racist and the greatest living champion of racial justice and equality.

Given that Mr. Mandela himself has blessed the merger, it is hard to argue that joining his name with that of Rhodes' betrays Mr. Mandela's life work. Still, the question remains: What does the establishment of the Foundation say about those of us who continue to benefit from Rhodes' generosity but did nothing to liberate South Africa?

Are we forgiven? Can we now point to the Foundation and say that our obligation to the past has been fulfilled? Ideally, some sort of balance ought to be struck. On the one hand, it would be wrong to forget where the wealth of the Trust came from. On the other hand, we should be at least as comfortable with the Rhodes Trust as Mandela himself is.

Unfortunately, I don't know how such a balance can best be achieved. The constant hand-wringing of the Scholars currently on stipend is somewhat disingenuous, given that few of us will do much for South Africa except thinking about it.

All in all, I tend to prefer an American approach to the Scholarship. I applied for it believing that it is a Scholarship which rewards commitment to public service. It entails a commitment to the future, not to the past. If I devote my professional life to promoting democracy in the Middle East, that is no less valuable than promoting development and civil society in South Africa.

The lesson of Rhodes' life is not that I have some special obligation to the people of southern Africa, but rather that we still live in a world where vicious oppression destorys countless lives in Burma, in North Korea, throughout the Middle East, and in Central Africa, just north of Rhodes' erstwhile homeland.

Let's do something about that.


(0) opinions -- Add your opinion