BRIA(16:4) Hebrews, Roman English Laws, Natural Rights, Declaration of Independence, Animal Rights

This Bill of Rights in Action looks at historical and recent innovations in law. The first article examines the code of laws developed by the ancient Hebrews, which influenced Roman law, English law, and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution. The second article explores Thomas Jefferson's writing of the Declaration of Independence and the source of his ideas for this document. The final article looks at the animal-rights movement, an active movement seeking recognition of basic rights for animals.

The Ten Commandments and many other elements of Hebrew law provided a major source for the development of western legal systems and democracy.

Three thousand years ago, the ancient Hebrew people lived in the Near East in an area called Canaan. This ancient people developed the idea of monotheism, the belief in one god. They believed that their god gave them laws to regulate their society, their religious practices, and their relationships with other people.

Conquered by the neo-Babylonians and later by the Romans, the Hebrews eventually became a scattered people, living in many countries under different legal systems. But they continued to develop their own law and tried to follow it even in foreign lands. Their law was based on the Ten Commandments and other sacred writings, which today we find in the Hebrew Bible. In developing their law, they sometimes borrowed legal concepts from other civilizations as well as passing on their own ideas. The Jewish law that developed influenced Roman law, English law, and our own Declaration of Independence and Constitution.

According to Hebrew teachings, a man named Moses led the Jews out of slavery in Egypt around 1250 B.C. and received the Ten Commandments from God. It was not until the fifth century B.C. that the Hebrews put the commandments and other legal principles into written form. They were contained in the Torah and eventually became the first five books of the Bible. The written Torah ("teaching") provided the ancient Hebrew people with a code of religious and moral laws.

In A.D. 70, after the Romans crushed a Hebrew revolt and destroyed the holy temple in Jerusalem, the Hebrew legal system stopped functioning. Faced with religious persecution, many Jews began to leave their homeland, called Palestine by the Romans. Known as Jews, for one region of their homeland called Judea, these people migrated throughout the Middle East, Europe, and other parts of the world.

Some Jewish religious scholars stayed in Palestine while another group of scholars resided in Babylon (in present-day Iraq). For several centuries, scholars in these two centers of Jewish thought debated and interpreted the Torah. The vast literature that resulted from this effort is called the Talmud. The Talmud mainly focused on how the laws of the Torah should be applied to everyday life.

Starting as early as the second century A.D., Jewish scholars attempted to compile a code of laws from the Torah and other sources, which would assemble all Jewish law in one place. One famous Jewish legal scholar, Moses Maimonides, claimed that the Torah and his own code, completed in 1187, were all that were necessary to know everything about Jewish law. Several centuries later in 1563, Joseph Caro incorporated the work of Maimonides and other great Jewish scholars into his own code. This has become the main authority on Jewish law up to this day.

Over time, Jewish scholars have disagreed about nearly every point of the law. Today, three main divisions exist within Judaism. Orthodox Jews believe that the laws of the Torah and Talmud written centuries ago must still be strictly observed. Conservative Jews follow the old laws, but also see them as open to interpretation. Reform Jews view the traditional Jewish religious and moral laws as guides to life, but not binding in every detail.

The Torah teaches that God created Adam, the first human, as the father of all peoples. Thus, all humans are born equal and should be treated equally by the law.

Although the idea of equality before the law begins with the Torah, the Hebrews did not at first recognize the full meaning of this principle. Like most other Middle Eastern peoples in ancient times, the Hebrews did not treat women as the legal equals of men. For example, women were usually not permitted to appear as witnesses in court. Nevertheless, Jewish law still identified many women's rights and protections.

The Hebrews also permitted slavery. In many cases, persons bound themselves into slavery to pay debts. Others were thieves ordered by the court into slavery if they could not otherwise pay restitution to their victims. But masters had to release their slaves after six years. They also had to give them a gift to help them start a new life. Jewish law placed so many restrictions on slavery that it had nearly disappeared by the Middle Ages.

The Torah does not recognize the idea of kings ruling by divine right. According to tradition, the Hebrew people made Saul their first king in 1030 B.C., when enemy nations threatened their survival. But Saul and the other Hebrew kings that followed him were never considered to be gods or high priests with the power to interpret God's will.

Hebrew kings, like everyone else, had to obey the Ten Commandments and the other laws of the Torah. The written Torah, not the whims of kings, was considered the law of the land.

The Hebrew concept of majority rule comes from the Torah's command to "follow the multitude." The majority decided disputes among scholars on the meaning of God's laws, the court decisions of judges, and the local acts of Jewish communities.

Since Jews lived under the rule of foreign nations after A.D. 70, they practiced only limited forms of self-government. By the 12th century, however, many countries permitted Jewish communities to elect local town councils, the "Seven Good Men of the City." These councils, chosen by the majority of adult males, supervised religious, economic, educational, and charity activities. The entire community often decided important questions at a town meeting.

Being born a Jew makes one obligated to follow the Torah. But Jews must do this freely. Non-Jews have the freedom to practice their own religions. Moreover, unlike most other religions, Judaism does not actively seek converts.

A tradition of free speech existed among the Hebrews. Hebrew prophets openly spoke out against their kings and the people for failing to follow the Torah. During the long history of disputes over the meaning of the Torah, no one was tried for heresy (going against religious doctrine). Also, while the majority decided matters of law, the minority had a chance to be heard and their opinions were often recorded.

In Judea, the court system had three levels. The highest court was the Great Sanhedrin, which had 71 judges. Lesser courts with 23 judges dealt with death penalty cases. Lower courts with three judges handled most civil and criminal matters. Most of these courts stopped functioning after the Romans destroyed the temple in Jerusalem. In countries where they were permitted to operate, however, three-judge courts continued to hand out justice in Jewish communities.

Many parts of the Torah, Talmud, and the codes of law that followed described due process procedures to ensure fair trials. Anyone accused of a crime had the right of bail except in death-penalty cases. Traditional Jewish courts had no trained lawyers arguing cases. The prosecutor was either the victim himself or, if he had been killed, a relative ("blood-avenger") or someone appointed by the court. The accused could defend himself or ask another to plead for him. Evidence included documents and the testimony of witnesses. The consistent testimony of two male witnesses to the crime was necessary to convict the accused. The judges closely cross-examined witnesses in the presence of the accused. Circumstantial evidence alone was never enough to find someone guilty. Witnesses who broke the commandment forbidding one to "bear false witness" faced the same penalty that the accused would have suffered. The accused had an absolute right against self-incrimination and was not permitted to make statements harmful to himself. Likewise, confessions were not admissible evidence in court. There was no jury. The judges deliberated with the accused looking on. The youngest judge spoke his opinion first in order to avoid being influenced by the senior judges. The judges then decided the verdict by majority vote.

The Torah clearly states the punishment for violating the commandment against killing: "Whoso sheddeth man's blood by man shall his blood be shed; for in the image of God made He man." Other capital crimes included adultery, idolatry, kidnaping, and burglary. Methods of execution in the Old Testament included burning, slaying with a sword, and stoning by the people. Because of the strict requirement of due process demanded by Jewish law to convict a murderer, some scholars believe the death penalty was rarely carried out.

Over the centuries, Jewish scholars agonized about the death penalty. Since the Torah says that man's body is holy and should not be mutilated, scholars devised execution methods to avoid this desecration. For example, they argued that "stoning" meant pushing a criminal off a high place into stones below to bring about a quick death with a minimum of mutilation.

The community courts that were allowed to operate in Europe and elsewhere used a variety of punishments to discipline violators of Jewish law. The most common punishment was flogging (no more than 39 lashes). Judges often reduced the number of lashes after taking account of the offender's physical condition. The courts also used the "ban," which placed great restrictions on the lives of lawbreakers or expelled them from the community.

In 1948, the Jewish people regained a homeland when they established the modern state of Israel. Today, this democratic nation is not strictly governed by the old Hebrew laws of the Torah. Israel has adopted modern procedures and individual rights from English and other Western legal systems. Many of these procedures and rights, however, had been developed from ancient principles of Jewish law.

Today, some people are urging that the Ten Commandments be posted in every public school classroom. This proposal is not new. In 1978, the Kentucky state legislature passed a law requiring it. The stated purpose of this law was to honor a fundamental legal code of Western Civilization. The law was challenged in court as violating the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which states that no law can be made "respecting an establishment of religion."

The challengers argued that the Ten Commandments are held sacred by the Jewish and Christian religions. They pointed out that although some of the commandments concern secular matters such as murder, adultery, and stealing, other commandments relate to religious matters such as worshiping no other god, shunning idolatry, not using the Lord's name in vain, and observing the sabbath. They argued that the law was an attempt by the state government to officially favor these religious beliefs.

Supporters of the law argued that the stated purpose of the law was not religious. They pointed out that our system of laws are based on these commandments and that it is important for students to learn about them. They argued that the law neither advances nor curbs any religion or religious group.

In this activity, the class will discuss whether the Ten Commandments should be posted in public school classrooms.

The U.S. Supreme Court decided a case on this question in 1980: Stone v. Graham, 449 U.S. 39 (1980). This opinion is available on the Internet. See oyez.nwu.edu or www.findlaw.com.

Thomas Jefferson, drawing on the current thinking of his time, used natural rights ideas to justify declaring independence from England.

Thomas Jefferson, age 33, arrived in Philadelphia on June 20, 1775, as a Virginia delegate to the Second Continental Congress. Fighting at Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill had already broken out between the colonists and British troops. Even so, most in Congress wanted to work out some mutual agreement with the mother country.

For more than a year, the Americans had sent petitions to England proclaiming their grievances against the British government. Colonists even appealed to the British people, pleading with them to elect different members of Parliament who would be more open to compromise. But the "British brethren" refused to do this.

Soon after Jefferson arrived in Philadelphia, Congress assigned him to draft a document explaining why the colonists had taken up arms against England. Even at this late date, the Congress still blamed only Parliament and the king's government ministers, not King George himself, for the growing conflict. Jefferson's Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms stopped short of declaring independence, but pointed out the folly of governing the American colonies from England.

Neither Parliament nor King George, however, were interested in negotiations to prevent all-out war. In August 1775, King George issued a proclamation charging that the Americans "had proceeded to open and avowed rebellion." A few months later, Parliament passed a significant act that placed the American colonies outside the king's protection. This act allowed the seizing of American ships, justified the burning of colonial towns, and led to sending war ships and troops, including foreign mercenaries, to put down the rebellion. Meanwhile, the royal governor of Virginia offered freedom to slaves who joined the British cause. These actions by the British king and government inflamed Americans who were undecided about independence and made war with England all but certain.

In May 1776, the Continental Congress took a fateful step and passed a resolution that attacked King George himself. This was not the first time in English history that such a thing had occurred. In 1688, Parliament had similarly denounced King James II. This led to the so-called Glorious Revolution, which drove James off the throne. Now, almost 100 years later, a formal declaration of independence by the Continental Congress was the only thing standing in the way of a complete break with King George.

Even before the Continental Congress declared independence, most colonies along with some towns, counties, and even private organizations had issued their own declarations. In most cases, these statements detailed British abuses of power and demanded the right of self-government.

On June 8, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to write a declaration of independence and quickly appointed a committee to draft a formal document. But the job of actually writing the draft fell to Thomas Jefferson, mainly because John Adams and other committee members were busy trying to manage the rapidly escalating war with England.

Working off and on while attending to other duties, Jefferson completed his draft of the declaration in a few days. He argued in his opening two paragraphs that a people had the right to overthrow their government when it abused their fundamental natural rights over a long period of time. Then in a direct attack on King George, Jefferson listed 20 instances when the king violated the rights of the American colonists. Having thoroughly laid out his proof that the king was a "tyrant" who was "unfit to be the ruler of a people," Jefferson continued on to condemn the British people. "These unfeeling brethren," he wrote, had reelected members of Parliament who had conspired with the king to destroy the rights of the colonists. Jefferson ended his draft by stating, "we do assert and declare these colonies to be free and independent states. . . ."

When Jefferson submitted his draft to the Congress on June 28, the delegates spent little time on his opening paragraphs, which today are the most famous parts of the Declaration of Independence. Instead, they concentrated on Jefferson's list of grievances against King George and the British people.

The delegates made some small changes to improve the Declaration's clarity and accuracy. But they also ripped apart the last sections of Jefferson's draft, deleting about 25 percent of it. They eliminated most of his harsh language directed against the British people and totally cut out Jefferson's passionate assault on slavery and the slave trade.

The removal of the section on slavery, Jefferson's last grievance against the king, probably resulted from objections by Southern slave-holding delegates. But Jefferson's argument was weakened when he blamed the king alone for continuing the slave trade and then condemned him for offering freedom to slaves who joined the British in fighting the American rebels.

Jefferson grew depressed as more and more of his words were cut or changed. He later wrote that the Congress had "mangled" his draft.

On July 2, 1776, the Continental Congress voted to declare the independence of the American colonies from English rule. On the Fourth of July, they approved the final edited version of the Declaration of Independence. There would be no turning back now.

The members of the Continental Congress made only two minor changes in the opening paragraphs of Jefferson's draft declaration. In these two paragraphs, Jefferson developed some key ideas: "all men are created equal," "inalienable rights," "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness." Where did Jefferson get these ideas?

Jefferson was a man of the Enlightenment. This was the period during the 17th and 18th centuries when thinkers turned to reason and science to explain both the physical universe and human behavior. Those like Jefferson thought that by discovering the "laws of nature" humanity could be improved.

Jefferson did not invent the ideas that he used to justify the American Revolution. He himself said that he had adopted the "harmonizing sentiments of the day." These ideas were, so to speak, "in the air" at the time.

As a man of the Enlightenment, Jefferson was well acquainted with British history and political philosophy. He also had read the statements of independence drafted by Virginia and other colonies as well as the writings of fellow revolutionaries like Tom Paine and George Mason. In composing the declaration, Jefferson followed the format of the English Declaration of Rights, written after the Glorious Revolution of 1689.

Most scholars today believe that Jefferson derived the most famous ideas in the Declaration of Independence from the writings of English philosopher John Locke. Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government in 1689 at the time of England's Glorious Revolution, which overthrew the rule of James II.

Locke wrote that all individuals are equal in the sense that they are born with certain "inalienable" natural rights. That is, rights that are God-given and can never be taken or even given away. Among these fundamental natural rights, Locke said, are "life, liberty, and property."

Locke believed that the most basic human law of nature is the preservation of mankind. To serve that purpose, he reasoned, individuals have both a right and a duty to preserve their own lives. Murderers, however, forfeit their right to life since they act outside the law of reason.

Locke also argued that individuals should be free to make choices about how to conduct their own lives as long as they do not interfere with the liberty of others. Locke therefore believed liberty should be far-reaching.

By "property," Locke meant more than land and goods that could be sold, given away, or even confiscated by the government under certain circumstances. Property also referred to ownership of one's self, which included a right to personal well being. Jefferson, however, substituted the phrase, "pursuit of happiness," which Locke and others had used to describe freedom of opportunity as well as the duty to help those in want.

The purpose of government, Locke wrote, is to secure and protect the God-given inalienable natural rights of the people. For their part, the people must obey the laws of their rulers. Thus, a sort of contract exists between the rulers and the ruled. But, Locke concluded, if a government persecutes its people with "a long train of abuses" over an extended period, the people have the right to resist that government, alter or abolish it, and create a new political system.

Jefferson adopted John Locke's theory of natural rights to provide a reason for revolution. He then went on to offer proof that revolution was necessary in 1776 to end King George's tyranny over the colonists.

Since 1776, no words in the Declaration of Independence have received more attention than Jefferson's phrase, "All men are created equal." But how could Jefferson and the other signers of the declaration believe this when slavery existed in the colonies? Some slave owners argued that slaves would become equal and worthy of natural rights only when they became civilized. For Jefferson, a life-long owner of slaves, this was a much more complex issue.

At an early age, Jefferson concluded that slavery was wrong. To his credit, he attempted to denounce slavery, or at least the slave trade, in the Declaration of Independence. Some scholars believe that Jefferson agreed with the Scottish philosopher, Francis Hutcheson, that all men are born morally equal to one another and that "Nature makes none masters, none slaves." But, how does this explain that Jefferson kept most of his slaves throughout his lifetime?

It appears that while Jefferson opposed slavery in principle, he saw no obvious way to end it once it became established. If the slaves were freed all at once, Jefferson feared that white prejudice and black bitterness would result in a war of extermination that the whites would win. He fretted that if slaves were individually emancipated they would have nowhere to go and no means to survive on their own. Of course, Jefferson along with most other Southern plantation owners were also economically dependent on slave labor.

The best Jefferson could come up with was a plan to take slave children from their parents and put them in schools to be educated and taught a trade at public expense. Upon becoming adults, they would be transported to a colony somewhere and given tools and work animals to start a new life as a "free and independent people."

Nothing ever came of Jefferson's fanciful plan. Slavery in the new United States of America would last another 89 years until the end of the Civil War. But even then, the equality promised in the Declaration of Independence was denied not only to African Americans, but also to other minorities and women. Even today, Americans are still not certain what equality means in such areas as affirmative action, sex discrimination, and gay rights.

The Declaration of Independence has no legal authority. It is not part of the basic law of the United States like the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. But its words have resonated as the ideals of the United States. Abolitionists in the 19th century asked Americans to live up to the ideal of equality and eliminate slavery. The civil rights movement of the 20th century pressured America to honor the commitment made in the declaration. The document still speaks to us today about the rights of Americans, as it did in 1776.

Two interviews with with Pauline Maier, a Professor of History at MIT and author of American Scripture: Making the Declaration of Independence. PBS Newhour

In this activity, students discuss some of the ideals in the Declaration of Independence.

Do animals, like humans, possess certain inalienable rights? A growing movement in America believes they do.

Concern for animals has a long history. The ancient Greek philosopher and mathematician Pythagoras argued against cruelty to animals. St. Francis of Assisi, who founded the Franciscan Order of Catholic monks in the middle ages, taught that animals are our brothers. In 1641, Massachusetts Puritans wrote a code of laws called "The Body of Liberties." One of the laws in this code said, "No man shall exercise any tyranny or cruelty towards any brute creatures which are usually kept for man's use." This law seemed to imply that animals, at least farm livestock, had the right to a life free of unnecessary suffering.

The American Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals started in New York in 1866. Through its efforts, New York drafted an animal protection law that became a model for most of the other states. This law prohibited any needless torture, overloading, beating, mutilation, or killing of "any living creature." It still permitted, however, "properly conducted scientific experiments" involving animals. The Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals and similar organizations worked for many years at the state and local levels to monitor animal dealers, circuses, zoos, movie makers, and pounds.

In the second half of the 20th century, a new wave of more aggressive animal-rights activists formed. They differed from previous activists because they do not simply want people to stop treating animals cruelly. They believe that animals, like humans, have certain inalienable rights. Peter Singer, author of Animal Liberation, is one of these activists. He argues that all animals are equal. By this he does not mean that all animals should vote or have freedom of speech. These rights would be meaningless for animals other than humans. Nor does he mean that all animals should be treated the same. He means that all animals should have equal consideration for their well-being. The well-being of a pig and a human are far different, he says. A pig belongs with other pigs where they can eat and run freely. A child needs to learn how to read.

Singer says that it is morally irrelevant that animals cannot speak and are not as intelligent as humans. He points out that we still accord human infants and mentally retarded people equal consideration. According to Singer, the characteristic that gives a being the moral right to equal consideration is the capacity for suffering and enjoyment. "If a being suffers, there can be no moral justification for refusing to take that suffering into consideration. No matter what the nature of the being, the principle of equality requires that its suffering be counted equally with the like suffering . . . of any other being." Singer has term for those who allow the interests of humans "to override the greater interests of members of other species." He calls them "speciesists."

Few argue with Singer that we should take an animal's suffering into account. Those disagreeing with him, however, believe that human life is worth more than animal life. R.G. Frey, a philosopher and author of Interests and Rights: The Case Against Animals, says that most people believe that the value of animal life varies. He notes that most people value dogs, cats, and chimps more than mice, rats, and worms. He gives the example of a dog and a human on a raft. If only one can be saved, he says, few would disagree that it should be the human.

The reason he thinks human life is more valuable is that it has more potential richness to it. He says that unlike animals, "there are . . . whole dimensions to our lives--love, marriage, educating children, jobs, hobbies, sporting events, cultural pursuits, intellectual development and striving, etc.--that greatly expand our range of absorbing endeavors and . . . significantly deepen the texture of our lives."

The debate over animal rights, however, does not usually occur in the abstract. It has taken place over a series of issues.

In the 1980s, groups like People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) protested the use of animals in cosmetics testing. Revlon tested the safety of its eye makeup by applying substances directly on the eyes of rabbits. Protesters carried signs saying, "How many rabbits does Revlon blind for beauty's sake?" Within six months Revlon agreed to a permanent ban on animal tests. Over the next 10 years, protests forced more than 500 other cosmetic companies to give up animal tests.

Other protests targeted medical research. During the early 1960s, investigators revealed that laboratory test animals were often forced to live under filthy conditions in cages that were too small without any veterinary care to ease the pain caused by the experiments. A movement soon emerged to ban all testing on animals. But alarmed medical researchers argued that animal testing played a necessary role in ending diseases such as polio, making human organ transplants possible, and developing many kinds of life-saving drugs.

Congress passed the first federal law regulating the treatment of lab animals in 1966. The Animal Welfare Act did not become effective, however, until Congress passed strengthening amendments in 1985. The amendments require humane treatment and adequate feeding, sanitation, shelter, and vet care for lab animals. The amendments also call for "a physical environment to promote the psychological well-being of primates." Farm animals as well as birds, rats, and mice (which are used the most in laboratory experiments) are not covered by this law. The strengthened Animal Welfare Act applies not only to research facilities, but also to animal dealers and exhibitors like zoos.

The dispute boils down to two main issues: First, does animal research improve human health? Dr. Michael E. DeBakey, chairman of the Foundation for Biomedical Research, states: "Not one advancement in the care of patients--advancements that you use and take for granted every day--has been realized without the use of animal research."

PETA disputes this. It says that rats and mice are so different from humans that studies on them tell little about humans. It asserts that "sophisticated non-animal research methods are more accurate, less expensive, and less time-consuming than traditional animal-based research methods."

The second issue is: Even if it helps humans, is it ethical? It is clearly not ethical to conduct medical experiments on humans. Is it all right to conduct them on animals?

Before World War II, animals meant for food usually lived outdoors, except in extreme weather. Today, these animals live on what animal-rights activists call "factory farms." Chickens, an important part of the American diet, live in small cages stacked one on top of another in temperature-controlled, windowless barns. Often their beaks and claws are trimmed so they cannot harm one another if they fight. They are fed a special diet that promotes their growth and includes antibiotics to control disease. Other food animals--pigs, turkeys, and calves--live in similarly controlled environments.

Animal-rights activists consider these environments unnatural, inhumane, and incredibly exploitative of animals. They say that the food producers are treating the animals as machines, ignoring their pain, frustration, and natural desires. The Humane Society of the United States says: "Factory farms deny animals many of their most basic . . . needs. . . . Such artificial conditions cause animals to suffer from boredom, frustration and stress, which often leads to abnormal behavior, including unnatural aggression." The society claims hundreds of thousands of chickens die every day due to these conditions, but the companies simply consider this a cost of doing business.

Farmers deny all this. They say that their most important concern is the health of their animals because their businesses depend on this. They point out that American food production is the envy of the world. They say that animal-rights activists overly idealize animal life on a traditional farm. The Animal Industry Foundation, a national organization for animal agriculture, says: "Housing protects animals from predators, disease, and bad weather or extreme climate. Housing also makes breeding and birth less stressful, protects young animals, and makes it easier for farmers to care for both healthy and sick animals. Modern housing is well ventilated, warm, well-lit, clean and scientifically designed for the specific needs of the animal, such as the regular availability of fresh water and a nutritionally balanced diet."

Animal experimentation and intensive animal production are the two issues in the forefront of the animal-rights movement. But they are not the only ones. Animal-rights activists have also questioned the value of hunting animals, horse and dog racing, using animals for entertainment (in films, circuses, and zoos), eating meat, wearing fur, and even owning pets.

Animal Issues Links to sites on all sides of the animal rights debate provided by Project Vote Smart.

a. Creating tumors in laboratory mice in order to see if a drug will reduce the tumor.

Officers: Marjorie S. Steinberg, President; Haley J. Fromholz, Immediate Past-President; Publications Committee: Jerome C. Byrne, Chairperson; Gerald Chaleff, Lee S. Edmond, Patrick J. McDonough, Michael W. Monk, Hon. Margaret M. Morrow, Peggy Saferstein, Deborah S. Saxe, Marvin Sears, Lois Thompson, Carlton Varner. Staff: Todd Clark, Executive Director; Marshall L. Croddy, Director of Program and Materials Development; Carlton Martz, Writer; Bill Hayes, Editor; Cristy Lytal, Web Editor; Andrew Costly, Production Manager; Carlton Varner, CRF Board Reviewer.

Return to CRF Publications