Kevin Frazier will join the Crump College of Law at St. Thomas University as an Assistant Professor starting this Fall. He currently is a clerk on the Montana Supreme Court.
At a time when so many issues seem beyond the control of any one person, it’s important to remember that the institutions capable of changing the status quo are made up of folks like you and me. In other words, individuals can change the world by changing the institutions they drive and keep running. A teacher can reorient a school. An engineer can alter a company. An organizer can upend a community. That said, an individual’s efforts will only bring about collective change if that one person gives others opportunities to join them.
The importance of courageous contrarians and the collaborators they attempt to inspire to join them became all the clearer during my two-week tour of Berlin and Krakow with Fellowships at Auschwitz for the Study of Professional Ethics (FASPE).
On that trip, I learned about Lothar Kreyssig, a district court judge at the time of Hitler’s reign and an example of a courageous contrarian. Early in 1940, the Nazi regime launched Operation T-4, which involved the killing of individuals unfit and unworthy of Aryan race due to epilepsy, schizophrenia, asocial behavior, and “mental enfeeblement.” Many professionals--including doctors and lawyers--made those killings possible. Yet, Judge Kreyssig dared to steer members of the legal community away from perpetuating this system.
Judge Kreyssig soon realized that patients sent to Operation T-4 killing sites never returned. In response, he did not merely hope that the institution would suddenly reverse its ways. Instead, he took all available actions to protect those under his care as their legal guardian and provided others with an opportunity to join him in ending a horrific practice. First, he instructed the State Hospital to not release any of his wards without his approval. Second, he traveled to one of the killing sites to again order that none of his patients be transferred to that location. In short, he recognized that his individual actions--though just a ripple--could catch the attention of others and bring about a wave of institutional reform.
Sadly, such a wave never formed. Others refrained from supporting Judge Kreyssig’s efforts. Soon he found himself forced into retirement--unable to prevent thousands of killings under Operation T-4.
One could interpret Judge Kreyssig’s courageous stand as a failed effort. He stood up to a killing machine that simply evolved, grew larger, and succeeded in many of its worst goals. Still, Judge Kreyysig opened a door to resistance that others could have followed. The mere act of creating such an opportunity reduced the odds of catastrophe--though his gamble did not pay off it could have and that’s all any individual can hope to do.
To bring things into the modern era, Frances Haugen--the Meta whistleblower--provides an example of a courageous contrarian who managed to place a winning bet on upending an institution. Haugen and Judge Kreyssig both risked their jobs and reputations to encourage the reform of massive institutions--in Haugen’s case, others shared her courage and followed her lead. Members of the press picked up her story. Congressional officials gave her a platform. Her former colleagues verified her allegations and, to some extent, affirmatively responded to the concerns she raised.
A lack of change cannot and should not be blamed on institutional rigidity and resilience--every institution is just the sum of a finite group of individuals. Each of those individuals have agency and, consequently, power over that institution. At a minimum, they can choose to reject an assignment, to delay a duty, or to otherwise poorly perform their job. Such actions may not seem revolutionary but such actions can cause ripples that turn into waves of reform.
Cynicism is a self-fulfilling prophecy. If you think institutions are too large to change, then they will carry on as is and your power to leverage your influence will go unrealized. Some are better positioned than others to take risks that may jeopardize their lives and their well-being. But all of us bear a responsibility to take whatever actions are necessary to disrupt institutions that sow discord, foment inequality, and divide our communities. The risks you take may spark another to contribute to the movement--a pattern that, when repeated, can result in institutional change and societal reform.
U.S. President Donald Trump boards Air Force One on August 14, 2026 at Joint Base Andrews, Maryland. Trump is traveling to Long Island to tour law enforcement facilities in Nassau County and rally support for local Republican candidates ahead of the upcoming midterm elections
Travel Far Enough, You Meet Yourself
Is it possible that our President has simply not traveled enough?
Born and raised in Queens and attending Fordham University in the Bronx, Donald Trump has no record of traveling outside New York until he was over 20, when he transferred to a college in the neighboring state of Pennsylvania. Were his formative years amiss, then, in his learning about other places and other people?
Is his view akin to the famous New Yorker cover by Saul Steinberg, an illustration of the United States with New York City as the epicenter of the country and the Hudson River the border of the known world? We can now at least add Washington, D.C., and Mar-a-Lago to the map of “the realm.”
Our President has now traveled some, but what we recommend is another kind of travel. Not a state-sponsored trip or a venture to scout locations for future Trump Towers. This would be a genuine travel experience, enriching and eye-opening, showcasing other cultures and ways of living.
It will extend far beyond viewing military parades, hobnobbing with such “understanding” world leaders as Kim Jong Un, or taking tea with the King.
WHERE, then, should the President go? As Elon Musk’s Starship spacecraft is not yet ready to take passengers to Mars, perhaps he could explore our own vast country?
Maybe he could travel to “flyover country,” the farming states, where his ying-yanging tariffs and trade restrictions have played havoc with rural economies. Or possibly to California, number one in homeless U. S. citizens, and while there, regale homeless veterans (approximately 32,500 nationwide) with tales of his brave exploits invading and bombing foreign countries.
Or he might tour the Great Lakes, and rename the other four?
WHEN should he go? This will be tough, as he is very busy building his ballroom and renaming bodies of water.
How about a trip in early November, around the midterm elections? Despite the long-discredited accusation of widespread voter fraud, it would be reassuring to know he might be so caught up divvying out ladles of soup in a soup kitchen somewhere that he wouldn’t remember to deploy the military for “election security.”
HOW will he travel? He should definitely not take his Qatari-donated, newly renovated 747, especially after last time, when he had to be smuggled off clandestinely in a catering truck. It’s unlikely any traveling companions, like the Secretary of State or of the Treasury, are going to fall for the ruse a second time. Besides, we may need those people. No more decoys!
Perhaps the President could fly commercially, although this likely would expose him to undue suffering. Without gold bathroom fixtures and maple wood floors, the trip will be no “Luxury Experience.” If only he still had his “Trump Shuttle,” bought with a massive loan he later defaulted on, saying then, “I’m smart. I got out at a good time.”
Considering the potential pitfalls, maybe it’s best the President travel incognito, disguised perhaps as an elderly woman wearing a lot of bronzer.
Wherever, whenever, however: our President needs a vacation.
Moreover, we need a vacation from him.
If the President refuses our travel suggestions, here’s another idea:
Let’s get him a pet! He has never owned a pet. As we know with our children, pets teach essential life lessons: compassion and empathy; they instill a sense of responsibility. There is a well-established connection between those who can care for a pet and those who can care for people.
So, which pet should we choose? A puppy? A kitten? A boa constrictor?
Imagine, the President may even decide he likes having a pet. After all, what is more obedient than a well-trained dog, besides possibly the Cabinet? And what is more docile than a sweet kitten, other than plausibly the Supreme Court?
The President may even become more mellow with a pet afoot and less likely to slap tariffs on our allies, or attempt to annex our neighbors, or bully our Congress. (Realizing, of course, a bully requires active participation from the bullied to maintain his status.)
Maybe we should do both: get the President a pet and devise a travel plan for him. (Do you think we could possibly convince him to leave his phone at home?)
Let’s go for it! After all:
Travel far enough, you meet yourself. (David Mitchell)
And for our President, that would likely be the most profound discovery of all.
Amy Lockard is an Iowa resident who regularly contributes to regional newspapers and periodicals. She is working on the second of a four-book fictional series based on Jane Austen’s “Pride and Prejudice."