The trip was co-led by Mark Naison, Ph.D., professor of history and African American history.

In the 48 years Naison has taught at Fordham, music has played a large part in the way he teaches history. So it should come as no surprise that he helped develop a tour to explore the musical traditions of Cuba.

The idea for the trip, offered through the Office of Alumni Relations travel program, came about after Naison went on a guided tour of Cuba in 2017 and left wanting to know more about the Afro-Cuban music he heard on the streets. He worked with Shannon Hirrel Quinn, associate director of Alumni Relations, to make the “Exploring Havana’s Music and Afro-Cuban Traditions” trip a reality.

“The result was everything I dreamed of exploring and experiencing,” said Naison.

The following photos were taken by Naison; Melissa Castillo Planas, GSAS ‘11, an assistant professor of English at Lehman College; and Rafael Zapata, chief diversity officer at Fordham.

One morning decades ago, James B. Donovan and his daughter were sharing a cab on the way into Manhattan, where she attended high school, when she noticed him rubbing his hands together.

“I said, ‘Dad, what’s going on? Is this something big?’” said Donovan’s daughter, Jan Donovan Amorosi. “He said, ‘Yes, but I can’t talk about it.’”

That vignette emerged at a Feb. 9 Fordham event that showed what it was like to grow up with a father whose pursuit of duty and high principle took him deep into the world of closely guarded Cold War secrets.

Donovan was apparently good at keeping them: “That was literally the only hint I ever had that something … very big was coming up,” said Amorosi.

She spoke as part of a panel discussion and screening of Bridge of Spies, the Oscar-nominated Steven Spielberg film starring Tom Hanks as Donovan, who was a 1937 Fordham graduate.

Donovan was a nationally prominent insurance lawyer who faced heated criticism—including threats and charges of being a “commie lover”—when he agreed to represent accused Russian spy Rudolf Ivanovich Abel. He successfully argued against the death penalty for Abel and, later, traveled to East Berlin to negotiate the swap of Abel for Americans being held in the Soviet Bloc—after telling his wife he’d be visiting friends in Scotland.

By putting Abel’s due process rights above both his own and the country’s anticommunist sentiment, Donovan showed that he “truly was a man of principles,” said Jim Jennewein, Hollywood screenwriter and artist in residence at Fordham, one of the panelists.

“That’s one of the reasons why … his story is so interesting,” Jennewein said. “He is as bound by his principles as he is by his patriotism, so he’s in constant conflict between these two poles.”

Also on the panel were Donovan’s son, John Donovan; his granddaughter, Beth Amorosi; and Fordham history professor Christopher Dietrich, PhD.

There were lighter moments, as when John Donovan described an exchange between his parents about all the time his father was spending on his work. “My father said to her, ‘If you are accused of a capital crime, I will reverse the division of my time,’ and then she said, ‘You’ll find that difficult if you’re the victim of a capital crime,’” Donovan said, to laughter.

There’s a strong Fordham connection in the Donovan family, John Donovan said, noting that his great-uncle attended Fordham Law School and his great-grandfather was an adjunct at the medical school Fordham operated early in the 20^th century. And on his mother’s side of the family is Archbishop John Hughes, the founder of Fordham, he said.

Donovan was “profoundly influenced by his Jesuit education,” John Donovan said. Beth Amorosi said the movie very effectively portrays her grandfather’s “humanitarian instincts in approaching very complex and quite difficult situations and quite difficult people with competing ideologies.”

After negotiating the spy swap, Donovan met several times with Fidel Castro to secure the release of Cubans captured in the United States’ failed Bay of Pigs invasion. And his career of service began with another seminal event, the Nuremberg trials, where he served as an assistant prosecutor and played a key role in assembling film footage of Nazi atrocities.

“If we hadn’t had those films, the question arises: Would our memory have faded much sooner of the horrors of World War II?” Jennewein asked. “That is part of Jim Donovan’s legacy.”

The irony is that for much of his professional life, Donovan was engaged in legal work most people would consider mundane. He was a fastidious, high-powered insurance lawyer with bespoke suits and a big gray-carpeted office in Manhattan’s financial district. He worked long hours and traveled often, defending corporate clients throughout the country. But he was also a Brooklyn family man, devoted to his wife and children, and a devout Catholic, who sometimes carried with him a holy card with the Prayer of Saint Francis printed on it.

Early in the film Bridge of Spies, Tom Hanks, playing Donovan, is asked to defend an accused Soviet spy. “I’m an insurance lawyer,” he says, and it’s true. But it’s a vast understatement.

What the film doesn’t make clear is that Donovan was a Navy commander, schooled in spies and spycraft during World War II. He was intimately, selflessly, sometimes secretly involved with what Supreme Court Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. once called the “passion and action of his times.” A kind of “real-life combination of James Bond and Perry Mason” is how the Chicago Tribune once put it.

In June 1962, his alma mater Fordham put it another way: Upon giving Donovan an honorary degree, the University called him “the most successful American practitioner of metadiplomacy” during the Cold War, someone who could operate above and beyond the usual diplomatic channels to disarm “the world’s best jugglers of words and ideas” and win “a striking victory for his country.”

The success of his diplomatic efforts, however, and the public’s esteem of his work were not always so assured.

South Bronx Cosmopolitan: The “Best All Around Man”

Donovan was born in the Mott Haven section of the Bronx on a leap day, February 29, 1916, the second son of Harriet and Dr. John Donovan.

His mother, a pianist and music teacher, was a Hunter College graduate. His father, a son of Irish immigrants, was a prominent surgeon and, for a time, an assistant professor of operative surgery at Fordham’s medical school. The family brownstone on East 139th Street—not far from Alexander Avenue, then known as the Irish Fifth Avenue—was a hive of activity, where the Donovans instilled in their sons a lifelong commitment to education, faith, and public service.

“They were very forward-thinking people,” said Jan Donovan Amorosi, the eldest of Donovan’s four children. “In the mornings, my grandfather would have office hours at home and use a back room to interview and examine patients. In the afternoons, my grandmother would give music lessons at the grand piano in the living room. And in the evenings they would often host political meetings and rallies.”

The boys attended Catholic grammar and high schools, and in 1933, Donovan—already a voracious reader, with a particular interest in rare books and illuminated manuscripts—followed in his brother’s footsteps, enrolling at Fordham, where he majored in English. In the summer of 1936, the brothers traveled to Europe, where they took in the Olympics in Berlin.

They grew up wealthy—a family chauffeur drove them to school in a Cadillac—but they were at home on the South Bronx streets. An amateur boxer, Donovan had a worn-down knuckle on his right hand and an eyebrow scar he said he got in a “smoker” (an unsanctioned match) at the Good Shepherd Gym.

At Fordham, he played varsity tennis and was editor-in-chief of The Ram. He wrote all of the paper’s editorials as a junior and senior, including a typically forceful, politically conservative October 1936 piece titled “Anti-Christ has Risen,” in which he denounced communism, calling the U.S. Communist Party the “illegitimate child of the Bill of Rights.”

His classmates voted him “Best All Around Man” and the student who’d “Done Most for Fordham.” He considered journalism as a career, but, at his father’s urging, went to Harvard Law instead. He graduated in 1940, by which time he’d fallen in love with Mary McKenna, MC ’40, a Brooklyn girl and Marymount College alumna he’d met in Lake Placid, New York, where their families vacationed. They were married in June 1941.

A Nazi War Crimes Prosecutor at Nuremberg: Handling the “Biggest Motion Picture Job in the World”

After law school, Donovan handled insurance and libel cases for a New York firm, but within two years, the country was at war. He and Mary moved to Washington, D.C., where he became assistant general counsel in the Office of Scientific Research and Development—the federal agency responsible for developing the atomic bomb.

In 1943, after receiving a commission as an ensign in the U.S. Naval Reserve, he was assigned to the newly created Office of Strategic Services (OSS)—America’s first intelligence agency. Within a year he rose to general counsel and, as the war neared an end in Europe, OSS head Maj. Gen. William “Wild Bill” Donovan (no relation) asked him to lead the spy agency’s war crimes division.

Donovan assigned OSS units to film German concentration camps as they were liberated by allied troops. And he spent much of the summer of 1945 in London, assisting Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson negotiate the treaty that established the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, Germany.

Jackson, the chief U.S. prosecutor at Nuremberg, took a shine to Donovan. He recommended him for a spot promotion to full commander, and Donovan served as an assistant prosecutor at the principal Nuremberg trial. He was responsible for presenting all visual evidence of Nazi crimes.

In November 1945, just before the start of the trial, a New York Daily News reporter described Donovan, still in his late 20s, as “a young man with tired eyes” who was “in charge of the biggest motion picture job in the world.” From Nuremberg, he wrote to his wife, Mary: “I haven’t put in any films yet but expect to next week. When I do I feel sure that you will hear about it because my evidence is really the most significant in the case.”

He was referring primarily to two films: The Nazi Plan, which used captured German newsreel and propaganda footage as evidence against the accused war criminals, and Nazi Concentration Camps, which documented the atrocities of the Holocaust in moving pictures as deeply harrowing as they were damning. Donovan provided legal supervision during the production of the films, working with Hollywood directors and other industry pros—including Ray Kellogg, George Stevens, and Budd Schulberg—who were then serving in the OSS. It was his first brush with Hollywood.

In his opening statement at the trial, Jackson said: “Our proof will be disgusting to you and you will say that I robbed you of your sleep.”

Defending a Soviet Spy—and the Constitution: The Case of Colonel Abel

After completing his work at Nuremberg, Donovan rejoined his family, arriving in Brooklyn on Christmas Day 1945. He was discharged from active duty in February and, before long, joined the postwar boom in New York City.

As he became one of the best and busiest insurance lawyers in the country, his brother was a rising political star. In 1950, John Donovan Jr., an assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York, was elected to a seat in the New York State Senate. He was serving his third term as a state senator in March 1955, when he died suddenly of a heart attack at age 42.

“My father was so extremely sad about his brother,” Jan Donovan Amorosi said. “He stopped on a landing of a house in Brooklyn and just sat there crying when the news came.”

As always, though, Donovan threw himself into his work. Watters & Donovan, the firm he joined as a partner in 1950, was thriving, and by 1957 he and his family had moved into a 15-room duplex apartment on Prospect Park West. On August 19 of that year, the Donovans were at their summer cottage in Lake Placid, unpacking their luggage, when the phone rang.

“It was Ed Gross of our law firm, calling from New York,” Donovan later wrote at the start of his 1964 book, Strangers on a Bridge: The Case of Colonel Abel and Francis Gary Powers. “By the tone of his voice, I could tell he thought he was bearing bad news.”

Gross said, “‘Jim, that Russian spy the FBI just caught. The Bar Association wants you to defend him. What do you think?’”

“That Russian spy” was Rudolf Ivanovich Abel, who less than two weeks earlier had been indicted by a Brooklyn grand jury. Donovan had read the newspaper accounts, which, he wrote, “described Abel in a sinister way as a ‘master spy’ heading all illegal Soviet espionage in the United States.”

He discussed the matter with Mary, whose “principal concern,” he wrote, “was that I had been over-working and needed a rest.” The golf pro at the Lake Placid Club was more blunt. “‘Why would anyone want to defend that son of a _____?’ I did my best to explain,” Donovan wrote in an early draft of his book, “but I’m afraid he still thinks my twisted thinking is one of the reasons for my miserable golf swing.”

By 9 p.m., Donovan was on a train back to New York. He’d decided to defend Abel as “a public service,” he later told reporters. In a politic move, he pledged to donate whatever fee he’d receive for his work on the case. (He eventually gave half of his $10,000 fee to Fordham and split the rest between Harvard Law, his alma mater, and Columbia Law, where his assistants earned their degrees.)

As NBC newscaster David Brinkley once noted, in 1957 Donovan “probably had the most unpopular client since John Adams defended the British troops in the Boston Massacre of 1770.” But he was adamant. By “giving Abel an honest defense to the best of my ability,” he wrote in Strangers on a Bridge, “I would be serving my country and my profession.”

American justice, he felt, would also be on trial, just as it was in Nuremberg. In speeches after the war, he often derided a Soviet delegate’s response to the American proposal that accused war criminals should be afforded a fair opportunity to defend themselves. The delegate, Donovan wrote, “utter[ed] a classic if unintended commentary upon police-state justice: ‘We agree; all the guilty should be tried.’”

That sentiment was one shared by many Americans during the 1950s, as postwar fear of communism and communist infiltrators intensified into paranoia. When Abel was indicted, it had been only four years since the United States executed atomic spies Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, and only a few months since the death of Sen. Joseph McCarthy, who’d done perhaps more than anyone to promote the fervid anticommunism of the postwar Red Scare.

After taking the case, Donovan was called a “Commie lover” and received “crackpot letters and phone calls,” some “threatening reprisals if I ‘went too far’ in defending the Russian spy,” he wrote.

Donovan confessed that he sometimes lost his patience and, “more important, my sense of humor,” because the abuse affected his wife and “even the children were forced to take a small dose during the trial.”

His son, John, was 12 years old at the time.

“It was a fascinating time for us all. My sisters and I had implicit trust in our father. There was no doubt that he was doing the right thing,” he said, adding that although Bridge of Spies “took some liberties with the specifics regarding the tension,” picketers did protest outside the family’s apartment building, and “things could’ve gotten scary if we lived in a separate house.”

Donovan kept things light at home when he could. After nearly a month on the case, he finally took a break to enjoy Sunday supper with his family. After the meal, they all gathered at the piano and came up with a song, “Rudolf Ivanovich Abel,” sung to the tune of “Rudolf, the Red-Nosed Reindeer.” In the final verse, they sang: “Now Rudolf’s days are over, / But all other spies agree / Rudolf Ivanovich Abel / will go down in history.”

Months later, Donovan took his son to visit Abel in federal prison, and “we sang our little ditty for him,” Donovan wrote. “He laughed with the understanding of a family man, but rather quickly changed the subject.”

As he worked on the case, Donovan grew to respect Abel, a polymath who spoke six languages and had been in the United States since 1948.

Abel respected his advocate. “The fact that I had a wartime background in espionage,” Donovan wrote, “apparently led Abel to regard me as a sort of retired spy who could appreciate his professional predicament.”

Nonetheless, the evidence against Abel was overwhelming. A search of his Manhattan hotel room and Brooklyn studio turned up short-wave radios, microfilm equipment, marked-up maps of major U.S. defense areas, a code book, coded messages, and hollowed-out objects (bolts, pencils, and cufflinks) that could contain such messages.

Inevitably, Donovan lost the case. But he worked with Abel to appeal the conviction, arguing all the way up to the Supreme Court that evidence used against Abel was seized in violation of the Fourth Amendment. Neither the Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS) nor the FBI had obtained a federal warrant to arrest Abel and search his rooms. Instead, INS agents, working with the FBI, had only a local administrative order granting them authority to detain Abel on a suspected immigration violation.

“Abel is an alien charged with the capital offense of Soviet espionage,” he wrote. “It may seem anomalous that our Constitutional guarantees protect such a man. … Yet our principles are engraved in the history and the law of the land. If the free world is not faithful to its own moral code, there remains no society for which others may hunger.”

In late March 1960, the Supreme Court upheld Abel’s conviction in a 5-4 decision.

Donovan filed a petition for a rehearing—not so much for Abel’s benefit, he wrote, as for “the millions of United States residents subject to the Immigration and Naturalization laws whose personal liberties were now ‘severely and unjustly curtailed by the decision in the Abel case.’”

The petition was denied, but Chief Justice Earl Warren paid Donovan an unusually high compliment. “I think I can say that in my time on this Court no man has undertaken a more arduous, more self-sacrificing task,” he said.

Fordham Law professor Thomas Lee said that although Donovan’s decision to defend Abel was “heroic,” it was not as iconoclastic as his argument before the Supreme Court.

“There was a large number of people then, as now, who believe that basic procedural rights should be given to anyone regardless of their ideology or the color of their skin,” said Lee, the Leitner Professor of International Law at Fordham and a former Navy intelligence officer. But Donovan’s appeal went further, putting him “in the iconoclastic camp, as a more thoughtful or forward-seeking person who acknowledged that we’re going to overreact in these times of emergencies, and we should stick up for these people.”

During the appeal process, Abel was in the U.S. Penitentiary in Atlanta, serving a 30-year sentence. He’d been convicted of conspiracy to commit military and atomic espionage, a crime punishable by death.

At his sentencing, on November 17, 1957, Donovan made another iconoclastic move. He successfully argued against the death penalty, enumerating five points, the last of which Lee described as “positively brilliant and prescient.”

“It is possible,” Donovan said in court, “that in the foreseeable future an American of equivalent rank will be captured by Soviet Russia or an ally; at such time an exchange of prisoners through diplomatic channels could be considered to be in the best national interests of the United States.”

The Negotiator in East Berlin: A “War of Nerves” with the KGB

On May 1, 1960, Donovan’s hypothetical scenario came true: U.S. pilot Francis Gary Powers was captured in the Soviet Union, after his U-2 surveillance plane was shot down outside of Sverdlovsk, precipitating an international crisis and heightening fears that the Cold War could turn hot.

While working on the Abel case, Donovan had corresponded with a “Mrs. Hellen Abel,” allegedly the colonel’s wife but actually a KGB officer, and with Wolfgang Vogel, an East German lawyer who claimed to represent Abel’s family. Soon after Powers was captured, Oliver Powers, the pilot’s father, wrote to Abel, suggesting a swap. Abel advised Powers to take it up with Abel’s “family,” which he did. They came to Donovan.

With CIA and State Department approval, Donovan offered to meet Abel’s family representatives at the Soviet Embassy in East Berlin on February 3, 1962, soon after he was planning to be in London on business.

Before leaving, he met with the CIA’s assistant general counsel for a final briefing. They discussed two American college students detained on trumped-up espionage charges: Frederic L. Pryor, who was being held by the East Germans, and Marvin Makinen, who was in a Soviet prison in Kiev. “The government’s advice to me was that while I should try to release all three Americans,” Donovan wrote, “my basic mission would be to exchange Abel for Powers.”

There was one other detail: Once he crossed into East Berlin, he’d be on his own, with no official backing from the State Department or the CIA. In case anything went wrong, the government did not want to be publicly tied to the effort.

On February 2, after several days in London, Donovan sent a cablegram to his wife explaining that he’d be extending his trip, visiting friends in Scotland. Then he left for cold, snowy Berlin.

For the next eight days, he lived alone in a house outside West Berlin. He passed over the Berlin Wall—“a very real wall,” he said, “of barbed wire, machine guns”—by taking an S-Bahn train one stop into East Berlin. He’d last been there in 1945, working on The Nazi Plan. At the time, he wrote, the city “was demolished and barren, as though starkly sketched by Goya.” Nearly 17 years later, “East Berlin appeared to be unchanged.”

At the Soviet Embassy, he met several people purporting to be Abel’s relatives. Then Ivan Schischkin introduced himself as the second secretary of the embassy. As Donovan suspected, he was, in fact, a senior KGB officer. Donovan also met with Vogel, the East German lawyer who represented both Abel and Pryor.

In the evening, he’d go to the Berlin Hilton’s dimly lit Golden City Bar and write a summary of the day’s negotiations. His CIA contact would meet him there and relay Donovan’s reports to Washington.

The negotiations lasted several days—Donovan, suffering from a bad back, called them “a war of nerves.” When he suggested a three-for-one swap, Schischkin stalled, saying he’d never heard of Makinen and Pryor. Two days later, he said the Soviet government would trade only Powers or Makinen for Abel but not both. He suggested that Donovan deal with Vogel regarding Pryor.

At one point, Donovan threatened to call it all off and go home if the students were not included in the deal with Powers. It was a high-stakes move, but it ultimately paid off.

At 8:20 a.m. on February 10, Donovan walked toward the middle of the Glienicke Bridge, a disused suspension bridge over the Havel River, connecting West Berlin with the East German city of Potsdam. It was a discreet, metaphorically appropriate spot for a high-profile spy swap—a dividing line between East and West, and a hopeful symbol of how tensions and forces could be harnessed to link disconnected lands.

With Donovan were several people, including an American pilot who could identify Powers. Abel and a prison guard followed five paces behind them. Schischkin and others approached from the other side of the bridge, with Powers trailing them.

It was the last he’d see of Abel, although he did hear from him again. Six months later, Abel sent Donovan two 16th-century, vellum-bound editions of the Commentaries on the Justinian Code.

Donovan had pulled off the swap. Powers and Pryor were free, and he’d left open negotiations for the return of Makinen, who was ultimately released in 1963.

Jan Donovan Amorosi was a student at Marymount University in Arlington, Virginia, when the historic swap became front-page news. “We had no idea where my father was,” she said. “In the early morning hours, a reporter called my mother in Brooklyn and congratulated her on what he’d done. She thought he was in Scotland playing golf!”

Donovan received numerous awards for his work on the exchange, including the CIA Distinguished Intelligence Medal and an honorary degree from Fordham. In 1964, his book, Strangers on a Bridge, became a bestseller. It was eventually translated into nine languages, including Braille, and—not surprisingly—almost became a movie.

“MGM bought the film rights, and Gregory Peck, who’d just won the Oscar for playing Atticus Finch in To Kill a Mockingbird, was very anxious to play my father,” said Mary Ellen Donovan Fuller, who met Peck in London, when she joined her father on a trip abroad.

Fuller said Peter Ustinov worked on a screenplay, and Alec Guinness was offered the role of Abel. “My father actually was a fan of Spencer Tracy—he loved Judgment at Nuremberg—so it was interesting to see Gregory Peck showing such enthusiasm, trying to make his mark with my father.”

Peck never got the chance due to MGM scheduling, Fuller said, but she and her siblings are thrilled that Tom Hanks is playing their father.

“To hear him talking about my father, I was flabbergasted. He was dead-on about who my father was as a man,” she said, “that he wasn’t just going to take on an assignment, he was planning to win.”

The Metadiplomat in Cuba: “A Man Who Knows How to Deal with Castro”

At the end of Bridge of Spies, Donovan returns home and goes almost immediately to bed. In reality, he had little time to rest. Several months after returning from Germany, he received another high-risk diplomatic assignment.

In June 1962, Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy met with representatives of the Cuban Families Committee for the Liberation of Prisoners of War. The group was struggling to raise funds to secure the release of 1,100-plus CIA-trained soldiers imprisoned in Cuba after the failed Bay of Pigs invasion. The April 1961 invasion, led by the CIA and authorized by President John F. Kennedy, was intended to oust the island’s communist leader, Fidel Castro. Instead, it heightened international tensions and marked a low point in U.S. foreign policy.

Robert Kennedy wanted to help the committee, but he couldn’t get the U.S. government directly involved in the negotiations. “What you need,” he advised the committee, “is a man who knows how to deal with Castro. … I think I know of a lawyer who might help.”

Donovan agreed to represent the Cuban Families Committee pro bono and, as usual, threw himself—heart, mind, and soul—into the effort, making multiple trips to Cuba in 1962 and 1963, before and after the Cuban Missile Crisis. He kept the attorney general and the CIA apprised of his efforts. And, in lengthy one-on-one negotiations, he managed to earn Castro’s trust, ultimately persuading the Cuban leader to accept an indemnity package consisting mostly of medicine and food.

The prisoners were released on Christmas Eve 1962. And Donovan returned to Cuba in April 1963, eventually securing the release of an additional 8,000-plus people, including relatives of the former prisoners and some U.S. citizens. On the spring trip, he brought along his son, John, who was 18 at the time.

“It was a psychological ploy,” John Donovan said, “a bit of gamesmanship. He knew that Castro himself had a son, so he took me along. He liked to do things as much as possible on a personal basis.”

As if he didn’t have enough on his plate, in September 1962 the New York Democratic Party nominated Donovan as its candidate for Senate. “To the despair of party workers,” The New York Times later wrote, he “campaigned like a man with more important things on his mind,” namely the Cuban prisoners. He ultimately lost to incumbent Jacob Javits.

Fordham alumnus Frank DeRosa, FCRH ’58, LAW ’61, was a young CIA lawyer at the time. He worked with Donovan on the mission to secure the prisoners’ release.

“I was just a raw kid out of Fordham Law,” said DeRosa, who’d passed the Foreign Service exam after college but was assigned to work for the CIA instead. “Donovan treated me like a prince, as if I had been in practice for 25 years.”

He spent several weekend days with Donovan in Brooklyn, visiting some of the older man’s favorite hangouts. At the Montauk Club in Park Slope, Donovan introduced DeRosa to friends such as John T. Connor and John E. McKeen, the heads of Merck and Pfizer, respectively. Both pharmaceutical companies made major donations of drugs to help secure the prisoners’ release.

“Donovan was a real hero to me, at an age when you still have heroes,” said DeRosa, who retired in the early 1990s as a group general counsel of General Electric. “He really made sacrifices—in time, pressure, stress.” DeRosa added that Donovan “made me a tough negotiator,” just by seeing “how he would go about it, the fact that he would take the moral high ground.”

During the 1960s, DeRosa conducted several oral-history interviews for the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library, talking with others who had worked with Donovan to bring home the Bay of Pigs prisoners.

“I think Donovan had the ability to get down to everybody’s level,” he said, noting that he was “steeped in Brooklyn Irish politics [and] brought a certain toughness and frankness” and sense of humor to conversations. “He could be a street fighter if he had to be, but he was also an educated bibliophile, a student of all things, including religion, and a fellow interested in helping the poor. He was a Renaissance man.”

A Prayer for the Public Good: “Lord, Make Me an Instrument of Thy Peace”

Following his success in Cuba and his failed Senate run, Donovan turned to challenges closer to home. He was elected president of the New York City Board of Education in 1963 and served in that role for two controversial years, when busing and the racial desegregation of schools were the hot-button issues. He maintained his law practice, and he found time to serve as the unpaid general counsel to the Jewish Nazi Victims Organization of America. He was named president of Pratt Institute in 1968, a time of student and faculty unrest. It was a position he held until January 19, 1970, when he died of a heart attack—one month shy of his 54th birthday.

“He liked challenges,” Jan Donovan Amorosi said of her father, “and he burned the candle at both ends. But he made amazing connections with people of all races and nationalities. One of my proudest moments was at his wake. There were black people kneeling at his casket, Cuban people, people of all races and creeds.”

On January 21, 1970, Robert I. Gannon, SJ, former president of Fordham, delivered a eulogy at St. Patrick’s Cathedral, calling Donovan “intelligent, fearless, and good—a man of principle” and “a family man.”

Mary Ellen Donovan Fuller said her dad “always took solace in the Jesuits at Fordham.”

“He’d periodically hang out in their Fordham digs and spar with some of them. That was a way of decompressing for him, because the Jesuits are known for their intelligence. It kept him motivated. The honor of doing good was almost a religious cause for him, and I think it was bolstered by his regular visits to campus.”

The summer before he died, Donovan also revisited Europe, Fuller said.

“My opinion is that he knew he was dying and, like an elephant going back to his grounds, he wanted to relive London again, the bookstalls, certain OSS drops in the churches over there. He went by himself to Nuremberg on that final trip, and it was a bit of closure for him after all those years.”

Donovan was buried in St. Agnes Cemetery in Lake Placid, where his tombstone bears the opening line of the Prayer of Saint Francis: Lord, make me an instrument of Thy peace.

“It was his favorite prayer, one that he actually read to Castro,” John Donovan said. “The next few lines go, ‘Where there is hatred, let me sow love; where there is injury, pardon; where there is doubt, faith,’ and so on.

“If you study the pattern of that prayer, you realize what my father understood: The best way to deal with negative things is not to try to eliminate the negative so much as to focus on the positive.”

Watch the Bridge of Spies trailer

But for those who fled Fidel Castro’s regime in the 1960s, normalization does not necessarily mean the restoration of normalcy, according to a new documentary being made by Fordham professor Rose M. Pérez, PhD.

Cuba es mi patria (Cuba is My Homeland) shares the stories of Cubans who emigrated from the island between 1959 and 1979. These individuals describe their pre-1959 homeland as “paradise” and had left believing they would return, only to become permanent exiles. Decades later, their memories remain vivid and their feelings raw.

“The film demonstrates feelings of homesickness and loss, and also shows their positive ways of coping,” said Pérez, an associate professor at the Graduate School of Social Service who left Cuba when she was 8 years old.

The documentary, which will be released in both Spanish and English, is inspired by Pérez’s research on older Cuban Americans and the experience of ambiguous loss, a term coined by psychologist Pauline Boss.

According to Boss, a loss is ambiguous when a person, place, or thing is physically absent, but remains psychologically present (for instance, the loss a mother feels over a missing child), or when a person, place, or thing is physically present, but psychologically absent (for instance, a person with dementia).

“Cuba is physically gone for them but it continues to have a psychological presence, and this important insight had yet to be explored in research until I began my work,” she said.

As film editing continues, Pérez and her team, Cuban-born Zulema E. Suárez, PhD and Panamanian filmmaker José Vega Pérez, have begun adding recent footage of more recently arrived Cubans. These individuals left Cuba after 1980—usually for economic reasons rather than political—and as a result they tend to differ from their older counterparts in their feelings about communism and whether they hope to return home one day.

Pérez has found that, despite their grief, most members of the first wave do not plan to return.

“In research conducted prior to December 17, I asked them what changes would have to happen for them to go back to Cuba to visit or to live. Most said Cuba would have to be restored to democracy… And after December 17, of those with whom I have spoken again, most have not changed their minds,” she said.

“For them, the significance of December 17 is that the Cuban government is going to stay in place longer, they’ll be fed more money, and the human rights issues will continue,” she said. “They feel that the proposed changes do not go far enough.”

By contrast, “more recently arrived Cubans see the post December 17 changes more positively. Lowered impediments to travel will help them remain connected to loved ones left behind,” Pérez added.

To learn more about the documentary and to watch a trailer, visit the Cuba es mi Patria Kickstarter page.

After decades of stalemate between Cuba and the United States, Muñoz, FCRH ’15, figured she would probably never see the country of her family’s origin, from which her grandparents emigrated in the 1960s.

So, when she saw that Fordham’s Latin American and Latino Studies Institute was offering a course study tour to Havana, she jumped at the opportunity.

“My grandparents had told me so many stories about it—and suddenly I was there,” said Muñoz, who graduated on May 16. “Walking [along that boardwalk]was intense. There were so many emotions. I have chills just thinking about it.”

Muñoz was one of 19 undergraduate students who traveled to Havana last semester. It was the first group of Fordham students to do so since the United States and Cuba announced normalization in December 2014.

The course, Contemporary Cuban Culture, explored the renewed importance of Havana as a vibrant contemporary cultural scene and introduced students firsthand to the music, art, dance, literature, and film that have emerged amidst Cuba’s transition to a globalized world market. The students stayed at Cuba’s premier cultural institute, Casa de las Américas, and took classes with Casa faculty.

For some students, the trip offered a perspective of the island nation to which few American students have had access.

For others, like Muñoz, the trip connected them to a heritage known only through family lore.

In Havana, Muñoz met her grandfather’s cousins (her only relatives left in the city) for the first time. She had contacted them via email before she left and had made plans to have dinner with their family. The reunion was powerful, Muñoz said. At her great-cousins’ house, there were pictures on the walls of her grandparents and her father.

“I’ve gained a greater consciousness about my identity and my roots,” Muñoz said. “It also helped me not to see things in black and white. When my grandparents left … in the early 60s, they’d lost everything. So I had grown up with this dichotomous version of Cuban history. But then I met the family members who had decided to stay and heard [their stories about Cuba].

“The experience helped me to see that you can’t reduce a person to just one identity. It’s about seeing the whole person. That’s something that I’ve also learned by being at Fordham.”

The theme of seeing individuals and situations in all of their complexity surfaced often throughout the study tour, said course instructor Arnaldo Cruz-Malavé, PhD, professor of Spanish and comparative literature. Not only did students gain a more nuanced understanding of U.S. and Cuban relations, but they also experienced the frictions within Cuban society itself.

“Havana is a city of great economic tensions,” Cruz-Malavé said. “The whole discourse of the Cuban revolution had been about equality—and in some spheres that was accomplished, most notably in education and health. But then came the collapse of the Soviet Union, which subsidized the Cuban economy, [followed by]the deterioration of the Cuban economy in the 90s.”

The economic collapse forced Cuba to rely on the tourism industry, which did help to revive the economy. However, it also introduced foreign currency into the country, such as euros and Canadian and American dollars, which are significantly more valuable than the Cuban peso. The competing currencies have created a gap between those with access to foreign money and those without access—in essence, a gap between foreign tourists and Cubans.

“The students had read about this inequity, but there’s nothing like being there and realizing … that you, as a tourist, have access to things that Cubans do not,” Cruz-Malavé said.

Cruz-Malavé recounted an instance when a small group of students attempted to visit the Jose Martí Memorial Museum with a young Cuban they had met. The guards at the museum allowed the Fordham students to enter, but not the Cuban student—tourists only, they said.

“So we just left,” said Muñoz. “I was so mad. I asked [our friend], ‘Aren’t you upset?’ And he said, ‘I used to get upset by it, but it’s just part of life.’ That broke my heart. Because it’s not okay. It’s wrong on so many levels.”

In response to these inequities, the students opted for solidarity, Cruz-Malavé said—for instance, forgoing tourist restaurants and dining instead at paladares, family-run restaurants that often operate right within a family’s home.

Most importantly, he said, they went straight to the source to find out what life is really like in Havana.

Travis Hernandez, a rising senior, said that one day he joined a group of boys playing basketball. At the end of the game, one of the boys invited Hernandez to have dinner with his family.

“When we got to his home, the door was already open… which surprised me, because where I grew up in New York City, that’s not something you do,” Hernandez said.

“That little gesture—keeping the door open—meant something. It said a lot about the open community there.”

Photos by Travis Hernandez and Sebastian Reismann

[doptg id=”20″] ]]> 18258 https://now.fordham.edu/arts-and-culture/panel-explores-the-new-normal-for-u-s-cuba-relations/ Fri, 27 Feb 2015 12:30:00 +0000 http://news.fordham.sitecare.pro/?p=7271 “They’re going to put a U.S. embassy in Havana! In Havana!”

Sujatha Fernandes was on the subway when the announcement came that the United States and Cuba would be restoring full diplomatic relations after nearly 54 years. A scholar on Cuba, Fernandes was nonetheless shocked when the man seated next to her on the train began shouting the news.

Margaret Crahan, another renowned Cuba scholar, was at an academic conference in Havana when the news broke on Dec. 17. Crahan—as well as the 400 international researchers at the conference with her—were also caught off guard.

“We were struck dumb,” Crahan told a Fordham audience. “And then the room erupted as people cheered, cried, and hugged. We started asking ourselves, ‘How did this happen?’ And eventually, ‘What impact will this have?’”

On Feb. 26 a panel of Cuba scholars gathered at Fordham’s Lincoln Center campus to discuss the impact that the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations will have on the empowerment of Cubans and on America’s relationship with the island.

Sponsored by Fordham’s Latin American and Latino Studies Institute, the panel featured:

• Margaret Crahan, PhD, director of the Cuba Program at the Institute for Latin American Studies at Columbia University
• Sujatha Fernandes, PhD, associate professor of sociology at Queens College, CUNY and author of Cuba Represent!: Cuban Arts, State Power, and the Making of New Revolutionary Cultures (Duke University Press Books, 2006)
• Achy Obejas, Cuban-American author of the novels Ruins and Days of Awe, and a translator, journalist, and blogger

The policy change is a paradigm shift, the panel said. Still, there are difficulties and copious details to iron out before the two countries reach a new “normal.”

For instance, Crahan said, Cuban President Raúl Castro has made several requests that will require significant negotiation between the two countries, including the return of the Guantánamo Bay naval base to Cuba, the end of Radio y Televisión Martí (a Miami-based broadcaster that transmits newscasts to Cuba), and compensation to the Cuban people for the “human and economic damages” caused by U.S. policies.

Nevertheless, slow progress has begun. Some restrictions have already been relaxed. For instance, all professionals and not just academics can now travel to Cuba for work or study purposes. Travel agencies and airlines no longer need to obtain special licenses, leading many to start looking into expanding flights to the island nation.

Ordinary tourism is still prohibited, however. “So don’t pack your bikinis just yet,” Crahan said.

Obejas said that one policy that has to be undone is the Cuban Adjustment Act—commonly known as “Wet Foot, Dry Foot” policy. Enacted in 1966, the law grants permanent residency to any Cuban immigrant who reaches American soil.

“It would be impossible to normalize relations if you’re giving those who are dissatisfied with their situation in their home country the opportunity to come here no questions asked, no asylum petition—nothing except their physical presence on U.S. soil.”

The panel is a precursor to a Fordham undergraduate study tour of Havana that will be led over the spring break by Arnaldo Cruz-Malavé, PhD, professor of Spanish and comparative literature.

The course, Contemporary Cuban Culture, will explore the renewed importance of Havana as a vibrant contemporary cultural scene. Students will be exposed to the music, art, dance, literature, and film that have emerged amidst Cuba’s economic transition to a globalized world market.

The aim of this radical policy change, the president said, is to “cut loose the shackles of the past” and “unleash the potential of 11 million Cubans.”

Next week, Fordham University will host a panel discussion exploring the impact that the normalization of U.S.-Cuba relations will have on the empowerment of Cubans and on our humanitarian assistance to the island.

“Empowerment, Humanitarian Aid, and the Normalization of U.S.-Cuba Relations”
Thursday, Feb. 26
12:30 to 2:30 p.m.
Bateman Room | Fordham Law School | 2nd Floor
150 West 62nd Street, NYC

The panel will feature renowned Cuba scholars and humanitarian aid activists:

• Margaret Crahan, Ph.D., director of the Cuba Program at the Institute for Latin American Studies at Columbia University
• Sujatha Fernandes, Ph.D., associate professor of sociology at Queens College, CUNY and author of Cuba Represent!: Cuban Arts, State Power, and the Making of New Revolutionary Cultures (Duke University Press Books, 2006)
• Alberto R. Tornés, director of economic empowerment at Raíces de Esperanza

The panel, which is sponsored by Fordham’s Latin American and Latino Studies Institute, is a precursor to an undergraduate study tour of Havana that will be led over the spring break by Arnaldo Cruz-Malavé, Ph.D., professor of Spanish and comparative literature.

The course, Contemporary Cuban Culture, will explore the renewed importance of Havana as a vibrant contemporary cultural scene. Students will be exposed to the music, art, dance, literature, and film that have emerged amidst Cuba’s economic transition to a globalized world market.

Orlando Rodriguez, a professor of sociology, immigrated to the United States four years before the Cuban revolution began. He says “all in all, it’s a good thing for the Cuban people.

“There will certainly be more economic opportunity for them, although ironically they will most likely lose their privileged status in United States U.S. immigration policy. More than anything, I’m worried about threats to Cuba’s ecology under normal tourism. And like in China, having friendly economic relations doesn’t mean that the benefits spread evenly to the poorest,” Rodriguez says.

(Check out this 2003 piece Rodriguez wrote about sociology in his homeland.)

The new U.S.-Cuba relations has raised research questions for Rose Perez, an assistant professor at Fordham’s Graduate School of Social Services, whose work throughout the past few years led her to interview several older Cuban-Americans who left Cuba in the early years following the 1959 revolution.

“Most told me they would only return to Cuba to visit if Cuba returns to a democracy,” she says. “I’ve been wondering all day how they are feeling.”

While interviewing her subjects in 2011, Perez found that many still hold poignant feelings about leaving the island.

“There is a strong attachment to the culture,” Perez said in an interview with Inside Fordham in 2013. “A lot of the participants I interviewed were the ones whose lives were changed by the Cuban revolution [which brought Fidel Castro to power], so they all describe this collective frozen grief about the year 1958 and they remember Cuba as a paradise. For them, it’s like a paradise lost.”

During the interviews, the participants’ grief manifested often. All had Cuban memorabilia in their homes and many of them said they dream of returning to the island one day when Castro’s system of government has ended.

Perez links their homesickness to the theory of ambiguous loss, a kind of loss that can paralyze the grieving process and prevent closure. It signifies that either the lost person, place, or thing is physically absent, but psychologically present—for instance, a mother longing for a missing child; or the lost person, place, or that the thing is physically present, but psychologically absent—for instance, a husband grieving over a wife with dementia.

The first of these definitions applies for Cuban immigrants, said Perez.

“Cuba is physically gone for them but it continues to have a psychological presence, and this important story has yet to be explored in research,” Perez said. “Something I might look at is measuring this experience of loss and its ramifications on well-being in a scientific way….”

Perez has a forthcoming article on this work, which will be published in the Journal of Human Behavior in the Social Environment in January 2015.

But hard work and a great education helped Fanjul, the CEO of Florida Crystals, restart in the United States. On Feb. 5, he told an audience of Gabelli School of Business students they, too, could create a successful business.

Fanjul’s appearance at the Rose Hill campus was the highlight of the college’s International Business Week, which brought together experts in global business for lectures and lunches.

In his talk, Fanjul traced the path of his ancestors’ immigration from Spain to Cuba, where his family eventually came to own the largest sugar plantation on the island.
His family fled to Florida in 1960 after Fidel Castro’s government took power.

“I had just finished school and had gone back to Cuba, and was sitting in the family office when Fidel Castro’s people came in to discuss what was going to happen. We sat down with lawyers, and I had a yellow pad and pencil, and they put machine guns on the table,” he said.

“We chatted for a while, and then the leader grabbed the machine gun, pointed to the map on the wall where we had the different properties our company owned, looked at me, and said, ‘We’re going to take it all away.’”

Fanjul’s family was able to rebuild their life in Florida, starting with the purchase of the 4,000-acre Osceola Sugar Mill. Over the years, the company slowly added more sugar plantations and refineries to its portfolio, including Florida Crystals, which enabled their company to sell directly to consumers for the first time in 1991. In 2001, the company added Domino Sugar to its portfolio.

Today, Fanjul Corp.’s holdings make it the largest sugar producer in the world, with five sugar mills, 10 sugar refineries, five power plants, one rice mill, one alcohol plant and two furfural plants, 375,000 acres of farmland, and 50,000 head of cattle. The company has also expanded into real estate, including a resort, an airport, and a deepwater port in the Dominican Republic.

Recalling his time at Fordham in the 1950s, he said the first English words he mastered were “push” and “pull,” which he needed to know in order to get in and out of classrooms.
“I don’t think [Fordham] really has changed as much. I’m sure that you have the same caring, loving priests that I had in my time,” Fanjul said.

He advised students to be polite, play by the rules, return every phone call and e-mail, and, when in meetings, to find reasons to justify their attendance.

And, he said, they should also not take their education for granted.

“I thought I was going to go home to run the family business,” he said.

“[Suddenly] I was back in America trying to start all over again, and if it hadn’t been for the education that I got at Fordham, I guarantee that I wouldn’t be where I am today.”

The group of 10 Fordham undergraduates, one alumna, one Fordham graduate student and one Providence College undergraduate was based at Havana’s Casa de las Américas, Cuba’s foremost cultural institution founded with the onset of the socialist revolution in 1959. In addition to maintaining a rigorous schedule of attending interdisciplinary lectures and seminars, students toured the country, reflecting in a course journal on Cuban life, history and culture. Since all of the lectures were in Spanish, an advanced proficiency in the language was required.

“We wanted to give students a more complex view of the situation in which Cubans presently find themselves,” said Arnaldo Cruz-Malavé, Ph.D., an associate professor of Spanish who designed and led the study tour. “Cuba is in transition. It is still a society trying to uphold certain socialist ideals about social inequality, yet it is forced, nevertheless, to insert itself in the global market in order to survive. Students were able to experience how those socialist ideals sometimes clashed with the new market realities and how sometimes they created new opportunities for Cuban culture.”

Students heard from some of Cuba’s top artists and intellectuals, including Catholic scholar Msgr. Carlos Manuel de Cespedes, literary scholar Luisa Campuzano, environmental historian Reinaldo Funes and poet Reina María Rodríguez. For Fordham senior Jorge A. Vallés, meeting with Rodríguez held special significance due to the poet’s prominence within Latin America and the discussion’s intimate setting.

“[Visiting with Rodríguez] stands out because the entire group was able to go to her house, one that she built with her own hands and has served as a haven and meeting place for some of Latin America’s most influential writers,” said Vallés. “She ended the night by reading some of her poems to the group and giving us autographed copies of her book.”

Among the historic sites visited was the parish of Our Lady of Regla, a center for Catholic and Afro-Cuban religious worship. The group also explored the architecture of Old Havana that dates back to the 16th century and attended a performance by the National Ballet of Cuba as well as the premiere of a Cuban film. However, students also got a chance to witness smaller, more intimate aspects of everyday life.

“The most valuable lesson I learned on this trip was that politics and Cuba are synonymous,” said Kattia Tan (FCLC ’03). “The passion in the politics was incredible and every Cuban we interacted with had an opinion—a very well-informed opinion at that.”

In spite of Cuba’s economic and political woes, Cruz-Malavé, who specializes in the Hispanic Caribbean, believes that there are hopeful signs visible in Cuba’s vibrant cultural scene. He also sees Fordham’s historic trip as one of many encouraging signs that individuals are taking time to deeply consider the complex nature of Cuba’s political, social and cultural environments.

Upon completion of the course requirements, which also included reading assignments and weekly papers, undergraduates received four credits, and graduates received credits that can be applied toward a Master’s Certificate in Latin American and Latino Studies. The study tour was facilitated by the Office of International and Study Abroad Programs, Summer Session, the Office of the University Chaplain, Latin American and Latino Studies, and Luz Lenis, Ph.D., an assistant dean at Fordham College at Rose Hill. Administrators are already planning a return trip to Cuba next summer and are hoping to further enrich the program with additional graduate students and applicants from other institutions.

Four years before Bellan’s arrival, Fordham had the distinction of playing the first college game in the United States involving a nine-man team on Nov. 3 , 1859, against St. Francis Xavier College. After leaving Fordham, “Steve” Bellan played third base for an upstate New York team, the Troy Haymakers from 1869 to 1873 — becoming the first Latino major leaguer when Troy joined the newly formed National Association, baseball’s first professional league in 1871.

Bellan returned to Cuba and helped organize the island’s first baseball game, in December 1874, between Havana and the city of Matanzas. Bellan again played third base and his Havana team — perhaps because it had Bellan on its side — trounced Matanzas 51-9.

Since the 1870’s, baseball has arguably been Cuba’s national pastime. And the country produced a tremendous pitcher who eventually ended up wearing Yankee pinstripes: Orlando “El Duque” Hernandez. So, when the New York Yankees and “El Duque” celebrate their 1999 World Series victory, just be thankful to Esteban Bellan and Fordham University.

Office of Public Affairs Fordham University 113 West 60 Street, Room 313 Telephone: 212.636.6530 New York, NY 10023 FAX: 212.765.2976