Debacle

According to the Oxford Dictionary, a debacle is defined as “a sudden and ignominious failure; a fiasco.” Few events in history encapsulate this definition as well as the sudden and ignominious resurgence of the Taliban, their reconquest of Afghanistan, the haphazard American withdrawal which left hundreds of U.S. citizens and thousands of Afghan allies to the mercy of ruthless Islamists, and the senseless murder of thirteen brave American servicemen at the hands of a suicide bomber. Yet, the word “debacle” still does not fully illustrate the true picture of the inexcusable 20-year failure in Afghanistan. This failure, of course, does not belong to the brave members of the United States Armed Forces who fought, bled, saved lives, and gave theirs in battle. Rather, it is a failure directed from the highest echelons of the Washington bureaucracy that can almost be traced to the conflict’s very beginning.

In the aftermath of September 11, 2001, the United States oriented itself toward one common objective: find those responsible for the murder of 2,977 innocents on that day of infamy, and wipe them from the face of the Earth. After the Taliban refused to accept American requests for the extradition of Osama bin Laden and expulsion of al-Qaeda, Operation Enduring Freedom began on October 7, 2001. In a matter of months, the Taliban had been driven out of power, and al-Qaeda had been decimated. Disappointingly, in the aftermath of the Battle of Tora Bora, it became clear that bin Laden had slipped away and fled the country.

Despite having failed to meet its objective for the invasion, the United States would remain in Afghanistan for 20 years. Under UN Security Council Resolution 1386, the U.S. would join an International Security Assistance Force mandated to maintain security. The U.S. had thus been drawn in to assisting the creation of a new government in Kabul. This freshly created responsibility was further complicated by the launch of an insurgent campaign by the Taliban in 2003.

While undoubtedly a cliche, Afghanistan’s reputation as the “Graveyard of Empires” proved terribly accurate when it concerned the Taliban insurgency. The ISAF faced the task of eliminating an insurgent force from mountainous terrain, which blended in seamlessly with, and was often supported by, the civilian population. It certainly did not help matters that the Taliban continued to receive funding and training from the Pakistani intelligence service, the ISI. Inexplicably, the U.S. contributed over $5 billion in aid to Pakistan as the country continued to support the very terrorists killing our troops.

Exacerbating these already dismal circumstances, questionable strategic decisions put American troops in untenable positions. Outpost Keating represents one of the most egregious examples of poor decision making from the top. In 2006, it was posited that the creation of outposts in the Kamdesh region would project the credibility of the new government and allow for provincial reconstruction efforts. Outpost Keating was one of these bases, and it quickly became an object of concern for being isolated, indefensible, and unsustainable. On October 3, 2009, the outpost was attacked by the Taliban on all sides. Clint Romesha, awarded the Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism during the battle, likened it to fighting in a “fishbowl” or “paper cup.” Mere days after the battle - which cost eight American lives - the outpost was abandoned and bombed to rubble to prevent it from falling to the Taliban.

More egregious than its position, the outpost at Kamdesh also highlighted the incompetency of many members of the new Afghan military. Despite receiving $89 billion dollars in funding, the Afghan Army was wiped out by the Taliban within the space of a month. A cursory examination reveals why. 80 percent of recruits were illiterate, resulting in significant time being devoted to teaching literacy rather than combat. Corruption was also rife, with wages and resources allocated to the army being stolen by military officials. Aside from disappearing supplies, thousands of recruits were registered on paper who did not exist in reality. Worse still, members of the Afghan forces engaged in a wide variety of despicable criminal activity, including the practice of ‘boy play,’ the sexual abuse of young boys. American forces were told to turn a blind eye to this abuse, since it was a “culturally accepted practice.” Members of the Afghan forces would occasionally engage in “green on blue” attacks, which by 2020 had seen Afghan forces kill 148 coalition troops and wound 186. This was the force that coalition leaders expected to defend the country after withdrawal.

The Afghan government was not in a much better state of affairs. Apparently, 25% of the total Afghan GDP vanished through corruption in 2010. Billions of dollars in aid and donations simply vanished, undoubtedly lining the pockets of members of the fledgling government. This includes former President Ashraf Ghani, who apparently made off with $160 million as he abandoned his country to the Taliban. This exorbitant level of embezzlement was made possible by the speed and scale of funding given to the government, which prevented effective oversight to prevent the racket that developed.

Effectively, the United States had entered Afghanistan seeking justice, and found itself nursemaid to an incorrigibly corrupt government whose army was illiterate, underpaid, prone to friendly fire incidents, and whose officers were too busy stealing their soldiers’ wages and preying upon young boys to competently lead their men. Inevitably, there is little conceivable way that the United States could have extricated itself from such a situation without chaos ensuing. Even in this context, the ensuing withdrawal from the country proved nothing short of catastrophic.

The U.S. had a precedent for effective evacuation to look to. Preparations for evacuation had already been made prior to the Fall of Saigon in 1975, with the 8,000 American citizens and 200,000 at risk South Vietnamese identified prior to the evacuation, along with potential evacuation options. In a matter of days, the United States successfully evacuated its citizens, along with 138,869 South Vietnamese. However, this success would not see itself repeated in Afghanistan.

By contrast, while American intelligence pointed to a collapse of both the Afghan Army and government, the Biden administration dismissed the possibility of Afghanistan folding so quickly. On August 15, as President Ghani fled the country, the Taliban offered the U.S. control of Kabul, but Biden declined, allowing the Taliban to take control of the capitol. What ensued was nothing sort of catastrophic. Thousands rushed to the airport, pushing their way onto U.S. transport planes, some poor desperate souls holding onto the plane and falling to their deaths upon takeoff. The Taliban were given control of security checkpoints, likely contributing to the loss of thirteen servicemen. At present, hundreds of Americans and thousands of former interpreters remain trapped in Afghanistan, while tens of thousands of unvetted Afghans have been transported to the country.

To say that it is far too late to address the failure in Afghanistan would be an understatement. All that can be hoped for is to learn lessons for future foreign policy decisions; the United States should limit its involvement to its initial objective, and if this objective is not met, it should disengage. Unfortunately, considering the unchanging nature of the Washington bureaucracy, any hope that these lessons will be taken into account may well be wishful thinking.

A Revised Title IX

Holy Cross’ mission statement asserts its desire to “build a community marked by freedom, mutual respect, and civility.” Freedom, an indispensable part of higher education, can only operate in a system that respects each individual’s right to defend him or herself from unjust accusations. When defense of one’s character is out of reach, the social environment is left on unstable ground. Mutual respect demands the same – respect for each other in our capacities to uphold our dignity in the face of criticism. Civility cannot exist when the threat of false incrimination without due recourse hangs over every individual. 

The College’s recent amendment to its Title IX policy simply does not comport with its stated commitment to such admirable qualities as “freedom, mutual respect, and civility.” The change being considered here may seem small, but a few words can be immensely powerful. In August 2020, the Department of Education under Secretary Betsy DeVos issued new Title IX guidelines that (among many other changes) required schools to only accept witness evidence in a sexual misconduct case if said witness submits to cross-examination. Given the stakes in such a case – which can range from a mere warning, to suspension, to expulsion (and an irrevocable stain, justly or unjustly, on one’s character) – requiring cross-examinations should be uncontroversial. 

The alterations to the College’s Sexual Misconduct Policy occured on August 20, 2021, and impacted Section 5, Subsection I, Hearing Process: Examination Requirement. Since August 14, 2020, the policy had stated that “if a Party or witness does not submit to cross-examination at the live hearing, the Determination Panel may not rely on any statement of that Party or witness in reaching a determination regarding responsibility.” The revised policy reverses this: 

The Determination Panel has the discretion to decide how much weight to give to statements or information provided by any Party or witness who did not submit to cross-examination at the hearing. The Determination Panel can consider the reliability of the statements or information, the reason the individual did not participate in cross-examination, and any other factors the Determination Panel considers relevant.

This alteration means that the College may take into consideration claims by witnesses without subjecting those claims to cross-examination. The significance of this is glossed over by giving the Determination Panel “discretion to decide how much weight” the witness’ comments should be given, but that does little to resolve the problem. Witness testimony can be entered into the record with no opportunity for the defendant to examine the accuser. Such a significant decision is left to the three-member Panel. One must wonder how the Panel can arrive at a reasonable conclusion as to the evidence’s validity without allowing cross-examination. While the parties in the case can submit questions for witnesses to the investigator(s) preparing the investigative report, the “[i]nvestigator(s) will exercise discretion [regarding] what questions to consider”, meaning some questions may never be raised. The parties are permitted to review the report and submit comments, but there is no guarantee that follow-up questions will be addressed by the investigator(s). 

The Title IX Office stated that the College was able to make the change due to a recent ruling by the District Court of Massachusetts that struck down the part of the Department of Education’s Title IX regulations that required cross-examination for witness testimony to be accepted. This ruling did not mean that colleges had to eliminate the cross-examination requirement – a point the Office admitted. It is, however, highly unlikely that many individuals will submit to it now that they have the choice. Why sit through a rigorous questioning if it is not mandatory?

The Title IX Office went on to say that “[o]ur approach allows for a greater amount of evidence to be considered by the Determination Panel, with the goal of reaching a just outcome.” It is true that a greater amount of evidence can be considered when there is no requirement to submit to cross-examination, but the quantity of evidence is of far less importance than the quality. If a school wants to adjudicate cases of sexual misconduct, particularly when the stakes for individuals’ (both the accused and accuser) reputations are so high, it should abide by the general procedures of a court of law. Anyone with even the slightest knowledge of the law knows that witnesses are subject to cross-examination. According to Article VI of  the Massachusetts Guide to Evidence (as released by the Massachusetts state government), witnesses are subject to cross-examination “on any matter relevant to any issue in the case, including credibility and matters not elicited during direct examination.” There is no way to reach a “just outcome” if the evidence under consideration is not subject to rigorous scrutiny. 

It must be recognized that the cases that are being brought before the Determination Panel regarding sexual misconduct are very difficult for all parties involved. Cross-examinations can be psychologically problematic; there is no denying that. In a free society, however, the interest of justice and truth must take precedence. False accusations do occur, and the impact can be devastating. 

It is also no secret that if the College was legally free to create its own policy, it would abandon the 2020 regulations altogether. In its 2019 letter to Secretary DeVos, the College’s Title IX Office joined with 50 other Massachusetts institutions of higher education to decry the cross-examination and live hearing requirements. Their stated concern is that these requirements would “discourage community members who have experienced misconduct from coming forward or deter them from participating in the process.” That may or may not be true, but to simply allow accusations to be made without any need to submit to criticism from the defendant denies him or her justice. The same letter asserts that the College is “committed to fairness and impartiality in all disciplinary matters”, but it is difficult to see how that fits with their distaste for common legal practice. Further, the Title IX Office states:

[O]ur community is unique. We are a small, mission-driven, purely undergraduate, diverse, and tight-knit community. We believe that the proposed prescriptive process not only removes our discretion to conduct our processes in a way that we believe is appropriate for our community, but also may compromise our ability to conduct a fair process.

Complaints like this defy reason: because the College is “small, mission-driven, purely undergraduate, diverse, and tight-knit”, it should not have to abide by basic standards of legal fairness? No matter how unique the community, these standards exist because they ensure equity. 

Going forward, all else remaining the same, it is unlikely that Holy Cross will revert to a Title IX policy that is in line with justice. Simply lamenting the change is not enough to force a rethinking. The only way that the Holy Cross community can hope to return the institution to one truly based in “freedom, mutual respect, and civility” is to bring its concerns to the administration. This article attempts to do just that. However, the burden is also on students, parents, and donors to compel the College to defend its decisions – not just in regard to its Title IX policy, but in any controversial policy shift. The community must remain hopeful, but it also must take an active role in defending what is right. 

The Unmasking

On Tuesday, August 3rd, members of the Holy Cross community received an email from the Holy Cross COVID Core Team announcing a new masking requirement on campus. The school stated that it will require masking indoors at all times from August 16th to “at least” September 10th, when Holy Cross will “re-evaluate Covid conditions in [the] community” and decide if the masking requirement needs to be kept in place. Holy Cross has made this decision based on the guidance of the CDC. That is, in fact, the only reason cited. Nowhere has the school provided data, scientific evidence, or any other justification for this decision. The school’s risk assessment appears to be what the CDC has told them it should be.

The school’s decision to enforce a mask mandate for its vaccinated students is puzzling. What is the logic here? What is the science backing the risk assessment being made? What is the justification for the tradeoffs Holy Cross is asking students to make? The quick answer to that question is, when it comes to the science, there is no justification. COVID-19 was, and still is, a serious threat to unvaccinated individuals. The risk of hospitalization or death — due in large part to extremely high community transmission in the absence of a vaccine — made masking and social distancing critical for protecting our most vulnerable. However, in the presence of a vaccine, the science, data, and everything we are hearing from doctors and hospitals on the ground clearly shows that this risk no longer exists for vaccinated individuals. As you’ll see, the risk assessments being made by the CDC, and even more so by Holy Cross, do not remotely follow the ways that we assess risk in every aspect of our lives. 

The decision to force an almost entirely vaccinated campus to wear masks isn’t even consistent with the risks that Holy Cross allows us to make on campus daily. This is not about managing the risk of Covid in the best interest of Holy Cross’ students, faculty, and staff, but about managing the narrative around Holy Cross’ reputation and circumventing any possibility of criticism —criticism that would be unwarranted — against the school’s administration. This policy could have come about for two reasons: because of the conclusions of the science or because of the need to follow a narrative in order to avoid public scrutiny. It could not have come about because of both. So, since we can’t determine the merits of forcing vaccinated people to mask based on any scientific evidence or data that the school’s administration has provided us, I’ve decided to do the work for them. 

Before I get into the criteria that the CDC has used to make these recommendations and what the Covid data for vaccinated hospitalizations and deaths tells us about the measures being implemented at Holy Cross, let me provide a short explainer on what I mean by “risk assessment”. A risk assessment is the analysis of trade-offs that entities like the government, schools, private businesses, and individuals make in order to maintain a reasonable level of risk that negative consequences won’t happen. In other words, it’s when we trade away certain freedoms in order to reduce, but not eliminate, the risk of something bad happening. 

At the same time, a risk assessment is also an attempt to maintain certain freedoms due to an analysis that concludes that there is not enough risk to justify the diminishment of those freedoms. For example, we have all made the risk assessment that in order to travel from place to place in a reasonable amount of time, a 60-75 mph speed limit on highways is the best trade-off we can make. We trade away our freedom to drive as fast as we want on public roads to mitigate the risk of injury or death to ourselves and others in a car accident. With this analysis, we accept that many will die as a result of highways and other roads having a speed limit in the 60’s or 70’s, but that this negative consequence is acceptable given the net positive. Within the context of Covid, the negative consequences are serious illness or death. The trade-off that the CDC is recommending that we make is forcing vaccinated people to give up their freedom to choose whether or not they want to wear masks inside. As we’ll see in the data, the science simply doesn’t warrant this trade-off.

Worcester County has been placed under the “high” category for community transmission according to the CDC. Under its new guidelines, the CDC recommends that counties it labels as having “substantial” or “high” community spread should have their residents wear masks in all indoor public spaces, no matter vaccination status. Sounds scary! There must be a “substantial” or “high” number of cases — especially in a County with almost 60% of the entire population fully vaccinated and over 85% of its over 65 population fully vaccinated — if the CDC is making this type of recommendation… right? Not so much. CDC community transmission for states and counties is divided into four levels: low, moderate, substantial, and high. To determine the level of community transmission for states and counties there are two indicators. The indicator we will be looking at for Worcester County, since it is the indicator that the CDC is using, is seven day case rate per 100,000 people. In other words, it is the amount of cases per day in the last seven days for every 100,000 people in Worcester County. So, what is the number of average cases per day that the CDC believes indicates a “substantial” community transmission level, and therefore a significant enough risk to re-implement mandatory masking? 50-99.99 cases per 100,000. That is a 0.05% daily positivity rate on the low end and a 0.099% rate on the high end. This means anything above 100 cases, or a 0.1% rate, is considered “high” transmission. These are minuscule portions of the population. 

Currently, Worcester County has a seven day case rate of 107, and nearly all of these cases are unvaccinated individuals. 1,158 people have tested positive for Covid in Worcester County in the last ten days — ten days being the longest amount of time it takes for Covid to stop being contagious. That’s 1,158 out of over 830,600 people. That means the percentage of the Worcester County population who have tested positive and are currently infected with Covid is 0.14%. To put this into perspective, Worcester County had over 1,000 cases every two to three days on a regular basis over the winter, hitting a daily high of 1,552 cases on January 5th. During that time, we were seeing over 150 deaths in Worcester County over two week spans. In the past two weeks there have been 8 Covid deaths in the County. The CDC has essentially determined that 1/7th of 1% of the population of Worcester County contracting Covid in the past two weeks provides sufficient risk to reimplement universal masking indoors. By any reasonable measure, this is a ludicrous amount of caution for such a small number of cases and minute risk of death.

As stated earlier, the trade offs that the CDC has determined the American people must take to mitigate risk does not follow the risk assessments that we make in all other aspects of our lives. 775,000 children under the age of 14 are sent to the emergency room with injuries sustained from playing sports every year, and 500,000 high school athletes find themselves in the ER for the same reason. 38,000 die and 4.5 million are injured in car accidents every year. 354 children, or 0.00047% of the under eighteen population, have died from Covid during the pandemic, while 788, have died from non-Covid induced pneumonia in that same period. The idea of making children wear masks to mitigate the risk of catching the flu or some other viral infection has never been considered as a serious policy, and likely would have been dismissed as child abuse rather than a reasonable protective measure. That’s because we have determined that the 0.00025% chance that a child dies from the flu is not a large enough risk to justify forcing children to breathe through sweaty cloths all day and to lose their ability to communicate properly in school. We take risks like these daily because they are necessary for us to live the lives we all want to live. If we applied the CDC’s rationale for determining risk of hospitalization or death due to Covid to how we determine risk of serious injury or death due to car accidents, the speed limit on every major highway would probably be somewhere around 5 miles per hour. Seems like a pretty unrealistic conception of risk, right? I’d guess that most of us would be up in arms with that type of miscalculation to say the least. 

What is incredible about all of this is that I haven’t even gotten to the most important point: the vaccination rates at Holy Cross. Let’s say — regardless of the senselessness of the risk assessment being used to justify this type of policy — that you still believe that mask mandates need to be put into place in areas with “substantial” or “high” transmission levels to protect children and the unvaccinated. Fine. But that type of explanation wouldn’t even apply to the Holy Cross community, because, as stated in the most recent Holy Cross Covid update, above 90% of the students, faculty, and staff will be fully vaccinated by the start of the semester. 97% of students have already received at least one shot. This is what makes Holy Cross’s decision to follow the CDC guidelines even more perplexing than the CDC guidelines themselves. The already untenable justifications provided by the CDC don’t even apply to the students, faculty, and staff at Holy Cross, because the chance of a student or staff member dying from COVID-19 on an almost fully vaccinated campus is not just a statistical improbability, it is so infinitesimally small that the risk is essentially zero. 

Almost all new cases, hospitalizations, and deaths, not just across Worcester County but across the state, are from unvaccinated people. As of August 10th, a week after Holy Cross announced its intent to reimplement indoor mask policies, 0.002% of Massachusetts’ vaccinated population has died from Covid. And even these already tiny percentages are inflated. As reported by NBC Boston, Dr. Shira Doron, an Epidemiologist at Tufts Medical Center, has stated, "These 100 patients  [.002% of vaccinated population] have died over the course of many months," and “In those cases, the positive test might be old, a false positive, an asymptomatic positive, a mild infection or an infection that is contributing to the illness or death of someone sick with another primary illness but not the sole cause of it." 

Out of those in Massachusetts who have been vaccinated and died, 73% had underlying conditions and had a median age of 82.5. On August 7th, the Massachusetts Department of Health reported that 0.23% of fully vaccinated individuals in the state have tested positive for Covid. A week later, the department reported that this number had increased by a mere 0.06% to 0.29% and that there had only been 51 additional hospitalizations and 18 additional deaths in the entire state, making the official hospitalization rate for vaccinated individuals 0.01% and the death rate 0.003%. Nationally, three-quarters of all reported breakthrough cases have been among people 65 or older. In the week after Holy Cross made their announcement, zero people under the age of 40, vaccinated or unvaccinated, died from Covid in the state of Massachusetts. As the data shows, the risk to those who are vaccinated isn’t even distinguishable between other common diseases. About 35,000 people die and 500,000 people are hospitalized due to the flu every year in the United States. That’s about 0.01% and 0.15% of the population respectively, or five times the percentage of vaccinated deaths and nineteen times the percentage of vaccinated hospitalizations in Massachusetts due to Covid. Why has the school not required flu vaccinations in the past? Are we going to be forced to vaccinate and mask for flu season under threat of being unenrolled from classes? Of course not. Because every school, student, faculty member, and parent over the course of the last century has determined that the burden of forcing students to vaccinate and mask for a disease that kills about 40,000 people a year is too high for such a low risk. 

The risk assessments of the CDC and, therefore, Holy Cross, are completely backwards. But why? If the science doesn’t justify these decisions, what’s the reason these decisions are being made? By my estimation, the reason Holy Cross has adopted the CDC’s recommendation is because of one major factor: the possibility of scrutiny. Specifically, the scrutiny of those who are currently holding institutions like Holy Cross to a non-rational standard based on misinformed beliefs about Covid. I’ve already gone on long enough about why the belief that vaccinated people are at a substantial risk is simply not based in science, but what is this “non-rational” standard? 

It’s the expectation that Holy Cross should be held responsible for outbreak cases, even on an almost fully vaccinated campus. The administration has made the assessment that there is a possibility that the school’s reputation will be tarnished due to this standard. It doesn’t matter how ridiculous or unfair the standard is. It doesn’t matter that the students, staff, and faculty have done their part by getting vaccinated and are now not at risk. It doesn’t matter that wearing masks is, quite literally, a symbolic gesture to make it look like the school is being responsible. It is easier for the administration to pass the buck, commit to the false narrative that masks are in any way necessary for vaccinated individuals, and shield itself from any possibility of public scrutiny. It’s essentially a win-win. If there is outcry from groups of people who hold the non-rational belief that Covid cases among vaccinated people on campus makes the school in some way irresponsible and at fault, the school can defend itself from these criticisms by claiming that they followed CDC guidelines. On the other side of the coin — in an attempt to shield themselves from the criticisms of students, families, and staff who believe that masking is unnecessary and who are upset with the school for going back on it’s promise of “no masking” at a 90% vaccination rate — the administration can blame the CDC’s recommendation for this new masking policy by asserting that their hands were tied. All of this would make for a reasonable risk assessment if you were assessing the risk of public scrutiny and the possibility of your reputation being called into question. 

It is, however, not the job of the administration to protect itself from the possibility of bad PR, especially if doing so negatively affects the learning and campus experiences of students. The one and only job of the Holy Cross administration is to provide a safe and holistic learning environment and campus experience based on risk assessments that are in the best interest of the students, faculty, and staff. That’s it. And within the context of the Covid-19 pandemic, any risk assessment that is being made within the best interest of students, faculty, and staff must come about due to rational standards that are based in scientific fact. The standard being applied to Holy Cross right now is clearly not based on that science.

Now, you may be thinking “it’s just an extra few weeks of masking… why are you so concerned about this? It’s not that big of a deal” And you would be right. Having to wear masks for a few weeks at the start of school isn’t that big of a deal. And while there has been a whole lot of research that shows the serious consequences that masks have had on social interaction and communication — which I would argue is more important in educational spaces than any other social environment I could think of — a couple weeks of masking at the beginning of school isn’t some enormous request. But I’m not concerned with a few extra weeks of masking. I’m concerned that if the school is already asking people to mask before classes even start — that decision completely neglecting the scientific facts and statistical evidence we are seeing with Covid hospitalization and mortality among vaccinated people — what are we going to be asked to do if people begin to test positive on campus when we are all back? This is the most important thing for all of us to understand: some vaccinated students and staff will contract Coronavirus this semester. When this happens, the school may feel pressure, most likely from the possibility of public scrutiny of the school’s safety measures.

Here’s the truth that all of us — not just students, faculty, or administrators at HC, but all inhabitants of this country — need to get on the same page about. The goal of vaccines was never to eradicate Covid off the face of the earth. As with the flu, that will likely never happen. The point of the vaccines was to stymie massive spread and decrease hospitalization and death. We have achieved that. No amount of goalpost shifting by a headline starved media, virtue signaling politicians from both sides of the isle, or misinformed social media posts will make that untrue. 

These types of measures may have been necessary to avert serious risk in the absence of a readily available vaccine. That risk doesn’t exist anymore. So, when a student or faculty member tests positive for Covid, and if Holy Cross decides to bring back more aggressive Covid mitigation measures, should you accept the reinstatement of non-optional masking, social distancing, and dorm and extracurricular restrictions on and off campus? Ask yourself, “are the tradeoffs that the school may ask me to make — having to wear a mask while I exercise, having to limit how many people I can have in my room, not being able to go and watch my friend’s sports games from the stands, not being able to eat in the dining hall with groups of friends — are these things that I would find acceptable to give up for any other type of risk?” Are you okay with having any more of your time at Holy Cross, or any more of the experiences that you were promised when you signed your letter of intent and sent in your tuition check, disrupted or even fully taken away because of that level of risk? I would argue you shouldn’t be okay with a single extra MINUTE, much less days, weeks, or God forbid months of your college experience being wasted away because of Covid policies that lack any substantive scientific justification. You’ve already had enough of that taken from you. 

Let me put it in this context. Are you okay with walking across campus crosswalks, roads, and parking lots knowing that there is a 0.001% chance that you will be hit and killed by a car? Are you okay with walking up and down the numerous stairs and hills on campus to get to your classes, dorms, and dining facilities knowing that there is a 0.004% chance that you die tripping on concrete or falling down a flight of stairs? For those who have to live in The Edge next semester due to on-campus housing shortages, and who must take their cars or Holy Cross shuttles to and from campus, are you okay with knowing that you have a 0.01% risk of dying in a car accident? Of course you are. Because we, as human beings, assess risk reasonably in every facet of life.

In the face of narrative driven hysteria and the non-rational expectations of eradicating Covid, the only “vaccine” that can bring us clarity is leadership. It takes standing up and saying what needs to be said and doing what needs to be done despite the fact that you might be wrongly judged for it. For my entire life I have been told countless times that this is what leadership is. By my parents, high school teachers, coaches, professors, and by this very institution. Holy Cross still has the opportunity to show the type of leadership it expects of its graduates. At the very least, Holy Cross students, families, faculty, staff, and alumni deserve an explanation regarding how Holy Cross’ decision to cave to a non-rational standard and the unjustified pressure from a misinformed public models the leadership that all of us also expect from this school’s administration. 

With this in mind, I have a challenge for the Holy Cross administration. I challenge you to pick one of these two options. Provide your students, faculty, and staff with scientific evidence as to why there is a substantial enough risk of serious illness or death on your fully vaccinated campus to implement a mask policy and to justify the trade-offs you are forcing students to make. This goes for any future restrictive policies that may be put into place in the almost certain event that a small number of vaccinated students and/or faculty test positive for Covid over the course of the semester. No passing the buck to the CDC and saying “we’re just following their guidance.” These are your decisions, not the CDC’s, and we deserve a more comprehensive justification than “a government bureaucracy recommended we do this. Sorry!” In the event that you cannot provide satisfactory scientific evidence to justify your Covid policies and the risk assessments you have made, we slide to the second option. Admit that this decision has not been made because of scientific reality or to protect students and faculty from a substantial risk. Admit that this decision has been made to protect the school’s image from non-rational public scrutiny from outside the HC community and to protect school administrators, regardless of the impact on students, from being held responsible (unjustly!) when some students catch Covid or in the 0.003% chance that something goes terribly wrong. If it is true that vaccines work, and if you cannot provide a scientific justification for why a completely vaccinated campus needs to mask and will likely be subjected to other restrictions, this is the only possible explanation for the implementation of a mask mandate. 

Well, I guess there is a third option. You could decide to stay silent, evading the concerns and criticisms of paying students and families, or you could even reiterate that you are following the fundamentally flawed guidance of the CDC, which, let’s be honest, is as good as staying silent.

A special thanks to Monica Regan ‘23 who helped me with my research for this article.

Some Modest Proposals

I graduated about a week and a half ago, and as I got ready to leave campus, I spent a lot of time reflecting on my time at Holy Cross. I couldn’t help but think, not just about my own experience on the Hill, but on the future of the College. In the midst of all this soul-searching, one question seemed particularly urgent: how can Holy Cross be more faithful to her mission as a Catholic, liberal arts college run by the Jesuits? 

Now, I never want Holy Cross to become an echo-chamber of identical ideologies, or an enemy of academic freedom. Nor do I want students to feel unwelcome or unsupported because their background or beliefs seem at odds with the College’s official, institutional convictions or mission. My own Holy Cross experience was valuable precisely because I was exposed to so many different beliefs, and because I was challenged by both professors and peers with different perspectives and opinions. I never want the Holy Cross community to become homogenous or one-dimensional. 

But Holy Cross can’t compromise on Catholicism either. More and more, it seems like the College is trying to compete with secular, East Coast liberal arts schools like Amherst or Williams. But we’re not Amherst or Williams. We’re Holy Cross. We have a deep Catholic identity, a profound mission to form the whole person (and not just create academic weapons), and a fierce commitment to changing the world. If Holy Cross stops seeking holiness, or takes her eyes off the Cross, then our institutional identity will fall away, and we’ll destroy ourselves in a vague attempt to become something we’re not: some secular, milquetoast school full of academics pursuing academia for academia’s sake.

So—how do we live in this tension? How do we defend and advance the College’s Catholic identity without alienating an increasingly diverse student body or infringing on academic freedom?

John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae answers many of these questions, but I’m not crazy enough to think that Holy Cross administrators will actually read, let alone follow, JPII’s instructions. So I’ve reflected on that document, and on my time at Holy Cross, and I have a few suggestions (although I’m not sure anyone will listen to these ideas either).

1. Create a separate theology department—one that’s distinct from religious studies. A few decades ago, a lot of Catholic colleges transitioned from teaching theology (a discipline that studies God and God’s relationship with humanity from a position of belief, guided by a certain dogmatic framework) to religious studies (which studies religion abstractly, as a sociological phenomenon, a matter of what people believe, and not an attempt to study and relay the truth about God). That allowed professors to do some more experimental “scholarship” (cough, Benny Liew, cough) because they could argue that they were simply considering religion as a human practice, or studying the Bible as a work of literature and not a sacred next; no longer were professors bound by the authority of the Catholic Church. But the finer points of the distinction between theology and religious studies don’t always come across in the classroom. At a place like Holy Cross, students have no way of knowing when they’re being taught what the Church actually teaches, when they’re being taught controversial, speculative theology (like liberation theology), or when they’re being taught “religious studies” that conflict directly with the Church’s teachings. To me, the simple solution is for Holy Cross to make a clearer distinction between orthodox theology (of which we have very little), more controversial theology (of which we have a good deal), and religious studies. By splitting the religious studies department in two, and creating an actual theology department, Holy Cross would be taking a massive step forward. It would also make theology professors more accountable—no longer would they be able to defend craziness by hiding behind the excuse of studying religion abstractly.

2. Host a lecture series with high-profile speakers. Holy Cross can and should invest in bringing interesting and prominent thinkers and lecturers—like Bishop Robert Barron—to campus to give talks about issues relevant to college students. A few years ago, Christian philosopher William Lane Craig debated an atheist astrophysicist in Seelos, and the place was packed. Imagine what would happen if the College did more of that—and geared topics to specific audiences. For example, Holy Cross should invite Fr. Nicanor Austriaco—an evolutionary biologist, a professor, and Dominican friar—to campus to talk about the relationship between Catholicism and science—and STEM majors should be strongly encouraged to attend. Other talks can center around controversial moral topics (Sr. Helen Prejean on the death penalty, for example, or Jason Evert and Matt Fradd on contraception), or misconceptions people have about the Church or the Catholic intellectual tradition (Fr. Gregory Pine on Thomism, or Fr. David Meconi on Augustine). At a time when colleges around the country are canceling speakers, Holy Cross can stand up for academic freedom and inject life into the College’s Catholic identity by bringing in orthodox, engaging lecturers who can spark real conversations—like Dr. Scott Hahn, Fr. Thomas Joseph White, or Abigail Favale.

3. Modify hiring protocol. In Ex Corde Ecclesiae, John Paul II suggests that Catholic professors should outnumber non-Catholics at a Catholic school. Is that ever going to happen at Holy Cross? Probably not. But what he says next is also important: he says that Catholic colleges need to make their religious mission known throughout the interview and hiring process. Regardless of the prospective hire’s religion, writes John Paul II, they should agree to never try to undermine that religious mission. Now that makes sense: at a company or non-profit, effective leaders want to hire people sold out for the mission of their organization. So why on earth would a Catholic school think it’s okay—or productive—to hire professors who dislike the Church and want to undermine the College’s Catholic mission? New professors need not be Catholic, but they should be willing to cooperate with an authentically Catholic mission.

4. Make sacramental access and attendance a priority—and a metric for success. As Fr. Boroughs leaves Holy Cross, some argue that his tenure was a success because he supervised successful fundraising campaigns and oversaw extensive construction on campus. But as a Catholic priest at the helm of a Catholic school, he had a much more important mission: saving souls. I’d love to know what happened to Mass attendance or religious affiliation on campus over the last nine years. Are we talking about those statistics? Is our board, when they evaluate school leadership, taking that into account? Or are they just counting the money and celebrating new construction? Meanwhile, if we’re going to make increased Mass and Confession attendance a barometer of institutional success, let’s start prioritizing those things on the ground level. As a Catholic school with over a dozen priests, it’s unacceptable that we only have two weekend Masses during a normal academic year. We should also have Confession on Saturdays and frequent adoration. And there should be initiatives to get students to come to Mass, whether it’s hosting a late-night, candle-lit Mass once a month in St. Joe’s, creating an app that can help students keep track of Catholic worship opportunities on campus, or having Jesuits go through the library and dorms on Sunday evenings, banging pots and pans and telling students to go to church (but actually). To put it simply, the holiness and spiritual formation of students should be a concern and priority on Mount St. James.

5. Work with the local Bishop instead of fighting him every step of the way. In Ex Corde Ecclesiae, JPII is insistent that Catholic colleges need to participate in the life of the local Church and have a strong relationship with the local Bishop. This relationship, JPII writes, should be “characterized by mutual trust, close and consistent cooperation and continuing dialogue.” Now, it doesn’t take a rocket scientist to figure out that Holy Cross and Bishop McManus have had their share of conflict, but tension, pettiness, and hostility—on both sides—are bad for the Church and the College. While I don’t want to heap all the blame on Holy Cross, there does seem to be this bizarre assumption that—maybe because we’re run by Jesuits—rules don’t apply to us, or we’re not subject to the authority of our local ordinary. That’s false and arrogant. By making their desire to work with McManus clear, by building strong personal relationships with him, and by even inviting him to participate in search committees for important administrative vacancies, Holy Cross’s administrators can help rebuild a relationship with our Bishop, which, in turn, can strengthen the College’s Catholic identity, improve our relationship with the Worcester community, and help our Jesuit school keep its Catholic designation.

Okay, so maybe these proposals aren’t particularly modest, but I do think they’d go a long way towards furthering the school’s Catholic identity without stomping on people’s toes, alienating non-Catholics, or making students feel excluded. Some of these proposals are essentially free—it doesn’t cost anything to tell a new biology professor that we’re a Catholic school and that she needs to be okay with that—while some might cost a fair amount of money. Nonetheless, I have a hunch that there are alumni that would donate considerable sums of money to a “Lift High the Cross” capital campaign aimed at revitalizing the College’s Catholic identity. But that’s just a guess.

At the end of the day, Holy Cross is a Catholic school run by Catholic priests and a team of committed laypeople. But we’re facing a really important crossroads: embrace our Catholic identity, or water down our faith and try to compete with a bunch of secular schools that don’t share our sense of mission and identity. It’s time for Holy Cross to stop trying to become something we’re not, and start embracing what we have the potential—and the mandate—to become. 

Desecrating the Dictionary

Has anyone noticed that people on the Left keep changing the definitions of words? It’s a problem.

Sometimes these redefinitions seem blatantly strategic and premeditated, like when Cecilia Rouse, the president of one of President Biden’s economic advisory councils, suggested that we need to “upgrade” our definition of the word “infrastructure.” Rouse’s comments come as Democrats try to ram through a $2.25 billion infrastructure bill that pumps money into a variety of projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure—like childcare.

The same thing happened with the term “court-packing” during the last election cycle. Biden and Harris dodged questions about court-packing for weeks—until they realized that they could just change the phrase’s definition and accuse Trump of court- packing. (According to Democratic politicians, court- packing no longer referred to the practice of adding more seats to a court to water down the influence of a previous politician’s appointees; it suddenly meant any attempt to fill judicial vacancies quickly.) Dictionary. com bought the new narrative and changed their definition of court-packing to “the practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies” (emphasis mine). In other words, any attempt to appoint a judicial nominee, especially a nominee who differs ideologically from their would-be predecessor, is now considered court-packing. That is absurd, dishonest, and a distraction from the threat posed by real court-packing.

It’s not the only redefinition that happened during Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination fiasco. Hours after Coney Barrett used the phrase “sexual preference” during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Miriam-Webster added a line to its entry for the word “preference” denoting that, when used in regard to sexuality, the word “preference” is considered offensive. Coney Barrett was then accused of bigotry.

Sometimes though, definitions change more subtly. The word “violence” no longer refers to physical harm. It can now refer to intentional emotional or verbal harm, too. And in recent years the Left has radically changed the definition of “gender,” separatingit from the biological concept of sex. By arguing that gender and sex are inherently different concepts, they shut down debates about gender theory.

Constant redefinition is super problematic. For one, it’s a butchery of the English language. It’s also blatantly dishonest and fallacious: one cannot simply change the definition of words to get what one wants. (Although the strategy seems to be working for the Left.)

Redefinition isn’t just dishonest; it also makes it impossible for people to reach consensuses or develop viable solutions to legitimate issues. An essential prerequisite for having a productive conversation about public policy—or any serious topic for that matter— is an agreed-upon linguistic framework. Given the nuanced nature of most policy issues, precise, well- defined terminology is especially important. And so, when politicians, journalists, and policy advocates change the definition of a particular term in order to sell legislation, drum up concern about an issue, or smear political opponents, they generate confusion and prevent productive, bipartisan conversations. How can we develop effective infrastructure legislation if we don’t even have a shared sense of what infrastructure is?

Nowhere is the danger of imprecise and shifting language clearer than in current conversations about racism and white supremacy.

Once upon a time, there used to be a hierarchy of racist sins. At the top of the list was white supremacy. “White supremacy” referred to the belief that white people were biologically superior to other people; it often led to violence, attempts at ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. Examples of white supremacist groups included the KKK and Nazis. Below white supremacy, there was racism: according to the OED, racism also involved a belief that one racial or ethnic group was superior to another; it generally manifested itself in some form of discrimination, the use of racial slurs, etc. Below racism was racial prejudice. Racial prejudice typically referred to beliefs that certain people had about individuals in other racial or ethnic groups. Those beliefs could inform actions, and thus feed racism. But being prejudiced (thinking a particular way) was different from being overtly racist (intentionally acting a particular way because of someone’s race or ethnicity). Finally, there was racial bias—the innate tendency to prefer people who looked like oneself. Bias, unlike other racial sins, was usually less intentional and more implicit than prejudice.

But in the last several years, the hierarchy of racial sins has been obliterated by proponents of Critical Race Theory, who have pushed for much broader definitions of terms like “racism” and “white supremacy”—definitions that encompass, well, just about everything. Suddenly, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the SAT, and even attempts to ignore race are all considered forms of, or are rooted in, white supremacy.

Using terms like white supremacy or racism with impunity can raise awareness about the prevalence and harms of racism, which is a noble motive. And yet, it’s kind of like a doctor calling everything “terminal,” regardless of whether or not it’s actually terminal: sure it might push patients to re-evaluate their lives or pursue more aggressive treatment, but it’s also dishonest. It can lead to ineffective solutions, and—in the long run—can lead people to take serious diagnoses less seriously. If everything is white supremacy, we run the risk of people believing that nothing is white supremacy. And then we lose the capacity to address real racism.

I’m convinced that this problem is playing out in real time across the country, hampering America’s capacity to heal racism and other divisions that bifurcate the nation. When activists like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo toss out allegations of white supremacy and racism like candy at a parade, they push reasonable people to stop taking allegations of racism seriously. Even when people do want to address racism, confusion about what racism actually is adds unnecessary conflict to public discourse. As a result, instead of addressing, say, the influence of white supremacist groups on social media, we bicker about metrics that gauge the health and stability of the Black community (like high school graduation rates), because somehow those metrics— which can and should inform public policy—are racist.

As a final note—I’m willing to concede that language changes over time, that old definitions can be clunky and outdated, and that, sometimes, we need a richer understanding of what a particular word means. But I do not buy that the meaning of words does (or should) correspond neatly with the Democrats’ policy agenda. Furthermore, if a word’s meaning does need to shift, then let’s actually have a conversation about terminology. Let’s debate whether or not sex and gender

are different, whether or not infrastructure includes childcare, or whether an affinity for capitalism makes a person racist. Even middle-schoolers are taught that, in order to make an argument, they need to define their terms accurately. Why can’t we start holding politicians, journalists, and academics to the same standard?

The Militia, Sir, Are The People

Within the span of one week, a pair of mass shootings rocked Atlanta, Georgia and Boulder, Colorado, bringing an outpouring of mourning and reigniting the debate over one of the most incendiary political issues: firearms in America. Almost immediately after the shooting in Boulder, renewed calls for gun control came from prominent Democratic politicians. These included President Joe Biden, who called for a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and closing loopholes related to the purchase of firearms. While enacting these policies is often touted as ‘common sense’, the reality of gun control is far different. As a matter of fact, when consideration is given to the origins of the Second Amendment, its breadth, the history of firearms in America and the implications of their restriction, the idea of heavy-handed gun control becomes quite senseless.

Oftentimes, the nature of the Second Amendment itself is the first item drawn into question by advocates of strict gun control. Many point to the text itself to make the claim that the amendment merely covers “well regulated militias” rather than an uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms. A closer examination of the Founders’ thoughts on firearms demonstrates that this is clearly untrue. George Mason summarized it best when he rhetorically asked “who are the militia,” answering with “the whole people.” In his drafts of the Virginia Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” Jefferson’s writings are not unusual, as the other state constitutions drafted at the time include protections of the right to bear arms, including Vermont’s which declares “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.” Considering the thoughts of the Founders and the context in which the Second Amendment was conceived, there can be no doubt that the right to keep and bear arms was indeed the amendment’s intent.

The next question is the extent to which weapons are covered under the Second Amendment. In the aftermath of the Boulder Shooting, Joe Biden justified his renewed efforts for gun control by stating that “no amendment is absolute.” Setting aside the troubling implications of this statement for a moment, it is clear that Biden and his supporters believe that the Second Amendment does not cover certain types of firearms. This assumption is flawed on its face as it suggests that the Founders had no conception of technological development and could not have anticipated the development of modern firearms. As a matter of fact, various innovative weapons including the rotary magazine Puckle Gun and repeating arms such as the Belton Flintlock and later Girandoni Air Rifle. Evidently, the Second Amendment does not merely apply to flintlocks as some gun control proponents claim. Further, considering that flintlocks were the foremost weapons in the era the Second Amendment was written, the amendment would apply in the same weapon to common firearms in the present, just as the First Amendment applies to both the quill pen and the smartphone.

Of course, the most widely owned rifle in America is the basis of many complaints concerning the breadth of the Second Amendment; the dreaded AR-15 and its derivatives. The AR-15 and similar rifles are touted as “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” by gun control proponents, who argue that they are disproportionately deadly and most commonly used in mass shootings. These terms are inherently misleading. Assault rifle is a military classification referring to a rifle which fires an intermediate cartridge. While AR-15 utilizes a .223 caliber cartridge, which is intermediate, it is not a true select-fire assault rifle, and has not been used by the military in any significant capacity. The AR-15 is semi-automatic, each time the trigger is squeezed, one round is expended. On the other hand, the term “assault weapon” is pure fiction, formulated as a matter of categorizing firearms by such superficial features as pistol grips and detachable magazines, features not inherent only to rifles like the AR-15. The Ruger Mini-14, for instance, is also semi-automatic, is chambered in .223, and has a detachable magazine. Unlike the AR-15, the Ruger has no pistol grip, and lacks the common black carbon appearance which renders the AR-15 frightening or military-esque in appearance.

Appearances and technicalities aside, the AR-15 is not in fact the weapon of mass murder as commonly portrayed by the media. FBI crime statistics reveal that, despite firearms being used in 10,265 homicides in 2018, rifles, including the AR-15, were only used in 297. By contrast, blunt objects were used in 443 homicides, while cutting instruments were used in 1,515. Even when taking mass shootings into consideration, handguns once again eclipse firearms, being used in 95 mass shootings between 1982 and 2021, while rifles were used in 48. Despite its reputation, the statistical evidence demonstrates that the AR-15 and weapons like it are neither disproportionately responsible for mass shootings, nor homicides with firearms generally.

Even when measures have been taken to restrict ownership of superficially designated ‘assault weapons’, they have proven entirely ineffective. In 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacture and importation of specific weapons that included AR-15s and similar rifles, along with magazines containing more than ten rounds. Over the course of its ten years, the Assault Weapons Ban saw no discernible reduction in firearms crime, and 16 mass shootings, including the infamous Columbine Shooting in which one shooter used a Tec-9, a firearm prohibited under the act which he was too young to have purchased himself. It is doubtful that similar legislation would prove any more effective.

In the wake of this legislative failure and others, the logical conclusion has been reached by some gun control advocates,  Robert Francis O’Rourke among them, that only a gun confiscation, or at least a confiscation of “your AR-15s, your AK-47s” will suffice. In doing so, they would be following in the footsteps of history’s worst tyrants. The Soviet Union mandated that citizens turn in their firearms in 1918, Cuba in 1959, and more recently, Venezuela in 2012, which ironically has skyrocketing crime despite its restrictions. This is the true end of strict gun control: a populace which is passive and has no significant means to defend against government repression. If, as President Biden maintains, “no amendment is absolute,” once the Second Amendment falls, those other ‘non-absolute’ amendments will be open to restriction, or  worse.

There are indeed reasonable precautions to be taken with firearms. While valuable tools, firearms are still weapons to be treated with the utmost care. Indeed, many laws are already on the books to prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Rather than rendering the populace defenseless, perhaps the best thing to do is to enforce these existing laws and educate the public about firearms in the way individuals are educated about their other civil rights.

A Token Effort

Racism is an undeniable evil that has poisoned many societies throughout history, including our own.  From slavery and Jim Crow, to the genocide of Native Americans, to the internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II, America has struggled with fulfilling its founding principles time and time again.  The self-evident truth that “all men are created equal” and the universal right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” have not been perfectly applied in America and have been outright attacked many times throughout our short history.  

Despite this, America is more free, accepting, and equal to people of all races today than ever before.  We have elected a black president, a black and Asian American vice-president, many men and women of color (from both parties) into Congress, Governorships, and other high positions. We have seen women and ethnic minorities in the Supreme Court and in courts across the land, as successful entrepreneurs, as leaders, and as academics. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are new beacons of hope for ethnic minorities in this country.

That being said, the sin of racism still poisons our society.  Racially motivated hate crimes are not just a relic of the past, but a present struggle for many Americans of all ethnicities.  Racial slurs and hurtful words too often invade our daily lives. Social media punchlines too often separate friends into separate, racially segregated camps. Additionally, many Americans of all colors still live in abject poverty.  Disproportionately, these are black and Latino Americans as well as immigrants and refugees, mostly in inner cities.  Even cities like Atlanta, which has high rates of ethnic minority business ownership and wealth, still suffer from poverty within black and Latino communities.

These issues are universally known and recognized, so I will not speak to these any further.  However, I will focus on what is being done to solve these problems.  Sadly, it seems that many people are so much more focused on virtue signaling on their Instagram stories than going out and making a difference in a person’s life. Additionally, the same people who claim to advocate for people of color attack people of color who identify as conservative, like Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), Amb. Nikki Haley, and Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA), calling them “tokens.”  However, the token effort is not simply an attempt by Republicans to showcase conservatives of color - it is a problem that transcends partisan lines and is evident every day.

Since last summer, there has been a campaign to rename buildings and remove monuments of historical figures.  This is not limited to avid racists and slaveowners - even abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, and Left-wing leaders like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have had buildings once named in their honor changed and monuments to them removed.  The removal of names and monuments, even when justified, do not do anything for underserved communities.  Do you really think a single mom in the ghetto of Memphis cares about the name of a residence hall on a New England college campus?  Do you think a child stuck in a failing school in Detroit cares about the name of a military fort in North Carolina?  Do you think an immigrant teacher who cannot find a job because she doesn’t know how to speak English cares about a monument in a park?

The obvious answer is “no.”  When someone is worried about where his next meal will come from, he will not have time to be concerned about a military base being renamed or by a monument being removed.  These actions do nothing for underserved communities, and they only help the “the system” feel more comfortable with itself.  This is what one would call “a token effort.”

Renaming a building, discontinuing brands of syrup and rice, removing monuments and gravestones, posting on social media, and sending out statements do nothing for underserved communities.  In fact, it is a slap in the face of those who need help the most because instead of getting the help they need, they get empty claims of support.  If a person truly supports those who are less fortunate, that person supports them through constructive action, not simply words.  Becoming an “ally” for persons of color does not start with your Instagram bio, it starts with your hands.  Having trainings for the observance of old Native American lands is good and all, but unless you are serving underserved Native American communities or actively working for change, you are doing nothing for those who are struggling.

So, you who writes, “Black Lives Matter” on your Instagram bio, are you in Atlanta, or Memphis, or Baltimore, or your own community serving black lives and others who are forgotten by society?  You who writes, “Support immigrants,” do you support immigrants and refugees in deed rather than just in word?  You who writes, “Stop Asian hate,” where are you when colleges and universities actively discriminate against Asian Americans in admissions and scholarships?  You CEO who caves at each political wind, where is your company when the people in the same city as your headquarters struggle to make ends meet?  You college administrators who write beautiful emails condemning injustices and the evil of white supremacy, where are you when millions of Americans of all colors struggle to be represented and to find opportunity?

Even the College of the Holy Cross has fallen short in its “fight for social justice.”  On their “Social Justice Awareness” page on their website, there are links to bail funds, readings and videos, and political and protest organizations such as Black Lives Matter.  What does not appear are non-profit organizations that seek to assist underserved communities directly.  In fact, linked on the Holy Cross website is an Innocence Project article that proposes eight ways to “get involved” and “advocate for justice.”  These eight things include: donating to a bail fund, donating to “Black-led organizing projects,” joining a protest, checking in with friends and family, demanding accountability of leaders and law enforcement, speaking up, reading, and watching.

What is missing from this list is active engagement and volunteerism.  All of the links that Holy Cross provides are either to donate to George Floyd’s family, who has already raised $14 million and gained $27 million from the City of Minneapolis, to donate to bail out those arrested during protests and riots, and to protest organizations.  There are no links to service or volunteer organizations.  Not one. When George Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, protests broke loose, and a fund was set up to help his family - and, perhaps, rightfully so.  However, how much more is merited when over 600 black Americans are murdered per year in Chicago, 300 black Americans are murdered per year in Baltimore, 250 black Americans are murdered per year in St. Louis, and so many more are murdered in various cities across this country?  Where is the outcry?  Where is the national news media?  Where are the politicians?  Where are the social media hashtags?  Where is Holy Cross?  Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen.  No one says their names.  

The fact of the matter is that if organizations were serious about helping black people in need and other underserved communities, they would be more focused on action and not protest, on serving the underserved rather than posting a hashtag or sending an email. These trivial actions benefit the poster or “protester” much more than those in need.  It’s so easy to make it look like you’re virtuous if you post “#blacklivesmatter”, send an email about “racial inequity,” or if you create a “social justice webpage.”  But, these actions do nothing for those in need, and only make privileged people feel better about themselves.

So, social media activist, next time you post that you “stand in solidarity with” so-and-so, consider actually going and serving those with whom you claim to stand in solidarity.  Holy Cross, next time you send an email about disparity and inequity, work to help solve the problem rather than just giving students propaganda to read and a link to the Counseling Office. It’s time to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.  Instead of being at each other’s throats about politics and disparity, we should have our hands on the plow in serving others.  Working to end disparities takes more than talking about it; it’s high time to act on it.  Reach out to your local non-profit, your local ESL organization, your local YMCA, your local Habitat for Humanity, your local career development center, etc.  Let’s stop giving a token effort.

Here are some non-profit organizations local to Holy Cross where you can get involved and make a difference in someone else’s life:

Salvation Army: (508) 756-7191; 640 Main St, Worcester, MA 01608

Habitat for Humanity: (508) 439-7655; 11 Distributor Rd, Worcester, MA 01605

American Legion: (508) 799-9800; 326 Plantation St, Worcester, MA 01604

YMCA Central Massachusetts: (508) 791-3181; 1 Salem Square, Worcester, MA 01608

Framingham Adult ESL Plus: (508) 626-4282; 31 Flagg Dr, Framingham, MA 01702

The 2021 Honorary Degree Recipients: A (Mostly) Inspirational Bunch

Holy Cross will award four honorary degrees at this year’s graduation ceremony in May. The recipients, announced by Father Boroughs in an April 1st email, are Dr. Michael Collins ‘77, chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School; Reverend David Beckmann, an anti-hunger activist; Sister Donna Markham, president of Catholic Charities USA; and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will deliver the commencement speech, while Dr. Collins will offer a reflection to the graduating class. Rev. Beckmann and Sister Markham will speak at a special virtual convocation on May 22nd, the day after commencement.

While outdoing last year’s surprise commencement appearance by Dr. Anthony Fauci would be a difficult task, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield is an impressive pick in her own right. A career diplomat, she has served in U.S. missions in Switzerland, Pakistan, Kenya, The Gambia, Nigeria, and Jamaica, as well as several tours in Washington, DC. After an ambassadorship to Liberia between 2008 and 2012, she served as Director General of the Foreign Service between 2012 and 2013 and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 2013 to 2017, before retiring after thirty-five years at the State Department. Her devotion to public service provides much for Holy Cross students to appreciate and emulate.

Unfortunately, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s shameful recent comments cast a negative light on her previously apolitical reputation. Speaking last week before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (itself a problem, given Sharpton’s history of racism and anti-Semitism), Thomas-Greenfield recounted her personal experiences with racial discrimination, before stating, “I have seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles.” She went on to judge racism as “a problem in every society,” citing as examples the ongoing genocides against the Rohingya in Burma and Uyghurs in China. Beyond the obvious issue of equivalating—even indirectly—the United States with the murderous, authoritarian regimes in China and Burma, Thomas-Greenfield’s remarks raise serious concerns regarding her role as US ambassador to the UN. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board rightly noted, her role as UN ambassador is to “speak for American values and interests” on the world stage. Instead, she has chosen to revive a version of President Obama’s apology tour and use her platform to self-flagellate and denigrate the country she is supposed to represent and defend.

Thomas-Greenfield is just the latest in the College’s recent tradition of inviting progressive political and media figures to speak or receive honorary degrees. Recent commencement speakers who fit this mold have included Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Democratic state representative Mark Kennedy Shriver, NPR host Michele Norris, racial activist Bryan Stevenson, and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. To be fair, while several of these—including Favreau, Casey, Matthews, and Shriver—are alumni, the fact remains that Holy Cross has frequently drawn commencement speakers from the left, but rarely from the right. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the College’s most famous alumnus (the recent Fauci fad aside), has received an honorary degree from his alma mater, but never spoken at commencement. If the Holy Cross administration is unwilling to host commencement speakers from all ideological backgrounds, it would be best to avoid inviting political figures at all.

Before her recent comments, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield was fairly nonpartisan, with only a controversy or two under her belt. During her confirmation hearing, she was criticized by some Republicans for a 2019 speech delivered at a Communist Party of China-sponsored Confucius Institute in which she praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative. She described the speech as a “mistake” at her Senate hearing, and was ultimately confirmed in a bipartisan 78-20 vote. She later denounced China’s treatment of its Uighur population as a “genocide” in a speech before the UN General Assembly—a promising sign that she will continue to stand up for human rights in spite of Chinese pressure.

Another concern was her pledge during her testimony that a “personal priority” would be to protect women’s access to “a full range of reproductive health services,” which, as a Heritage Foundation article noted, in the UN context, includes abortion. As an invited speaker to a Catholic college, this is obviously problematic. However, as noted by Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, it is acceptable for a non-Catholic with personal disagreements with Church teaching to deliver a speech at a Catholic college in most circumstances. An issue only arises when the speaker in question has been “publicly and… stridently in opposition to clear, fundamental Catholic teaching.” With this in mind, it is important to note that the vast majority of Thomas-Greenfield’s career was spent within the Foreign Service, serving in a nonpartisan capacity under presidents of both parties, as a member of the State Department bureaucracy. So while some of her views might not align with those of the Church, there is no reason for this to overshadow her merit as a leader in other areas, particularly in advancing democracy overseas.

Recent controversies aside, her life story actually holds a lot for conservatives to appreciate. A descendant of slaves, she was born and raised in a small town in Louisiana, where she grew up attending segregated schools and witnessing Ku Klux Klan cross burnings in her neighborhood. As she later testified before the UN General Assembly on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, “I know the ugly face of racism. I lived racism. I have experienced racism. And I survived racism.” She not only survived—she thrived.

After graduating in 1970 from a (still) all-black high school, she opted not to attend the local historically black college like many of her other classmates. Instead, she set her sights on Louisiana State University—which she was only able to attend “as a consequence of a lawsuit.” There, despite unsympathetic white professors, she was able to graduate and went on to earn her master’s in public administration from the University of Wisconsin. She later began a PhD program before leaving to enter the Foreign Service in 1982.

That a black American from the Deep South who grew up under segregation and amid Klan violence could go on to become one of the country’s top foreign policy leaders is a remarkable achievement in itself. Even more remarkable is that she was able to accomplish this without the interference of affirmative action programs or institutional “anti-racism” efforts. Hers is a story of pure grit and determination. As Thomas-Greenfield put it in her confirmation hearing, “To me, that represents the progress, and promise, of America” (too bad her recent comments have undermined this message). In an age where universities—Holy Cross included—increasingly prioritize “protecting” students and validating their fragility rather than teaching them resilience, Thomas-Greenfield’s story is an invaluable one.

The other invitees to this year’s ceremonies, while less prominent, are similarly impressive figures in their respective fields. Dr. Michael Collins ‘77 is chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and senior vice president for health sciences for the university as a whole. Before starting at UMass, he headed the Archdiocese of Boston-sponsored Caritas Christi Health Care system for ten years between 1994 and 2004. He has served as chair of the board of both the College of the Holy Cross and the Catholic Health Association of the United States. Most recently, he oversaw the creation of the UMass Medical School Vaccine Corps, which recruited over 6,400 volunteers to distribute COVID-19 vaccines throughout the state. Collins’ career exhibits not only a clear dedication to public service, but fidelity to the Church’s mission in healthcare. Deserving in his own right, he is an even more welcome choice when considering Holy Cross’s past decisions to honor pro-abortion speakers like MSNBC host Chris Matthews.

The Rev. David Beckmann and Sister Donna Markham are similarly respectable choices. Beckmann, as president of Bread for the World, a Christian anti-hunger advocacy organization, led campaigns to reduce hunger in the United States and abroad. A former World Bank economist, he currently serves on the steering committee of the Circle of Protection, an interdenominational Christian anti-hunger advocacy network. He was awarded the World Food Prize in 2010. Sister Donna Markham is president of Catholic Charities USA. She previously taught at St. John’s Seminary in Michigan and at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. A Dominican sister and clinical psychologist, she is Catholic Charities’ first female president in its 110-year history. It will be refreshing to hear the perspectives of these two servant-leaders whose work is grounded in faith and moral principles, rather than the narcissistic progressive orthodoxies that often seem to define conversations surrounding social justice at Holy Cross.

As alumni well know, Holy Cross has a mixed track record when it comes to honorary degrees—and preserving the College’s Catholic, Jesuit tradition more broadly. This year’s invitees are (mostly) a welcome breath of fresh air. While the Holy Cross administration consistently eschews tradition and the liberal ethos in favor of divisive political agendas, the Class of 2021 will at least get to hear from some sources of true inspiration at this year’s commencement and convocation ceremonies: Dr. Collin’s story of leadership and Catholic medical ethics; and Rev. Beckmann and Sister Markham’s spirit of faith-inspired activism and service. Hopefully Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will strike a similar note in her commencement address, and draw on her impressive story to offer a message of resilience, patriotism, and public service—rather than use the opportunity to once again pick at America’s racial scabs.