Commit to Defend Taiwan

With the rise of an authoritarian and aggressive People’s Republic of China (PRC), the United States' role as a global hegemon is increasingly under threat. The greatest potential flash point of this new great power rivalry is the island nation of Taiwan, formally the Republic of China. How the US manages China’s aggression towards Taiwan is crucial, as it will not only determine the future of the US-China relationship, but may well decide the fate of the liberal world order that has prevailed since the end of World War II. Scholars and commentators have arrived at numerous answers, ranging from making a hard commitment to Taiwanese security, to increased support for Taiwan short of a full commitment, to the abandonment of the island. With the changing security environment and importance of Taiwan to US credibility and national security, altering US policy towards a commitment to the defense of the island – strategic clarity – is the best route forward.

Taiwan is essential to American security both regionally and globally. The island is at the center of the First Island Chain (a collection of islands from Japan and Taiwan through to the Philippines and Malaysia), making it difficult for the Chinese navy to operate unfettered in the Pacific Ocean. Most of China’s central-eastern seaboard does not have any deep water ports (while Taiwan’s coast does), which forces submarines to travel at the ocean’s surface until the water is deep enough beyond the First Island Chain. Taiwan also straddles major trade routes that pass through the East China Sea, allowing the island significant control over commerce. The strategic qualities of Taiwan make it of great interest to the United States, as its occupation by the PRC could pose significant security threats to the region and allow China easier access to the high seas. 

Taiwan is also important for its moral and political value. As a beacon of liberal, free enterprise democracy in East Asia, the island is a natural friend of the United States and is on the front lines of the battle against Chinese authoritarianism. The world is once again in a struggle between two opposing ideologies: a free market, liberal democratic system opposed to the Chinese model of a managed economy married to political authoritarianism. Keeping Taiwan a flourishing, independent democracy will be an important success in the eyes of the free world. The island’s tech-driven economy has also enabled it to be a leading producer of semiconductor technology. This is an asset for the United States – particularly with China competing to become the world’s preeminent technological power – and cooperation with the Taiwanese can help the American technology sector, particularly in the areas of AI and advanced computing technology. 

Currently, the United States has a policy of strategic ambiguity towards the island nation whereby the United States neither commits to defend Taiwan nor declares that it will not do so. The purpose of this is to prevent China from invading Taiwan and Taiwan from declaring independence. China, not knowing if the US will enter a conflict, will choose to avoid invasion for fear of intervention, and Taiwan, also unclear about whether the US will come to its aid, will not declare independence (which would risk war).

Strategic ambiguity, by its nature, means that it is unclear if the US will intervene in a future crisis involving Taiwan. Ambiguity only functions when China is deterred by the US military and when Taiwan feels that it would lose a war with China without US support. Today, however, when China is a peer adversary, ambiguity is worthless. China believes that it can impact the US’ decision of whether to intervene through massive military preparation: the more powerful the Chinese military, the less willing the US will be to come to Taiwan’s defense. Ambiguity only signals to the Chinese that they can influence the US’s calculus, which, by consequence, will embolden them to take risks that they otherwise would not take. Indeed, China launched the largest number of incursions into Taiwan’s Air Defense Identification Zone in October and November 2021 (196 and 159 incursions, respectively). For comparison, October and November 2021 saw a combined 68 incursions. Ambiguity also leads to the risk of miscalculation: if China thinks that it could prevent the US from entering a cross-Strait conflict by defeating Taiwan swiftly, it will be far more likely to make rash decisions about attacking the island. 

Further, even with the current policy of ambiguity, if the US does not come to Taiwan’s defense, it would be devastating for America’s credibility on the world stage. Allies in the region already expect the US to defend the island, and if it refused, it would raise serious doubts about whether the US is a reliable partner. This could spell disaster for the system of alliances and the liberal world order that the US has painstakingly built since World War II. If countries lose faith in the United States, they may choose instead to work with and appease China rather than risk punishment from the PRC because of their relationship with the US. 

The policy of strategic ambiguity must be implemented by an act of Congress creating a formal treaty between the US and Taiwan. Some have argued that a Presidential declaration or executive order would be sufficient. However, as Walter Lohman and Frank Jannuzzi assert, having the President issue an executive order declaring a commitment to the defense of Taiwan is a “dangerous half-measure” that, in terms of policy, does little to change the actual commitment to Taiwan. American honor would then be at stake, but that is not enough. Such a policy would be subject to the constant fluctuation of who occupies the Oval Office, which is no calming thought. America’s commitment to Taiwan must have the force of law behind it, for only then would the country’s support for Taiwan be truly unambiguous. 

There are indeed significant risks in taking this step, and they cannot be discounted. Any policy of strategic clarity must be preceded by an adequate buildup of American forces in the Indo-Pacific so as to make the threat credible. Recent US wargames indicated the potential for an American loss in a China-US conflict over Taiwan given the nation’s current military position – a position that would have to be rectified before a policy of strategic clarity could be pursued. This does not need to be a deployment of tens of thousands of troops —  it need only be enough to impose massive costs on a Chinese invasion effort. Long-range anti-ship missiles, a constant rotation of submarines, a strong fighter and bomber presence for targeted strikes — these would be sufficient to ensure that any invasion fleet would face steep odds while minimizing US forces’ contact with People’s Liberation Army (the Chinese military) anti-air and anti-ship defenses. US allies may be concerned about a potential American defense commitment to Taiwan, but if the US maintains a credible force in the region, that concern should be offset by reassurance.

There is concern in some quarters about a defense commitment enabling (or encouraging) Taiwan to pursue independence. While this would be true if the US made no efforts to address the concern, there are numerous other avenues that the US could take to exert pressure on the Taiwanese, both economic and diplomatic, that could deter them. The simplest policy option is for the US to make the commitment to defend Taiwan contingent upon the island not declaring independence.

The US should also combine a policy of strategic clarity with other means of support for the Taiwanese. Continued sales of arms to the island, particularly those that will inexpensively exploit Chinese weaknesses, are necessary. America should also craft tighter economic ties with the island and work to make its economy more independent of the PRC. Increased advocacy for Taiwan to the international community would also be welcome (like the invitation extended to Taiwan by US President Joe Biden to attend the upcoming Summit for Democracy), and the US should take steps to preserve the inter-state ties Taiwan has and encourage further ones. These moves will harm US-China relations, but if they come as a part of a larger rethinking of the US’s relationship with the PRC, that harm may simply be the price to pay for the preservation of both US global hegemony and that of the free, liberal world order.

A Response to The Spire: A Catholic Perspective

We would like to commend the writers of The Spire’s article “Why You Should Care About the Texas Heartbeat Act” published on December 3, 2021 for their interest in discussing abortion from a Catholic perspective. Certainly, the care they show for Catholic values and our Holy Cross identity is admirable. This is particularly shown in their deference to Catholic Social Teaching (CST): “we value the call to family and community, solidarity, the preferential option for the poor and the life and dignity of the human person.” However, they overlook the true gravity of the right to life and human dignity about which they speak. It must be understood that the right to life applies from “womb to tomb,” undergirding the preferential option for the poor, and all other CST principles. 

These seven principles of CST, born out of Pope Leo XIII’s 1891 encyclical Rerum Novarum, are: life and dignity of the human person, call to family, community and participation, rights and responsibilities, preferential option for the poor, the dignity of work and the rights of workers, solidarity, and care for God’s creation. These principles build and depend upon each other; the foundational principle is the right to life and the inherent dignity of every human person. This is why, “The preservation of life is the bounden duty of one and all (Rerum Novarum 44).” The other principles have no ground to stand on without this. Why would we care about feeding those who starve among us, if we don’t recognize their right to life? Why else would it matter if they perish? You can’t clothe, house, or feed a dead person. So then, how can we say we support a preferential option for the poor without first recognizing that those poor are valued and deserve life? The Catechism is very clear that “social justice can be obtained only in respecting the transcendent dignity of [the human person] (CCC 1929).”

The authors of the Spire article ask, “As men and women for others, should we not support those who are struggling in poverty?” The answer is yes! In fact, it is our duty. However, our call to provide a preferential option for the poor extends beyond just the mother to her unborn child as well; the unborn are the poorest among us. As Catholics, we know that “human life must be respected and protected absolutely from the moment of conception (CCC 2270).” But, we don’t need to refer to the catechism for this. Basic science and common sense is enough. Take your parents for example. Are they any more human than you are because they’ve lived longer? Are your little siblings any less human? No, our humanity is not something that changes with age. So what about a child that is 2 months old? 1 month? 1 week? 1 day? 1 minute? 1 second? Is this child any less human from that second she was born to those months after? No. What about that same child, just seconds ago in the birth canal of her mother. Was she any less human then? How about a week before in her mother’s womb? Or a month ago? Or 2 months? Or 9 months? At what moment did this child go from any other being to a human person endowed with such great dignity? This child undergoes no significant change in the birth canal, other than a change in her location – less than a foot from the inside of her mother’s womb to being swaddled in her mother’s arms. What about her development? What biological change instantly grants her all those rights a human being has? There is no discreet moment except conception, when she receives a unique set of DNA from her mother and father. Indeed, this is the only problem we can see with the heartbeat laws in Texas and across this country: they define life at a heartbeat, which is just another arbitrary stage of biological development, holding no weight as to a person’s humanity. They are a step in the right direction, but we should not fool ourselves into thinking that they accurately define the beginning of human life.

If abortion isn’t the real solution, what are real solutions? Visitation House is one. This Worcester, MA organization provides a supportive home for pregnant women during their pregnancy and the first months after the birth of their child. Here, women are given the resources, respect, and love needed to care for themselves and their children. Organizations that supply food, housing, medical care, counseling, child care, and parenting support are all part of extending the preferential option for the poor to both mothers and unborn children. Let’s put our time, energy, effort, and resources into these organizations instead of organizations that murder children and claim to help. This is not to mention the lasting effects that abortion can have on the physical and mental health of women. It’s convenient to pay $500 to Planned Parenthood. It’s far more difficult to raise a child and support a mother. And yet, we must. 

We cannot neglect our duty to extend a preferential option to the poor because it’s inconvenient. Recognizing the dignity of both mother and child, we know that our Holy Cross value to be men and women for and with others does not conflict with our Catholic values that call us to respect life at all stages. Rather, we see that our Catholic faith provides us a great gift: we have more people, both mother and child, whom we can love and serve.This gift of life is born of God’s love for humanity. God’s love which is ir-rationable and irrational. In the Gospel of John, we hear how Jesus used five loaves of bread and two fish to feed 5,000 (John 6:1-14). After everyone was fed, there were still twelve baskets of bread leftover. All were satisfied and there was still an abundance. God does not ration his love, so neither should we. As we strive to imitate the ways of Christ as men and women for and with others, we can and must choose to love and nourish people of all ages, abilities, and intellects. We must choose to love both the born and the unborn – the women who are pregnant and their children.

A Response to The Spire: A Non-Catholic Perspective

Holy Cross’ mission states that the “College should lead all its members to make the best of their own talents, to work together, to be sensitive to one another, to serve others, and to seek justice within and beyond the Holy Cross community.”  As our friends at The Spire stated, we are indeed called to be men and women for and with others, and as a Christian institution, we are to value family, community, service, and life.  

Despite what the authors at The Spire said, Christians do not need to pick between supporting those in poverty and being advocates for life from the moment of conception until natural death.  As members of the Holy Cross community, we should always stand with others, and part of this is supporting women who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances.  This is part of our Christian mission, and we should always be sources of comfort to those who need it.  This, however, does not require us to be advocates of abortion.

First of all, simply supporting abortion in politics does nothing for those in need and definitely doesn’t make someone a man or woman for and with others.  If one truly cares for those who are less fortunate, that person would be pursuing community service that directly assists the underserved.  Volunteering for food banks, shelters, and English Language Learning (ELL) nonprofit organizations are just a few examples of how those who are passionate for service can serve those in need, and all of these do more than just adopting a pro-abortion stance on social media.

Policy-wise, there are also better alternatives for lifting those out of poverty or closing the black-white income gap than legal abortion.  After nearly 50 years of the forced legalization of abortion nationwide, there has been no concrete benefit to the poor and no concrete benefit to the prosperity of black Americans.  If abortion was such a factor in the equality and economic development of black Americans, we would have seen a closing of the wealth gap between white and black Americans since 1973, yet we have not.

Instead of resorting to promoting the deaths of children of the less fortunate and calling it a “human right,” we should pursue policy that actually allows people to pull themselves out of poverty.  Lifting regulations off of small businesses and startups, lowering taxes, funding and promoting education, and partnering with nonprofit service organizations are much more effective ways of helping those in need than advocating abortion’s legality.

Abortion is indeed a human rights issue.  However, the issue is not the banning of abortion, but rather abortion itself.  Abortion is the murder of a child who has no voice and no ability to defend him or herself.  The child is not given a voice in government, has no choice in his or her own fate, cannot arm him or herself, and cannot have his or her day in court.  

Abortion is not only a human rights issue, but also a social justice issue.  It is a social injustice that black babies are disproportionately the victims of abortion, and since Roe v Wade, 20 million black babies have been aborted.  That is 2 million more than the total black population in America in 1960 (18 million).  Black Americans make up 13.4% of the US population, yet they accounted for 36% of abortions in 2015 while white Americans accounted for 37% of abortions while being 77% of the US population.  25 black children are aborted for every 1,000 pregnancies, compared to 6.8 aborted white children for every 1,000 pregnancies.  

This is a tragedy.  Women, especially women of color, should not feel like the solution to unwanted pregnancy is abortion.  Instead of shaming young mothers, we, as Christians and as Americans, should always do what we can to support them in concrete ways so that they do not feel like their only option is to abort their child.  We need to build a society that is accepting of young mothers who find themselves pregnant under difficult circumstances.  Giving emotional, financial, and physical support is how we show love to those who are underserved – not advocating a policy that sacrifices so many innocent lives, especially black lives, and does not even perform the supposed function of pulling women of color out of poverty.  We must promote a culture of life and love – not death and despair. 

"What has American Politics done to the Catholic Church?" in Review

On November 16 in the Rehm Library, Holy Cross hosted an event called “What has American Politics done to the Catholic Church?” During the event, President Vincent Rougeau led a conversation with Ross Douthat, a conservative writer for the New York Times, and Matthew Sitman, a liberal editor of Commonweal Magazine. The conversation was advertised to touch on “the entanglements of politics and religion, advantages and drawbacks, and whether and how to decouple them.” It attracted many students and professors, nearly filling the library. 

After a brief introduction, each guest shared some opening comments and thoughts on the relationship between American politics and the Catholic Church. In these opening comments, Douthat and Sitman shared their best, most organized and fleshed-out points. Sitman spoke first. His main point was that United States politics is unmerciful, and this lack of mercy has made the Catholic Church's presence in the United States similarly unmerciful. He opined that there is an American inability to fully understand Pope Francis' message of mercy. He also said that neither party can fully capture the Catholic belief system. He then included some general remarks about politics, saying that someone's politics are indicative of their worldview, and what they think is "fundamentally at work behind the vale of tears." He also suggested that beyond politics, we share a common humanity that has become evident throughout the pandemic —  we are united in our shared human fragility. To conclude, he stated that he wanted to share a "message of mercy." 

Some of these points felt tangential, failing to point out specific, identifiable connections between American politics and the Catholic Church. However, Sitman's remarks were very interesting on a philosophical level, suggesting a shift in focus away from rigid party divisions and towards a more general focus on mercy. Amidst severe polarization, I received this message of mercy as an invitation to deal more kindly and respectfully with those of differing political views. 

Douthat then followed with his opening remarks. He began by amusing the audience with an anecdote about his first visit to Holy Cross—he was 20 years-old, drank too much, and went sledding, an experience he hoped to relive (at least partly) during his current visit to Holy Cross. He then shifted to a more serious discussion. He respectfully challenged Sitman's comment that neither party fully encompasses Catholic teaching. He called the implications of this idea a "laundry-list" way of looking at Catholicism and politics: a cliché in which the Democrats have Catholic healthcare policies while the Republicans have Catholic abortion policies. He then discussed how Catholicism is a "strong religious culture that divided against itself in the 1960s with the culture war." He explained that this "culture war" raised questions about women, sex, and the liturgy, questions that caused divisive debate within the Church. Catholics began to identify themselves more by their identities within this debate, rather than being identified as Catholics first—some were Pope John Paul II Catholics, others were Georgetown Catholics, and so on. Douthat opined that the Catholics were fighting over very important issues but in such a way that they began to lack a primary identity. He connected this idea of a divided identity among Catholics to the present day; now, people are defining themselves as Republican or Democrat first and Catholic second. He stated that the intense political culture in the United States has made it so that politics is stealing the attention and intensity that Americans should be putting into the life of the Church. He emphasized this idea with an image of the political parties as strong poles that pull people away from a weak center, the Catholic Church. He argued that the United States needs a strong Catholic center so that Catholics will be drawn together by the religion that unites them, rather than pulled apart by the politics that divide them. 

After hearing them both speak, it was evident that they had very different styles of speech and thought. While Sitman spoke with an inquisitorial tone as he focused on philosophy and humanity, Douthat spoke more as a political expert, focusing on the history of the United States and the Catholic Church as well as the Church's standing in the United States' current political climate.

After these opening remarks, President Rougeau entered the conversation. His first leading question had to do with the American Church as an outlier in the global church, asking whether American Catholics should think of themselves as outliers rather than models. Behind this question was the suggestion that the American Church is particularly flawed, and that Americans should resist nationalism by belittling their country on the global stage. Sitman agreed that the American Catholic Church should not be a model for anyone. He then raised the questions, “What could withstand polarization? Can anything withstand these trends in American life?” Douthat followed Sitman by posing a question of his own, “What is normative Catholicism?” He looked to Europe, where he claims Catholicism is "exhausted" and that the American Church is healthier. He then looked to the rapid Protestantization of Latin America and the conflicts in sub-Saharan Africa. He concluded by saying that "normative Catholicism" does not exist; therefore, the United States cannot be considered an outlier. 

President Rougeau then asked about the role of immigrant churches in the United States, stating that Americans marginalize immigrants while they should be learning from their devoutness. Douthat and Sitman each assented, recalling stories of their experiences with thriving immigrant churches. President Rougeau dwelled on the subject, trying to steer the conversation toward immigration on more than one occasion. While it is an interesting subject to discuss, neither Douthat nor Sitman had anything particularly interesting to say about it each time it was brought up. The repetition of the question came across as an effort by the president to direct the conversation in the way he wanted it to go rather than allowing it to flow naturally. The guests were evidently knowledgeable and ready to speak on various other topics, and the conversation felt somewhat stunted when President Rougeau pressed this issue.

President Rougeau then inquired about their thoughts on the Catholic Church's future in America asking, “Is it doomed?” Sitman gave hope, likening the weakened church to Christ whose "power was made perfect in weakness." However, Douthat challenged him, stating that Americans cannot pretend that the Church has no power— it retains much power and importance, but not so much power that it can still exercise the same authority that it did throughout history. 

Then, the conversation shifted. President Rougeau asked, “Since the Church is still connected to power, is it not setting a bad example for the people in the pews that bishops do not take a stand? For example, why did the bishops say nothing when the Capitol was stormed on January 6?” Sitman laughed and remarked that the conversation was edging close to controversial territory. Given their respective political parties, Douthat and Sitman have different views on what happened on January 6. Douthat assented that the event was bad, but he holds that it was an act perpetrated by a group of immature rabble-rousers rather than what Sitman and President Rougeau think it was: a serious act of insurgency. President Rougeau then recalled how in the past, bishops in the South denounced segregation, and he suggested that bishops’ reactions to January 6 should be similar. Douthat pushed back, saying that the denouncement of segregation had a legal basis while speaking out about January 6 would make the Church seem partisan. 

What was disappointing about the route this conversation took was that the leader of the conversation made his politics known. There are many questionable, anti-Catholic events and policies that could have been used as an example in American politics; therefore, it was unfortunate that only one event was cited, reflecting badly on only one political party. Douthat was there to represent the Catholic Republicans, and Sitman was there to represent the Catholic Democrats. That means that both parties were already sufficiently spoken for, and President Rougeau sharing his politics made the conversation unbalanced, having now two liberal voices outweighing the one conservative voice. As I imagined it, a third person, especially one in a leadership role, should rise above partisanship and act as an encourager of conversation, posing questions that would promote mutual respect between the parties but also lead interesting conversation and debate.

Despite this show of partisanship, I walked away from this event encouraged by Douthat and Sitman's ability to disagree and still have such a good rapport with one another. Sitman began by saying that Douthat is his "favorite enemy," and both chuckled when a point of contention came up. They hardly debated at all, in fact. It seems like they tried to stay away from going in depth concerning the points on which they disagreed, January 6 being an example. They only briefly described their disagreements instead of getting into a heated debate. Since they did not get distracted by debating topics on which they know they disagree, they had the time to each talk separately and, in the end, found many points on which they agreed. They were building on each other's points rather than tearing each other's arguments apart. Their relationship was very refreshing to see. They accepted their differences in thinking. Neither Douthat nor Sitman ever tried to persuade the other into thinking differently, nor did they treat each other dismissively or condescendingly because of their disagreements. I enjoyed watching them talk, and I hope we can act similarly on our own campus—accepting each other's different views but still being able to have good relationships with one another. One of the best messages I took away from this event was that we should identify ourselves as Catholics first and as politically partisan second. In this new form of self-identification, I suspect we as a student body will find that beyond our differences, we have something more important that we share.

Republicans, Stop the Stupidity

With Biden’s poll numbers in the tank and favorable electoral results in state and local races across the country this month, Republicans are on a trajectory to make significant gains in the midterm elections next year.  However, Biden’s unpopularity can be overshadowed by one thing: Republicans’ own stupidity.  Democrats have their fair share of bigoted comments and stupid behavior emanating from members of their party, but with a mainstream media looking for reasons to label conservatives as “racist,” “Islamophobic,” “homophobic,” etc., Republicans have very little room for stupid actions and comments.

Despite this, some Republicans, notably in the US House of Representatives, continue to make reckless and even hateful comments that are used by the Democratic Party and the media to slander all Republicans.  Rep. Paul Gosar’s (R-AZ) anime video depicting the killing of Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) and Rep. Lauren Boebert’s (R-CO) Islamaphobic comments about Rep. Ilhan Omar (D-MN) are just a few examples of these mindless actions that threaten others’ safety and add no value to the Republican Party or to the national political discourse.

This conduct fuels the hatred and division that plagues our country and can be used by criminals to justify violence against others, including members of Congress.  We saw this in the shooting of Rep. Steve Scalise (R-LA), the shooting of Rep. Gabrielle Giffords (D-AZ), the summer 2020 riots, and the January 6th Riot.  The rhetoric of our political leaders have real human consequences.

If the cost of human life isn’t enough, idiotic actions from our representatives have political consequences as well.  Many Republican representatives are disgusted with Rep. Gosar, but the nature of the censure vote pushed by Democrats put them in a tough position.  As Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) pointed out, the vote to strip Rep. Gosar from his committee assignments did not follow House rules, which require an Ethics Committee investigation before such a vote is held.  In the same interview, she condemned the video and stated that had the vote been a simple condemnation and/or followed House rules, she — and many other Republicans — would have voted “yes.”  However, this logic does not echo in the voices of Democrats or the mainstream media, both of whom have an interest in painting all Republicans as evil bigots.

Additionally, it is a common political practice to tie moderate members of the opposing party to the most extreme members of that party.  This does not bode well for Republicans running in light red, purple, and blue districts.  Actions like Gosar and Boebert’s will undoubtedly be unfairly tied to Republican representatives who actively fight against racism and bigotry, like Rep. María Elvira Salazar (R-FL), Rep. Young Kim (R-CA), and Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA).  While Republicans will have their fair share of political ammunition against Democrats in swing districts, Gosar and Boebert’s behavior creates unnecessary overhead for Republicans seeking to take back Congress next year.

So, what needs to be done?  Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy (R-CA) needs to rein in both the far-right (the likes of Gosar, Boebert, and Greene) as well as the squishy never-Trump wing (the likes of Cheney and Kinzinger) behind a shared conservative agenda.  This agenda should be one of responsible finances, smaller government, decentralization, parental choice in education, religious liberty, family values, and equality of opportunity — an agenda that speaks to Americans of all walks of life and gives them power over their own destinies.  This is what conservatives need to promote — not the bigotry of the most fringe members of Congress.

Holy Cross Should Take No Pride in Fauci

Looking at the long list of College of the Holy Cross alumni, many names pop out as being very accomplished individuals. Such names as Bob Cousey, a basketball great, Jon Favreau, an accomplished writer who worked as a speechwriter for President Obama, and Clarence Thomas, associate justice of the United States Supreme Court. Despite these well-accomplished people, one man stands in front as the pride of Holy Cross, that being Anthony Fauci, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases and the Chief Medical Advisor to the President. Despite his de facto status as the pride of Holy Cross, he is the least deserving of the lot, advocating policies that infringe on the American people’s freedoms, like vaccine mandates, and lying to the American public, most nobly in the case of gain-of-function research and the NIH’s involvement with the Wuhan Institute of Virology.

The name Anthony Fauci first entered the collective American vocabulary in the spring of 2020, when he came to be who Americans looked towards for information on the COVID-19 Pandemic. Students of Holy Cross, having just been sent home due to the pandemic, rallied behind Fauci in an effort to gain that connection to the school who’s campus that had just been separated from. Soon, the Instagram trend “Fauci Friday” gained traction, where students would photoshop Fauci into pictures of them and their friends from before the pandemic and put it on their Instagram stories. Unfortunately, Fauci has proved over his time being the face of the COVID-19 Pandemic that he is not a man who should be celebrated.

Since that time, Fauci has become less of a public health policy maker, and more of a talking head for the masses, appearing in interview after interview — some serious, many not — to the point where many on the Left have given him cult status, all while he collects his salary of $417,608 a year, the highest of any federal worker, including the president. It has become commonplace for merchandise to be sold with his face on it, like pillows or bobble heads. Of course one must ask, “What has he actually done to receive this much praise?” Some may point to his earlier work on the HIV/AIDS epidemic that was essential in many ways, for which he received the presidential medal of freedom. Of course, this should be commended, but in terms of his leadership during the COVID-19 Pandemic, it has been marred by bad policy, conflict, and lies.

First, concerning the policies that Fauci has espoused and approved of, many would point to his flip-flopping statements regarding both the danger of COVID-19 as well as his stance on masks as worthy of criticism. On both issues he changed his opinion in the first few months of the pandemic, but I would not point to this as a failure as others would. It is important to acknowledge that science is an ever-evolving field where the answers on which we once agreed as the truth are not always the ones we find to be true later. In this same vein though, vaccine skepticism is surely justified since science is ever evolving, and the vaccine being seen as beneficial by science now, might change in the future. I do not support anti-vaccine rhetoric, but the point is that science is not as cut in stone as the so-called “experts” make it out to be. It is reasonable to be suspicious of a new, somewhat rushed vaccine, under an administration which, before it took office, blasted the vaccine as untrustworthy. Despite this, Fauci still supports the overarching policy of vaccine mandates.

Fauci’s policies limit the freedom of Americans by supporting policies that compel them to have a substance that they find untrustworthy injected into them. Fauci would point to the idea that public health trumps freedom in this case, meaning that you may have skepticism about the vaccine, but by not taking the vaccine you run the risk of killing others through spreading the disease. This argument has very little merit though when one looks at the data comparing the deaths of vaccinated vs unvaccinated Americans. Andy Slavitt, a former adviser to the Biden administration on COVID-19, noted that 98% to 99% of those who died in May from COVID-19 were unvaccinated, and with a vaccine for which we have near universal access in America, excluding children for which the virus poses an extremely minimal threat, this leads to the conclusion that the unvaccinated do not pose a threat to the vaccinated. Why are we trying to save those who do not want to be saved? The United States is a nation constructed to stand against tyranny. This means that, in America, one should have the right to refuse a vaccine, as at this point in the pandemic, the only one that they stand to hurt is themselves. If they choose to risk their lives in this way, that is their choice, similar to how a smoker has the right to smoke, despite increasing his chance of cancer by huge margins.

Fauci’s policies may fly in the face of freedom, but the most disgraceful act that Fauci has undertaken in his time as America’s doctor are his actions related to the lies regarding gain-of-function research in Wuhan. In an exchange in May between Fauci and Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), Fauci said that “We did not fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Wuhan, and the Wuhan Institute of Virology, is the theorized origin of the virus. Gain-of-function research is research that increases the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen, generally involving its transmissibility towards humans.

On October 20th, this claim was utterly debunked by the National Institute of Health (NIH), of which Fauci’s National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) is a part, when they sent a letter to Congress admitting that gain-of-function research did occur in the Wuhan Institute of Virology. The letter details that at least $600,000 was given to EcoHealth, an American-based group who used that money, along with researchers in Wuhan, to study bat coronaviruses. This completely contradicts Fauci’s categorical denial that this type of research occured, despite Fauci working under NIH.

The NIH blames the EcoHealth group, claiming that the appearance of a new highly contagious form of the coronavirus was not reported to them until August of this year. Either Fauci lied and the NIH revealed that lie; or Fauci had no clue what was occurring under the supervision of his own agency; or there is a much larger cover up, possibly involving the origins of COVID-19 and the United States government’s role in it. This comes after an increasing amount of skepticism whether the coronavirus lab leak theory is really as debunked as Fauci would like to make it seem. 

Fauci has, time and again, decried the lab leak theory. And while the majority of government agencies still maintain either that the origin is uncertain or that it is natural (notably with self-reported low confidence), an increasing number of news organizations and even one US government intelligence agency has come to the conclusion that the lab leak theory is the most likely origin. Of course, geopolitical concerns are undoubtedly in the back of the minds of Fauci and the NIH. These concerns include not upsetting the Chinese Communist Party (CCP), similar to how the Director-General of the World Health Organization refused to criticize the CCP in fear that it would not cooperate with the pandemic response, despite its repeated efforts to undermine the information gathering process. It is clear that the CCP has no intention of cooperating and has no consideration for the rest of the world, yet Fauci still chooses to put his trust in them and their scientists.

The CCP has shown repeatedly that it can not be trusted, yet Fauci’s NIAID and the NIH still continue to fund research in China and other foreign countries with suspect ethics. These places do not have the same regulations and safety precautions regarding experiments, and so they are ideal places to conduct dangerous and ethically questionable research. They can claim some degree of plausible deniability as they have done through EcoHealth and its gain-of-function research in Wuhan. Why try to do this research in an American lab with ethical standards, when you could do it in China with no concerns and the ability to blame it on someone else if you leak the most dangerous virus in a century?

Additionally, at the time of this writing, a new story is emerging that Fauci, through the NIH, sent funding to a Tunisian laboratory conducting inhumane experiments on beagles. According to White Coat Waste Project, a bipartisan organization that seeks to end taxpayer-funded experiments on animals, Fauci’s NIAID sent $424,000 to a Tunisian laboratory that undertook experiments where beagles’ heads were put in cages to which sand flies were introduced to eat the dogs’s heads. This story is still developing, so it should be treated with a fair amount of skepticism, but it is concerning nonetheless.

While many on campus take pride in Dr. Anthony Fauci as a Holy Cross alumnus, he has proven, especially through his most recent actions, that he should not be celebrated. His deliberate disregard for freedom in exchange for questionable policy is nonetheless ignored and sometimes even encouraged by his supporters. The cult-like following he has garnered, not just on campus, but in America as a whole, is concerning. Fueled by fanaticism, the very real concerns of suspect research are thrown out the window as nonsense conspiracy theories, rather than concerning and possibly criminal allegations which should be investigated further. Holy Cross should take no pride in Fauci.

Big Tech Hegemony Threatens Civil Discourse

You have likely heard the term “Big Tech” thrown around from time to time. It refers to the dominant information technology companies like Amazon, Google, and Facebook, among others –– basically, the platforms that the majority of Americans use on a daily, or even hourly, basis. And while these platforms are a great tool, our reliance on them is becoming increasingly concerning. Our free speech has become dangerously tied to our ability to access them. These companies have begun selectively applying their terms of service and community standards against those with particular viewpoints, creating a litany of hypocrisy that must come to an end.

The most cited example of Big Tech censorship involves former President Donald Trump. In response to the January 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol, Twitter and Snapchat permanently banned POTUS #45, while Facebook and Instagram put him on an indefinite time-out. These companies believe Trump incited the attack with his media activity and feared his posts would produce further violence. Regardless of whether these claims hold truth or not, one must wonder two things: 1. If Big Tech can censor the President of the Free World, is there a limit to its power? and 2. What does this say about the state of free speech in the United States? The President was completely de-platformed from communicating through Big Tech — he could not post even the most innocent material. The arbitrary application of community standards is extremely concerning, especially when considering how heads of state sponsors of terror are still on social media. These platforms are used to recruit new members and plan violent attacks, but Big Tech is not always as quick to voice concerns over potential violence as they were with a former president. A more consistent application of community standards is clearly necessary.

Beyond the example of #45, other public figures with views adverse to the left’s have also been censored. In May, conservative comedian Steven Crowder received his second strike from YouTube on claims of harassment and cyberbullying. The episode at issue covered the shooting death of Ma’khia Bryant by a police officer. Crowder discussed how Bryant attacked someone with a knife before the officer shot her, arguing with his co-host that the shooting was justified. In a fashion fitting for a comedian, Crowder joked about the incident, eliciting the removal of the video from YouTube. If he received one more strike within 90 days he would have been cut off from the platform and his millions of subscribers. This October, Crowder was subject to a week-long channel freeze for an episode where he suggests “trans people pose a rape threat to women” while discussing California’s decision to host biological males in women’s prisons. YouTube said Crowder violated their hate speech policy. Bill Maher’s video expressing his pleasure with David Koch’s death, however, is completely fine. The issue is that even if the claims do violate YouTube standards, these platforms seem to apply their guidelines very selectively.

The oppressive leftist zeitgeist of today’s discourse even pervades the academic arena, which is perhaps the most dangerous place to censor civil discourse. Even Amazon censors certain books. In February 2021, for example, Ryan Anderson’s book When Harry Became Sally: Responding to the Transgender Movement became the first to be banned under Amazon’s new hate speech policy. The book had been a best-seller when it was first released. Further, Amazon recently prohibited ads for the book BLM: The Making of a New Marxist Revolution because it “contains book/s or content that is not allowed” under its “Creative Acceptance Policies.” The book dives into the difference between saying “black lives matter” and the organization of the same name. These two examples deal with opinions contrary to the left’s agenda, which is reflective of a larger problem within today’s civil discourse. Rather than engaging in difficult discussions, many try to censor the right over claims of hate speech or offensive content. This specifically alters what is considered to be an acceptable opinion, and Big Tech just adds to this growing problem.

Regardless of political leanings, the selective use of Big Tech censorship poses a threat to the country’s political discourse. If we cannot discuss difficult issues freely and openly, then we risk becoming a thoughtless nation. The idea of Orwell’s “memory hole” in his 1984 novel comes to mind: anything the government wanted wiped from the public record was put through a chute into an incinerator to revise history and promote Party dogma. At this point, Big Tech essentially has the power of the memory hole. It can promote the policy positions it favors and censor others under the guise of community standards violations. While some may claim that Big Tech censorship can be solved by switching to a different platform, it is not that simple. Amazon dominates the book-selling market, selling 65% of all new online book units. So, getting blacklisted by Amazon poses a dramatic obstacle to your book sales. Further, if you’re de-platformed from somewhere like YouTube, it becomes incredibly difficult to maintain your following. The loss of your account also marks the loss of your subscribers. Losing access to these platforms means you will have to jump through hoops to maintain what you built. 

If Big Tech is going to go censorship-crazy, they should create more transparent and definitive standards of behavior, applied evenly across the board. The future of civil discourse could very well depend upon it. Our republic was built through deliberation by great thinkers who brought different ideas to the table, with the best ultimately rising to the top. In the spirit of the American experiment, we need to return to true deliberation. A willingness to engage with controversial ideas is the only way to affirm or dispute them. We cannot label everything we disagree with as “hate speech” or “offensive,” even if it makes us uncomfortable. Instead, embrace debate. Prove others wrong. Technology and the media should be a revolutionary way for us to do this. Instead, it has become an enemy of free, unconventional thought. Big Tech’s memory hole must come to an end.

Holy Cross’ Empty Virtue Signaling

In recent decades, Holy Cross has undergone a dramatic transformation from a small, Catholic men’s college to the nationally-recognized liberal arts institution it is today. Like any organization grappling with its identity amid a changing society, this process at Holy Cross has had its fair share of successes and failures. Tensions over to what extent the college’s new, pluralistic identity can coexist with its religious heritage are still ongoing, and are unlikely to be resolved any time soon. But as Holy Cross’ Catholic, Jesuit character increasingly falls by the wayside, it is worth examining what the College’s traditional ethos is being replaced with. As many students and alumni know, social justice issues are a central focus of the College today. But the administration’s initiatives in these areas reveal an institution defined more by virtue signaling than substantive action.

Take, for instance, the administration’s commitment to racial justice. The College’s Anti-Racism Action Plan, adopted in June 2020, outline the administration’s initiatives to transform Holy Cross into an “actively anti-racist institution.” The plan, then-President Boroughs wrote, is a “starting point” for “overcom[ing] the sin of racism, whether it be interpersonal or structural,” at Holy Cross. That the administration apparently believes Holy Cross to be an institution infected by structural racism is curious in itself. Of the three highest-profile members of the College’s executive team — President Vincent Rougeau, Provost Margaret Freije, and Vice President for Student Affairs Michele Murray — no less than two are black. Would this be possible at a structurally racist institution? 

Nonetheless, this is the premise the College is working with. To be sure, racism is a serious issue — and indeed a sin — that should be taken seriously by any organization, and especially mission-driven institutions like Holy Cross. And although there are serious issues with the contemporary “anti-racist” movement, ideas for making Holy Cross a more diverse and welcoming community are certainly worth pursuing. So, even if the impetus for Holy Cross’ recent anti-racism efforts — the College’s supposed structural racism — is questionable, at least some positive impacts will come of it, right?

Not exactly. The College’s Anti-Racism Action Plan is many things, but “substantive” is not one of them. Its forty goals are mostly vague, cosmetic, myopic, or trivial — or some combination of the four. Workshops, seminars, reflection series, and ad-hoc committees abound, including sessions on “Becoming a White Ally for Racial Justice,” and a “Listen and Learn” book club. Other initiatives seem potentially problematic (such as a proposed reporting website for “microaggressions” on campus), or appear not to have been implemented (such as a planned “Anti-Racism Capacity Building Fund” for student organizations).

A major pillar of the plan calls for “recruit[ing] diverse communities — students, faculty, and staff — to our campus.” But, as I noted in a previous article, the Holy Cross student body is already 26 percent nonwhite — higher than Massachusetts statewide (22 percent). Meanwhile, 36 percent of the College’s tenure-track faculty hires in the five years prior to the adoption of the anti-racism plan were people of color, already higher than the nonwhite proportion of recent doctoral graduates (33 percent). Evidently, Holy Cross doesn’t need an “Anti-Racism Action Plan” to recruit diverse talent.

The College’s fervor for racial justice appears even more empty when considering the administration’s actions, in recent years, to backtrack on true efforts to provide opportunities for minority students. Most notably, Holy Cross in 2019 quietly abandoned its need-blind admissions policy, which had been in place for decades. Need-blind admissions, in which an applicant’s need for financial aid is not considered in admissions decisions, help equalize the college admissions process and give students from disadvantaged backgrounds a greater chance when applying to a selective institution like Holy Cross. Importantly, need-blind admissions disproportionately benefit students of color, and colleges with this policy experience measurable gains in student diversity.

Of course, need-blind admissions are not financially feasible for most colleges and universities in the United States. Indeed, Holy Cross gave this reason when they ended the policy two years ago, citing the burden of $67 million in annual financial aid costs. Nonetheless, with a $760 million endowment, and $420 million raised by the recent “Become More” capital campaign, it is hard not to feel that the College could devote more resources to financial aid if it wished to, especially given its willingness to spend, for instance, an exorbitant $107 million on a new performing arts center. It’s just a matter of priorities.

What good are “anti-racism action plans” and Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) workshops when the administration has taken concrete steps to make Holy Cross less accessible to minority students? Adding insult to injury is the fact that even as Holy Cross claims it cannot afford the cost of need-blind admissions, the size of its DEI bureaucracy — and the associated costs — have multiplied. The Anti-Racism Action Plan announced the hiring of at least seven new administrators — three in the Office of Multicultural Education and four in the Office of Title IX and Equal Opportunity. This is in addition to the preexisting Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion.

The duties of these staff include hosting student events like Gathered, a “self-care workshop” where students can “reclaim their space and energy,” and Spectrum, advertised as a “celebratory space that centers queer, trans, non-binary, and gender non-conforming BIPOC [black, indigenous, and people of color] experiences.” One cannot help but feel that the salaries of the staff leading events like this could be better put to use by the College elsewhere. My own suggestion would be to combine these offices into one, cut the staff by two-thirds, and redirect the surplus funding to something that would actually benefit students— such as a scholarship fund for students of minority or disadvantaged backgrounds.

Holy Cross’ unwillingness to back up its professed commitments with substantive action is not limited to “anti-racism.” The College, for instance, proclaims that “at Holy Cross, sustainability isn’t a buzzword” — yet it continues to invest in fossil fuels, and rejected calls in 2016 to divest from dirty energy. And, in the midst of a significant dining services staff shortage, Holy Cross has left students to continue facing limited food options and shortened hours rather than raising wages to attract workers. As the College’s assistant director of employment, Margaret Rollo, noted in a recent Spire interview, “We currently don’t have wages or a salary that is competitive. That’s up to the College to make those decisions.” With its ample financial resources, surely Holy Cross could offer dignified wages to its dining staff if it wished to. Again, priorities.

Why is Holy Cross’ commitment to “social justice” reflected in its rhetoric, but not its actions? The answer is simple. It is much easier to be “virtuous” in ways that require little concrete sacrifice on the part of the College and its administrators. It is easier to hang rainbow flags, host “allyship” workshops, and install composting bins than it is to take on the financial and institutional costs necessary for the College to pursue real action on the causes it advocates for. To be sure, Holy Cross’ professed commitments to racial justice, environmental sustainability, and other causes are admirable — at least in theory. But virtue signaling is not virtue, and language without action is empty.