We Must Save Hyde (and Weldon too)

President Biden’s new budget proposal once again takes aim at the child in the womb, this time by omitting the language of the Hyde Amendment.  A bipartisan legislative provision that has been included in every appropriations bill since 1976, the Hyde Amendment prohibits federal funding for abortion, except to save the life of the mother or if the pregnancy is the result of incest or rape. 

In addition to Hyde, the Biden administration has also removed the Weldon Amendment from the budget proposal. Since 2005, the Weldon Amendment has protected physicians, healthcare providers, and hospitals from undue discrimination by federal agencies and state and local governments, guaranteeing that all healthcare professionals or entities do not have to “provide, pay for, provide coverage of, or refer for abortions.” Without the Weldon Amendment, state governments would have the green light to prejudice and coerce healthcare professionals for their moral or religious objections to abortion. In 2020, the Trump Administration withheld roughly $200 million in California Medicaid Funds due to the state’s unlawful attempt to ignore the provisions of the Weldon Amendment.

Over the past 45 years, the Hyde Amendment has saved over 2.5 million lives. For all of those years, Planned Parenthood, which profits from performing abortions and the sale of abortifacients, has been pushing for its removal from the annual appropriations bill. Instead of offering solutions to such current problems as inflation, border control, energy, and Russian and Chinese aggression, Democrats want to force Americans to subsidize abortion, disregarding the deeply held moral concerns of many citizens.

While millions of Americans were forced to forego and delay important operations and procedures during the worst days of the COVID-19 pandemic, abortion clinics in many states remained opened despite strict lockdown and social distancing regulations. While churches, schools, and nonprofits had their doors forcibly shut, unable to provide services to the most vulnerable, Planned Parenthood was allowed to continue to perform abortion procedures.

As polls have repeatedly shown, a strong majority of Americans back the Hyde Amendment. A recent Marist College poll reported that as of January, 2022, 54% of Americans oppose taxpayer funding of abortion. The same poll also reported that 71% of Americans support some kind of legal limits on abortion. This poll confirms the results of other relatively recent polls. A Politico and Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health poll reported in 2016 that 58% of Americans opposed allowing Medicaid funding to be used for abortion services. Yet, Congressional Democrats continue to ignore the statistics and willfully peddle pro-abortion talking points.

In July of 2020, Congressman Jim McGovern, whose district accounts for most of Worcester County, tried to stoke fear by claiming that the Hyde Amendment discriminates against women of color and those with low-incomes. Congressman McGovern, who professes himself to be a Catholic and who attributes many of his policies to the Church’s charity and efforts to serve the poor, has a 100% rating from the Planned Parenthood Action Fund. Surely the Congressman must see that by his support for abortion, a sin which cries out to Heaven for retributive justice, he has turned his back on the Church. 

On March 30, 2022, Congresswoman Ayanna Pressley, known for her association with “The Squad,” a group of ultra-progressive and socialist Democrats in the House of Representatives, claimed that the Hyde Amendment was “racist and discriminatory.” If the amendment reduces the number of African-American babies that are aborted, how can this outcome be deemed racist? Standing against abortion for the defense of the defenseless unborn baby in the womb is an act of charity.

Women should not be pressured, with government support, into having abortions because they face difficult situations. Planned Parenthood, and other abortion providers, want the Hyde and Weldon Amendments removed in order to ramp up abortion marketing significantly. Underprivileged women need resources, support, and aid, including the ready availability of adoption services where appropriate, not more resources aimed at terminating their pregnancy.

Abortion, as Mother Teresa said, is “the greatest destroyer of peace because it destroys two lives.” Instead of expanding government’s financing of abortion at time when the average American is struggling, Congress should reallocate the limited government funding currently going to abortion providers and advocates to pregnancy centers that actually aid women through their crisis pregnancies, and beyond.

President Biden’s budget is yet another perfidious attack on the unborn, a trend which has been consistent throughout his entire political career. Every American who is moved by attacks on the defenseless should mobilize now, and strive to save Hyde. Now that leaked documents from the Supreme Court indicate the imminent overturn of Roe v. Wade and Planned Parenthood v. Casey, the fight against abortion, one of the great evils of our time, has only just begun.

The Fight for Freedom

*This article was written on 27 February 2022. Some references may be out of date, but the article itself is still relevant.

Americans frivolously throw around the word ‘freedom,’ all too often without a true sense of what it means. Freedom is a fragile phenomenon, and one that, for the great majority of human history, has not existed. Modern Americans do not know what it is like to have their freedoms truly threatened, to stand on the brink of tyranny and oppression, and we are unbelievably lucky for that. But our experience is an exception to the rule, and the valiant struggle of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian brutality exemplifies just how precious freedom is. 

In 2014, the Ukrainian people took to the streets, braving sniper fire and savage police repression, to oust the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych. The Maidan Revolution, or the Revolution of Dignity, was a seminal moment in the country’s history, turning it decidedly in a pro-Western direction. After the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, as well as the Russian-sponsored proxy conflict in the Donbas region, there was a rejuvenation of the Ukrainian national identity. The people of Ukraine wanted the freedoms, the prosperity, and the protection that the West – primarily the EU and NATO – offered, and they rejected the autocratic regime of their neighbor to the East. Populations all over Ukraine, including in majority Russian-speaking areas, have come to identify far more with Ukraine over the past eight years of the low-level war with Russia. They see what has happened in the rebel territories of Donetsk and Luhansk: repression, economic stagnation, and militarization. Ukrainians do not want that, and the valiant resistance that they have put up against the Russian juggernaut provides no better evidence of this.

During the first phase of the Russian invasion, a Ukrainian marine,Vitaly Skakun Volodymyrovych, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country in order to blunt the Russian advance. Deployed on the border of Russian-occupied Crimea, he gave his life in order to destroy the Henichesk bridge. Knowing he would be unable to exit the blast zone in time, Volodymyrovych decided to complete his mission rather than escape with his life. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky subsequently announced that the marine would posthumously receive the honor of Hero of Ukraine. Similar cases of heroism abound. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv – men and women who days ago were strolling down the city’s boulevards – have taken up weapons to defend their homeland. These ordinary citizens, alongside the tens of thousands of professional soldiers, have been willing to face down one of the world’s most powerful militaries. It is truly a case of David and Goliath. Even so, much like David, the Ukrainians are fighting for what is truly right and just. Ukrainians have come to understand what freedom tastes like; they have determined, in the words of Patrick Henry, that life is not so dear nor peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery. 

The question confronting the West now is, just how much does freedom matter to us? An interstate peace that has more or less reigned in Europe since 1945 – the breakup of Yugoslavia being more of a civil war than an interstate conflict – is now shattered. Not since the Nazis marched accross the continent have forces of this size clashed or a war of conquest on this scale occurred there. Take a moment to consider the scale that the invasion of Ukraine entailed: well over 400,000 troops engaged across three quarters of Ukraine’s 4350 mile border, with every major city in Ukraine targeted by airstrikes, and Russian forces fighting in the streets of towns and cities across the country — including the capital. If this can happen on the border of the European Union, on the most developed continent on earth, Westerners would do well to realize it may not stop there. China is watching how the West responds with the utmost care. The people of Taiwan may soon see the same kind of ferocity that Ukraine is now enduring. 

The West had ample opportunities to bolster Ukraine’s defense before the Russians invaded. Russian troops began their buildup in earnest in November 2021, and it was watched by the world for months. The US, UK, and select other Western nations provided weaponry, but it was woefully inadequate to the need. Russia has undergone a massive military modernization since the mid-2000s, investing tens of billions of dollars to procure and upgrade equipment. It has highly advanced air, naval, and ground forces, along with sophisticated cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. Ukraine, by contrast, has a robust army, but virtually no navy or air force to speak of, and its air defenses are widely known to be insufficient. The West could have sent advanced air defense equipment, ground vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and more anti-tank weaponry. Much of this equipment sits in storage in American military facilities, and it could have been flown out on relatively short notice. Western countries, starting on 25 February, completely changed their response. Countries from Germany to Sweden to Australia have agreed to supply Ukraine with a substantial quantity of desperately needed weaponry. This deserves much praise, but it should have been done earlier.

The initial reticence on the part of the West to back up its words of support for Ukraine with effective, truly substantive action reflects both a fundamental misunderstanding of its challenges and a fracturing of its ideological commitment to the Free World Order. Russia and China do not care about a rules-based international order. The only reason they ever work within it is because they are constrained in doing so. It is the Free World that constrains them to it, a Free World that is well-armed and resolute. When those boundaries disintegrate, the world returns to the violent place it has been for most of its history. Brutal dictatorships, like the criminals that lurk in the most dangerous cities, listen to nothing but force. When the West does not have the will or the material force to back up its diplomacy, diplomacy becomes worthless. And when diplomacy becomes worthless, there is no inhibition to violence.

While the West dithered and bickered over the proper response, Russia was dealt a free hand to execute its brutal invasion. If the West cannot stand up for a fellow democracy in Europe, will it stand up for Taiwan? Where is the line to be drawn? Will it only defend those treaty commitments that already exist, such as NATO? If that is the case, Western peoples must be willing to suffer the consequences of a new world order dominated by the Chinese and the Russians. A new order where violence is but another tool in the pursuit of national interests. In the modern world, countries do not have the option of walling themselves off from the rest of humanity; when evil is allowed to run rampant thousands of miles away, it will eventually reach your doorstep. 

The people of Ukraine understand something that the overwhelming majority of Westerners do not: that freedom is tenuous, that it is precious, and that it is worth dying for. Do not take freedom for granted. Do not take your life, with all of its comforts and luxuries, for granted. These things sit on a razor's edge. Recognize that it is because of the West and the Free World Order that capital cities in the rest of Europe do not have to face missiles and armored columns. That Eastern Europe is largely free from the grip of tyranny. That Taipei and Seoul are home to free and prosperous people. These gifts are not free. The Ukrainian people know this, and they are sacrificing their lives because of that. Keep them in your prayers, and may the peace of Christ come to rest upon Ukraine. слава україні!

COVID and Coercion

The College of the Holy Cross recently made the announcement that it would begin the process of rolling back mask mandates in spaces across campus on February 28th – a process which the administration already retroactively delayed indefinitely as of February 45th, due to a spike in cases. They claimed that they were only able to make this move because 90% of the student population had received their booster shot. Indeed, students received frequent emails encouraging them to report their booster status, with the message that “the only thing preventing us from removing masking is the students who have not uploaded their booster.” However, after the new masking policy was announced, the booster requirement began to be enforced with the threat of un-enrollment for students who didn’t comply. Why did the administration stress the need for a 90% booster rate, despite the City of Worcester voting to roll back their mandates starting February 18th? And why did the outcome from not being boosted so quickly shift from not being able to receive the privilege of not wearing masks to effective expulsion from the college? 

It seems, simply put, that these measures are a means to mask and soften the administration’s own behavior by pitting students against each other adversarially as a means to mitigate the ire they attract from students. I’m not suggesting that there is some grand conspiracy from above to turn students against each other; however, the lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the administration at the expense of the student body does contradict their continuous effort to develop “community.” Indeed, these tactics are a means of coercion – deliberately manipulating the optics of policy to make them more appealing and limit pushback. But, why am I complaining? Shouldn’t I just be happy that mask mandates are falling away? Yes, I am happy. Perhaps, I’m too cynical regarding the function of the administration, and maybe I’m reading too far into the minutiae of these policies and into the wording of emails. But, if a Liberal Arts education has taught me anything, it’s that we are called to scrutinize everything we read, especially from those in positions of power. 

To begin revealing these coercive measures, I will begin with the debacle regarding the basketball courts in the Jo. On January 26th, students received an email announcing a five day closure of these courts as a response to certain students playing on the courts while not wearing masks. It went so far as to say that this noncompliance with the mask mandate was “egregius” (quite a severe word for wanting to be able to breathe easily while exercising). The email also included a warning about students not wearing masks on other exercise equipment. While these students were technically breaking the rules, it’s hard to think they were doing anything “egregiously” wrong. The Jo is a wide open, well-ventilated space, where students are constantly moving. There’s little more risk of transmission there than carrying out the same activity outside. But, even if the behavior was that bad, why did this entail the closing of the courts? It’s not like some students playing on the courts without masks infused the courts and the air above them with COVID particles. Like a parent punishing their child by taking away their phone or putting them in time out, they wanted to punish us, so they took away something we enjoyed. Worse, though, was the use of this punishment to blame students and turn us against each other. The email announcing the closing of the courts places the blame on students: “Students in noncompliance jeopardize their access to The Jo.” It is us, the students, who might ruin the experience for everyone else, not the administration's arbitrary punishment.

Why do I bring this up? It is a relatively small administrative intervention, despite the worrying implications. Well, there is a suspicious similarity between this punishment and the College’s arbirtary 90% booster quota. Remember the wording from the email stating the imposed requirements for removing mask mandates on campus: “The only thing preventing us from removing masking, is the students who have not uploaded their booster.” Besides the description of “students” as “the thing,” which is suggestively (though hopefully accidental) dehumanizing of students, it also directly places blame for the continuation of masking onto those students who haven’t complied. So, for students who want masks gone, who else can they be mad at than the students who haven’t been boosted or haven’t reported their booster? Perhaps the college should have been more honest and said “The only thing preventing us from removing masking is that we arbitrarily set a 90% booster compliance rate, and we have to wait until that is met. And no, we can’t go one iota lower.”

The arbitrary nature of the 90% required booster rate becomes all the more apparent as the college has decided to indefinitely delay the roll back of mask mandates. We reached the goal that was supposed to grant us this privilege but, apparently, the booster rate doesn’t really matter whatsoever, only the number of cases on campus. It is this arbitrary nature that suggests more coercive inventions. In the email notifying students of this delay, the wording for the justification is much the same as for the closure of the gymnasium courts, “we have experienced a sustained spike in our positivity rate due to two student clusters, one where a policy was violated.” Students are to blame. Students are again the adversary to removing masks on campus.

Further revealing the arbitrary and coercive nature of this booster threshold, the college has changed the consequences for not being boosted.  Before, not being boosted was an impediment to removing masks, now beginning February 25th, not being boosted will result in your unenrollment from Holy Cross. In the former of these policies, the booster was the key to a privilege: we needed students to report their booster to be able to remove masking on campus. As described previously, this policy positioned students who hadn’t complied as an impediment to their fellow students from achieving that privilege. Now, the same requirement, to receive the booster, is a matter of attending the college or not. So, the push to achieve a 90% booster rate in order to remove masking was entirely pointless. It created a situation where students were uselessly pitted against each other in order to achieve a goal, when in reality, the college was planning to threaten students with being kicked out anyways. Why not enforce the un-enrollment procedure (which is an ethical can of worms I will not even begin to open here) from the beginning? One might argue that setting the masking compliance quota was a way to encourage students to report their booster shot. But, surely, threatening un-enrollment would have been more than effective to achieve a 90% booster rate, at which point the college could have begun to roll back masking without creating a false competition between students. But, that would have made the college the big, bad guy; they would have seemed harsh and demanding. Rather, the college temporarily made students the adversary to encourage a majority of students to comply with the booster mandate, while positioning themselves as the beneficent gateway to a mask-free campus. It was they who wanted to remove masks, if other students would just get boosted! Then, only after most students complied, the college positioned itself adversarially to the remaining 10% of students who weren’t boosted. 

I in no way mean to suggest that our mostly calm, mostly peaceful, and mostly affable campus is the site of a full blown class war, but I do think it’s important to notice and reveal the more worrying procedures of the college. So yes, I am overjoyed that mask mandates are falling away, and I thank the administration for making the right decision and moving forward with this matter. However, they have claimed and enforced new authority over students – the ability to enforce masking and boosting – through coercive means. I hope that the administration will fully own its policies and their ramifications in the future. Further, I hope, in the goal of building community on campus, they will be more careful in their own wording towards and treatment of students.

SCOTUS as a Political Institution

On January 27, Justice Stephen Breyer, the most senior justice of the United States Supreme Court, announced his retirement from the court at the beginning of October. During the announcement, Justice Breyer held up a pocket copy of the United States Constitution and stated “People have come to accept this Constitution, and they’ve come to accept the importance of a rule of law.” Textualist interpreters would rightfully note the irony in Breyer’s statements, as he has played an active role in reshaping the constitution according to his activist interpretation to suit radical policies, rather than judging the document according to how it was written. But Breyer’s statement highlights a deeper issue: that the Supreme Court is often rooted more in the rule of politics than in the rule of law. While recent vitriolic battle over appointments has made this more apparent, the U.S. Supreme Court has been a political institution almost since its inception.

Initially deemed by Alexander Hamilton as the least dangerous of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court first emerged as a political institution through the 1801 case Marbury v. Madison. The justices faced the task of determining whether to force James Madison to deliver a commission as justice of the peace for William Marbury, one of John Adams’ midnight appointments, which Madison had refused to deliver. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion, ruling that the court did not have original jurisdiction in Marbury’s case, striking down a section of the 1789 Judiciary Act that expanded the jurisdiction of the court outside of constitutional stipulations. This established the power we now know as “judicial review” through which legislative and executive actions are subject to judicial scrutiny. With this establishment of this power, Marshall managed to preserve a veneer of impartiality by avoiding a seemingly partisan judgment on Marbury’s case. However, the establishment of judicial review also arguably marked the beginning of the Supreme Court’s entrance into the political arena, with justices having a de facto ability to strike down or even make laws from the bench.

56 years later, Chief Justice Roger Taney would make this sinister ability apparent in his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Even prior to the case, some hoped for the court to resolve the issue of slavery in the United States, and so included provisions in the Compromise of 1850 to ensure appeals on the matter went before the court. The key moment came when Dred Scott sued for his freedom on account of living with his master in a state where slavery was prohibited. While representing Scott, Montgomery Blair thoroughly cited the writings of the Founders that illustrated the power of the federal government to restrict slavery, and that masters who had taken slaves to free states in the past had been made to free them, proving Scott had both the law and precedente on his side.

Unfortunately for Dred Scott, Chief Justice Taney was both from a slave owning background and had tremendous animus toward the abolitionist movement. Moreover, Taney was keen to use his power of judicial review to settle the slavery problem permanently. Chief Justice Taney stated in the majority opinion that, not only did Congress not have the power to regulate slavery, but created an argument out of thin air that blacks were never intended to be and could not be United States citizens. Taney’s attempt to use the court as a political arbiter caused the already simmering tensions concerning slavery to boil over, contributing to the worsening crisis that led to the Civil War.

In the succeeding decades, the court has continued to prove itself a highly political institution, with its judgment often depending on the philosophy of the justices on the bench. This political judgment has been made readily apparent by social decisions handed down by the court, such as in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. In each of these cases, the court handed down judgments not at all grounded in the rule of law, but certainly grounded in the rule of politics. As a matter of fact, legal scholar John Hart Ely once said of Roe that the case “sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court's business” while legal scholar Laurence Tribe concluded “the substantive judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found.” Indeed, as the historical decisions of the court make clear, the Supreme Court has always been a consistently political institution, even if pretenses exist which declare such to be untrue.

Behavior by both the legislative and executive branches concerning the court also firmly establishes the Supreme Court as a political, rather than unprejudiced legal institution. Shortly after Chief Justice Taney’s death in 1864, Abraham Lincoln quickly saw fit to nominate Salmon Chase as his replacement, a man whose philosophy was precisely the opposite of Taney’s concerning slavery. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt's proposed court packing scheme may have encouraged the formerly hostile court to begin accepting his New Deal legislation. While Congress has been slower to acknowledge the political nature of the court, the increasingly partisan nomination hearings, beginning with the rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, are testament that the legislative branch has also come to realize that court’s position as an additional legislative conduit.

While the Founders certainly did not plan for the Supreme Court to become another partisan engine, it nonetheless has manifested in such a way throughout the majority of its existence. Whatever the court was intended to be, it has all too often acted as a largely unaccountable oligarchy, able to overturn and establish law under the cover of judicial review and dress these questionable interpretations with colorful legal language that makes vague reference to the law. Unfortunately, whatever reform might be implemented to hold justices accountable for presumably partisan rulings would in and of itself likely amount to partisan activity. 

In 1804, amid allegations of partisanship, Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached with the encouragement of President Thomas Jefferson, in no small part because he perceived Chase favorable to the Federalist Party. Chase was eventually acquitted by the Senate in 1805, and no federal judge has since faced impeachment on partisan grounds since. Thus, much as it might be wished that judges who issue blatantly activist rulings could be held accountable, it is almost certain that setting such a precedent would invite a flurry of impeachments against judges who rule contrary to the perspective of the party in power. 

Ironically, in the absence of a viable formal system of accountability, the best solution would seem to be a modified version of the screening technique so often employed by Democrats who hope to appoint activist judges to the court. Yet, rather than screen justices by willingness to bend and reshape the law, textualists must instead examine candidates to ensure a consistent application of the laws by candidates as they are written, and be unafraid of rejecting judges who do not pass muster. While Democrats have generally seen fit to offer substantial resistance to originalist appointments, Republicans seem to be reluctant to do so, with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer receiving majority approvals of 96 and 87 votes respectively despite their activist leanings. If the originalist interpretation of the Constitution is to be preserved, Conservatives must take a similarly unyielding approach to judicial confirmations.

Toxic Elitism and a Defense of the Uneducated

Being born and raised in Alabama and now attending a New England liberal arts college, I stand at an interesting intersection of viewpoints between two groups that often talk of each other in American discourse, but never seem to really understand each other. These two groups are the liberal educated elites and those who have been labeled the populist uneducated Trump supporters. I do not believe it is fair to label them as simply Trump supporters, because their ideology is bigger than just Trump, but he has embodied the idea so well in the last few years that that is what they have been referred to by academics and the media.

The contention between these two groups is inflamed by the media that has enjoyed showing maps over the past few years comparing those without college degrees to those with college degrees. The media then chooses to make it a point of discussion and often a problem. While there is no issue with presenting these facts, the media chooses to focus on them to a point of obsession, trying to plant in the minds of the American people that we simply must educate the masses for four more years after highschool in order to usher in a new Democratic utopia. This appears to be the mindset of the liberal elites.

From my experience there is no greater place to learn about the educated liberal elite mindset than from inside the walls of many of this country's colleges and universities. Fundamentally, I have found, through listening to my college professors, that the stance of many academics on the psychology of what we will call Trump supporters can be summarized by the concept of politics of resentment.

Politics of resentment is the concept that every position that these so-called “uneducated” Trump supporters take on an issue is only adopted because they wish to oppose the educated elite. Their motivation, therefore, is that the Trump supporters resent the educated and their elitist attitudes towards them. An example I was given in class was that it was said that Trump supporters only support protections on gun rights because they resent the elites trying to impose restrictions. Their opposition is then presumed not from a perception of tyranny, but rather because they resent the elites because they are jealous of their status and power. In this way, the liberal elites see themselves as the concerned parent who has to take away or control something, for example a cellphone, because as the parent they know better and should be trusted to do so for the betterment of the child.

This idea attempts to ignore any other reason a Trump supporter might support gun rights, such as for hunting, protection from criminals with guns, or most importantly as a means to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Additionally, in our now intersectional world, this concept has been tied to racism and white supremacy, with claims that Trump supporters do not support woke notions like implicit racial bias simply because they wish to rebel against the elites. I encourage those interested in the concept to simply search ‘politics of resentment’ or even ‘uneducated Trump supporters’ and look at the alarming number of support and discussion of the largely academic concept online.

To be clear, I do not see uneducated as an insult, simply as a distinction that someone has not received a college education, and would prefer a different term to be used because it is in fact extraordinarily rare to find someone who is completely uneducated in the US. Instead uneducated has come to mean those who have not received a college degree. This statement in and of itself is very concerning, considering the vast majority of those we call uneducated in America have gone through 13 years of schooling and received a highschool diploma or underwent the efforts to get a GED. Instead though, this idea of politics of resentment shows us that many of these liberal elites, whether they will admit it or not, see a college degree as a license to have an opinion. Without this distinction that requires you to attend a four year college or university, and for most pay thousands of dollars, you are not allowed to have a valid opinion as you have not been taught how to think by an accredited institution. 

The issue with this line of thinking is that the ability to think and to reason is not dependent on a college degree. Someone born to a rich family may be able to be pushed through a bachelor's degree program while someone from a poorer background may elect to enter a trade due to financial concerns, even if the individual from the poorer background has the capabilities to excel in a college setting. I would even go so far as to argue that a college education has little to no bearing on how rational one’s political opinions are. The problem with the college curriculum is that it often deals in theory and ideals and rarely in practice and application. Those who enter college are often taught idealistic philosophies that can often fall under Marxist or utopian umbrellas from professors who subscribe to the ideas of liberal elites, while those who don’t attend college are forced to see the real world and the realities that come with that. These people often do not gain the idealistic perspective of changing the world that is purveyed to many college students.

On the flip side of this contention, I can often say that many of these “uneducated” Trump supporters have a bad take on many issues, and while I often agree with them politically, I agree for different reasons. Despite this, they still clearly have reasons for which they have their opinions. These reasons may not be as nuanced as a political science student who has studied the issues extensively, but the question can still be asked: how much do we actually talk about the relevant issues in college political science classes? During my 2 ½ years as a political science major, we have never once talked about important issues in the modern American landscape, like abortion or gun control, in any serious capacity, only side references by professors which usually indicate their political leanings.

It is clear that a college education oftentimes does not give you more reasons or evidence to pull upon for the many important issues, but instead the ability to convey that information more effectively. Every class I have taken at Holy Cross under the political science umbrella has had me write at least two essays, generally more, to which I am judged on how well I can rhetorically craft an argument. From my experience, these essays have never been about the issues that politicians care about, though there may be rare exceptions. Instead, the essays focus on topics like the pros and cons of certain party systems or the different philosophies around the idea of a social contract. The bulk of what colleges teach on politics is about structure rather than the issues. This is the focus of a liberal arts education, to which those who distinguish between educated and uneducated in such a vitriolic manner judge others by. The emphasis in a liberal arts education on crafting arguments is not to rationalize one’s opinions, but rather to convince others. Those who lack this education may not be able to articulate their ideas as well, but that does not mean that they do have them. They may not be equipped to run the system as elected officials, but they are certainly equipped to vote on them competently.

A Response to the New Spring Semester Restrictions

On the morning of January 7th, President Vincent Rougeau sent an email to the Holy Cross community in which he announced multiple restrictions for the beginning of the spring semester. These restrictions include a phased return to campus, universal virtual learning for the first week of classes, and allowing professors to pick whether they will teach in-person or online for the following week. Additionally, President Rougeau banned indoor dining for an unknown period of time, prohibited the wearing of cloth masks, and reiterated both the college’s booster requirement and the ban on attendance at sporting events. Many of these rather draconian measures are only predicated upon unfounded fear, and are not based in science. 

For the entirety of last semester, President Rougeau and the COVID Core Team stated that they had “not seen evidence of cases being spread in classrooms” (Rougeau, Important: COVID-19 Rates, What You Need to Know and Do, 9/5/2021). This position was reiterated multiple times throughout the semester in numerous emails, addresses, and different communications from the administration. In fact, the administration often mentioned that in-person classes were some of the safest places to be on campus. In order to make them even more safe, the administration prohibited the wearing of neck gators and other similar facial coverings in classrooms. As a result, our classes were entirely safe, and there were basically no documented cases of COVID coming from them.

For this upcoming semester, the school has protected the student body with even more measures. They have banned certain less protective facial coverings like cloth masks, and have required students to be boosted in order to return to campus. Even though it is widely recognized that the Omicron variant is more transmissible than the Delta variant, it does not make sense that a more protected campus cannot safely have in-person classes. Are booster shots and highly protective masks not enough for our administration? Are these requirements not enough to prevent transmission in classrooms? If they are not enough to prevent transmission on January 24th, then why would they be enough to prevent cases on February 7th? If this is not sufficient to safely have in-person classes, which I am paying over $70,000 to have, then what is? Is the administration’s goal to have zero COVID cases on our campus? If so, we will be seeing online classes from the beginning of spring semester until our grandchildren graduate from Holy Cross. The administration has not done an adequate job explaining why these added measures are not enough to stop the spread of the Omicron variant on campus. 

Leading experts, government officials, and even the administration’s favorite alumnus, Dr. Anthony Fauci, have stated that “it’s safe enough to get those kids back to school”. If our administration is not even following the measures promoted by Dr. Fauci, who is widely considered to be one of the most pro-restriction public health officials in the nation, and who Holy Cross has constantly held up as the beacon of public health messaging, then who exactly are we following? The students in Worcester’s parochial and public schools have safely been able to attend classes throughout this surge, and those students do not have a requirement to be fully vaccinated or boosted, and they can wear cloth masks. If these students are able to access in-person classes, then why are the fully vaccinated and boosted students on Mount Saint James unable to access the same thing?

Another aspect of the administration’s policy that does not make sense is that they are banning some of the safest activities that could occur on our campus — in-person classes — but they are seemingly going to allow some of the riskiest activities to occur — partying. The administration is going to allow students to come to campus to take online classes. Everyone knows that most students who come to campus will attend their online classes, but they will also party. The administration may try to ban students from entering other residence halls, or they may impose capacity limits in dorm rooms, but that did not stop students last year when we were all unvaccinated, and it will not stop fully vaccinated and boosted students this semester. If the college was unable to stop students from doing these things last year, then how would they be able to stop it this year when even fewer students are concerned about catching COVID.

Additionally, the school has closed indoor dining for the near future. There is no prominent public health official in our entire government who is even considering banning indoor dining. This is not recommended by the CDC, and all restaurants in the Commonwealth are open for indoor dining at full capacity. The administration should show us the evidence that proves that indoor dining is contributing to the spread of the virus. In two weeks time, I will be able to eat at any restaurant in the City of Worcester with my friends, but I will not be able to dine inside Kimball Dining Hall. The administration is bringing back the restrictions that we had last year. They know that these restrictions negatively impacted the mental health of the student body, and despite the fact that we are a campus of fully vaccinated and boosted students, the administration is treating the situation like January 2021. It is, frankly, absurd.

Over the last few days, I have come to the conclusion that the administration and large portions of the faculty are composed of people who are unnecessarily fearful of catching COVID. This is not an attack on our wonderful faculty, who I admire and have appreciated throughout my time here at Holy Cross. Additionally, I recognize that many faculty members have pre-existing conditions that place them at greater risk to the effects of COVID, even though they are fully vaccinated and boosted. However, if masks, vaccines, and boosters work, then they should not be afraid. These measures do work, and they worked last semester. Throughout the last semester, students were very good at following the directives of their professors — even those of us who are mask-weary —  by wearing our masks in classrooms, and especially by wearing them when meeting with professors during office hours. If the administration truly believed that masks and booster shots worked, then they would not be afraid of having in-person classes for the first couple weeks of the semester.

At some point, the administration must accept that COVID is going to become an endemic disease that is not at all threatening to healthy, fully vaccinated, and boosted adults. They will also have to come to the realization that most individuals will probably catch COVID in the not-too-distant future, and they are only delaying the inevitable while worsening student mental health, the bonds of friendship, and our community’s cohesion. We cannot continue down the path of an approach that tries to stop the spread of COVID entirely. It is not possible. Many people, including the majority of the student population, have stopped caring about catching COVID, since the risk of severe disease and prolonged illness for fully vaccinated and boosted individuals is extremely low. While everyone admits that there are certain people who COVID will continue to pose a threat to — especially the immunocompromised — we cannot continue our current measures and fear-based decision making forever. At some point — and that point should be during this semester — we must understand that COVID is here to stay, and we have to drop the more unreasonable measures. 

Throughout the pandemic, Holy Cross has often claimed to be leading with science and by example. However, I can safely say that Holy Cross’ current restrictions on fully vaccinated and boosted people are not leading with science and by example, rather they are leading by fear, and we are showing to the world that we are a campus run by hypochondriacs.

In Defense of Elon Musk: A Capitalist Success Story

All of my grandparents came to the United States in the 1970’s, hoping to have a better life than the one they had been afforded in Greece. Growing up, I thought that both of my grandfathers were the epitome of the elusive “American Dream” that everyone always talks about. My grandfather on my mother’s side studied to become a doctor in Italy, but, upon arriving in the United States, had to go through the entire process of residency and fellowship all over again. He made money by working not only long day shifts, but sometimes through the nights as well, all while trying to learn English and supporting my grandmother in raising their two young children. My grandfather on my father’s side was a soccer player back in Greece, and upon moving to America, became a taxi driver and ran a hot dog cart. Both of my grandfathers weathered unforeseeable circumstances and obstacles in order to achieve their success, and I owe the life that I am able to have to their hard work. However, both of them acknowledge that although life as an immigrant is not at all easy, it is definitely helpful to live in a country like America, where the concept of the American Dream is not just a dream, but a reality. 

I am fortunate to have people I am close to that I can look at as role models for my life and who have inspired me every day to utilize the opportunities I have at my disposal to achieve my goals. However, although I typically despise famous celebrities and large-scale influencers, there is one person I always think about in addition to my grandfathers who has beaten all odds to become successful: Elon Musk. Musk is one of the richest people in the world as of 2021, and is probably the most forward-thinking, genius, and down-to-earth billionaire alive. To me, Musk is an excellent example of a true “rags to riches” entrepreneur who also has the passion and drive to change the world for the better.

Elon Musk was born in 1971 in Pretoria, South Africa. His parents divorced when he was just nine years old, and he faced a lot of awful experiences during his childhood. In grade school, he was beaten severely by bullies, having to actually make a trip to the hospital at least once. He also had a very tough relationship with his father, and ultimately decided to move away from South Africa with his mother and two siblings later on in his youth. Although Musk did have a lot of hardships early on in life, he also displayed natural entrepreneurial and innovative tendencies. For example, he developed a simple video game when he was only twelve years old and, in college, made money off the house he was living in by turning it into a part-time nightclub. Shortly after graduating from the University of Pennsylvania, Musk founded Zip2 with his brother, Kimbal. Zip2 was a company that provided city guide software to newspapers and was a revolutionary idea. During the time that it took for Zip2 to grow in popularity, Musk was essentially homeless, living out of his office and showering at the local Palo Alto YMCA. However, his patience paid him well-- $22 million, to be exact. And, soon after this feat, Musk co-founded and became CEO of PayPal.

Now, Musk has co-founded and led even more companies that have a paramount impact on the growing world of technology, including Tesla, SpaceX, Neuralink, and The Boring Company. Musk’s mission at Tesla has been to accelerate the world’s transition to sustainable energy, and with SpaceX, he seeks to develop rockets and spacecraft that can not only orbit the earth and moon, but land on other planets as well. Currently, SpaceX is developing Starship, which is the world’s first reusable system that can transport people throughout the celestial sphere. Additionally, Starlink is an upcoming project whose goal is to deliver internet to places where access has been unreliable or unavailable. Musk has been at the forefront of the movement to make humans the first multi-planet species-- something unthinkable just a mere few decades ago. However, despite all of Musk’s accomplishments and efforts to change the world as we know it (for the better), he is severely disliked by many people (especially those on the left) who just think of him as another awful billionaire taking advantage of people less fortunate than he. Why is this?

I think that a main reason people don’t like Elon Musk is that he doesn’t fit into any box. This includes political boxes as well as entrepreneurial ones. For example, the left doesn’t like him because he doesn’t pander to their candidates or fund them, including President Joe Biden. However, some conservatives also have distaste for Musk due to his influence on the stock market (think of his recent meander into the world of cryptocurrencies such as bitcoin and dogecoin). He is not a classical capitalist, but instead part of a new generation of capitalists who seek to use the market for their own, more altruistic, purposes. Musk only donates to politicians when he  wants to, and instead focuses on his inventions and ideas for making the world more energy efficient. In this vein, Musk has done tremendous good for our environment, reducing fossil fuel consumption with his inventions. He has irrefutably revolutionized electric cars with Tesla, and strong-armed the auto industry into accelerating the rollout of electric cars by seven to ten years. And, his goal is to not just help the environment and curb climate change, but to also make electric cars more affordable for all. Maybe people just dislike Elon Musk because they know he is smarter than they are. As Canadian novelist Douglas Coupland said, “Musk has a huge IQ. He is measurably, scientifically, clinically and demonstrably the smartest person in any room anywhere. He can tell you the square root of your Amex card number at a glance. He can tell you, I don’t know – the square root of zinc. He has mild Asperger’s, which prevents him from snagging on details and talking himself out of trying new things. He’s a perfect storm.” 

Musk is the embodiment of successful eccentricity. He has taken full advantage of the opportunities he has had in the United States, using his immense intellect, forethought, positivity, and creativity to try to change the world. It is often argued that the U.S. strain of capitalism is unfair, specifically to immigrants who seek to climb the social ladder and make their lives better. However, Musk proves this belief wrong. He did not come from an extremely wealthy family, but instead had to overcome obstacles without a safety net to fall back on for a significant part of his life. Additionally, as stated before, he has lived with Asperger syndrome, a disability that could have set him back if he let it. Instead, he has overcome this by becoming one of the most successful and recognized innovators in the world. Musk also has something that his rivals do not (thinking of Bezos and Zuckerberg in particular): a personality. Other CEOs say the most carefully calculated thing in every situation, which makes them uninteresting. Can you name the CEO of Jeep or Ford? I definitely can’t. But everyone knows who Elon Musk is, and that means a lot to his company, his mission, and his personal self-worth. Finally, his journey as an immigrant also proves that if one truly tries to access all the opportunities provided by the seemingly elusive “American Dream,” they too will have the chance to achieve success. 

As Musk himself said in his recent SNL debut, “To anyone I’ve offended, I just want to say: I reinvented electric cars and I’m sending people to Mars in a rocketship. Did you think I was also going to be a chill, normal dude?”

The Saga of the Kenosha Kid

On the night of August 25, 2020, three men were part of a mob that was laying waste to Kenosha, Wisconsin. Within a period of ten minutes, these three men would, in two separate confrontations, chase down a 17 year old boy and attempt to do serious violence to him. Doubtlessly, they would have, had the young man not been armed with an AR-15. At the end of those ten minutes, two of the men were dead, while the third had been seriously wounded. In a sane world, the young man with the rifle would have been considered wholly justified  for defending himself and lauded as a hero for standing to protect his community. Instead, Kyle Rittenhouse became the focal point of a political firestorm, and the jury at his trial would decide, not only his guilt or innocence, but the legitimacy of self-defense itself and the keeping of social order.

Of course, it is impossible to discuss Kyle Rittenhouse without considering the context of the situation in which he found himself fighting for his life. The death of George Floyd saw a wave of protests, and eventually riots, sweep across the country. The riots would ultimately result in around $2 billion of property damage and at least 25 people dead. The same violence and anarchy would explode in Kenosha after the shooting of Jacob Blake. Blake, who had an outstanding warrant for third-degree sexual assault, attempted to flee police after being ineffectually tasered twice. When Blake took hold of a knife and turned toward one of the officers, he was repeatedly shot. Though Blake survived, the media quickly took hold of the story as another apparent example of police brutality, encouraging the mob which descended on Kenosha. Rioters burned several buildings, including a furniture store, the Danish Brotherhood Lodge, and several houses and apartments.

Along with the rioters and looters, Kyle Rittenhouse was also in Kenosha at the time. Rittenhouse, an Illinois resident, considered Kenosha his community; he lived only twenty minutes away and has many relatives who lived in town. Having worked as a lifeguard in Kenosha and participated in local police cadet and fire programs, Kyle felt called to assist his community in the midst of a relative lack of aid from both local and state authorities. After spending the day cleaning up graffiti, Kyle offered a local business owner assistance protecting his car lots, one of which had been damaged by rioters the night before. Armed with an AR-15 and his medical supplies, Kyle took up a position at one of the car lots, venturing out at intervals to administer aid to those who were injured and put out fires. It was during this time that Rittenhouse encountered Joseph Rosenbaum.

Joseph Rosenbaum already had an extensive criminal history before he took part in the mayhem in Kenosha. He was a level 3 sex offender, considered at high risk of re-offense, after having been convicted of the rape and molestation of five boys aged 9 to 11. Upon encountering Rittenhouse and another armed civilian, Rosenbaum threatened to kill them if he caught any of them alone. He further threatened another group defending the car lot that he would cut their hearts out. Rosenbaum actively participated in the destruction in Kenosha, starting fires and causing property damage at various points.

After being separated from his companion during one of his aid sorties, Rittenhouse was ordered to a different car lot to put out a fire. As he arrived at the lot, Rosenbaum charged at Rittenhouse from behind one of the cars and threw a plastic bag at him as another rioter fired a shot into the air. Cornered, with a man who had twice previously threatened to kill him bearing down, Rittenhouse opened fire, striking Rosenbaum four times, killing him. An autopsy showed burns on Rosenbaum’s hands, meaning that he had been gripping Rittenhouse’s rifle and attempting to take it from him. After calling his friend to inform him of the shooting, Rittenhouse fled toward police lines with a group of rioters howling for his death on his heels.

As he ran, Rittenhouse was struck in the head and fell to the ground. One of his pursuers jump-kicked him, and Rittenhouse fired at him twice, missing both times. Anthony Huber then struck Rittenhouse on the back of the head with a skateboard and attempted to take his rifle. Huber had been convicted of multiple counts of domestic abuse, once putting a knife to his brother’s stomach and threatening to burn his house down. Rittenhouse fired once, striking Huber in the heart and killing him. Rittenhouse was then approached by Gaige Grosskreutz, who had one expunged felony conviction and was carrying a Glock without a valid permit. After initially holding his hands up, Grosskreutz pointed his pistol at Rittenhouse, who shot Grosskreutz in the bicep upon seeing the pistol aimed at him. Rittenhouse then headed for police lines and, after being told to leave, went home and turned himself into Antioch Police in Illinois the next day.

What should have been classified as a cut and dry case of self-defense was quickly spun by the media into the latest episode of fearmongering over the spectre of white supremacy. Media outlets falsely alleged that Rittenhouse crossed state lines with the rifle (the rifle was actually purchased by a friend and never left the state of Wisconsin), that he was a vigilante who had shot a group of protesters in cold blood, and called him a “white supremacist terrorist.” Even then-presidential candidate Joe Biden parroted this phony narrative. In the meantime, Rittenhouse was held in jail for 87 days, a month of which he spent without running water, before he finally was bailed out by friendly donors. One such donor, a police officer from Virginia, was fired in retaliation for his donation.

After over a year of slanderous media coverage, Rittenhouse finally got his day in court, charged with seven crimes. Things quickly got off to a terrible start for the prosecution, led by Thomas Binger, when their star witness, Gaige Grosskreutz, admitted under oath to pointing his pistol at Rittenhouse before he was shot. Another witness testified that the prosecution had attempted to make him change his statement. Each witness the prosecution called only seemed to bolster Rittenhouse’s case. Rittenhouse himself took the stand, testifying that his only intention was to defend himself, while acknowledging that he had used deadly force. 

The best that Binger could muster on cross-examination was an attempt to impugn Rittenhouse’s taking advantage of the Fifth Amendment prior to the trial, which earned him a severe scolding from Judge Bruce Schroeder, and a bizarre attempt by A.D.A. Binger to correlate Rittenhouse’s playing Call of Duty with the incident. In their closing arguments, the prosecution revealed the true nature of the trial: a trial against self-defense itself. Binger argued that since Rittenhouse had brought the rifle with him for defense, he was no longer entitled to defend himself. Binger’s co-counsel doubled down on this preposterous argument by calling Rittenhouse a coward for not engaging a charging pedophile with his fists. Two of the charges were dismissed, including underage possession of a deadly weapon, as Rittenhouse’s rifle fell within the limits of a Wisconsin law allowing minors to carry a rifle. After four days of deliberation, Rittenhouse was acquitted of all charges.

While justice was indeed done for Kyle Rittenhouse, it is frightening that the false narrative surrounding him carried as far as it did. A young man – by all counts an upstanding citizen – sought to protect his community from destruction inflicted by a collective of decidedly less than upstanding people. As a result, he was nearly locked away for the rest of his life after being forced to defend his life from imminent danger from multiple attackers. Had the jury decided differently, the verdict could have effectively given a license for destruction to the media-encouraged and politically supported left-wing mobs, barring citizens from defending their lives and property. 

As a final aside, to those who say that Kyle Rittenhouse should never have been on the scene in Kenosha, I could not agree more. If not for the dereliction of duty on the part of civil authorities who allowed Kenosha to burn, if not for the out of town rioters who sought to bring destruction to the city, Kyle Rittenhouse would never have entered the spotlight. But, because those circumstances did arise, Rittenhouse and his compatriots were forced to make a stand. Until authorities develop a sufficient backbone to stand against this new brand of violent disorder, and until the left firmly rejects political violence, it is likely that more individuals like Kyle Rittenhouse will be placed in similar predicaments.