An Examination of Privilege

At the beginning of March, the chaplain’s office adapted a version of the Ignatian Examen prayer and placed a basket of copies in the chapel. In Jesuit volunteer Maddie Murphy’s rendition of the exercise, each aspect of prayer is directed toward one of today’s most disputed social justice issues – racism. Her hope is that we can use the Ignatian formula to fix the racism that she sees at the core of our society, starting at a spiritual and individual level.

The original Examen is an end-of-day reflection in five stages. First, one places oneself in God’s presence and gives thanks. Second, one says a prayer for grace to understand how God is acting in one’s life. Third, one recalls feelings and moments from the day. Fourth, one reflects on how one handled those moments and feelings. Finally, one makes a general plan that considers what one did well and what one did not do well for reference and improvement the following day. The exercise is concluded with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Murphy reworks these stages so that they are directed towards the healing of our internalized racism and white privilege. She hopes that by revisiting our emotions during moments when we used our white privilege throughout the day, we can change our attitudes towards the sin of all sins and begin to eradicate it within us.

Murphy’s prayer imitates the Ignatian Examen in that it has five stages, but they are all directed towards making “white folk” into “racial allies.” First, where Ignatius calls us to become aware of God’s presence, Murphy invites us to remember the marginalized and recognize “Her” face in the faces of the oppressed. She also asks us to remember the “systems that seek to keep us from loving one another,” that is, the institutionalized racism in our country. Then, instead of saying a prayer for grace, Murphy invites us to reflect on the ways in which we used our white privilege that day. She raises questions like, did we open our ears to the people of color we encountered that day? Didwe make our workplaces as comfortable as possible for those of all cultures? Third, rather than reviewing our day and recalling specific moments and feelings we had, Murphy asks us to remember where we felt negative emotions like fear, anger, and hatred in “reflecting how we utilized our privilege today.”  If we have prejudices we are not aware of, or we remember a time when we felt “discomfort” (towards racism, I suppose), she recommends that we address this feeling and educate ourselves so that we can stand up for the oppressed next time a situation presents itself. In the fourth step of the prayer, where Ignatius tells us to reflect on our feelings from the day, she invites us to recall an opportunity we had to use our privilege to “make or take space” from people of color. She asks us to pray for certain virtues that will apparently help with this issue, like “courage, insight, humility, and self-awareness.” Finally, she essentially tells us to act now, and to look into the next step towards “white allyship,” which may mean joining an activist group or educating ourselves through reliable mediums like books and articles. This step replaces Ignatius’ instruction to look to tomorrow and think of ways to better align ourselves with God’s plan.

A crucial problem that arises when we change a prayer formulated by a great saint so that it fits some preferred ideology is that it quickly loses its spiritual focus. It shifts from its purpose, which is to recenter the hearts of those who pray it towards God. It presents the human person through a narrow lens and deprives the Examen of its introspective qualities. Murphy’s prayer is also quick to assert blame. It magnifies a sin it claims we already have, tells us to humble ourselves, and attempts to motivate us to fix it. Ignatius allows for freedom in self-correction and reflection. He sees human reason for what it is: a powerful God-given tool that we can use to identify our vices as well as our virtues. Upon reflection, we can know ourselves well enough that we can, with the grace of God, improve our lives. By contrast, Murphy’s prayer sounds more like a call to social action than a reflection for spiritual betterment: “Be prepared to translate this spiritual work into concrete, physical actions.”

Murphy’s emphasis also contributes to her prayer’s lack of spiritual nourishment. She occasionally tells us to note what we did well throughout the day, but she wants us to consider in particular what we did wrong. Ignatius, on the other hand, never tells us to focus solely on our faults. He understands that we have to recognize God’s grace in our lives and the virtue He gives us to live out His will.

The Ignatian prayer is universal. It is meant to be meditated upon by all people. When it is directed towards something like eradicating one’s alleged white privilege instead of ordering one’s actions towards God, it is deprived of its universal nature – ironically, making it so that white people are the only population that can pray it. Murphy’s fourth step points directly to this kind of faulty logic. She asks that we remember moments when we “make or take space from people of color.” This is incredibly patronizing. It necessitates using one’s white privilege: it gives power to the white man, suggesting that it is he who must pave the way for people of color.

So, when the Chaplain’s office placed a basket containing copies of Murphy’s prayer in the chapel, we might ask, cui bono? Who stands to gain by it? Murphy’s prayer is not inclusive. It is exclusive towards some members of the Church. It cannot be prayed universally. And universality is one of the key elements of a good prayer, because the ultimate end of prayer is unity and fellowship in Christ. As a Jesuit Catholic college, our students should be encouraged to love and welcome all people. But the College ought to lead by example.

You Don’t Say? Don’t Say Gay and the Sexualization of Children

The Parental Rights in Education Bill, signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on March 28, has stirred significant controversy. Coined the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” by the left, the law restricts students from kindergarten to third grade from receiving instruction pertaining to sexuality and gender identity. While such a bill would be common sense, and arguably does not go far enough, the bill has attracted the ire of sex and gender theory advocates, who argue that it is harmful to restrict teaching on the subject. Of course, this row over school curriculum inevitably raises some serious questions. When did it become the duty of schools to teach children and adolescents about sexuality? What is the nature of the material schools are utilizing and promulgating to students? What are the origins of the sexual and gender theories currently being espoused?

Like the social evil of abortion, the current sexual education curriculum emerged from the work of Planned Parenthood. In 1964, Planned Parenthood’s medical director launched the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which, in 1990, constructed a framework for a sexual education curriculum. This curriculum centered around a goal of “sexual health,” defined by the World Health Organization in 1975 as having fundamental principles of the “right to sexual information and the right to pleasure.” While this definition is not wholly inaccurate, it is certainly incomplete, lacking understanding of sex as a procreative and unitive act. Furthermore, it is clear that the insertion of sexual education into schools was an ideological goal of a non-governmental organization (NGO), rather than a popular demand by parents and students.

As for what this sexual education curriculum involves, many programs have featured material that is graphic in the extreme. For example, according to the New York Post, the Dalton School in New York promulgated material to first graders discussing masturbation. In another example, according to the Daily Progress, a Virginia high school showed a video to a freshman class giving explicit detail about how to properly perform certain sexual acts. Still elsewhere, according to the National Review, a Sacramento school held a “transition ceremony” for a kindergartener. These specific schools are indicative of a larger, disturbing approach aimed toward an ultra-explicit kind of sexual education and gender theory.

As if these matters were not sufficiently troubling, the origins of sexual and gender theory are arguably more insidious, finding their birth in the conclusions of Dr. John Money. Money was a psychologist from New Zealand who conceptualized gender identity, believing gender was a social construct rather than a biological determination. Money also made a study of sexual paraphilias, emerging as an apologist for pedophilia. However, Money may have been more than a simple defender of pedophilia. The true sordidness of Money and his theory became manifest during his involvement in the Reimer case.

After a botched circumcision left baby Bruce Reimer disfigured, his desperate parents turned to John Money for advice. Jumping at the opportunity to prove his ideas, Money recommended Bruce have gender reassignment surgery, be placed on hormones, and raised as a girl. According to Phil Gaetano of The Embryo Project Encyclopedia Money had Reimer and his twin brother “inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse.” The boys were photographed during these twisted experiments and berated by Money if they failed to cooperate. Money falsely claimed that the experiments proved his gender theory, opening the door to sex reassignment for children. Reimer never did identify as a girl, taking the name David and living as a man for the rest of his life. Tragically, both brothers took their lives, undoubtedly due to the psychological trauma inflicted by Money.

This is the true nature of the gender ideology being presented to children as young as five years old. This is nothing short of insanity, as up to 95% of prepubescent children who suffer from gender dysphoria ultimately grow out of their condition. On the other hand, encouraging the indoctrination of children through gender ideology only stands to coerce impressionable youngsters to make permanent, life-altering decisions that could leave them infertile or without body parts.

The destructive consequences of incorporating gender theory into education are also true of modern sexual education. Removal of parental control from teaching about this intimate matter has enabled a curriculum that portrays sex graphically and as ubiquitous, degrading a sacred and unifying act to a mere matter of physical pleasure. This debauched perspective has given rise to a variety of social disorders. STIs are at an all time high, according to the CDC. Hookup culture and promiscuity have created serious problems for pair bonding between partners and left generations of sexually-scarred women and men in its wake. Even more sinister, the exposure of children to this kind of graphic material and sexualization of children bears a strong potential to enable the acceptance of child sexual abuse, as child predators commonly expose their victims to pornographic materials in an effort to influence their victims and convince them that their molestation is normal.

In a country that prizes parental control, it seems unthinkable that such a significant matter as human sexuality is left to a slate of faceless, unaccountable educators. It is highly questionable that the promulgation of explicit material to children concerning any other significant matter, such as religion, would be considered acceptable or even debatable by the same people pushing for sex and gender education. The fact that restricting third graders, eight and nine-year-olds, and younger from this kind of dramatically graphic sexual material and fallacious gender theory has become so contentious represents a clear indicator of the state of our system of education, along with public morality. If anything, the Florida bill represents only a timid step back in the right direction that does not yet come close to addressing this social and educational rot. If sanity and sexual morality are to be restored, it will be necessary to completely overhaul the current system of sexual education. Then again, perhaps it is time schools relinquish this aspect of parental authority back to where it belongs: with parents.

Funding a Dictator: America and Egypt

The consistent aid being provided to Egypt over the last three presidencies show that Egypt is regarded as critical to US interests in the Middle East.  While Egypt, since President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s rise to power, has undermined human rights, it has played a large role in the US national interest in two key areas: Israel and counterterrorism.  Egypt’s relationship with Israel is of paramount importance to the US, with Israel being America’s closest Middle Eastern ally.  Plus, Egypt’s close proximity and history of conflict with Israel makes Egyptian-Israeli peace essential to Israeli security.  After the 1979 peace treaty, Egypt and Israel went into a cold peace, where tensions remained while military conflict was eliminated.  Because of this peace, Egypt was guaranteed military aid from the US, and this aid likely kept the two countries at peace.  After the fall of Morsi, however, Egypt and Israel started to collaborate on many fronts, including counterterrosim in Sinai, natural gas in the Mediterranean Sea, and negotiations with Hamas in Gaza (Sharp 3). This cooperation works toward both countries’ national interests and are mostly unsolicited by the US, so it is doubtful that US aid plays a major role in this newfound relationship between Egypt and Israel (Malinowski).  Had US aid been a player in this relationship, Israel and Egypt would have had this relationship since 1979; but, this relationship manifested after Sisi came to power, and especially increased after the 2020 Abraham Accords, showing that Sisi’s geopolitical strategy has more to do with this relationship than US aid (Sharp 4).

First of all, Egypt and Israel have begun to coordinate against terrorist violence in Sinai.  With Sisi’s opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, increased terrorist attacks on both Egypt and Israel, and Israel’s continued conflict with Islamist groups in Gaza and the West Bank, the two countries have a shared interest in combatting terrorism in Sinai, a region of Egypt that composes Israel’s longest internationally-recognized border.  This interest is shown in Egyptian-Israeli cooperation in intelligence and military operations, with Egypt allowing Israeli airstrikes in Egyptian airspace and Israel allowing Egypt to militarize in the Sinai to fight insurgent groups (Miller 5). While this cooperation positively impacts American national interests in both Israeli security and in counterterrorism, this cooperation is mutually beneficial and unlikely to fall apart if the US withholds aid from Egypt.

On top of counterterrorism, Egypt has played a major role in facilitating negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Gaza.  This was shown in May 2021, when violence broke out between Israel and Palestine.  Egypt, in an attempt to re-establish itself as regionally important, facilitated discussions between the two to come to a ceasefire.  Egypt holds leverage over Hamas since the Rafah border crossing is the only land crossing not controlled by Israel (Sharp 5).  Because of this leverage, Egypt maintains relations with Hamas while seeking to contain it within Gaza, and Egypt is in a place where it can help mediate between Israel and Hamas when conflict arises, like it did in 2021.  President Sisi’s role in negotiating a cease-fire and helping evacuate American citizens rendered praise from President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken  (Sharp 5).  This role for Egypt concerning Israeli security would likely also hold should American funds be withheld, since such a role helps raise Egypt’s standing in the region, solidifies a mutually beneficial partnership with Israel, and, due to Sisi’s abhorrance for Islamist parties (he overthrew an Islamist government and banned the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013), contains Hamas in Gaza (Times of Israel).

The third way Egypt and Israel have reached a self-sustaining relationship is in natural gas production.  In 2018, Israel and Egypt entered into a decade-long agreement worth $15 billion, where Israeli natural gas is exported to Egypt to be liquified and re-exported or used domestically (Sharp 7).  Additionally, Egypt and Israel, along with other Mediterranean countries, have united to compete against Turkey and Libya in the natural gas industry (Sharp 7-8).  This economic partnership clearly sustains itself independent of US aid, as the economic ties between Egypt and Israel help bolster both countries’ role in the region.

The second major US interest in which Egypt plays a role is counterterrorism.  The first time this affected US aid to Egypt was in 2015, when President Obama released formerly withheld Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to Egypt.  This was due to the rise in the Islamic State’s Sinai Province (IS-SP) and attacks against tourists and Copts in Egypt (Sharp 6). While the US has continued to grant aid to Egypt to fight terrorism, Egypt has contsantly undermined this battle because of its prisons, heavy-handed attacks, and unprepared military.  How Egypt runs its prisons undermines the fight against terrorism in Sinai because the government groups political prisoners with ISIS-affiliated and violent prisoners, uses torture even against peaceful dissidents, gives ISIS prisoners special priveleges, and does not provide sufficient medical care (Human Rights First 3-6).  Tom Malinowski states that President Sisi’s priority is not to counter terrorism, but to ensure that a 2011-like revolution never happens again, and this greatly affects how the Egyptian government handles its prison system (Malinowski).  Because the government continues to hold around 60,000 political prisoners, and these prisoners are subjected to long sentences without justification and brutal torture, animosity toward the Egyptian government exponentially grows, and because ISIS prisoners are mixed with non-ISIS prisoners, terrorists are able to radicalize formerly peaceful dissidents by using government abuses as a reason for violent insurrection (Human Rights First 9; Abrams).  According to Ben Rhodes, Egypt wants this radicalization to take place so that it can justify cracking down on its opposition (Human Rights First 7).  This shows that the issue is not only Egypt’s prison conditions, but also the Egyptian government’s prioritization of cracking down on dissents over eliminating violent extremism in Sinai. 

Another way Egypt undermines counterterrorism efforts is its heavy-handed and conventional approach to an unconventional enemy.  The heavy-handed approach, including crackdowns on civilian populations and state-sanctioned violence, turns the sympathies of the Sinai populace away from the Egyptian government and toward Jihadist groups (Abrams).  In addition, Egypt’s military is ill-prepared for fighting terrorism, as they have purchased weapons from France, Germany, and Russia that do not aid in fighting non-state actors like IS-SP (Abrams).  Furthermore, US FMF aid has been ineffective in providing Egypt the necessary tools to defeat IS-SP.  These tools are not weapons, as Egypt has more than enough weapons to win, but rather training and advice (Miller 3).  Egypt’s strategy for combatting terror in Sinai is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.  Instead of adopting the counterinsurgency tactics that were so successful in Iraq and Syria, Egypt continues to use overwhelming force against insurgents in residential communities (Miller 3).  This also works to alienate the people of Sinai, making it harder for Egypt to effectively defeat IS-SP.

Egypt’s role in relation both to Israel and to terrorism shows its importance in regional affairs despite the common claim that Egypt’s significance in the region is diminished.  The Israel-Egypt relationship is seemingly self-sufficient, but good relations between countries can deteriorate quickly, especially if a change in regime occurs.  Such a change in regime is entirely possible, as the 2011 and 2013 revolutions happened very quickly and without warning, and Egypt remains both economically and politically unstable (Dunne).  Further, Egypt is still reliant on the US for counterterrorism, though the strategy is flawed ( Miller 3).  Thus, the US should not cut or eliminate aid to Egypt, but the conditions placed on  aid should be increased so that the US can better ensure it is serving direct American interests and is not seen as an entitlement by President Sisi (Malinowski).

Many argue that aid should be cut or eliminated based on Egypt’s poor human rights record (Whitson 2; Human Rights First 7; Human Rights Watch 2-3).  While human rights is undeniably important, attempts to get President Sisi to budge on human rights have failed time and time again.  Therefore, the conditions for aid should be, at least initially, targeted toward direct American interests, such as maintaining a positive relationship with Israel and fighting terrorism, rather than unrealistic demands that will go unanswered.  If the US conditions aid on achievable goals, this will increase trust between the American and Egyptian governments so that human rights conversations down the road can be more fruitful.  There are some instances where human rights are of immediate American interest, such as the treatment of political prisoners (Human Rights First 8-12), the unjustified incarceration of American citizens (Katersky & Finnegan 2-3; Malinowski; Abrams),  and the restrictive non-governmental organization (NGO) law (Sharp 10; Malinowski).  These are directly related to American national interests, since the treatment of political prisoners breeds violent extremism (Human Rights First 1), unjustified incarceration of Americans violates our national sovereignty and hurts American efforts to aid Egypt (Malinowski), and the NGO law restricts not only American humanitarian efforts, but also Egyptian NGOs from serving the Egyptian people (Sharp 10; Malinowski).  These three issues are the human rights issues the US government should emphasize the most, since they most directly relate to the national interest and are relatively reasonable compared to conditions that will likely never be met in the near future, like a requirement that democratic institutions be strengthened (Sharp 35-36).

There is some evidence that targeted conditions can work.  First of all, President Trump’s withholding of $65.7 million until Egypt scaled back its relationship with North Korea and released 43 NGO workers proves that Egypt is willing to negotiate when met with cuts in military aid (BBC Report; Miller 5).  The main difference between this successful action and the lack of success that is seen in all three administrations is that these demands did not directly come into conflict with Egypt’s national interest or Sisi’s personal interest.  President Obama’s conditions in 2013 were unrealistic since it required a complete change in regime, which the administration realized in 2015 when faced with terrorist threats in Sinai (Sharp 35-36).  Also, while President Biden’s withholding of $130 million was unsuccessful as well, and the demands were reasonable, this was undermined by the $2.5 billion arms deal to Egypt, which even though it was not purchased with FMF funds, was a case of the US providing weapons without any regard for American interests being promoted; furthermore, President Biden’s actions were undermined by the release of the remaining $170 million (Times of Israel Report).   Therefore, if the United States is consistent in its conditional stance toward Egypt, targeted in its approach, and applies reasonable benchmarks, there would be more success in meeting American goals in its relationship with Egypt.

In addition, the message that Egypt is entitled to American aid hurts the US’s leverage and allows Egypt not to take American wishes seriously (Malinowski).  So, the president’s waiver ability should be revoked, at least temporarily until Egypt improves.  This would ensure that presidents are unable to override the Congressional restrictions on Egyptian behavior and undermine the US’s bargaining power over Egypt (Human Rights First 7).  Once the US’s bargaining power is re-established, presidential waivers might be able to be reinstated based on the progress Egypt attains.  However, this waiver has been used by all presidents in the name of national security to give aid unconditionally to Egypt, so this power must be taken away so that Egypt does not continue to receive an unconditional entitlement from the US government.

Furthermore, both nations have emphasized the value of a “trade, not aid” relationship in terms of economic aid (Sharp 37), so there is no reason why a “trade, not aid” relationship should not be adopted in terms of military aid as well.  As stated above, Egypt does play a significant role in two areas of American interest, but in order to merit American aid, the Egyptian government must work toward, not against, American interests.  Therefore, in exchange for aid, Egypt must meet certain requirements so that American aid is used to promote shared American and Egyptian interests rather than allowing Egypt to pursue policies at the expense of the national security of the United States and its allies.  

Overall, the FMF aid provided to Egypt should be considerably altered.  First of all, all aid should be conditioned on different points.  Rather than grouping all of the US’s desires into one multi-part condition, the US should individually link items for improvement to specific amounts of money.  With this, all aid should be conditional to increase pressure on Egypt and to send a message that American aid is not an entitlement, but must be earned (Malinowski).  The $1.3 billion total would stay the same, but all of it should be conditional on meeting specific demands, with the percentage of aid that could be withheld being proportional to the importance to American national interests and on the necessity of the aid.  30% should be conditional on progress in its fight against terrorism with a requirement that Egypt heed American training and adopt the successful strategies used in Iraq and Syria, 30% should be conditional on prison reform, 15% should be conditional on the release of American citizens from Egyptian prisons, 15% should be conditional on the maintenance of a peaceful relationship with Israel, and 10% should be conditional on the repeal of NGO laws that adversely affect American economic and humanitarian aid. 

Egypt cannot damage American interests beyond what it already has.  Ruining its relationship with Israel would be self-sacrificing (Miller 5; Whitson 6-7; Abrams), and Egypt’s unsuccessful efforts to combat terrorism and prison conditions cannot be made much worse (Human Rights First 1; Abrams).  Thus, if Egypt were to not acquiesce to American conditions on aid, Egypt’s interest would be hurt more than the US’s (Miller 5; Whitson 7). While Egypt has turned to Germany, France, and Russia in the past to purchase weapons, the US’s FMF aid allows Egypt to buy high-tech weapons with American money rather than its own (basically free weapons), and Egypt (Sharp 33), through its relationship with the US, gets access to foreign markets (Miller 5).  This means that Egypt needs the US much more than the US needs Egypt, and the US should promote this attitude.  Another reason the US should not concern itself with Egypt’s relations with other countries in terms of weapons purchases is that Egypt constantly uses both Russia and the US as political tools to get more from both of them, and America’s free high-quality weapons and access to the global market make the US indispensable to Egypt (Miller 5).

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.