Is Taylor Swift a Deep State Psyop?

As is the answer with most wild headlines that end with a question mark, no.

If you have not heard this most recent right-wing conspiracy theory on the internet about the machinations of the “uniparty” establishment or left-wing Marxist hordes, consider yourself lucky. Unfortunately, as a conservative who regularly absorbs conservative news media, this is only the latest in a steady diet of right-wing punditry describing purported intrigues by the Democratic and RINO cabal holding the reins of power in the United States. In much of the conservative news world, it could not possibly be the case that a female artist who writes relatable songs to young girls and women with sufficiently catchy melodies could become extraordinarily popular and that she might hold liberal views similar to most culturally prominent figures in American society.  Instead, it must be a conspiracy by the Biden administration and the puppet masters in Washington D.C. to artificially raise her popularity, rig the outcome of the Super Bowl, and therefore increase their support among young adult voters so they can finally enact their post-modern, culturally-Marxist, critical-race, open-border, climate-cult, LGBTQ+, anti-American, globalist, liberal, communist, effeminate revolution.

Why does the right love to construct such elaborate webs of lunacy? Certainly, the left has its own conspiracy theories, such as the idea that Donald Trump was a Russian agent. And some so-called conspiracy theories are proven to be likely or even positively true, such as the Wuhan lab leak theory. But the right seems to have a particular appetite for conspiracy theories that range from the fringe white-supremacist fears of replacement to the more mainstream acceptance on the right that the 2020 presidential election was stolen. While there are many reasons for the popularity of these theories on the right, a principal cause of this issue is the online conservative news sphere itself.

It is no secret that with the rise of social media, news media has become increasingly polarized as internet users sort themselves into algorithmically determined information silos that confirm and deepen their already-held beliefs. This new medium of news has impacted both the viewers and producers. While allowing an unprecedented degree of freedom in the public square, social media still contains incentives that push online pundits to either extreme views or intellectual dishonesty. By rewarding content that makes dramatic claims and strikes users’ strongest feelings, often manifested in negative emotions such as anger, social media has incentivized the publication of dramatic yet implausible claims.

Beyond this, online news pundits are implicitly encouraged to appeal to their audience’s tastes and reinforce their opinions to ensure the continuation and growth of viewers. The free market of the internet with low barriers to access and therefore a high number of competitors has led news creators to increasingly tailor their content to a small piece of the market. Many online news creators on the right are, unwittingly or not, captured by their audience and encouraged to produce content further and further detached from wider society, ironically resulting in the same issue that many conservatives have held with traditional news media.

This social media algorithmic pressure is impacting political polarization on all sides, yet as a conservative, I feel that I first must comment on my “own side,” whatever that truly means in this chaotic political atmosphere. The Republican Party since the rise of Trump has been increasingly anti-institutional, and there are many fair reasons for this instinct as Trump arose out of the genuine grievances caused by elite institutions’ blind spots. But this distrust has collapsed into a black hole of delusional cynicism for many on the online right, as any claims by the federal government, academics, business leaders, or cultural tastemakers are immediately regarded with not just distrust, but with an assumption that the absolute reverse is true. Taylor Swift’s popularity in singing songs about her relationships is actually a manufactured public image, including her relationship with Travis Kelce, to win Biden a second term. And Donald Trump could not be such a loud and abrasive figure as to cause many voters in 2020 to choose who they viewed as the boring candidate, Biden; rather, Biden and the Democratic Party masterminded the rigging of voting machines and used fake ballots to prevent the MAGA wave. Online media personalities on the right have become numerous, and judging by the fact that many have entertained ridiculous conspiracy theories such as the most recent one about Taylor Swift, it can only be concluded that a good number are no different than many other social media influencers who are addicted to acquiring wealth and internet fame.

None of this is said out of hatred of conservative values or as an attempt to delegitimize different points of disagreement within the broader right. There are significant differences in social, foreign, and fiscal policy on the conservative side of the aisle that need to be debated. More importantly, some of the biggest questions of our time need a coherent conservative answer to counter some of the false arguments made by those on the other side of the political spectrum. When our society is debating the value of the free market, the validity of equality of opportunity, and the definition of gender, there is no time to play games and fight invisible enemies as many on the online right seem to prefer. There are serious issues facing this nation, and they require serious answers.

Ultimately, this most recent bizarre headline is a reminder to stay grounded and think honestly, having open discussions with others. When politics is relegated to online echo chambers, the ridiculous beliefs that win social media arguments might have a chance of coming into real life, with unpleasant consequences. Rather, disconnecting from social media and connecting with authentic communities, such as our college community, gives us a chance to move forward together. Conservatives need to do better.

“In This House We Believe…”

One of my favorite moments of my Public Policy course comes on day one of the social welfare policy unit. I begin by skewering a bumper sticker popular among some conservatives: “Work harder! Millions on welfare depend on you.” I demonstrate to my students how reductive and deceptive this is by walking them through many different policies and programs that make up the American welfare state and showing them how much money is spent on each. They learn that the share of the federal budget spent on aid to working-age, able-bodied adults who aren’t working is in fact quite small. 

People on the political left aren’t immune to the temptation to reduce nuance and complexity to facile slogans. We’ve all seen the yard sign: “In this house we believe…” What follows is a list of progressive bromides. One line always stands out to me: “Science is real.”

It’s hard to know what this means. Before the Covid-19 pandemic, I took the phrase as a reference to climate change. Progressives are deeply concerned about the warming planet and advocate for a robust policy response; there are too many Americans who still do not believe in anthropogenic global warming, and most of these unbelievers are on the political right. Post-pandemic, one might read “science is real” to mean something like “the Covid vaccine is safe and effective, and you should take it.”

But the claim on the sign is far broader than either of these interpretations. It seems to suggest that our political community can be neatly divided into two camps: one which believes in and follows “science,” and another which rejects it. This is not an accurate description of reality. Most progressives are not loyal adherents to science, just as most conservatives are not anti-science zealots. 

Consider Nicholas Kristof’s commendable observation in a recent New York Times op-ed that too many progressives refuse to reckon with social science showing the clear benefits of two-parent households. Among the facts Kristof cites: “Families headed by single mothers are five times as likely to live in poverty as married-couple families.” Yet Kristof reports that, shockingly, just 3 in 10 college-educated progressives agree that “children are better off if they have married parents.” Among college-educated conservatives, more than 9 in 10 agreed with the statement [1].

In other instances, progressives’ use of data, of facts, of “the science,” is incomplete and thus rather misleading. The issue of police killings has been at the heart of progressive calls for racial justice since the killing of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri, in 2014. Progressives are correct to point out that Black Americans are killed by police at a disproportionate rate. However, as data from The Washington Post show, police killings of unarmed individuals are quite uncommon. Since the Post began tracking them eight years ago, there have been roughly 1,000 fatal police shootings per year. In fewer than 10 percent of these cases, the victim was unarmed. Approximately 20 unarmed Black Americans are fatally shot by police each year [2]. These numbers are obviously still too high. But they are at odds with the claims of some progressives, who have asserted that police kill unarmed Black men far more frequently. For example, during a 2022 judicial confirmation hearing, Senator John Kennedy noted that district court nominee Nusrat Choudhury had incorrectly claimed, “The killing of unarmed Black men by police happens every day in America” [3]. Choudhury’s misstatement jibes with survey results indicating that it is common for progressives to significantly overestimate the number of unarmed Black men killed by police [4].

During the Covid pandemic, progressives often instructed everyone to “follow the science.” One of the policies pursued under this banner was the prolonged closure of schools. Certainly, there was science that pointed toward closing schools, especially during the early stage of the pandemic when little was known about the virus. But there was also plenty of evidence suggesting that prolonged isolation and remote learning for children was likely to have myriad negative effects on child development. That’s why in the summer of 2020—well before the vaccine was available—the American Academy of Pediatrics argued for reopening schools on a more aggressive schedule than the CDC was recommending [5]. Scientists were disagreeing with other scientists. How is one supposed to “follow the science” when there is real science on both sides of an issue? Here, the progressive recourse to science was not particularly helpful. As is often the case, there was no scientifically-prescribed answer to the difficult question at hand.

I recently came across a different version of the “In this house” yard sign. It reads, “In this house we believe that simplistic platitudes, trite tautologies, and semantically overloaded aphorisms are poor substitutes for respectful and rational discussion about complex issues.” I must admit that, for a split second, I thought about putting it on my front lawn. 

Endnotes

[1] Nicholas Kristof, “The One Privilege Liberals Ignore,” The New York Times, September 13, 2023. Opinion | The One Privilege Liberals Ignore - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

[2] Police Shootings Database, “Fatal Force,” The Washington Post, last updated September 23, 2023. Police shootings database 2015-2023: Search by race, age, department - Washington Post

[3] Jason L. Riley, “Was a Judicial Nominee Prejudiced in Her ‘Role as an Advocate’?,” The Wall Street Journal, May 3, 2022. Was a Judicial Nominee Prejudiced in Her ‘Role as an Advocate’? - WSJ

[4] Zach Goldberg, “Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence,” Manhattan Institute, August 10, 2023. Perceptions Are Not Reality: What Americans Get Wrong About Police Violence | Manhattan Institute

[5]  Dana Goldstein, “Why a Pediatric Group Is Pushing to Reopen Schools This Fall,” The New York Times, June 30, 2020. Why A.A.P. Guidelines Are Pushing for Schools to Reopen This Fall - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

Rightly Ordered Violence: A Commentary on Capital Punishment

On March 24, Idaho Governor Brad Little signed legislation to revive a method of execution that had been removed from the state’s law for almost fifteen years: the firing squad. While a number of states have passed legislation to abolish capital punishment, Idaho has taken the opposite approach. Passed by veto-proof majorities in the legislature, the legislation will enable Idaho’s Department of Corrections to utilize a firing squad as a method of execution if an execution by lethal injection cannot be carried out. As with other allegedly “dated” methods of execution, the legalization of firing squad in Idaho drew outcry from various critics, who argued that the firing squad was both “uncivilized” and “inhumane.” The very same adjectives have been used to describe the death penalty itself, and many states have taken heed to those criticisms by outlawing capital punishment. Yet in truth, capital punishment is actually a necessary component of an ordered society, and it is the violent, even macabre nature of the punishment that makes it such a critical tool for dispensing justice.

When it comes to prominent critics of the death penalty, the Catholic Church represents one of the largest institutional opponents of capital punishment. Pope Francis has called the death penalty “inadmissible,” and the U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops has toed a similar line. However, a closer inspection of the Church’s history reveals consistent support for the death penalty in sacred scripture and the writings of various Church Doctors and saints. Both Romans 13 and Acts 25 delegate capital punishment to the state as a legitimate means of executing justice against evildoers. St. Augustine declared in City of God that an executioner did not become a murderer by killing an offender, but instead acted as an instrument of the State. St. Thomas Aquinas went even further, stating in his Summa Theologica that putting offenders to death for particularly heinous crimes was praiseworthy because doing so would protect society at large from the offender’s influence. He added that capital punishment would also encourage contrition by the condemned and expiate the criminal’s temporal punishment which would otherwise be due in Purgatory. Pope Pius XII echoed this sentiment in 1952, noting that the Church was not ignoring the value of human life, but acknowledging that the condemned had deprived themselves of their right to life by the grave nature of their offenses. Pope Benedict XVI also assessed that there were indeed instances in which capital punishment was a necessary recourse, and that it was perfectly legitimate for Catholics to disagree with each other on the subject of the death penalty.

Setting aside the authority of the Church, capital punishment oftentimes represents the only proportional punishment for particularly egregious offenses. In terms of penalties for crimes, the general standard lies in proportionality to the offense. The more serious the crime, the more severe the punishment which is applied. For a premeditated murder with aggravating factors like torture or sexual assault, allowing the offender to live out the rest of their days with taxpayer-funded prison amenities smacks of insufficiency and impotence. The same is true of cases of child sexual abuse, rape, and prolific drug trafficking. It is not justice to allow criminals who commit these kinds of offenses to continue enjoying life, even a life in confinement, after having robbed their victims of life or having caused such physical and psychological harm as to bring the victims’ lives to ruin. Of course, to put a condemned criminal to death under current statutes is not mere Hammurabian retaliation. The offender is allowed to request a last meal, which can often be elaborate in nature, and has access to a spiritual advisor of his or her choice. Their gastronomic and spiritual needs attended to, the offender is then put to death by a method that, at least in theory, follows a standardized protocol which will end the inmate’s life with haste and a minimal amount of pain, luxuries the condemned certainly did not afford to their victims.

Beyond proportionality, contrary to established opinion, the death penalty both statistically and anecdotally has a deterrent effect on certain violent crimes, particularly murder. A 2003 study conducted by Emory University Professors Hashem Dezhbakhsh, Paul R. Rubin, and Joanna M. Shepherd examined data from 3,000 U.S. counties from 1977 to 1996. The researchers found that each execution resulted in an average of 18 fewer murders and a negative correlation between executions and incidents of murder. Considering the significant scope of the study, it seems apparent that the death penalty does indeed give some criminals incentive to reconsider their activities.

Of course, there are a variety of problems with the manner in which executions are often carried out in America. Death row inmates generally spend 10 to 15 years on death row appealing their sentences prior to execution, and some are on death row for even longer. Beyond the excessively lengthy appeals process, most states utilize lethal injection as their primary method of execution. Perhaps the most needlessly complex and unintentionally inhumane method of execution, lethal injection is a symbol of everything wrong with American capital punishment. First introduced in Oklahoma in 1978, lethal injection utilizes a protocol of one or more drugs to sedate, paralyze, and stop the condemned’s heart. 

Yet, this apparently clinical, sterile method of execution has handicapped state corrections agencies. Drug companies opposed to capital punishment have refused to sell the necessary drugs for execution to corrections agencies, leaving states unable to carry out executions. Alternatively, states have resorted to protocols using alternative drugs, often with disastrous results. In some cases, because of the use of insufficiently potent sedatives, the condemned experience feelings of burning and drowning from paralytic agents used in lethal injection. Meanwhile, the increasing age and questionable health of the death row population means that many inmates lack a healthy vein structure to allow the insertion of IV lines. This has sometimes led individuals to make incisions into the arms or legs of inmates to insert IV lines, with inmates having to assist corrections officials with placement of the lines in some cases.

Thus, if capital punishment is to remain an effective instrument of justice, changes will need to be made. The same Emory study illustrating the effectiveness of deterrence found that the deterrent effect was increased when the execution was carried out with less time between conviction and execution. The appeals process must become more streamlined, so death row will be a transitory station for the condemned, rather than a de facto life sentence. With regard to the method of execution, lethal injection must go the way of drawing and quartering in favor of quicker and more painless methods of execution such as firing squad, long drop hanging, and the guillotine. All these methods of execution have produced very low rates of “botched” executions, and are not reliant on the use of difficult-to-obtain materials as in the case of lethal injection. 

While all three are certainly more gruesome, this in itself would likely be a benefit, rather than a drawback. When the state puts someone to death, it does so to exact justice for the most heinous of crimes. To put someone to death in a fashion resembling putting a beloved family pet to sleep seems wholly unbefitting such circumstances, while a more bloody method of execution would certainly emphasize the gravity of the crime. Beyond these steps, it might be pertinent to make executions more widely accessible to the public eye. If the public is to accept capital punishment as a necessary component of the justice system, it must be acquainted with the process, however macabre it may be.

Have Kids! Sincerely, Texas

Our society is not friendly to big families, a fact we owe to many causes. Perhaps the leading cause is the triumph of “sexual liberation.” It encourages sexual promiscuity, and, through birth control and abortion, it seeks to eliminate any consequences. It is hostile to chastity and fidelity. It glamorizes career and the accumulation of wealth over parental sacrifice. Children are perceived as inconvenient, slobbery and whiny contributors to the destruction of our environment. If a woman chooses to stay at home with her children, she is thought to be moving backward and resisting the rights that American women of the past fought so hard to gain. Our economy also plays a large part in discouraging the expansion of families. Inflation is a factor, but the cost of an average house in the United States has nearly doubled in the last ten years, skyrocketing from $292,200 in 2012 to $543,600 in 2022. Between 2021 and 2022, it increased by $79,400. It is unsurprising that, according to the United States Census Bureau, the fertility rate of young women has declined by 43% between 1990 and 2019 for 20-24-year-olds.

In our democratic republic, legislation is often swayed by the majority opinion. The cultural atmosphere has a deep influence on law. The reverse is also true. Our laws, whose foundation stands to ensure Americans’ rights to life and liberty, can have powerful effects on public opinion. Legalization trends towards normalization. We can see an example of this in Catholic attitudes toward abortion over the decades. Since the passing of Roe v. Wade in 1973, an increasing number of Catholics approve of legal abortion: 56% as of July 2022. In the 1950s, when legislators moved to loosen abortion laws, Pope Pius XII reiterated the Catholic position  that “neither the life of the mother nor that of the child can be subjected to direct suppression. In the one case as in the other, there can be but one obligation: to make every effort to save the lives of both, of the mother and the child.” At the time, few Catholics opposed him. Despite the unchanging and staunch position of the Church, most Catholics nowadays fall among the 62% of American adults who approve of abortion. That most Catholics now reject the Church’s doctrine on abortion suggests a definite cultural influence. One could conclude that the de facto legality of abortion brought about by Roe v. Wade encouraged this tremendous shift.

In the same way that laws can have discouraging effects on society, they can also have positive effects. An example of this is Texas’ Bill 88(R) HB 2889 by Rep. Bryan Slaton, which reduces property tax for families. However, Texans who are eligible for this reduction must meet a few sensible qualifications: the family receiving these benefits must consist of a married couple, specifically a mother and father, and they must have at least one “natural child” (that is, a biological child of both parents), an adopted child of both spouses, or an adopted child of one spouse. And, if the final circumstance happens to be true, that child must have been adopted after the couple’s wedding day, and he or she must be the natural or adopted child of the other spouse. In this case, the other spouse must have been a widow or widower before the couple was married. Also, neither the mother nor the father can ever have been divorced. The reduction starts at 10% for a married couple, man and woman, neither of whom has been divorced, and it increases to 40% for families with four children. If the family has ten or more children, all property tax is eradicated. Plus, the bill is perpetual – when the children grow up, or if one of the spouses dies, the tax cut remains. If passed, benefits would begin on January 1, 2024.

In an interview with East Texas News, Rep. Slaton commented, “the first goal is to promote a healthy family.” When asked why the bill has so many qualifications (e.g. that “natural born children” must be born of both spouses after marriage), he replied that the bill encourages an ideal. He himself does not qualify for the bill, and he understands that not everyone will. “We want people, when they think about what they’re gonna do in the future with their family, we want them to look at what is best: and it’s best for people to get married, stay married, and have children - lots of children.” Slaton said that he understands the need for the funding of government programs for single parents and broken homes, but he hopes to encourage an approach that avoids these scenarios entirely.

Our economy makes it almost impossible for families to thrive. At least Texas acknowledges the mortgages, insurance, education, and hundreds of other financial factors holding couples back from having kids, and makes an effort to soften the blow with a reduction of property tax. The family is the foundation of the United States. If our legislators do not support the foundation of our country, it is sure to crumble.

Hell-ywood: The Role of Entertainment in Social Erosion

On February 5, 2023, singer and songwriter Sam Smith decided to take the mask off the entertainment industry by dressing up as Satan and performing alongside dancers wielding BDSM gear as props with red lights and flames to match. The performance quickly drew ire from individuals who derided it as “Satanic” and reminiscent of the “End of Days.” Others took note of the song’s praise of Balenciaga, the now notorious fashion brand which drew fire for an ad campaign featuring children holding teddy bears dressed in sexualized clothing and bondage gear. While Smith may have breached a boundary by outing the entity which many in entertainment truly serve — while degrading already abysmal standards of entertainment in the process — the unfortunate truth is that the entertainment industry has been undermining social integrity in America almost since its inception.

Such was the subversive nature of modern entertainment that one of the first actions taken by concerned entertainment insiders and members of the public was to attempt the setting of internal and external guidelines for the industry. Driven by a number of high profile scandals, the Motion Picture Code was put into effect in 1930 in order to more effectively regulate the content of motion pictures. The code, drafted by Jesuit Fr. Daniel Lord and Catholic layman Martin Quigley, contained a general set of guidelines prohibiting depictions of explicit sexuality and social deviance, while encouraging the depiction of correct morals and respect for law and order. In addition to the enforcement of the code, the National Legion of Decency — a Catholic organization dedicated to identifying and protesting morally questionable pictures — encouraged moviegoers to avoid pictures which it deemed inappropriate. While neither the Motion Picture Code nor the Legion of Decency were entirely perfect in their assessment of motion picture morality, they provided a critical moral bulwark in the realm of popular entertainment.

With the disappearance of the National Legion of Decency and the elimination of the Motion Picture Code, film and television have been left to push the boundaries of moral decency with near-impunity. Restrictions of on-screen intimacy and immoral conduct have given way to nudity and sex scenes that are borderline pornographic in nature. Furthermore, criminal conduct is glamorized, and serial killers like Ted Bundy and Jeffrey Dahmer have become icons of recent true crime films and television series.

Meanwhile, the music industry has undergone an equal level of moral and compositional degradation. A 2008 study conducted by Heriot-Watt University found that popular music has become less melodically complex over time, which has translated into diminished creativity by listeners. Meanwhile, pop lyrics have become as ribald as they are stale, with Cardi B’s “WAP” and Miley Cyrus’ “We Can’t Stop” graphically encouraging promiscuity and other base behaviors. Sixty years ago, Elvis Presley drew a storm of controversy for his allegedly provocative onstage hip swiveling and footwork. At present, Megan Thee Stallion performed in a skin-tight bodysuit and put on an extended twerking display on national television without so much as an eyebrow raised in the public sphere.

The degradation of social mores onscreen and on the air is proving to have very real consequences for American society. Perhaps the best known example of the impact of entertainment on American moral perceptions is the “Will and Grace Effect.” The eponymous show was one of the first to portray homosexuals in a prominent role, an intentional choice by its writers who were seeking to normalize homosexuality among the American public. The show was massively successful in this regard, with American support for gay marriage dramatically increasing during the show’s runtime, with then-Vice President Joe Biden stating that he was one of the show’s many pro-gay converts.

It may be tempting for individuals on the right to dismiss the corruption and social rot in the entertainment industry as par for the course, or merely a matter of parental control over screens. Yet, the ubiquity of both debased shows and music renders such a dismissal hollow. Unless the entertainment industry undergoes a true transformation, exposure to morally degrading content is an inevitability, and social and moral deviancy will continue to become normalized. Of course, a return to the Motion Picture Code is near impossible, as the entrenchment of cultural degradation has been so profound in Hollywood that a re-adoption of the code would almost certainly never come to fruition. The solution, therefore, must come from the consumer. Conservatives should endeavor to view more media propagated by like-minded actors, musicians, and companies, while simultaneously reducing their consumption of media from groups that oppose their moral interests. In lieu of an overarching Legion of Decency, Catholics and conservatives can work together on a smaller scale with individuals from their communities to coordinate their efforts toward changing entertainment. By taking these initial steps, conservatives can begin the process of reforming the entertainment industry.

The Dangers of TikTok

In April 2020, a few of my friends finally convinced me to download TikTok. It is characteristic of me to be woefully behind on social trends — an example being that I did not download Instagram until my junior year of high school. Since I was already so disconnected from my friends due to the COVID-induced lockdowns at the time, I relented and downloaded the app — and what a mistake that was! I instantly found myself being bombarded with videos of all kinds: recipes, dance trends, comedy shorts, and many other types of content. One addicting thing about TikTok is the strategically-catered variety of content it offers. The app’s algorithm learns what you like scarily quickly and subsequently recommends similar videos in order to keep you interested. I, along with many other Americans who downloaded the app during the Pandemic, became TikTok addicts. Eventually, however, the whirlwind that was TikTok became too much for me, and I deleted the app over a year ago. At first, it was difficult to not have the option to distract myself from the day’s activities by going on TikTok since I had grown so accustomed to it. However, at this point in my life, I have now become so alienated from the world of TikTok that I forget it exists unless someone mentions it to me. So that begs the question: “Why am I writing this article?”

In mid-December, 2022, Senator Marco Rubio (R-FL) introduced a bipartisan bill that would ban TikTok from operating in the United States, citing serious concerns about TikTok’s ties to China. Even though TikTok itself operates within the U.S., its parent company, ByteDance, is required by Chinese law to make data from TikTok available to the Chinese Communist Party (CCP). Therefore, many American lawmakers are fearful that the private information of American citizens is being abused by the CCP due to TikTok’s ties to ByteDance. Additionally, Senator Josh Hawley (R-MO) introduced and helped pass a ban on TikTok on government devices. This bill was unanimously passed in the Senate, but still needs to pass the House of Representatives. However, the fact that it was unanimously passed in the Senate is telling; why would lawmakers so vehemently want to ban TikTok on government devices but not provide the same type of security to regular citizens? 

To be clear, banning TikTok is not a new endeavor. Some may remember that, back in 2020, the Trump administration also sought to ban TikTok in the United States. President Trump actually signed an executive order that banned TikTok from the app store that mentioned the concerns about TikTok’s apparent lack of privacy and the CCP connection. The executive order was immediately challenged for a multitude of reasons, one being that people were willing to give ByteDance and the CCP the benefit of the doubt. This assertion ignores the fact that the data belonging to regular American citizens were not private at all. One may actually find explicit evidence of this in TikTok’s own terms of service, which reads in part, “We automatically collect certain information from you when you use the Platform, including internet or other network activity information such as your IP address, geolocation-related data, unique device identifiers, browsing and search history (including content you have viewed in the Platform), and Cookies.” Despite this concerning admission of questionable privacy ethics, the Biden administration reversed the ban on TikTok in June 2021, with President Biden saying that he would resolve the problem in a “different way.” However, he has not taken any action on the issue during the course of his presidency, which is why Congress is taking the problem into their own hands. 

On top of the concerns about privacy, TikTok is dangerous for mental health reasons. A study was published in mid-December 2022 that exposed how TikTok intentionally recommends content that supports self-harm and eating disorders to young viewers. In the study, researchers set up fake TikTok accounts where they posed as 13-year-old users interested in content about body image and mental health. Within 2.6 minutes after joining the app, TikTok’s algorithm recommended them suicidal content, and eating disorder content was recommended within just 8 minutes. Additionally, over the course of this study, researchers found 56 TikTok hashtags hosting eating disorder videos that collectively had over 13.2 billion views. The CEO of the Center for Countering Digital Hate, Imran Ahmed, said, “TikTok is able to recognize user vulnerability and seeks to exploit it. It’s part of what makes TikTok’s algorithms so insidious; the app is constantly testing the psychology of our children and adapting to keep them online.”

Ultimately, it is undeniable that TikTok encourages degeneracy and is bad for the mental health of our citizens, but that is not reason enough to ban an app. However, it is paramount for the Federal government to get involved in the issue due to the national security threat that the app poses to us as citizens and to the United States as a country. Therefore, if you do not have a New Year’s resolution yet, here is a challenge: if you have TikTok, delete it as soon as possible, and if you do not have it, never fall to its temptations.

A License to Kill

There has been a growing movement pushing for the legalization and societal acceptance of assisted suicide that does not restrict itself to national boundaries. This phenomenon of euthanasia based on consent degrades human dignity by making life’s value wholly subjective. There is no logical limit to assisted suicide when it is allowed, as has been seen in practice in several countries. There is only one answer to this sinister threat that is tearing apart our respect for human existence, to radically value and defend all human life unconditionally.

The most prominent example of this growing culture of death can be seen in Canada. In 2015, the Canadian Supreme Court overturned legal precedent by declaring that there exists a human right to assisted suicide in the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. Following this ruling, physician-assisted suicide was legalized for patients (or victims) with terminal diagnoses through the Medical Assistance in Dying program (MAiD). Soon after, this law was expanded to include all Canadians with a “grievous and irremediable medical condition.” The next step in this logical progression has occurred but is temporarily delayed due to popular outcry. Originally intended for 2023 but coming into effect next year, it will make mentally ill people with no other medical conditions be assisted in committing suicide, essentially creating suicide on demand.

This torrent of laws legitimizing and allowing euthanasia in Canada has destroyed, harmed, and threatened the lives of many Canadians. Every day twenty-seven Canadians commit suicide with the approval and support of a physician. One example of the effect of these new laws is the case of Alan Nichols. Nichols was placed on suicide watch at his local hospital by concerned relatives, but while in the hospital he was assisted by physicians in his own suicide by citing “hearing loss” after refusing to wear his cochlear implant. Randy Obenauer, a seventy-four-year-old man, apparently would cry while cleaning his catheter. After his friends tried to obtain assistance for him, authorities asked if he was interested in the MAiD program instead. Several veterans seeking assistance from the Canadian Veteran Affairs program were offered MAiD as an alternative to psychological and medical help. Canadian society has become unfortunately very comfortable with suicide, but it does not end with Canada.

Many countries in Europe have legalized assisted suicide. Germany has gone the farthest, with a 2020 German Supreme Court case establishing that every autonomous individual had the right to suicide and governmental assistance in that suicide. Otherwise, in Germany’s view, the fundamental human right to choose would be deprived from its citizenry. In the United States, eleven states allow physician-assisted suicide. Oregon has been the pioneering state in this regard, recently making it legal even for out-of-state residents to obtain suicide services. The Massachusetts legislature currently has a bill legalizing assisted suicide that Governor Maura Healey seems inclined to sign if passed. As grim as this story is, many will question why the state should force someone to live, especially those who are terminally ill.

Many people support the legalization of euthanasia for those who are terminally ill, with recent polling at 72% in favor in the United States. But this justification for suicide is flawed and damaging to human dignity. The value of human life is not dependent on a medical diagnosis. Someone who is diagnosed with a terminal illness is not somehow less deserving of rights than someone who is healthy. The objective delineation between the terminally ill and the healthy is in the end arbitrary, as the human condition is ultimately terminal. Rather, the reason many sympathize with the terminally ill is the pain, both emotionally and physically, caused by such a devastating medical condition.

Extreme pain, emotionally and physically, can make life seem undesirable and too much of a burden for those afflicted with it. It becomes a struggle to do even the most basic tasks, and the chronic suffering can wear people down. Even the strongest amongst us would struggle with conditions such as depression or cancer. But once again, pain does not diminish the value of human life. Just because one loses the will to live, does not mean that living is unimportant. To prove this, I must ask an uncomfortable question that too many reading this are unfortunately familiar with. If your friend, who was in great suffering, came to you and confessed they were suicidal or actively intended to commit suicide, what would you do? Most people would try to comfort and support their friend in every way they can and do their best to ensure their friend gets help. Almost nobody would attempt to assist their friend in this horrible act. Some may consider that friend unable to consent properly due to their mental anguish, but how is their anguish significantly different from that experienced by the terminally ill? A lack of hope and belief in life is what drives people to this dark path, and we should do everything we can to prevent them from falling down it.

Regardless of religious belief or lack thereof, we all know deep inside that life is a gift to be preserved. We know this in the same way that we know the rays of a dawning sun are beautiful and the sounds of a bird singing are musical. It has become easy to forget this simple fact while living in the modern world. We can seem so small and insignificant when compared to the billions of humans that cover this planet. Our identity is often devalued to just our GPA and what we contribute to GDP. Our lives can seem to become just hours of unremitting work and endless scrolling through social media. But life continues, and we must continue to live it as long as we are allowed to. There is a battle to be fought for human life without exception in the halls of power, behind podiums, and on television. But first, it has to be fought within each of ourselves and our relationship with others. Our current crisis of euthanasia is only enabled by a society that has grown callous to the amazing mystery and beauty of human existence. We must remember and believe in this universal truth, that life is worth living.

The Hypocrisy of Affirmative Action

On Halloween day, President Rougeau sent an email to the employees, Jesuits, and students of the College of the Holy Cross with the subject header, Today’s Supreme Court Hearings on Affirmative Action. In it, he discussed his administration’s reaction to the two ongoing Supreme Court cases challenging affirmative action: Students for Fair Admissions v. University of North Carolina and Students for Fair Admissions v. Harvard University. President Rougeau stated that in August the college had joined fifty-six other Catholic institutions of higher education to sign an amicus brief in support of affirmative action. He defended affirmative action, saying that the importance it puts on race fulfills the desire for diversity at colleges and universities. However, President Rougeau and higher education as a whole are mistaken for their faith in race-based admissions. Affirmative action is not only discriminatory, but also only provides a thin façade of the diversity that universities desire.

The discriminatory nature of affirmative action becomes clear when considering its effects Asian Americans. Asian American applicants have to score much higher on the national standardized tests than students of other ethnicities. In the Supreme Court case Student for Fair Admissions Inc. v. President & Fellows of Harvard College, evidence was presented suggesting that without the existence of a race-based admissions regime, Asian American enrollment at Harvard could increase by fifty percent. But this discrimination is not new; the United States has a long and checkered past with Asian Americans. The Chinese Exclusion Act was the first immigration ban based on race in the United States. Following the Spanish-American War, the Philippines was conquered, with its population being described by government officials as uncivilized and unclean. During the Second World War, Japanese Americans were forced into internment camps by the FDR administration. As seen in the historical record, affirmative action is merely another instance of violations of the equal protection guaranteed to Asian Americans by the Fourteenth Amendment. This is a cost many administrators and bureaucrats are willing to make Asian Americans pay.

Many academics, including President Rougeau, who are supportive of race-based admissions argue that this program is necessary for increasing diversity at universities. To be fair to these proponents, there is much to value about diversity. It allows for greater tolerance and understanding across the nation, as citizens of varied beliefs and worldviews connect and discuss for a better tomorrow. Growing from interacting with peers who are different from oneself is a valuable experience. These dynamics lead to a competition of ideas in which the most robust stand, strengthening our nation. But diversity for diversity’s sake, especially racially-focused diversity, is severely flawed and limiting.

Centering attention on race as a measure for diversity is foolish and fruitless. Professor Roland G. Fryer Jr of the Economics Department at Harvard wrote an op-ed in the Washington Post that scathingly describes the limitation of racial college admissions: “Seventy-one percent of Harvard’s Black and Hispanic students come from wealthy backgrounds.” He continues to explain that despite African immigrants and their children only consisting of ten percent of the Black population in the US, they make up forty-one percent of Black students in the Ivy League. This evidence shows the arbitrary nature of these racial definitions crafted by government bureaucrats decades ago. The fact that Chinese, Koreans, Japanese, Indians, and many others are grouped together as “Asians” according to the federal government is nonsensical, even ignoring the myriad of ethnic identities underneath national identities in Asia. Perhaps even more egregious, those Americans who originate or are descended from countries in the geographical regions of North Africa and the Middle East are all considered “White” by the government, despite the gulf in the histories and treatment of those immigrants and ones from the continent of Europe. True diversity, the diversity that is valuable to higher education and the formation of well-rounded citizens, cannot be derived from the artificial divisions of people into ethnic groups.

The only diversity that matters is a diversity of thought. Diversity of race, upbringing, and class are only important to the quality of a university’s education inasmuch as they influence the thought of an individual. The progressive march of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion offices across campuses that exist under the regime of affirmative action has not encouraged a broadening of thought that leads to a fruitful exchange of ideas. Rather, a plague of cancel culture has swept across the colleges and universities of the United States, and onto the rest of the Western world. The National Association of Scholars counted two hundred fifty-five academic cancellations. Even liberal publications have acknowledged this issue, with The Guardian reporting that sixty-one percent of English students in 2022 wanted to “ensure that all students are protected from discrimination rather than allow unlimited free speech”, a steep increase from thirty-seven percent in 2016. Academia’s obsession with race has led to a perversion of its understanding of diversity, harming itself and society as a whole.

Ultimately, affirmative action is a discriminatory race program that violates the Fourteenth Amendment and harms universities. Contrary to what is stated in the opinion of President Rougeau and the amicus brief signed by the College of the Holy Cross, affirmative action is fundamentally flawed and dangerous to the continuation of the liberal arts tradition. The arbitrariness with which it divides the student body is not only unjust but poisonous to the goals of Catholic higher education. A serious reconsideration of values and policies is necessary regarding affirmative action at Holy Cross and campuses across the nation.  As Governor Ron DeSantis said, “The way to stop discrimination on the basis of race is to stop discriminating on the basis of race.”