The United States, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, is at a major political crossroads. The polarization within our ideological landscape has reached a nearly unsustainable level, and communication between Left and Right has all but ceased to exist. Whether it be the soft socialism of Bernie Sanders or right wing populism, political possibilities once thought unpalatable in the United States now present themselves as forces sufficient to motivate large portions of the electorate. Although destabilizing, political turmoil such as the one we find ourselves in now distances us from the status quo and allows us to more objectively examine the political world in which we live. It can push us to question our beliefs and values more deeply and accelerate social change like nothing else. One of the key questions that have been explored is the place Confederate monuments in public life. An honest examination of this issue leaves one inescapable conclusion; that they must be removed from public places of celebration and reverence.
Key to one’s take on the issue is one’s interpretation of the events of the Civil War. Apologists frequently claim that slavery was a minor issue, tangential to the conflict between the Union and Confederacy. The Sons of the Confederacy, an organization of men descended from Confederate veterans, claims that “The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second American Revolution.” Before any productive conversation on the issue can take place, this grave misconception and historical inaccuracy must be succinctly and thoroughly dispelled. The Confederate States rebelled against the Federal government to preserve their ability to maintain slavery. As Ty Seidule, a professor of history at West Point points out, “slavery was, by a large margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War”, adding that “the secession documents of every Southern state made clear, crystal clear that they were leaving the Union in order to protect their ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery.” Even a casual survey of first hand documents of the time reveals a patent and unobscured motivation on the part of Southern states to fight for the preservation of slavery.
To display Confederates monuments in prominent, public positions of honor is thus at odds with our values as both patriots and people of good conscience. In honoring the Confederate military, we honor an institution that sought to tear apart the political order of our country and caused a staggering loss of human life, all in the service of a deeply unethical practice. In memorializing “the Cause”, a term used by the Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that played the largest role in the establishment of such monuments, we pay honor to a depraved and horrendous worldview; one based in the inhumane subjugation of our fellow Americans. This is not merely a theoretical critique of Confederate memorials, or an assignment of intentionality, motive, or symbolic significance without evidence. An examination of the history of such memorials reveals a clear pattern to their construction. A modern study of the establishment of such monuments by the Southern Poverty Law Center reveals “huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s.” The study also notes that these trends came as a reaction to attempts at establishing robust civil rights for black Americans. Jane Dailey, a professor of history at the University of Chicago concludes that “the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past”, but in fact were established with an eye toward “a white supremacist future.” It is thus clear that monuments to the Confederacy were not erected as a simply acknowledgement of history; they were built to perpetuate the legacy of one of the darkest moments in our country’s history and in furtherance of a twisted ideology. This trend indeed continues to this very day, as evidenced by the white nationalist protesters who gathered in Charlottesville in defense of
one such memorial.
Many claim that the removal of Confederate monuments constitutes an “erasing of history.” The memorials to the Confederacy that sit in the parks and public squares of our nation are not archaeological objects, placed long ago in abandoned cities by long dead cultures and people. They do not need to be preserved as though they were windows to a lost world, because they are very much living objects that speak for our own living world. Lt. Stephen Dill Lee, in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, claimed that his organization was charged with the “guardianship of history.” The notion that history needs to be guarded is a valuable one; we must learn from our history and shape our worldview from accurate historical accounts. In allowing Confederate memorials to remain in places of honor, we allow our history to fall into the hands of treacherous guardians; of those who wish to distort it and expunge from it the lessons that we all must heed.
Why Holy Cross Needs a Monastery
As a Catholic and Jesuit school, Holy Cross has certain privileges. We are used to having Jesuits at the school say Mass and hear confessions, as well as teach classes, work in various departments, attend events, and generally act as a positive presence on campus. They participate in a legacy dating back to the school’s founding in 1843, and in one stretching far further into the past. Not all Catholic schools are so lucky; many, particularly those without an affiliation to a religious community, can only occasionally bring in visiting priests and lay missionaries.
The earliest universities were not necessarily Catholic, but there is a long history of affiliations between the Catholic Church and universities. This makes sense; from a practical standpoint during the medieval period when universities first began to appear, the Church had a variety of resources to offer a university, such as the power to grant degrees and legal protection. There is a deeper link, however: the rise of Christianity enabled the growth of science into what we have today. There is a cognitive dissonance in our culture today, where the Church is portrayed by secular entities as the enemy of science and progress. It is remarkable that such critics never question why the Church which is so dedicated to suppressing science has fostered scientific thinkers such as Copernicus, Lemaître, Mendel, Pascal, and Pasteur, as well as running the world-class Vatican Observatory.
We enjoy the inheritance of this religious and scientific collaboration today, usually unconsciously. Even at a small school such as Holy Cross, there is great emphasis placed on the natural sciences, mathematics, and the social sciences. Sometimes it seems that there is too much of this. As a senior about to graduate in the spring, I hear a lot about the importance of a liberal arts degree grounded in both the sciences and the humanities (and less than I would like about the Catholic history thereof). It is always implied that my degree will lead to a fulfilling career making money—after all, we’re regularly reminded that Holy Cross graduates are highly employable and have an above-average starting salary ($50,534 for the class of 2016, if you’re wondering). However, the focus on the material benefits of our education comes at a steep cost.
What is lost with the emphasis on money and success is any mention of what our most important heritage as a Catholic school is: prayer. I hear more about what companies are recruiting on campus than the fact that the body of Christ is present in our chapels day and night, and I get more reminders about meeting with potential employers than I do about going to Mass. It might sound silly, or archaic, but this is the belief of the Catholic Church and the focal point which enables our school’s rich study of science, mathematics, and humanities (and the post-graduate jobs in these fields). By not emphasizing the Eucharist or prayer enough, our school is missing out on a beautiful Catholic legacy, and on a lot of graces needed to lead souls to Christ (the actual mission of all Catholic schools). The solution can only come through prayer. The Jesuits are amazing, but their way of life is not conducive to constant intercession on behalf of the Church through formal prayer, though undoubtedly their prayer for the school benefits us all. What Holy Cross really needs, in addition to the prayer and witness of the Jesuits, is a cloistered monastery of nuns or monks on or around our campus.
The 1999 Church document Verbi Sponsa describes the importance of the contemplative life: “The ancient spiritual tradition of the Church, taken up by the Second Vatican Council, explicitly connects the contemplative life to the prayer of Jesus ‘on the mountain’… the cloister is especially well suited to life wholly directed to contemplation. Its totality signals absolute dedication to God...” Cloistered religious life is uniquely oriented toward prayer. It takes only a walk around Dinand, even this early in the academic year, to sense that there is already abundant stress and desperation, and probably not enough prayer (not that there ever can be enough prayer). Even beyond the schoolwork, a college or university cannot be a peaceful place; it is a battleground for the future of our world, whether we like to think about it in such dramatic terms or not. Here too, a monastery would act as a center of prayer for the campus. Verbi Sponsa states regarding this: “A contemplative monastery is a gift also for the local Church to which it belongs. Representing the prayerful face of the Church, a monastery makes the Church's presence more complete and meaningful in the local community. A monastic community may be compared to Moses who, in prayer, determined the fate of Israel's battles (cf. Ex 17:11), or to the guard who keeps the night watch awaiting the dawn.”
As well as praying for our souls and academics, a cloistered monastic community would serve as an inspiration and reminder of what is truly valuable in life, particularly as we grow ever closer to finals/graduation/our departure of this life. “As a reflection and radiation of their contemplative life, nuns offer to the Christian community and to the world of today, more than ever in need of true spiritual values, a silent proclamation of the mystery of God and a humble witness to it, thus keeping prophecy alive in the nuptial heart of the Church” (Verbi Sponsa). Verbi Sponsa speaks of nuns, and there is something to be said particularly for having an increased presence for women religious on campus. The Jesuits serve as spiritual
fathers to many students, faculty, and staff, and having a similar maternal presence could be nothing but beneficial.
The logistics, admittedly, could be difficult. The grass lots at the corner of College Street and Southbridge Street have been sitting vacant since the buildings previously there were demolished. Perhaps it is time for them to receive a new lease on life. Or maybe we can install a new cloistered wing off Ciampi. In the worst-case scenario, there are a lot of floors in Hogan that we don’t really need. As for the new community’s finances, I’d be more than happy to donate the part of my tuition that normally goes to the Spring Concert, and I’m sure many other students would be willing to as well. Many monastic communities sell cheese, beer, candy, or other food items so we could also benefit from having good, locally produced food on campus.
And since there is no contemplative branch of the Jesuits, we will have to invite a religious community of a different tradition. The Benedictines are probably our best option, as St. Benedict, their founder, is a patron saint of students, and St. Ignatius of Loyola had a beautiful experience of prayer and forgiveness at the Benedictine monastery at Montserrat. Holy Cross needs a monastery so that we can return to our Catholic roots. I do not suggest that we abandon altogether our career searching and grad-school applying, only that each of us re-evaluates our priorities. A monastery on campus or just outside the gates is a way to emphasize the importance of prayer and refocus the mission of the school on bringing souls to heaven and not just to Fulbrights. The spiritual and financial investments would be worth every bit.
Deliberative Abrogation of Congressional Authority
With President Trump’s recent decision to delay rescinding the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, there has been an outpouring of emotional support for those affected by the announcement. Through emotional appeals, the opponents of President Trump’s decision have criticized him for adopting an uncaring and inhumane policy that punishes children for the sins of their parents. Frequent invocations of children and toddlers being sent back to nations foreign to them have demonized advocates of Constitutional order and legal immigration. Additionally, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been quick to condemn the decision, which is an unlikely occurrence in today’s era of hyperpartisanship. Despite all the outcries, President Trump was right to end the illegal program known as DACA.
For one thing, the constitutionality of his actions is hardly in question; prominent figures on the left and the right, along with the federal courts, oppose the legal foundations of President Obama’s DACA policy. Without Congress’s legislative
authority, President Obama created the policy which provided a semi-legal status to those who illegally immigrated with their parents as children. While DACA recipients are mostly well-educated, employed, and provided substantial tax revenue to the government, the actions that President Obama took in 2012 clearly circumvented the Constitution. By unilaterally initiating a temporary immigration policy, President Obama bypassed Congress’s inherent duty to legislate controversial policies into law and took it upon himself to change the immigration laws. In response to President Trump’s actions, California’s senior senator and current ranking Democratic member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, noted in an interview on MSNBC that DACA was on shaky legal ground and that further legislative action was needed. In addition to Senator Feinstein, prominent Never-Trump conservatives like Andrew McCarthy and Yuval Levin have addressed the unconstitutional nature of DACA and have supported the administration’s actions. Since McCarthy and Levin were some of the President’s strongest and most vocal conservative critics, their support of the DACA decision demonstrates the illegal steps the Obama administration undertook to unilaterally create immigration policy. Furthermore, the policy of providing illegal immigrants with a semi-legal status through executive orders was blocked by the courts when several states challenged the legality of DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.
In addition to the questionable legality of DACA, the end of the executive action is not the end of immigration reform. President Trump’s decision to delay rescinding DACA for six months provides Congress with an opportunity to achieve long-lasting immigration policy. Within hours of the administration announcement that it was rescinding DACA, prominent Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan and 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio have spoken out in favor of maintaining a similar policy for DACA recipients. Concerning potential legislative solutions to the rescinding of DACA, the number of Republicans criticizing the administration’s action combined with both democratic caucuses should indicate that a solution is more than likely. Simultaneously, the ten Democratic senators up for reelection in a year in states that President Trump won in 2016 could side with the administration if their state constituencies compel them and adopt a conservative solution. If both Congress and President Trump can compromise, a long-lasting solution to
illegal immigration could potentially be secured before the president’s imposed six month deadline.
Currently two Congressional Bills propose reforms to the broken American immigration system. The Curbelo-Tillis Bill proposes granting legal status to the DREAMers who have been in the country long-term. Meanwhile, the RAISE Act is a proposal by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) which aims to curb the chain migration and incentive immigration based on specialized skills. In response to the administration stance on DACA, Senator Cotton noted that he would be willing to provide legal status to the almost million DACA recipients already in the nation.
Understandably, most reactions to President Trump’s policies, including the DACA decision, have been met with feelings for those affected by them. While this display of compassion is commendable, the blatant disregard for the rule of law and the institutions that have guided the American republic since the founding is not. Additionally, the empathy expressed by the media, colleges, and major cities ignores the people who experience the fallout from the loose immigration policies and voted for the candidate to fix them. If this ignorance and overt indifference for the rule of law and this constituency continues, Donald Trump will be reelected president on November 3, 2020.
Ignore Diversity: Think for Yourself
As has become customary, the start of the academic year brought another announcement of Holy Cross's commitment to "diversity." As currently used in the academic world and elsewhere, the term doesn't mean what it says. Especially in an academic institution the purpose of which, presumably, is the pursuit of learning, one would want students to be exposed to, and become literate in, the greatest possible diversity of serious intellectual viewpoints, particularly as these have been expressed in classic as well as contemporary works of philosophy, literature, theology, history, and the social sciences. They would thereby become best equipped to think through the most important questions of human and political life, and best able to conduct themselves as the sort of thoughtful citizens and family members that a self-governing republic requires.
But that is not at all the sort of diversity that advocates have in mind. A statement from the College president boasts of the College's success in its "commitment to diversity in our faculty ranks" in that "one-third of our tenure-track hires in the past two years have been faculty of color." Additionally, all applicants for "exempt" (administrative) positions are now "require[d] to reflect on their commitment to mission and diversity in their application materials," while "trained Mission and Diversity ambassadors" will be placed "on every search committee" for higher administrative officials. The speaker of the faculty and Dean Taneja "recently wrote to faculty with concrete suggestions on how faculty can include issues of diversity and inclusion in the classroom." (The requirement to "reflect" on one's commitment to diversity in order to qualify for a position at Holy Cross raises problems of its own. How will administrators be able to tell whether an applicant is really, really committed to diversity - or is only faking it? What of applicants for tenure-track teaching positions - already required, assuming they aren't "diverse" themselves, to express their commitment to that goal - who might fake it for six years, get tenure, and then - in the memorable phrase of Harvard's Harvey Mansfield, "Hoist the Jolly Roger"? To avert these problems, might lie-detector tests have to be added? I cannot avoid recalling methods used in the dark past to test the sincerity of people's professions of faith though I don't want to give anyone ideas.) None of the foregoing policies have anything to do with the proper purpose of liberal education, defined by the 19th-century English critic Matthew Arnold as "the study of the best that has been thought and said in the world." Time that could be devoted to the study of such works is instead to be diverted in the College's unofficial ideology of "diversity and inclusion." Categorizing faculty hires on the basis of skin color means effectively reducing them to members of groups, defined by a purely arbitrary bodily characteristic rather than by their capacity for serious, independent thinking and scholarship. It demeans them by implying that they might not have qualified for their positions on the basis of academic merit alone. (And does anyone think that the discussion of "issues of diversity and inclusion" that professors are encouraged to include in their courses will allow for any dissent from that ideology?) The situation of faculty and students confronted with the demand to conform to the diversity doctrine does not differ, in some of its essentials, from the one that Socrates faced at his trial. He was condemned by the Athenian people for "corrupting the young," in that he inspired his pupils to question rather than passively accept the then-dominant ideology. Of course there were legitimate reasons for citizens to be concerned if Socrates' questioning, pursued too openly, tended to weaken the religious, moral, and political beliefs on which Athenian democracy depended.
But the advocates of today's diversity ideology have no such excuse. I have no capacity to block the progress of the "diversity" movement at Holy Cross or elsewhere, other than refusing to defer to it in my own teaching and writing. But I urge students, whatever your ethnic background or skin color or disability status, whatever your gender or sexual orientation, whatever country you come from or religion you profess (or don't): don't let anyone tell you that any of those factors must determine how you think, what you read, or whom you associate with. Seek out courses in which the curriculum consists of serious books, particularly classics, taught by faculty who seem to be genuinely interested in what writers like Homer and Plato, Shakespeare and Machiavelli, Nietzsche and George Eliot, or the authors of the Federalist Papers and Frederick Douglass have to teach us rather than imposing the professors' own ideological or partisan beliefs on the works you will be studying. Do your best to understand what we can learn from such profound authors that we didn't already "know" (or rather, believe). If you disagree with what an author (or professor) says,
speak out (after thinking the text or issue through) and express your own point of view. Freely discuss the books you are reading outside of class with classmates who don't necessarily share your opinions, let alone your ethnic background etc. But never preface a statement or a question with "As a ---," with the blank filled in by one of the characteristics typically emphasized by the so-called diversity movement.
Unlike all other animals, we human beings have the capacity to reason rather than be governed purely by instinct. But like the inhabitants of the cave depicted in Plato's Republic, we face considerable obstacles to exercising that capacity: the pressure to conform to the dominant prejudices imposed by those who shape our intellectual/ cultural/ political environment. Every nation needs to inculcate a patriotic and moral outlook ideally, supported by moderate religious beliefs - in its citizens. But there's no reason for colleges to engage in the indoctrination business.
Students, think for yourselves!
A Reflection on Historical Discrimination and Modern Victim Mentality in the United States
Despite the significant dissimilarities between societal marginalization in the United States now and in previous centuries, the dominant ethos across many sectors of our country would suggest that America in 2017 is a toxic, rancorous nation that judges and discriminates against individuals on the basis of their demographic or ‘identity’ group. Mindsets like this have paved the way to insistence upon the existence of systemic, universal discrimination based on these ultimately irrelevant factors, which has led to a subculture in which identity-based victimhood is celebrated while merit-based success is discouraged and virtually meaningless. A culture in which victimhood is embraced ironically encompasses the very mindset that makes success impossible. Although some cases of identity-based marginalization certainly do exist, defaulting to accusations of discrimination in inequitable situations usually demonstrates flawed perception, not systemic inequality. Ultimately, society at large - drawing influences from the media, political rhetoric, higher education, and even one’s own family - must be doing something wrong if it is responsible for exposing and practically feeding this sort of mentality to America’s youth.
Historically, minority groups in the United States unquestionably faced discrimination in most facets of life. The unique struggles immigrants encountered in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries were real, significant barriers. Immigrants had to vehemently fight for their position in society, and ultimately, they experienced the fruits of their labor not by demanding recognition and challenging pre-existing American societal norms, but by earning societal respect through contribution of labor and acceptance of the established American cultural fabric.
My grandfather, after whom I am named, immigrated to the United States from Ireland
in 1947, and after many unsuccessful attempts at finding work, he changed his name from Seamus to Jim to avoid the unfortunate stigma of being an Irish immigrant. Of course he would have preferred to keep his name – a meaningful indicator of personal and cultural identity – but he felt that he needed to do so in order to take advantage of all that America had to offer as well as to more easily assimilate into American culture. Meanwhile, he managed to find several jobs working in lumberyards and as a carpenter, until he saved enough money to create his own business in 1951 building homes in suburban Chicago. His business continued to grow and prosper, and in the coming years he would get married and raise a family of five.
My grandfather’s story is a prototypical example of the American Dream, and surely there are countless other success stories similar in nature. Ultimately, my grandfather realized that he needed to make the change to adapt to his new country, not the other way around. The American Melting Pot did not come into being through demands of multicultural awareness and lack of pride in the United States. Rather, immigrants toiled for their success – and a great deal of them reached it – through accepting the capitalistic nature of the American workforce and working hard while still upholding an appreciation for the country and culture they left behind. My grandfather’s Irish heritage did not die when he chose to go by a different name, nor did his personal identity or sense of self-perception. Cultural pride and making necessary changes to ensure opportunity are not mutually exclusive; rather, they complement each other quite well. Culture is not a definitive asset to one’s life. While culture ought to be recognized and celebrated for its frequent influences on one’s perspective and broader life outlook, life is not meant to be lived within tight, subjective cultural boundaries. Often, it seems, clinging onto cultural significance is responsible for creating this self-perceived victimization, as people have difficulty drawing the line as to how much influence culture should have on one’s life, decisions, and identity. Moderate cultural appreciation and the embracement of American opportunity truly make the best of both worlds. As my grandfather used to say, “Opportunity is not given; it’s earned.” To him, working hard and overcoming obstacles was a vital part of his path to realizing the unique freedoms and opportunities that only America could provide.
Of course, instances of inequality and discrimination still exist in 2017 America, although they are much less prevalent than in the post-war 1940s. Given the significant disparity between these instances of discrimination in modern America and the extreme marginalization faced by many in previous centuries, one must ask: why do so many perceive themselves to be victims in the freest, most opportune, most tolerant and nondiscriminatory nation in the history of the world? Does the very existence of this freedom, opportunity, tolerance, and nondiscrimination in the United States create illusions for certain people, leading to self-perceived needs for entitlements and a more socialistic government? The competitive nature of the American economy may be intimidating or
misleading to certain individuals, but this dilemma is, once again, an issue of distorted perception rather than an unjust society.
At Marquette University in February 2017, political commentator and novelist Ben Shapiro justifiably claimed, “On campus, because there is such focus on victimhood, a certain ‘victim privilege’ has been established. Not ‘white privilege,’ ‘victim privilege.’ If you’re a member of a victim group, you now have a privilege. And that privilege amounts to, you get to tell other people to shut up and you also get to hurt people.” The recently promulgated view that American society is ‘out to get’ certain individuals and groups of people based on their race, gender, or class is in fact what discourages these people from pursuing their dreams and seeking out any meaningful level of success. As was true for my grandfather, the opportunity is there, and if it has not yet presented itself to you, ask yourself: is it truly American society holding you back, or are you holding you back?
Ultimately, having the expectation that others must change to meet your subjective needs is unhealthy and unproductive, and a much better alternative would be to start focusing on what can be created for oneself. More often than not, this change in mentality can amount to life changing proportions.
Identity Crisis: Preserving Our Catholic Roots in a Postmodern World
In recent months, the College of the Holy Cross has become further engrossed in efforts to dechristianize the school and its identity. Even many in the College’s administration, it seems, perceive secularization and cultural assimilation more favorably than the values on which the College was founded and reached national eminence.
The decline of tradition and uptick in societal conformity at the College of the Holy Cross has run rampant this academic year. For instance, most recently, a sector of the College’s faculty initiated a movement seeking to change the name of the student newspaper, The Crusader, out of fear that “the growing anti-Muslim tensions in our country, and […] the fact that the Ku Klux Klan official newspaper shares the same name as our own” somehow poses a threat to the College’s mission and identity. These claims indicate just how easily the College community caves to political pressure. If the Crusader moniker becomes “anti-Muslim” during times of national religious tension, then what does “Holy Cross” become? After all, Jesus was nailed to a cross: does “Cross” propagate the same violent connotations that Crusader does? Should all Christian symbols and paraphernalia be removed from campus as so not to offend? Should the College change its name to “College of the Holy Cross and the Sacred Ka’abah” to promote religious equality and multicultural inclusivity?
Additionally, many non-Christian students have declared that the Crusader moniker is unwelcoming and not applicable to all students. I must ask, why do these students feel unwelcome? The last I checked, Christian students aren’t running all non-Christians off campus, and the College does not impede the rights of anyone, regardless of their faith. Likewise, mascots like Notre Dame’s Fighting Irish and Seton Hall’s Pirates surely do not apply to every student on campus – yet I do not see students at those institutions demanding a mascot change. Holy Cross should not modify its mascot and institutional customs to suit the demands of every identity group. If “Crusader” and other indicators of Christianity make a student feel uncomfortable, then perhaps he or she should not have enrolled at the College of the Holy Cross.
According to the Southern Poverty Law Center, there are only currently only 5,000 members of the Ku Klux Klan, or 0.001% of the United States population. Even with this statistic in mind, chances are slim that a large fraction of those 5,000 members actually subscribe to and read the publication. Had anyone even heard of the KKK’s Crusader newspaper prior to a few months ago? Are we at Holy Cross – one of the premiere colleges in the nation – really naïve enough to allow a diminutive publication belonging to a hate group that is no longer relevant to dictate what our values and identity should be? I would hope not. All efforts to abolish the mascot and moniker are sparked by nothing other than political correctness and desires to further secularize the College.
As one Holy Cross student said at The Crusader fishbowl discussion, “The term crusade can be used in a variety of ways and obviously the KKK has chosen it as a name for a reason, and they are on a particular crusade; but I would argue, at least I hope, that we at Holy Cross are on a very different crusade. I don’t think the problem is that we have the same name as the newsletter of the Klan, but how we’re advocating for what crusade we are on. The more pertinent issue is to say to the Klan, ‘No, you are not crusaders; we are crusaders and this is what our crusade is.’” Why is Crusader something so many see to be innately bad? Judging a mascot based on the historical connotations it may lead to is foolish and unwarranted.
Unfortunately, through actions, policy changes, and movements like the Crusader objections, the College of the Holy Cross is further regressing into a postmodern establishment that tucks away the Church’s teachings when politically convenient, favors a relativistic ‘multicultural competency’ over the school’s long-rooted Catholic identity, and perceives fundamental components of the College’s mission and culture as obstacles rather than assets.
The Crusader “discussion” appears to be a part of a larger trend. In 2014, the College replaced what was a unique and esteemed seal with what looks like a reconstruction of the Wal-Mart logo, albeit in a purple shield, that would more suitably represent a school named the College of the Purple Sunlight. Noticeably absent in the new logo is a cross or any clear Catholic symbolism. Though the shield is, in fact, vaguely representative of the Society of Jesus, does it not seem strange that the College of the Holy Cross no longer chooses to represent itself with a cross?
In a similar vein, many prospective and current Holy Cross students report that their campus tour guides go out of their way to downplay the College’s Catholic identity. In a recent edition of the Holy Cross tour guide manual, the three “big things to emphasize” while talking about academics are listed as “Liberal Arts,” “All Undergraduate,” and “Jesuit identity.” The Office of the College Chaplains touts itself as being “Inspired by our Jesuit identity” with no mention of Catholicism anywhere on its “About” webpage. Descriptions of the Holy Cross retreats mention “Jesuit” several times; however, fail to mention “Catholic,” “Christian,” or even “Jesus.” The “Oath of Inclusion” video produced by the Student Government Association earlier this academic year labels Holy Cross as being “in accordance with Jesuit traditions and values,” yet makes no mention of Catholicism. All in all, it is not difficult to see that the Holy Cross administration, faculty, and oftentimes student body uphold the College’s Jesuit values over its Catholic identity. In fact, one might be inclined to believe that Holy Cross is ashamed of its Catholic, Christian origins: seemingly every time the College represents itself to a public audience, it will proudly boast about its Jesuit values but turn a blind eye to the root of those values, as though it is a source of shame or embarrassment. This predicament raises several questions: Are “Jesuit” and “Catholic” entirely different entities? Can one exist independently of the other? Is our Jesuit standing an excuse to neglect certain Catholic teachings? Is Catholicism something to be ashamed of? The answer to all of these questions is, of course, no. Historically, the College of the Holy Cross has been considered among the top Catholic colleges in the nation, but its place in certain national rankings has dropped in recent years. Is it purely coincidental that its decline in national reputation follows the same timeline as its decline in commitment to Catholicism?
The Holy Cross Become More campaign seeks for Holy Cross to be recognized “as the premier Catholic college.” If this is truly the College’s goal, perhaps it ought to start embracing its Catholic identity rather than rejecting it. We have had enough discussions about identity over the past year. Some have been worthwhile while others have been senseless. However, it is important that we as a college community don’t get caught up in the politics and silliness of these arguments. Unfortunately, it seems as though we already have. But that doesn’t mean it’s too late. As Pope Francis said, “Have the courage to go against the tide of current values that do not conform to the path of Jesus.” Holy Cross’s own identity is a slanted version of what it could and should be, and as Catholics, it is our mission to resist the tide.
Name Change
Recently, a dialogue arose concerning the name of our mascot, The Crusader. A letter, signed by forty-eight distinguished faculty members, appeared in the latest The Crusader, urging students to engage in conversation because our newspaper shares the same name as the KKK’s and the feelings of animosity they believe the term “crusader” carries.
Claude Hanley ’18 already addressed how the College is purposefully slating the dialogue on this very matter in his article “Welcome to Secular Sunday School”. I echo what he said and would like to emphasize that changing our mascot solidifies our entry into this heretical “Secular Sunday School.”
In response to citing the KKK as a reason to discuss changing the name, that argument seems eerily close to an existential instantiation- a logical fallacy where one assumes existential import. I do not think that the vast majority of people know that the KKK’s newspaper bears this name and also, I do not think that the mutual name associates us with them. A proper assessment of Crusaders reveals that they (they being the Crusaders) were anything but white supremacists (since racism did not surface until later). The KKK’s message and agenda of hate and supremacy should not deter us from acknowledging that Crusaders are remembered for being staunchly Christian, above all else, even if that is simply a stereotype.
However, the crux of the argument to change the name that we identify with is not the connection to the KKK, but rather the “anti-Muslim tensions…counter to our mission and goals” as the faculty writes. This assumes that there is a direct connection between the Crusades and anti-Muslim tensions. While I can see how one could reach that conclusion, I believe that conclusion is an oversimplification of a complex series of wars.
Dr. Thomas Asbridge, a leading expert on the Crusades, in The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land writes “when Latin crusading armies arrived in the Near East to wage what essentially were frontier wars, they were not actually invading the heartlands of Islam. Instead, they were fighting for control of a land that, in some respects, was also a Muslim frontier.” Dr. Asbridge provides an excellent backdrop for how we should examine the Crusades- as a political war, not primarily a religious war. Understanding the Crusades as a political war allows you to recognize that both sides waged war over territory, not exclusively religious zeal.
Michael Haag, a historian with books published by Yale University Press, American University in Cairo Press, etc. writes in The Catholic Herald “In 1095, Pope Urban II called for a Crusade, but neither Christianity nor the West was the cause of the Crusades…The Crusades were part of a centuries-long struggle between Islam and Christianity throughout the Mediterranean world.”
Synthesizing these two historian’s thoughts, we see that the Crusades were a war fought between two groups of people, one mainly Christian and one mainly Islamic, but the Crusades resulted from political struggles.
Understanding the dynamic of the Crusades is crucial to understanding my argument about keeping the name. If one views the Crusades in a historical context, one sees that the Crusades do not originate from a place of Islamophobia, as some may argue. This distinction between hatred of a religion and a territorial struggle defines how we view the actual Crusaders.
Speaking of actual Crusaders, history and society stereotypes them as a zealous Catholic, pillaging every village and killing everyone in sight. As with most stereotypes of Christians, this is completely inaccurate. Dr. Thomas F. Madden, a Crusader historian, addresses this common misconception in his article The Real History of the Crusades by writing “They were not the brainchild of an ambitious pope or rapacious knights but a response to more than four centuries of conquests in which Muslims had already captured two-thirds of the old Christian world…But the truth is that the Crusades were notoriously bad for plunder. A few people got rich, but the vast majority returned with nothing.”
Immediately, Dr. Madden deftly squashes the stereotype of the pillaging knight, similar to how the College squashes open dialogue about perpetuating our Christian tradition. I write this statement ironically because similar to how I am advocating for preserving our Catholic history, the Crusaders believed that Islam would destroy Christianity as they destroyed Zoroastrianism, according to Dr. Madden.
As Christians, as American citizens, as people, as whatever we identify as, a universal truth that most, if not all, of us can agree upon is that everyone should have freedom of religion. Then, if a group tries to take away that freedom, wouldn’t we fight? The short answer is we’ve already done that. Earlier, I stated that the Crusades were a political struggle, which is true, but this political struggle led to Muslims inhabiting more territory and as Dr. Madden points out, posing a threat to Christianity. Dr. Madden concludes his article with “Without the Crusades, it might well have followed Zoroastrianism, another of Islam's rivals, into extinction.”
I write this not to justify the Crusades because anything that results in killing, stealing, etc. is morally wrong, but I think it expands our view of the Crusades. The Crusaders simply are not what they are remembered as, therefore we should not change the name of our mascot because of a misconception of their intent.
Yes, Crusaders committed atrocities, but so did people on the other side. I do not wish to justify their sins, but rather emphasize that they fought for their families, rights, and religions- in other words, what we call “noble causes”.
In my view, when we call ourselves “Crusaders”, we remember those who prioritized preservation of the family and Christianity. Beyond the stereotypes that society pins upon it, the term Crusader always evokes Christianity. To me, to change the name is to ignore that the message of Christianity is love. In Matthew 22, a Pharisee lawyer asks Jesus what the greatest commandment is, and Jesus responds “Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind. This is the first and greatest commandment. And the second is like unto it: love your neighbor as yourself. All the Law and the Prophets hang on these commandments.”
In this time in history where hate is unprecedented, it is crucial and essential that we spread love everywhere. Since we live in a time where Islamophobia is rampant, we need to speak out against the hatred with a message of love, which I believe we can do as Crusaders and as Christians. In my mind, our path forward is self-evident.
We need to delineate what we believe being a Crusader means, educate others on this, and then, check our personal contributions to hatred. Every slightly racist joke or phrase, instance of gossip, insult or jab, even sarcastic comment piles up and smothers the true message of Christianity.
Since Crusader carries negative connotations, we cannot simply do nothing about those connotations. I believe that we should stand by our Christianity, stand by our values of love, and stand by our name as Crusaders. As I wrote before, we need to educate others on the Crusades and what we mean by using the name, underscoring our commitment to Christianity. I view this name change as one attempt of many to rid the College of Christianity, which is why I strongly oppose the name change. Instead of denying our Christianity, let us embrace it, as the Crusaders did, and show our love for God and our neighbors by doing so.
The False Pretenses of Diversity in Higher Education
As one of the most beloved catchwords of 21st century academia, the term “diversity” has become one of the most used and celebrated attributes of our nation’s colleges and universities. In fact, one would be hard-pressed to find a top university that does not tout diversity as one of its most prized qualities. For a term that is so widely used and flaunted in the U.S. educational system, we ought to have an appropriate grasp of what it really means – or perhaps more importantly, what it should mean.
When the term “diversity” comes to mind, most will likely think of matters relating to multiculturalism. On the surface, a student body representing a wide range of races and socioeconomic statuses seems appealing and fair. From the lenses of America’s leading institutions of higher education, a racially diverse environment is best equipped to engage with difficult topics. Again, at first blush, this seems logically practical and socially just. But is this really what our colleges and universities should be focused on?
According to many school administrations, a racially diverse community is innately strong. In reality, this is nonsense. To claim that a student body can attain strength and success merely because of racial and social diversity is misleading, and detracts from what is truly meaningful in learning environments. While racial and multicultural diversity are not necessarily negative attributes, they are not necessarily constructive either. For instance, a racially diverse charitable organization is no better or worse than an all-black church ministry; melanin level is not the true determinant of values and meaning, and nor should it be. There is something deeper and more substantial that diversity of skin color cannot achieve on its own.
Diversity of thought is infinitely more important than diversity of skin color or economic standing. Variety of ethnic makeup does not hold a candle to differences of values, ideals, and beliefs – and we shouldn’t pretend that it does. An academic and faith-based community is not strong because of its racial and socioeconomic makeup. Rather, its strength emerges from its members’ composition of beliefs and values. But even this on its own is not enough to form a truly strong, robust community. As evidenced in many colleges and universities over the past several years, administrators tend to believe that diversity cannot thrive in an environment in which people disagree. Thus, they seem to advocate openness to an extreme level that dilates any values they once claimed to represent. This, again, is nonsensical. What good is there in learning and engaging with ideas if we are all expected to hold the same views? Thus, diversity of any type is meaningless without basic human decency. In an era as politically polarizing and ideologically difficult as today’s, it is more difficult than ever to cultivate a diverse community that also maintains decency and respect for people of all viewpoints and beliefs. Leftist practices such as “trigger warnings” and “safe spaces,” as well as nebulous terms like “white privilege” deter us from achieving intellectual freedom and liberty. Attempting to shut down a presidential candidate’s event because of opposing viewpoints – as we have seen across our country in recent months – does not achieve anything. It is sillier than it is effectual. The college campus should be the heart of intellectual progress, and it is difficult to advance when many use vain, insincere excuses to silence opposing viewpoints, all in the name of “diversity.”
The College of the Holy Cross mission statement states, “As a liberal arts college, Holy Cross pursues excellence in teaching, learning, and research. All who share its life are challenged to be open to new ideas, to be patient with ambiguity and uncertainty, to combine a passion for truth with respect for the views of others. Informed by the presence of diverse interpretations of the human experience, Holy Cross seeks to build a community marked by freedom, mutual respect, and civility.” In an environment in which people are offended by something as puerile as party themes and demand administrative punishment for ideas they disagree with, are we nurturing an academic community that excels because of all of its members and their ideas rather than only those that do not offend people?
Diversity cannot be meaningful without decency. Thus, it is time for our nation’s colleges and universities to move away from their preconceived focus on racial diversity and move towards promoting an environment that tolerates and respects ideas. Dr. John Ellison, a Dean of Students at the University of Chicago, sent a letter to all incoming freshmen this past September. The letter read, “Fostering the free exchange of ideas reinforces a related University priority — building a campus that welcomes people of all backgrounds. Diversity of opinion and background is a fundamental strength of our community. The members of our community must have the freedom to espouse and explore a wide range of ideas.” It’s about time that other colleges – including Holy Cross – take note.