Dancing With Your Eyes Closed

In my first year as a resident assistant here at the College of the Holy Cross, I was given the opportunity to participate in an event called “Pie Your RA.” “Pie Your RA” was relatively self-explanatory: at a specified time in front of the Hogan Campus Center, residents could purchase, for a dollar, a whipped-cream “pie” and promptly deposit it onto their garbage-bag-clad RA’s face. I, ever being a jokester, was all-for the event. The donated monies would go to benefit the Holy Cross Dance Marathon, wherein students dance the night away (literally, mind you – they dance all night) to raise money for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Society. What could go wrong?

To make a long story short: once I knew what I’d be getting into, I didn’t let one drop of whipped cream touch my face.

The Dance Marathon has been waltzing around the College since 2012. A Holy Cross alumna co-founded the event during her senior year, according to her blog “A Job Well Dunn,” for the sake of “bringing students and the community together to raise money and awareness for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.” During the initial year, the Marathon raised almost $24,000 for the Foundation; in the next year, the number increased by roughly $4,500. It seems that the donations peaked in 2014, where an enterprising group of students raised over $40,000, although the amount has dwindled to back around $27,000 as of last year. (The Campus Activities Board hosted the event again on January 25th, but I haven’t found the total amount donated this year.)

I suppose that these numbers indicate how easy it is to say to a group of students: “hey everyone! Let’s all dance together, have a fun time, and save the lives of some children suffering from HIV/AIDS! Everyone wins!” and have an overwhelmingly positive response. It makes sense, to be sure; who wouldn’t want to protect the lives of children? Who wouldn’t want to purge HIV and AIDS from the world? Noble, to be sure.

But the “everyone wins” is false. The children don’t all win, nor do their mothers, nor do we. The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, despite what it seems, is unadulteratedly pro-choice; furthermore, it disagrees fundamentally with Catholic sexual ethics.  Frankly, I don’t know if Holy Cross itself knows that, and I’m sure that most of the students who attend the Dance Marathon don’t know either.

The Lepanto Institute for the Restoration of All Things in Christ, a “research and education organization dedicated to the defense of the Catholic Church against assaults from without as well as from within,” marks the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation (EGPAF) as “Not Safe” on the grounds that it facilitates abortion and contraception. On a page dedicated to explaining this grade (see https://www.lepantoinstitute.org/elizabeth-glaser-pediatric aids-foundation/), they explain why. EGPAF, in 2013, published a progress report on its “Cote d’Ivoire” project in Kenya. “Page five of this report,” claims Lepanto, “clearly indicates that its distribution of 400,000 condoms was one of its accomplishments for just one year.” Indeed, on page five of the PDF document linked to the Lepanto webpage, the statement “Over the year, EGPAF distributed over 400,000 condoms” appears. Please note that section 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “every action which... proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.” This prohibition includes condoms, which render procreation impossible.

Perhaps far worse is that EGPAF also supports abortion. According to the Lepanto Institute, EGPAF celebrated the repeal of the Mexico City Policy in 2009. The policy requires that nongovernmental organizations must, in order to receive federal funding, not involve themselves in family planning via abortion in other nations. The Mexico City Policy has vacillated, being repealed and reinstated, over various presidencies and was repealed under President Obama, although Trump has recently reinstated it again. The EGPAF’s support of Obama’s repeal can be affirmed by a statement from Pamela W. Barnes, the President and Chief Executive Officer of EGPAF in 2009. She commented that “the prevention of unintended pregnancies is one of the four cornerstones of the United Nations’ and World Health Organization’s strategy for preventing mother to child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV.” Barnes also noted that “the ‘Mexico City Policy’ denied funding for these basic family planning services.” In a 2014 report (after the Dance Marathon had already begun donating to the Foundation), the EGPAF noted that it provided “key results in prevention of undesired pregnancies: EGPAF-supported programs provided family planning counseling and methods to 11,678 HIV-positive individuals in 2014.” As noted by Barnes, that counseling includes abortion.

Although most people are well aware of the Church’s stance on abortion, I’ll include some of Pope St. Paul VI’s words on the subject; he is, after all, a saint. And a pope. And a magisterial authority. In section 14 of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, he comments that “above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, (is) to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.” I suppose that’s firm enough for me to say and be done with the subject. EGPAF is, consistently and objectively, in opposition with the teachings of the Catholic Church and anyone who holds pro-life ideals. Ironic that an organization so concerned with healthy children has no qualms with killing those unborn.

What’s more ironic? Last year, despite how a quick Google search determines that EGPAF isn’t a Catholic-friendly charity, a Mass collection was held for the group around this time. I’d been sitting in a pew with a close friend, fishing for my wallet as the collection basket floated down our way, whispering to him “shouldn’t you be donating to help stop pediatric AIDS?” His retort: “for the good of your soul, you’d better not donate to them.” I stuffed my wallet back into my pocket and passed the basket along, all the while mildly confused with his sentiment (until I learned the truth about the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, of course).

Now, what of those other Catholics and pro-life students among us who danced the night away with the Dance Marathon this year? Holy Cross has done them a disservice by making the Marathon into a celebratory festival where the goal is promoting life, albeit quietly at the expense of other lives waiting to be born. Over the course of seven years, the truth about EGPAF has, as far as I’m aware, never come to light. I’d almost be amused if it weren’t so terrible.

American Exceptionalism: The Nation's Binds

The Hague, America, a unique country on the world stage, is truly a gift to humanity. The world as it stands today exists only because of the awesome power of the United States and its diverse people. American Exceptionalism – the aggregate of values and traditions that makes the American identity – undergirds America’s social structure and binds the nation together, enabling the United States’ strength. American identity is heavily influenced by classical Western identity, and thus the two can not be completely separated.  The Judeo-Christian values of individualism, equality, and charity underpin American strength and generosity and solidify the country’s character. Formidable constitutional protections – unprecedented prior to America’s founding – sustain the freedom that personifies the United States’ international image. A firm historical record of overcoming adversity and championing freedom provides a distinctive legitimacy. However, in the 21st century, there is an increasing percentage of Americans who see the U.S. in a negative light, shunning past achievements and viewing the U.S. as fundamentally flawed. A loss of faith in American exceptionalism risks the collapse of the democratic world order.  

Judeo-Christian values have, from the very start, fashioned the basis of American behavior. The Pilgrims came to America seeking the freedom to practice their faith, and many subsequent colonial settlements followed suit; be they Rhode Island as a home for disparate religious groups or William Penn’s Quaker Pennsylvania, Judeo-Christian faith was the heart of what would become America. Likewise, the Founding Fathers recognized the indelible importance of faith in society. George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Alexander Hamilton also saw value in faith and God: “The sacred rights of mankind... are written... by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” Finally, even Adams spoke of their importance: “And what were these general Principles [on which America was founded]? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.”

Since its founding, America has remained a nation rooted in Judeo-Christian values. These principles contribute to the American identity and exceptionalism in their outgrowths. Every moral system sprouts from a foundation of deeply held beliefs, and the clear Judeo-Christian origins of America’s, and indeed the West’s, moral precepts guide the liberal democratic order.

Central to Judeo-Christian teaching is the idea of free will. Free will is alike to the very American concept of individualism, which makes possible the foundation of our economic prowess: capitalism. The American capitalistic, free market society has the individual at its core, without which it would collapse onto itself. The most successful economy on the face of the planet, worth about $19.4 trillion, America is the hitherto unchallenged economic superpower. Placing after minuscule nations and oil rich gulf states the U.S. ranks 19th in terms of GDP per capita at $59,500, and that is in a nation of around 330 million. None of this would be possible in any economic system without the  individual at the center and a reasonable expectation of receiving rewards for labor. Of course this is not solely unique to the United States, but it is an originally Western phenomenon that has been brought to its highest point in America. In Europe, the individual is not such a priority, since the government plays an outsize role in its citizens’ lives. The nature of American history – the frontiersman attitude – lends itself to the continued prominence of individualism in the American identity.  

The Western and American vision of equality has its foundation in the Biblical truth that humanity is created in the image of God. While it might not sound remarkable to the modern mind, it is assuredly profound. If every man, woman, and child is created in the image of God, then the only logical conclusion is that there is a universal and equal dignity present. It is this line of thinking that helped lead to the abolition of slavery and mass suffrage, which was first realized in the Western world. With religion being such an important factor in the nation’s founding, it is no surprise that the message of equality has become so integral to America’s national character.

American exceptionalism is exhibited most profoundly in the generosity of the American people – a generosity that remains unequaled. Charity, a core tenet of Christianity and most Abrahamic faiths, is as much a part of America’s ethos as the ideals of individualism and equality. In 2015, the United States gave roughly $31 billion in foreign developmental and humanitarian aid, more than any other nation. While that is indicative of the support of government generosity, the individual charity of Americans is far more extraordinary. U.S. charitable giving, by private charities and individuals, topped $400 billion in 2017, more than any other nation, and an increase of 5.2% from 2016. That individual generosity is truly unique to America, and there is indeed something deeply admirable when people give to a greater cause, not by government spending, but through their own free will.

Arguably the most remarkable aspect of America is the strength and level of veneration of the Constitution. The most sacred right protected by the Constitution is the freedom of speech. No other nation has the breadth of protected speech as the United States, and the courts have consistently upheld the wide definition of freedom of speech. In the seminole case of Schenck v. United States of 1917, the Supreme Court established limits to free speech, which it defined as anything that poses a “clear and present danger” to cause illegal harm. This case set the standard for what types of speech government can and cannot regulate, and established a wide interpretation of free speech.  The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which extended the realm of free speech to include support of violence assuming that it does not incite violence or a violation of law, further strengthened free speech protections. Owing to the specificity of the case, the ability to prosecute speech was curtailed even further. The only manner in which the boundaries of speech can be reinforced is if they are made clear and precise, and Brandenburg v. Ohio helps to secure that. Finally, the case of R.A.V v. St. Paul in 1992 secured protection of a kind of speech that is most under assault today: ‘hate speech.’ While what many consider to be ‘hate speech’ is indeed disgusting and abhorrent, it is nonetheless worthy of protection. The obscurity of ‘hate speech’ is a problem unto itself, for there is no way to adequately define what it is, and thus making it a powerful tool to silence opponents. Compared to Europe, the region morally and philosophically closest to the U.S., America is leagues ahead.  In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights upheld a verdict from Austria that convicted a woman for insulting Islam. Ruling that speech denigrating another faith is able to be prosecuted, the floodgates of suppression opened. This is troubling enough, but unfortunately it is one case in a litany of free speech violations. Cases like this is what makes America exceptional: the government is forced to be the least invasive of people’s lives, regardless of how unsavory the action.

Held equally as dear as the freedom of speech is the right to bear arms. A free people are only able to ensure their freedom with the ultimate check on government power and tyranny. Citizens without coercive power are subjects; with coercive power are an independent people. One of only three existing constitutions securing the right to bear arms, the U.S. Constitution is already unusual, but it is also the only constitution to do so without any specified restrictions. The unique protections of weapon ownership in the U.S. again point towards the exceptional makeup of the nation – a nation in which people are guaranteed a base freedom unsurpassed worldwide as well as the ability to defend it. Key court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down a ban on handguns and excessive restrictions, reinforce the already strong constitutional apparatus. American exceptionalism is truly embodied in the commitment to constitutional rights, the core of all free societies.

Any identity is framed not only by its enduring values, but also by the progressive advancement of history. United States history is the best evidence for the exceptional nature of the American people, providing a legitimacy all on its own. From the abolition of slavery to the advancement of suffrage rights, American history is steeped in success. It is also not just a self-serving history, but a history abounded with positive outreach. U.S. humanitarian interventions provide a particularly salient example of the outward looking posture of the nation. Somalia in 1992 was of no particular importance to America, and there was certainly no reason to send soldiers to die. Despite this, the U.S. sent troops to the country in Operation Restore Hope to mitigate the damage of the civil war that befell Somalia upon the collapse of its central government. While other nations eventually joined, the operation was spearheaded by the U.S. A willingness to sacrifice for a disparate people in a far-flung land for the purpose of preventing violence is nothing short of magnanimous. Similarly, the United States intervened in the Balkans in 1995 to halt the mass genocide during the Yugoslav wars. With the war continuing to rage in the area and the failure of the United Nations to stop the violence, the U.S. led a very risky, and what would prove to be a successful yet costly, intervention. Again, the American resolve and ability to defend the vulnerable is peerless.

Of course, the U.S. also has an enduring reputation as the defender of the free world, and it is a reputation well-deserved. As the only nation capable of withstanding the demands of protecting freedom, the U.S. has been fully committed to the advancement of democracy. The most salient example is of course the Second World War, but a more recent example better exemplifies American exceptionalism. The Korean War of 1950-1953 was the first post-WWII intervention of the United States with the goal of defending sovereignty. Following the North Korean invasion and subsequent route of the South Korean Army to the Pusan Perimeter, the U.S. and its UN allies sent hundreds of thousands of troops to ensure the freedom of the South Korean people from communism. With 2.5 million total dead, including nearly 40,000 dead American troops by the end of the conflict, the United States paid a heavy price to protect the independence of a nation on the other side of the globe. The Vietnam and First Gulf War, which were relatively similar to the Korean War in their goals of protecting sovereignty, prove that the United States has maintained its commitment to freedom despite the passage of time and horrendous loss of life. Being prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice is the epitome of nobility and selflessness.

While not posing much of a threat to American lives, U.S. relief to those suffering from disasters is indicative of the exceptional nature of America. Any major relief effort can cost vast sums of money and require massive logistical support. Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that resulted in upwards of 300,000 deaths, the U.S. led the international relief effort. Deploying well over 20,000 troops, the U.S. military led the way in bringing supplies, shelter, and care to the people of Haiti. The strength and size of the U.S. response and the public support for it once again bring to the forefront American generosity for the needy.

Being a nation that is not defined by race, faith, or any other arbitrary divide, the common belief in American exceptionalism is the thread that binds the nation together. In the 21st century, however, there are increasing numbers of Americans whose belief in American excellency is failing. About 92% of Republicans in 2017 were recorded as being very/extremely proud to be American, compared to only 67% of Democrats according to Gallup. Many Americans feel, especially after the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, vulnerable and afraid. Minorities with a history of discrimination see their advancements in jeopardy. In addition, there is a common view that America does not have a historically evident strong moral foundation, but rather a history of oppression. Whether it be slavery, Jim Crow, or the Chinese Exclusion Act, oppression is seen as being the salient issue in the United States. While writing off these fears would be wholly counterproductive, it is essential to intelligently break down and refute them. Donald Trump is quite far from being a bigot. He certainly lacks a filter, but there is little that he says that can be deemed overtly racist. Much in American society has been excessively racialized and put in the context of individual identity, which pushes people to the extremes. The term “racist” has been vastly overused, which is harmful both to those who are falsely accused of it and to those who legitimately suffer from it, as it wrongly lessens their plight. As for an American history of oppression, it is important to note that the U.S. was one of the first nations to abolish slavery, fight its largest war over it, and enshrine its prohibition in the Constitution. America could not have eliminated it from the start, despite support from many of the Founding Fathers for doing so, for there would be no America if slavery was crushed in 1789. The South never would have joined the Union and it is very likely that they would have held onto slavery much longer had the Union not formed. In the face of oppression throughout history, American justice and resolve have won out, freeing the repressed and expanding liberty. No nation in circumstances like the United States’ has been able to reform in such radical and successful ways.

Exceptionalism of American identity is the primary aspect that brings every American citizen together. Regardless of individual identity, there is the common view of a uniquely American ingenuity, resilience, and justice that unites the nation’s disparate peoples. If that identity is lost, there is not much left to hold together a nation as vast and diverse as the United States. America thrives off of its rich history and achievements, and the unity behind that history is absolutely essential to a future of success and greatness.

Bibliography

Adams, J. (1813, June 28). John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 28 June 1813. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from National Archives website: https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Jefferson/03-06-02-0208

Brandenburg v. Ohio. (1969, June 9). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Findlaw website: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/395/444.html

Cecchine, G., Morgan, F., Wermuth, M. et. al. (2013). The U.S. Military Response to the 2010 Haiti Earthquake. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from RAND Corporation website: https://www.rand.org/pubs/research_reports/RR304.html

Charitable Giving Statistics. (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from National Philanthropic Trust website: https://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources/charitable-giving-statistics/

Country Comparison: GDP - Per Capita (PPP). (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Central Intelligence Agency website: https://www.cia.gov/library/publications/the-world-factbook/rankorder/2004rank.html

Daalder, I. H. (1998, December 1). Decision to Intervene: How the War in Bosnia Ended. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Brookings website: https://www.brookings.edu/ articles/decision-to-intervene-how-the-war-in-bosnia-ended/

District of Columbia et. al. v. Heller. (2008, June 26). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Cornell Law School website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

GDP (current US$). (2018). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from The World Bank website: https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.CD?locations=US

Hamilton, A. (n.d.). Forbes Quotes. Retrieved June 22, 2018, from Forbes website: https://www.forbes.com/quotes/257/

Jones, J. M. (2017, April 3). Sharply Fewer Democrats Say They Are Proud to Be Americans. Retrieved April 25, 2018, from Gallup website: http://news.gallup.com/poll/207614/sharply-fewer-democrats-say-proud-americans.aspx

Klarevas, L. J. (2000). Trends: The United States Peace Operation in Somalia. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from JSTOR website: https://www.jstor.org/stable/pdf/3078741.pdf?refreqid=excelsior%3Aa277f3accd770cfa8d01c099501db08a

Millet, A. R. (2018, June 18). Korean War. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Encyclopedia Britannica website: https://www.britannica.com/event/Korean-War

Myers, J. (2016, August 19). Foreign aid: These countries are the most generous. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from World Economic Forum website: https://www.weforum.org/ agenda/2016/08/foreign-aid-these-countries-are-the-most-generous/

Pancevski, B. (2018, October 26). Europe Court Upholds Ruling Against Woman Who Insulted Islam. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from The Wall Street Journal website: https://www.wsj.com/articles/europe-court-upholds-ruling-against-women-who-insulted-islam-1540580231

R.A.V. v. St. Paul. (1992, June 22). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Find Law website: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/505/377.html

Roger Williams, Rhode Island, and Birthplace of Religious Freedom. (2018). Retrieved April 25, 2018, from George Washington Institute for Religious Freedom website: http://www.gwirf.org/roger-williams-rhode-island-birthplace-of-religious-freedom/

Schenck v. United States. (1919, March 3). Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Cornell Law School website: https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/249/47

Washington, G. (1796). Washington’s Farewell Address 1796. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Yale Law School website: http://avalon.law.yale.edu/18th_century/washing.asp

Weiss, B. (2017, November 5). Only 3 countries in the world protect the right to bear arms in their constitutions. Retrieved November 7, 2018, from Business Insider website: https://www.businessinsider.com/2nd-amendment-countries-constitutional-right-bear-arms-2017-10

An Actual Man for Others

I’m a storyteller. I love to tell stories. Sometimes they’re about real things that have happened to me— like that time I (accidentally) bought a hotdog from a homeless man. Other times, I hear a story somewhere else, and because it made me laugh, or cry, or inspired me, I become convinced that other people need to hear it. That’s the case with the story I’m going to tell now: the story of Pier Giorgio Frassati. When I heard Pier Giorgio’s story, I became convinced that it needed to be heard by everyone I knew, especially college students. I can’t promise that it’ll be better than the hotdog story, but I still think it’s worth telling.

Pier Giorgio Frassati was born in the Italian city of Turin in 1901. I’m tempted to say he was born in the summer, but in all honesty, I’m not entirely sure, and it’s really not that important. His father, Alfredo, was the founder of a prominent newspaper, and would become a senator and ambassador. His mother, Adelaide, was a relatively successful painter. The family was wealthy, popular, and relatively normal. Despite being Italian, the Frassati’s weren’t especially religious. Alfredo was an agnostic, and Adelaide was a lukewarm Catholic. Which is what made Pier Giorgio such a mystery. 

From a young age, Alfredo and Adelaide’s son was oddly and inexplicably religious. He liked praying and going to church, and he would often give food, money, and even his own shoes to the beggars who’d come to the Frassati mansion. Realizing that his parents looked on his religiosity with an air of confusion bordering on concern, Pier Giorgio decided to take his charitable activities underground. He gave to beggars, joined prayer groups, and bought medicine for children in the slums. Alfredo and Adelaide, resigning themselves to the fact that they’d never quite understand their son, didn’t ask questions about how Pier Giorgio spent his free time— or his allowance. Pier Giorgio was okay with that. In fact, after giving his bus money away, he’d run several miles home so he’d be on time for dinner. 

But Pier Giorgio wasn’t just a little religious zealot. He was handsome, popular, and rambunctious. He was a skilled mountain climber, a terrible musician, and a mediocre student. His friends called themselves the Tipi Loschi, or shady characters, and got kicked out of a Catholic youth group for being too rowdy. People adored Pier Giorgio, and when he walked through the slums, children ran into the street and hugged him. He joked with everyone, sang lines from Dante, and constantly smiled. He also financially supported countless families in Turin by convincing the people he encountered to give him money. 

One day, a family friend informed Pier Giorgio’s mother that the priests had been preaching about her son. He, of course, denied it. And so life went on, with Pier Giorgio serving dozens of families. When the time came to go to school, Pier Giorgio decided that, instead of taking over his father’s newspaper, he would become a mining engineer so that he could evangelize the miners. His family was, understandably, flabbergasted.

When he was twenty-four years old and two weeks away from graduating from college, Pier Giorgio caught an aggressive strain of polio, likely from someone in the slums. Within three days, Pier Giorgio’s legs were totally paralyzed. Unfortunately, his grandmother was dying in the room next to him. Unwilling to distract his family from her, he said nothing about the paralysis quickly taking hold of his body. When he couldn’t make it to his grandmother’s funeral, his parents complained that he was just being selfish. They had no idea that he only had a couple of days left to live.

On the fourth day of Pier Giorgio’s illness, his family finally realized how sick he was. They called in teams of doctors, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Pier Giorgio was frantically writing notes to his friends. His notes were instruction sheets, telling them where they could find food or medicine, and to whom they should bring it. Even in his last days, his primary concern was others. On the fifth day of Pier Giorgio’s illness, the Cardinal of Turin showed up to visit him. Confused, his parents sent the prelate away. 

Finally, after six days of illness, on July 4th, 1925, Pier Giorgio Frassati died. Within hours, the Frassati manor was surrounded by people—homeless, the destitute, the abandoned—trying to get in. Pier Giorgio’s sister, Luciana, urged her parents to let the strangers in.

People poured in silently, and the crowds streamed into Pier Giorgio’s bedroom. They began to kneel in front of his body, venerating this amazing young man. “And that,” recalls Luciana, “was when Mama and Poppa realized that their son was a saint.”

Pier Giorgio’s story yields several crucial lessons, especially for students on a college campus. First, Pier Giorgio’s story speaks to a question that lies in the heart of almost everyone: how do I live a meaningful life? We often fall into the trap of thinking that if we just network enough, take a fifth class, pull more all-nighters, and commit to more extracurriculars, then we can live a good life. Pier Giorgio reminds us that that isn’t true: greatness is achieved by leading from behind, by serving the least among us, and not by seeking a reward or constant validation. People fell in love with Pier Giorgio because he loved them first, regardless of whether or not it benefitted him. Pier Giorgio exemplifies the paradox of greatness: by lowering himself down, by spending his time among the rejected and the destitute, he became great.

His story is also a story of sacrifice, and it points to something that our society seems to be forgetting: the necessity and value of suffering. So often, we run away from discomfort. I’m no different: I hate being cold, hungry, tired, or sore. Society as a whole seems obsessed with making suffering disappear, a crusade that manifests itself in the quest for immortality, the emergence of safe spaces, and a push for universal healthcare. Pier Giorgio’s life was marked by suffering. Not only did his family misunderstand him, but his mother prevented him from marrying a young woman he had fallen in love with. He bore it patiently. He also routinely stayed up all night in prayer, woke up early for Mass, fasted, and endured long, arduous mountain climbs. His last six days were marked by excruciating suffering which he bore patiently. His willingness to suffer wasn’t masochistic. It was a sign of authentic love. Pier Giorgio understood that love demands suffering. Love isn’t just a fuzzy feeling, a warm emotion, or something we do when we feel like it. It’s hard. It’s gritty. Love is what gets a dad out of bed at three in the morning to clean up his daughter’s vomit. It’s what drives a mom to take on more shifts to support her family. It’s what pushes a husband to persevere for his bride, and vice versa. It’s no wonder that, in a world driven by a desire to eliminate suffering, the divorce rate is skyrocketing, relationships are falling apart, and love seems hard to find. Pier Giorgio is a testament to the enduring value of suffering.

In some ways, Pier Giorgio’s life may seem remote, unrelatable, or unattainable. But he wasn’t so different from all of us. Not really. And his life is a testament to what our lives have the potential to be: full, vibrant, loving, and glorious. There’s so much talk about toxic masculinity, or what it means to be a “woman or a man for and with others.” Pier Giorgio reminds us what a man for others really is: a man consumed by love.

Be Careful What You Fight For

Imagine opening up the Podcast app on your iPhone while preparing for your morning commute, expecting to find your regularly scheduled Ben Shapiro Show or Barstool News program. Instead, you find a show with cover art boasting two scantily clad twenty-something women. Curiosity getting the better of your judgment, you tap the phone to investigate what possible topic such a provocative image could be advertising, only to be greeted with the auto-tuned voice of two women asking “Do you call him daddy? Do I call her daddy? Call her Daddy,” in as seductive a way as possible.

Disconcerted, but with your intellectual curiosity piqued, you keep listening.  To your horror, it soon becomes clear that the show is a weekly synopsis of its two female hosts’ lives of blackout drinking, smoking copious amounts of weed, and dozens of drunken hookups. Now, keep in mind: last semester, “Call Her Daddy” was the second most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts in the U.S. Adults everywhere seem to crave each week’s episodes on increasingly riskier topics, each with evermore explicit personal detail provided by the hosts. With titles like “SEXT ME SO I KNOW IT’S REAL,” “Sliding into the DMs – It’s Time to Get Laid Boys,” and “If you’re a 5 or 6, Die for that Dick,” the hosts leave no topic off limits. This is not simply a Cosmopolitan write-in Q & A session. No, these topics come from the women’s personal lives and their first-hand encounters on the streets of New York City.

When I first listened to the podcast, I was very much taken aback (as were the men in the recording studio, as noted by the hosts in their first episode). Aspects of our culture like this one speak to the dangers of the changes our society has undergone over the last fifty years. In light of recent events on the Hill last semester, I find such a podcast even more troubling.  Imagine if two football players from one of the big-ten schools started a podcast where they talked about all the sexual conquests, substance abuse, and wild behavior they partook in over the previous week. There would be such an outcry of public protest that the noise would be deafening. Herein lies the fundamental issue with our society: a false sense of equality. Surely we can all agree that the behavior of the stereotypical jock who sleeps with countless partners on a weekly, or even nightly, basis is one we need to banish from our culture.  As a society and campus community, we should despise such behavior and work to end the veneration of “studs” or “Brads and Chads.” One just needs to read the ever-growing number of stories shared on the “Sexual Assault on the Hill” Instagram to realize the profound effect this athlete hookup culture has on the women who bravely share their experiences and understand its insidious threat to our campus community.

There seems to be a double standard for men and women in the post-sexual liberation era. While we condemn men who constantly hook up and brag to their friends, we encourage women to be sexually active and oversexualize every aspect of their being. Media platforms such as “Call Her Daddy” are proof enough. Those two women reveal their sexual conquests in extremely detailed accounts as they participate in a standing competition of who can sleep with more men each week. It all happens on the everlasting medium of the Internet, over and over, for the entertainment of the masses. Yet in this #MeToo Era, if the genders were reversed, the actions of the hosts would be seen as appalling - if not criminal.

The problem at its root is the definition our society uses for equality. We use people’s past actions to judge our standard of equality today instead of striving for a better, equitable world. Men have, historically, been able to act promiscuously and treat women in whatever way they please. So women, starting in the 1960s, wanted the same freedom and liberation to act just as men did - to, in their mind, act “equally.” Yet this is not true equality, for equality is inherently good and of a lofty nature aimed at bettering the world. If women felt they were unequally treated and wanted a better, fairer, more equal society, then how could repeating the actions they themselves termed unseemly give anyone a sense of equality? Look to post-Civil War America for an example. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois did not argue that blacks would achieve equality by being given the legal right to own whites. Such an idea would be ludicrous! Instead, they encouraged people to strive to sculpt a better, more just, more moral, more equal society. By leaving the evil in the past and encouraging all people, oppressor and oppressed, to use methods that help cultivate a sense of humanity, equality, and shared relationships, they sought to craft a truly equal society. Years later, we have ignored that formula by encouraging people to instead use each other as mere sexual instruments.

The modern culture we have created regarding sexuality is not equal, nor is it fair, nor does it advance a better community now or for future generations. If we want to create a truly just, fair, and equal world, one free from sexual abuses and the degradation and belittlement of the human person, we must work to check inappropriate sexual behavior for everyone. For oppression is regression, and the consequences of the sexual liberation movement have oppressed the growth of the human person and his dignity in society. We have been enslaved by our vices instead of liberated.  We need to create a society more focused on caring for and uplifting the dignity of the human person in all aspects of daily life. Then, and only then, will we enjoy true equality.

Letter from the Editors: December 2018

Dear Reader,

I hope you don’t mind reading, because this issue will have plenty of it. There are only four pictures among the seven articles. I hope you don’t miss any more.

If you recall, our first issue this year had only three “staff writers” (do note, however, that students in editorial positions also frequently write for the Review). We’ve been blessed to have three new staff writers join our team, and I suspect that more are to follow; some articles are already even set in the docket for our January issue. In other words? We’re going to more than double our writing staff.

It is for that reason that I hope you don’t mind some hefty reading. This issue is packed to the brim, between writers new and old—two first-year students and one sophomore have joined the mix: Mr. Pietro, Mr. Buck, and Ms. George—but quality has in no way been sacrificed. Mr. Pietro’s thorough research, as reflected in the sources at the end of his article “Fooling Ourselves: A Dragon in Disguise”, is a credit to his work’s certain merit. Mr. Buck and Ms. George, who collaborated on “The Summit’s Not It,” graciously gave me several hours out of one night’s evening for a lengthy discussion and session of editing. I hope that all three of these enterprising young students are proud of their work, because I am proud to include them on our team.

Our older writers, moreover, are just as capable as ever. Mr. Smith returns for political commentary, Mr. Rosenwinkel for a decidedly amusing piece of satire, and Mr. Dooley for an enlightening discussion on our motivations and humility. Mr. Buzzard ties up the issue nicely with a literary analysis of A Christmas Carol. Whether I am also a capable writer? Debatable.

By the time you receive this issue, Advent will have already begun. Be sure to use it properly: for excitement, joy, hope and peace as you prepare for Christ’s coming on December 25th. We at the Fenwick Review are sometimes rabble-rousers, so although I encourage you to enjoy all of our squabbling, flamboyancy, and perhaps excessiveness in the coming pages, please make sure to leave time for Advent to be Advent.

When Christmas is over, we’ll still be here, though. I look forward to seeing you then. 

Have a wonderfully merry Christmas,

Michael Raheb

Editor-in-Chief

Be Careful What You Sign For

On November 16th, 2018, the College of the Holy Cross held a rather spontaneous discussion called the “ENGAGE Summit.” The Summit was, essentially, a horribly unfocused amalgam of “talks” and various other events – some extremely well-attended, some not – which circled campus issues like sexual assault, racism, the experiences of foreign exchange students, and treatment of the LGBTQ+ community on this campus. While the 40-or-so events were, for the most part, facilitated by well-intentioned faculty members and students, none of the student body here at the College has been completely satisfied. The Summit’s preparation, content, and follow-up have been lackluster or incomplete.

Many expect that the Summit was a quickly-contrived coverup to preserve the College’s reputation after the explosion of followers on the “Sexual Assault On The Hill” Instagram account. The account, which first posted on November 5th, cites its purpose in a brief biography: “*TRIGGER WARNING* Our community doesn’t think sexual assault is real. Make your voice and/or story heard ANONYMOUSLY below. This is your platform.” Beneath the biography is a clickable link to a Google Form, on which survivors of sexual assault can voice their experiences or ideas about Holy Cross’ treatment of assault. The moderators of the Instagram, at their discretion, post these stories on the profile. As is mentioned in the account’s biography, the stories are anonymous; no names or emails of submitters are recorded, and the account cannot respond to any submitted requests without contact information also being provided. At the current moment (November 28th) “Sexual Assault On The Hill” has over 3,600 followers and 97 posts. Yet despite its popularity, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” has made questionable decisions with its recent petition.

Here I must digress. To whomever has just read my thesis: if you are a student (and, therefore, likely to support the Instagram account), please refrain from thinking that I intend to use this piece to denigrate the intentions of “Sexual Assault On The Hill.” I agree that sexual assault is reprehensible, violates a person’s dignity and rights, and should be entirely purged from this campus. For that reason, I appreciate the Instagram’s endeavor. It has been markedly successful in promoting discussion. I am also inclined to believe the stories of assault, which are typically posted in vivid detail. However, due to the account’s lack of transparency in its recent list of demands, I hesitate to provide my full support.

For the most part, the account’s decisions, even in the face of administrative action, have been prudent. On November 9th, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” published a letter which began with: “After receiving a cease and desist letter from a college-affiliated sports team and obtaining our own legal advice, we have come to the conclusion that, to maintain the integrity of this space, we will no longer name specific teams on this account.” A rash of frustrated students blistered the surface of the ENGAGE Summit a week later. Many complained that the men’s athletic teams promote rape culture, so they should have come to the Summit on mandated attendance. (Whether these teams, or members thereof, were or were not present at the Summit’s sessions is unknown. The football team, however, was at a game at Georgetown.)

The cease-and-desist sent down from College higherups, at first glance, seems like a classic case of student censorship. Young women and men, who could finally muster up the courage to give testimony to their assault, even be it anonymously, would be silenced. The end of “Sexual Assault On The Hill” would mean the end of a greater community discussion about sexual assault – that is, unless the letter’s content were made public, in which case the student body’s dissent against the administrator who sent it might be even greater. Since the content of the cease-and-desist has not been released, however, a judgement as to its justifiability or lack thereof cannot be made. (The Review contacted the Instagram to request information about the cease-and-desist letter over a week prior to the date of this article, but received no response). The letter could feasibly have been a polite request to protect individual student reputations. If a student with a vendetta against an athlete on the football team, for example, decided to post a false assault story to the account, the football team’s members could be viewed with unfair scrutiny. The Instagram’s decision to “maintain the integrity of this space” and (later in their statement about the cease-and-desist) “note again that we are not anti-athletes; not every member on teams or other student oriented organizations mentioned is an assaulter” was thus an apt decision. In regard to the cease-and-desist, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” did nothing wrong. The argument from various students for mandatory athlete attendance to the Summit, however – when most students were unrequired to attend – seems not to acknowledge that “not every member on teams... is an assaulter”.

On to the present, then. On November 26th, 2018, the Instagram published a compiled “list of demands for the administration based on your (the anonymous community’s) suggestions.” As of the date of this article, upwards of 470 signatures have been added to the end of the list. The demands include such efforts as providing a comprehensive report of all sexual assault incidents since December 2015, independent parties for investigating sexual assault, information about dismissing students and faculty on accusations of assault, and several other changes to administration. To view the demands, the list is accessible via the account’s Instagram biography.

Whether or not the demands are viable and should be put into effect (some may take issue with number 5, which demands a stance staunchly against Betsy DeVos’ proposed Title IX amendment that the accused be able to cross-examine the accuser) is a matter of opinion. One issue is more pressing: the moderators of the “Sexual Assault On The Hill” page have made changes to their petition of demands, without documented public notification, after students and faculty have already signed their names.

On the morning of November 27th, the first entry on the list demanded a comprehensive report (including results of cases) of all reported sexual assaults since December 2015. The final part of said entry requested that “this report conveys how many cases the Title IX office is currently judicating. We (presumably the petitioning members) expect this report by the end of the fall 2018 semester.” On the morning of November 28th, the entry had been amended to request also that the “report include the Title IX office’s budget and what its funding allocation is.” The date of expectation was also changed to January 20th, 2019. The seventh entry, which ended with “We demand transparency on these (Title IX) management plans, including the funding aspect” was also significantly emended. The November 28th edition extended that concluding line to a seven-line statement about how the Instagram’s popularity indicates that Title IX might be overstretched and under-resourced; thereby, it might require an additional staff member or office.

The content of the demands, frankly, is not much different than before. Most, if not all, petitioners would likely keep their names on the document in light of the changes. The lack of transparency, however – despite posting stories and updates, “Sexual Assault On The Hill” has still not made a public announcement of the changes to the demands – is troubling. When students and faculty add their names to a petition, they sign their assent to all the document’s demands, questions, and ideals. If the petition is edited after their signage, is their assent still valid? What of those who would wish to pull their names from the signature list if the content is changed? Without information, how can they make an informed decision? Most glaring is that nothing prevents the account’s anonymous moderators, under such circumstances, from making more drastic changes without informing their signers.

Only a few hours prior to this article, the Instagram posted another update asking to “spread the word” and that the “demands will be submitted 12/3 at 6PM.” I hope that the signers don’t mind the changes. 

The Summit's Not It

Well-intentioned and confused. What else is there to say about November 16th’s  ENGAGE Summit?

Late in October, the Holy Cross community received various emails regarding a hate crime on campus. Public Safety explained: “...a Holy Cross student reported an aggravated assault & battery motivated by bias (sexual orientation) that occurred on campus between Clark Hall and Brooks-Mulledy Hall on October 27 between 2:00 a.m. and 3:00 a.m. The incident has been reported to DPS.” Responses from Dean Murray, President Boroughs, and other officials on campus condemned and expressed grief over the tragic event.

In response, a petition, which began in an English class, was dispersed to all members of the Holy Cross community (student, faculty, and alumni alike) by groups such as Pride, individual members of the faculty, staff, and student body, and the English Department itself. The petition called to “...cancel classes, athletics, and all extra-curricular events for a day. Or several days. Or a week. In place of these we would hold teach-ins, vigils, (and) community conversations.” Professor Leah Cohen of the English Department said that she would deliver the petition to Father Boroughs on November 8th, having garnered roughly 1000 signatures from faculty, staff, alumni, and students. The next day, November 9th, Father Boroughs sent out an email inviting the Holy Cross community to the ENGAGE Summit, which would  “...direct our collective attention to a conversation and exploration of our culture at Holy Cross and the steps we need to take to build a community that supports and celebrates all its members.” He further expounded that “This will be an important first step, but not the only step, in addressing issues of respect and inclusion on our campus.” The conclusion was to cancel classes and extracurriculars on the afternoon of Friday the 16th, then hold the Summit in their place.

The Summit’s sessions viewed inclusion (otherwise known, in most cases, as tolerance) and respect as complete, unquestionable agreement with and affirmation of another group, regardless of ideology. We, however, believe that tolerance does not necessitate agreement; rather, it entails a sort of unconditional respect for another person, regardless of his ideas. Every person has equal dignity, and we should act in a way that befits it. When you notice our encouragement of tolerance and respect later in this article, please note that we disassociate ourselves with the Summit’s definitions.

Students and faculty were encouraged to conceive of and facilitate various sessions addressing concerns with tolerance and respect within the community. Planning was limited, with merely a week to organize events. While the initial petition focused on the hate crime that occurred on campus, the untimeliness and lack of clear information as to its purpose threw the whole Summit into a bewildering muddle. When the list of events was distributed via email, confusion as to their variety grew: the first two main “sessions,” which each lasted for an hour, had about twenty optional events each. Each event lasted for the full hour. Talks would be held concerning women’s issues, Title IX, race, spirituality, international students, masculinity, etc. The third (and final) Summit session in Kimball was to tie together and address all these issues as the entire Holy Cross community. Due to that sheer quantity, questions started buzzing about what exactly the Summit was for. Many thought it was a reaction to the LGBT assault. Some, however, held it was also in response to the culture of sexual assault on campus or even in reaction to the Synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh.

However, when too many issues are addressed simultaneously, they must be watered down in order to assure that each receives equal consideration. In the attempt to solve every pressing issue, no issue receives the community’s undivided attention. The result is further division, which forces individuals to choose and prioritize certain issues based on their personal grievances. Such was the case with the Summit. With such a great diversity and quantity of events, the students who attended chose whichever ones appealed to them most personally. The profusion of topics led to fewer good ideas focused on a single campus-wide issue (such as sexual violence or racial discrimination, for example), and left the community with confused concepts of “progress.” As expressed by Father Boroughs, the Summit was to be the first step towards progress. Due to the conflation of issues, however, we students have no clue where this next step should or will go. (In fact, in over a week, there has been no follow-up email from the College’s administration.)

If we are to progress as a community, we, as students, alumni, faculty, and staff, must work together and strive for that “next step” without any further division. Efforts such as the Summit, however, create three separate communities: the involved, the indifferent, and the dissenters. The involved members have supported the cause since the beginning. They believed that an event such as the ENGAGE Summit is the correct response to any relevant issue. Because of their concerns, the involved were the most educated before the Summit and the most active during. The indifferent, on the other hand, had no bias either way. They were encouraged to shirk their disinterest and become advocates for the involved, so although they had no strong desire to participate, some attended, while some did not. Finally, the dissenters can be divided into two subgroups: those who believe issues shouldn’t be handled in the manner they were, and those whom the Summit was meant to address. The latter group includes, for the most part, assaulters — whether that be on sexual or physical grounds, such as whoever instigated the “aggravated assault & battery motivated by bias.”

The dissenters, regardless of the aforementioned subgroups, were expected to change sides, realize the “error of their ways,” and convert. They were not excluded, per se, but why would someone who disagrees with the Summit’s ideals even bother to attend at all? While the event claimed to center around open discussion, it appeared more like an opportunity for the involved to vent and strengthen the beliefs they already had. You can’t expect that spewing ideals at someone who disagrees with you will magically cause him to change his ways. To teach someone to love, you must love him. To prompt someone to become respectful and tolerant, he must see that we believe and support respect and tolerance. We must all act as guides, not lecturers. The issue of guidance furthers the problems with the Summit’s multiplicity of events. We cannot guide, much less expect the dissenters to follow, through a maze of topics. Simple, focused efforts of love and guidance are the only way to promote tolerance and respect.

This is why we two writers are dissenters of the Summit — part of the subgroup that believes issues should have been handled in a different manner, but dissenters nonetheless. Although we acknowledge the Summit’s good intentions, we do not believe this is the first step, by any means, to bettering our community. We are not denying the presence of any issues. However, we are denying the Summit’s effectiveness. Further, the Summit, as a formulaic “Tolerance 101,” sent down by the administration and its ideological cronies, interferes with the already natural and (mostly) tolerant community we have on campus. Improvement must come, willingly and enthusiastically, from individuals able to properly guide the outliers towards tolerance and respect.

The Summit’s efforts engaged 1200-1500 members of the community, according to the SGA Instagram, which is an underwhelming percentage when considering all the student body, faculty, staff, and alumni. Thus, it does indeed reflect the exclusion of those who needed it most. Of these participants, how many were coerced by extra-credit or mandatory attendance from professors? How many were able to actually learn and develop as members of the community? How many were the dissenters whose disrespect must be addressed?

We don’t believe in hate. We don’t condone violence. We support tolerance. We support respect. But we cannot support the Summit. We believe action must be taken to confront these issues by focused, individual guidance, not a plethora of “talks.” Instead, it is our responsibility as guides to spread love and tolerance, respect individuals, and better the world around us.

Election Season 2018: Wrapping Up the Midterms

With the 2018 Midterm elections behind us and most of the races called, we can now officially say that the elections went about as well as they feasibly could have for Republicans. As of Wednesday of election week, the Democrats have gained twenty-seven seats in the house, taking the majority, but only barely, guaranteeing themselves a majority by only two seats. There are still twenty-three Congressional races that have yet to be called as of this article’s writing, but a majority of those races are likely to go the way of Republican candidates. Meanwhile, in the Senate, the Republicans have managed to pick up two additional seats, with three races still not called. This has clearly put an end to the predictions of the massive ‘blue wave’ that would occur as a referendum on the President, which is a crushing blow to those on the political left and a cause for celebration for those on the political right.

This election turned out to be a very important victory for Trump and the Republican Party, as they managed to eek out several wins in close races, such as the Senate race in Texas, in tightly contested states. With close races like these going the Republicans’ way, it manages to give a decent sense of the direction in which the country is leaning in the current political climate. With Trump and his party winning some of these close races while also strengthening their red strongholds throughout the nation, Trump is sitting pretty moving into the second half of his first term as president. He managed to get his voter base energized and ready to go to the polls on Election Day, win key races, and solidify the Republican Party as being under his lead.

One of the biggest stories of the election is the change made from the Republican Party to fully become President Donald Trump’s party. President Trump’s popularity was a massive factor in many of the Republican wins in this election cycle. While most midterm elections, especially those taking place in a President’s first term in office, are generally considered to be a referendum on the President, the results did not tell the same story as most members of the political left were telling. With Trump likely conceding only a single-digit lead in the House for the Democrats, he took a much smaller loss than Obama did during his first midterm elections, when he and the Democratic Party lost sixty-three seats in Congress. With President Trump’s approval rating steadily rising in the period of time leading up to the midterms, the results are a good omen for Republicans in terms of reelection hopes in Trump’s 2020 presidential campaign.

Lastly, another big change that has become more apparent during this election cycle is the growth of the radical movement on the left. With candidates such as Democratic Socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez winning in her New York congressional race, a new age of far-left liberalism has come to the forefront of American politics. Whether or not this ideology will hold and continue to get stronger is not yet clear, but it does show that the left in particular will not just have difficulties deciding the party leadership, but may also have a large amount of inter-party struggle as the Democrats deal with these newcomers who are even more radical. If this continues to be a trend, the Republicans may continue to gain more and more control as time goes on, as a majority of people, even on the left, are against many of the ideas that candidates such as Ocasio-Cortez bring forth. This will be another driving force behind Republican voter enthusiasm in the future, and will potentially give the Republican Party an even bigger advantage moving forward.

The midterm elections this year can serve as a relatively accurate compass to predict the direction in which future elections will go, particularly those in 2020. With the Democrats only picking up a small majority in the House and with the Republicans picking up seats in the Senate, the Republicans, barring a massive controversy surrounding the Trump administration that leads to impeachable offenses, should come out even stronger in the 2020 cycle. Granted, this is based on the assumption that the economy will continue to be strong during the remainder of Trump’s term in office and that he can continue to rile up his voter base, but more likely than not, these factors will remain the same. Given these factors, it is incredibly likely that the Republicans manage to take all three major branches of government (the House, the Senate, and the Presidency) again in the 2020 election cycle, just as they did previously in 2016.

So what does this mean overall? Well, this midterm election cycle turned out to be a big victory for President Trump and Republicans, not for just the next two years but for future election cycles as well. Although they lost the majority in the house, Republicans took many fewer losses in House seats and even picked up seats in the Senate. With Trump and his party winning quite a few close races while also strengthening their red strongholds throughout the nation, Trump managed to get his voter base energized and ready to go to the polls on Election Day, win key races, and solidify the Republican Party as being under his lead. With more radical candidates and seat holders on the left coming into prominence, Republicans should be able to get more voter turnout in future elections. With the Democrats only picking up a small majority in the House and with the Republicans picking up seats in the Senate, the Republicans should come out even stronger in the 2020 cycle.