Uninhabitable Discussion

This academic year, the Holy Cross administration decided to have all incoming freshmen - a group whose opinions in the political climate in college are still up in the air - read an appallingly un-academic book that spews controversial science as dogma and goes out of its way to paint a depressing apocalyptic view of the world. It would be impossible to provide a comprehensive refutation of every supposed fact in this work, but instead I would like to explain why The Uninhabitable Earth by David Wallace-Wells is an appallingly unscientific book where facts are replaced by obscure controversial research that he spouts out in the hope of scaring the ill-informed into action. Additionally, I would like to discuss the abhorrent way some of the Holy Cross faculty handled the discussion, in which they endorsed the views in the book wholeheartedly without leaving much room for discussion.

The point of this book is to scare readers into action - that is its whole purpose. Wallace-Wells forges together a make-believe apocalyptic fantasy hellscape where he presents what he sees as a great existential crisis while he professes our impending doom, which is the focus of about half of the book. The longest of the four sections, “Elements of Chaos,” gives a non-stop barrage of separate doomsday scenarios fueled by conflicting statistics that suit that particular scenario to create the most terrifying situation one could imagine. He talks about every natural disaster he could think of whether that is floods, wildfire, intense heat, etc.

Additionally, Wallace-Wells will also take shots at anything or anyone right of Bernie Sanders. At one point, in his section on drowning and floods - in an attempt to inflate perceived magnitude - he uses the Black Sea deluge hypothesis as a reference point, and just so carefully includes a quick sentence about how Noah’s Ark was not an event but rather a fictional story prompted by the deluge itself. He also repeatedly brings up the supposed present-day oppression of people of color without much reason. As a book about climate change, it's hard to see how these other leftist ideas are necessary without some further political agenda beyond just climate change.

Wallace-Wells also occasionally sneaks in certain paragraphs, in an attempt to seem scientific, admitting that climate science is completely unreliable in most cases, which is a nice gesture but completely undermines his primary agenda. In his “Drowning” section, he discusses how it would be foolish to “take any of [these predictions] to the bank.” Wallace-Wells wouldn't bet on any of his own predictions, the same predictions on which his whole book is predicated, even though he presents them as facts to fit into his climate change hellscape narrative. This appears to be a theme of his, in an attempt to try and seem more legitimate as he, earlier in the “Heat Death” section of the novel, called projecting future warming a fool’s game. It would seem that what Wallace-Wells calls foolish is the same thing off of which he bases his entire fantasy world. Additionally, his flip-flopping from statistic to statistic based on different projected degrees of warming from different sources that seem convenient in the moment exposes not only his non-commitment to delivering an accurate prediction of what might happen, but also his commitment to skewing the data in a questionable manner to fit his political agenda.

The problem is not so much that the book is a terrible attempt at disinformation, as that can be easily addressed and rebutted, but that the Holy Cross faculty in charge of the discussion did not bother to address any counterargument, but rather opted to present a partisan charade where manmade change climate change, and the apocalyptic result from it, are presented as fact. The faculty instead decided to focus on what we as students can do to prevent climate change.

Many Holy Cross professors skipped the climate change debate and went straight to the partisan question that they, as partisans, seem to be most focused on. They are interested in how to solve manmade climate change, regardless of whether or not it is real or poses a significant threat to the human race. Though I am in the Divine Cluster in the Montserrat program, I spoke to students in other clusters who shared the same experience. Students in other clusters believe that opinions of the faculty were thrust upon us as mandated truth. At a required Montserrat event, faculty in charge took science as fact, and even invited the leadership of Eco-Action to speak to us for an extended amount of time, giving them an unopposed platform to impose their political opinions on the freshman class. The job of any college faculty is to present the grounds for intellectual discussion on any assigned reading, but instead all we got was a lecture on what to do with the suspected inevitable terror of an apocalyptic world fueled by the Wallace-Wells book.

To be clear, I have no problem with Eco-Action and I am not looking to pick a fight. I may disagree with what they do, but I have no problem with them operating as a student organization. What I do have a problem with is the faculty forcing us to listen to a partisan organization with no contradictory opinion being given the same platform. And to those who would say that Eco-Action isn't partisan, I would like to refer them to their mission statement, which is easily accessible on the Holy Cross website, which makes a clear mention that they work alongside political campaigns for what they refer to as “environmental” progress and supportive of “social justice.” The Holy Cross faculty in a required event, in a required class, gave a platform to a partisan group and endorsed their opinions whole-heartedly. That is my problem.

I am not going to make the same mistake as Wallace-Wells and not give solutions to this problem, which he neglects to do in his book. There is no way to change or fix the past in this situation. After the writing of this article, I will move on and most likely never think of this book or the actions that the faculty took ever again. But to prevent this situation in the future, I would suggest that the subject of climate change ought to be addressed in a way that allows the correct set of ideas to flourish (whether that be on either end of the debate), rather than a monopoly on the platform to speak by those convinced the Earth is in a state of impending turmoil as we supposedly destroy ourselves.

On a final note, just last October, 500 climate scientists wrote a letter to the UN saying that there is no climate emergency and that climate change has not caused any increase in natural disasters, but Wallace-Wells or the Holy Cross faculty would not tell you that. Instead, they would force a malleable group of people to read an unacademic book trying to scare them into having an existential crisis about climate change. The book may very well have been a disguised effort to impose a political opinion on the masses. There was no attempt to hold a discussion around the topic, and in the end it made the situation uninhabitable for those who seek to question what others say and think for themselves.

Illuminating the Murk: The Rise of the Groypers

On campuses across the United States, a toxic movement is rising. This movement centers its ideology around the tenets of identitarian politics, particularly in regard to race. In recent weeks, swarms of individuals have packed question-and-answer sessions of events hosted by conservative speakers, bombarding them with pointed questions about American support for Israel and the racial divide. Unfortunately, this phenomenon is not a continuation of the race-baiting agenda that has been a hallmark of the campus left. Instead, the Groyper movement claims itself to be a product of the alt-right. Unless it is opposed, and opposed with calculated intent, the movement stands to irrevocably disfigure the modern conservative movement.

The Groyper movement takes its name from Groyper, an obese illustrated toad with its hands folded under its chin. This meme was commonly utilized as a profile picture by members of the alt-right. The meme has since given its name to the movement in question, which was formed by Nick Fuentes. A former Boston University student and 2017 Charlottesville rally participant, Fuentes has gained prominence after a leader of the conservative organization TPUSA was terminated for associating with him. Fuentes has since declared war on what he and his followers refer to as “Conservative, Inc.” by sending his followers to hijack question and answer sessions at TPUSA events. In particular, the Groypers have targeted TPUSA head Charlie Kirk for his supposedly excessive support of Israel and his openness to gay marriage and immigration.

The Groyper movement threatens to hijack the conservative movement, and give truth to the slanders laid upon conservatives by the left. In addition to attending the infamous Charlottesville Rally, Fuentes is also a thinly disguised white nationalist. Among his more recent comments, he joked about Holocaust denial by comparing Cookie Monster baking cookies in ovens to Jews burned in crematoria and referring to Daily Wire commentator Matt Walsh as a “race traitor” who “works for Jews,” a blatantly anti-semitic attack against Walsh’s boss, Daily Wire editor-in-chief Ben Shapiro. Though Fuentes only brands himself as someone who is “America First,” it is evident that he is a racist and anti-semite whose views stand to poison conservatism if he gains sufficient popularity.

However, those who have attempted to stop Fuentes have merely served to fuel the credibility of his cause. In response to the beginning of Fuentes’ campaign, various members of the conservative movement have sought to shut out his views. On Twitter, conservative radio show host and former Deputy Assistant to the President Sebastian Gorka questioned why Fuentes was given verification status, calling for Fuentes to be removed from social media. This only fueled Fuentes’ cause against the so-called ‘Conservative Inc.,’ as he accused those who called for his removal to be practicing the same form of tech censorship that the conservative movement opposes. Furthermore, the hypocrisy expressed by Kirk, Gorka, and other figures drove many members of TPUSA to resign, despite the fact that they wholeheartedly opposed Fuentes’s views. If Fuentes and the Groypers are to be stopped, use of censorship is out of the question.

In order to prevent the Groyper movement from seizing control of the conservative movement, it is essential that perspective of the Groypers be debated and debunked in the public square. Such a premise may seem unpalatable given the views Fuentes and his followers hold. Indeed, their views are undoubtedly detestable. However, as previously illustrated, silencing the Groypers is simply not an option. Any attempt to smother the movement will only serve to fuel the resolve of the Groypers to continue their campaign, as well as further their narrative of hypocritical censorship from the conservative establishment. Instead, a proficient debater within the conservative movement should agree to the request so often demanded by Groypers: debate Nick Fuentes. A competent debater should be easily able to refute Groyper talking points. Such a debate would also remove any possibility of falling back on the censorship defense, and serve to strip away the mystique that enforced silence lends to the Groypers. Shining light to drive away the murk of the Groypers would serve the conservative movement far better than turning aside from it and declaring that it does not belong to us, and thus allowing it to spread.

The Groyper movement and the method by which they must be addressed serve as valuable lessons to the conservative movement. The rise of Fuentes and the Groypers demonstrates that the conservative movement must never be complacent. Oftentimes, the conservative movement has focused its attention on the radicalism of the left, thus unintentionally turning away from the potential rise of radicalism within our own movement. Going forward, the conservative movement must be vigilant to prevent others like Fuentes and his Groypers from gaining traction. Additionally, conservatives must be careful to avoid violating our own principles when addressing individuals with extreme viewpoints. The Groyper movement only draws strength when conservative figures call for Fuentes and his compatriots to be removed from social media, as such a reaction merely serves to paint the conservative movement as hypocrites, and the Groypers as victims. In addressing the Groypers and any future fringe elements, it is necessary to repudiate these unconservative values while simultaneously holding true to our own.

In Support of Israel, Our Greatest Ally

Israel has been a key strategic partner and close ally of the United States for decades, and has remained committed to the maintenance of a free, liberal-democratic political system in the face of extreme odds. The lone democracy in a region of tyranny deserves the utmost support of the United States, yet there is a cohort of Americans who have deep reservations about Israel, most notably over the Israel-Palestine conflict. The situation is undoubtedly complicated, and it has eluded resolution by some of the world’s best statesmen and women. However, these complications do not justify the increasingly militant anti-Israel sentiment arising on the American and European left. There is an excessive preoccupation with the perceived evil of the Israelis towards the supposedly oppressed Palestinians, and there are growing calls for radical, and in some cases anti-Semitic, policy change. I intend to outline the case for why Israel, rather than deserving our condemnation, deserves our full-fledged support, and why the much-lauded Two State Solution is simply not an option as the situation currently stands. It is essential that the circumstances are clarified, and that the left-wing anti-Israel (and increasingly anti-Semitic) attitude be confronted. 

I want to be perfectly clear before entering into the argument: when referring to the ‘Palestinians,’ ‘Arabs,’ or ‘Gazans’ that is in reference to the governing authorities, not to the general population. To tar the entirety of the population of Palestine (or Israel for that matter) would be absurd and wrong. The majority of the Palestinian people are good, well-meaning people, and deserve the utmost respect. What is being criticized are the government, the radicals, the criminals, and the violent. There are flaws in Israel as well, and those will be noted.

The Palestinians are not a separate ethnic group, they are Arabs like those in Jordan, Syria, or Egypt. Palestine was never a country; what tends to be defined as ‘Palestine’ today are simply the regions that Israel took over in the previous wars, be it Gaza or the West Bank. Israel can not be ‘occupying’ those territories, as there are no competing claims to them by any other legitimate country. Therefore the rhetorical tricks Israel’s critics use to try to tar Israel as an occupying power that is somehow violating international law are most often absurd. In the same vein, the idea that the vast majority of Israeli ‘settlements’ are illegal holds little water. Most of the settlements are simply areas where Jewish people live and have existed for many years. While there are some areas that are likely improper, the preponderance of settlements are legitimate. 

To better understand the current situation between Israel and Palestine, it is worth analyzing the situation in the two Palestinian regions that effectively govern themselves: the West Bank and the Gaza Strip. The West Bank is under the control of the Palestinian Authority (PA), which is currently led by President Mahmoud Abbas. Abbas has been in power since his initial election in 2005, and has refused to allow any elections since then, which should put the lie to any pretensions of an existing Palestinian democracy. Abbas has also been quoted as saying he does not want any Israelis present in any Palestinian nation, meanwhile 20% of Israel is Arab, and Israel has no pretensions of ejecting them. According to Human Rights Watch, the government of the Palestinian Authority routinely engages in the arbitrary arrests, detention, and torture of its citizens. The PA also makes no substantial effort to stamp out widespread support for terrorism. Towns in the West Bank routinely celebrate terrorists and their heinous acts, and go so far as to name streets after them. In 2010, a street on which the house for the President of Palestine was to be built was named after a terrorist, Yihyeh Ayyash, who was responsible for the deaths of over 100 Israelis. In 2015, the town of Surda-Abu Qash named a street after the terrorist Muhannad Halabi, who was also given the distinction of an honorary degree from the Palestinian Authority Bar Association. Most recently, in 2019, a street in Bruqin in the West Bank was named after another terrorist and murderer of two Israelis, Omar Abu Lila. If that is not enough, while Palestinians are quite safe in Israel, Israelis, and Jews in particular, are in serious danger should they enter Palestinian territory. Around the city of Hebron, there are large red signs declaring the danger posed to any Israeli should they exit the highway. If the Palestinian government is looking to convince the world of its worthiness for statehood, its behavior in the West Bank does it no favors.

The Gaza Strip, however, is far worse. The Israelis took the major step of withdrawing from the Gaza Strip completely in 2006, including the removal of all Jewish settlers in the area.This was precisely what the Palestinian activists demanded, and what they now demand for the West Bank. Rather than providing an exemplary case of what a free Palestinian state could do, Gaza became a poster-child for a failed state. Since 2007, the Strip has been governed by the Iran-supported terrorist group Hamas. Hamas explicitly denies the right of Israel to exist, and calls for military action against the State of Israel. As if to back up this goal, Hamas sponsors summer camps in Gaza where males from 15-18 years old are put through military-style training, including live-fire. According to a Hamas official, the intention is to prepare “for the liberation of Palestine.” Similar to the PA, Human Rights Watch documents the consistent use of arbitrary detention and torture by Hamas authorities. Gaza has also been a major player in the incessant terrorist attacks on Israel. Due to the trouble, both Israel and Egypt have maintained an effective blockade on the territory since Hamas took control in 2007.  Since 2018 alone, there have been over a thousand rockets fired into Israel from Gaza. In November 2018, Hamas fired 300 rockets into Israel, compelling hundreds of civilians in Israel to find cover. In May 2019, Hamas again fired upwards of 250 rockets into Israel with the same effect, but this time resulting in the death of a civilian. Most recently, on 13 November 2019, after the killing by Israeli forces of the leader of the terrorist organization Islamic Jihad that Hamas gives refuge to in Gaza, Hamas fired over 360 rockets into Israel. Further, along the border with Gaza, Hamas, with the help of Iran (which has been providing weaponry and logistical support), consistently build terror tunnels into Israel, to smuggle in arms and terrorists. To think that any rational actor would or should even begin to contemplate the creation of a Palestinian state after the disaster of Gaza is simply absurd.

In 2018-2019, there were major protests along the Gaza-Israel border, which resulted in nearly 200 deaths, and Israel was roundly criticized internationally for its use of force. But it is important to look at the situation in its context. The protests originated in Gaza to mark the 70th anniversary of the founding of Israel, and was aimed at retaking the land that Israel occupied. The Israelis had endured two devastating Intifatas before, innumerable terrorist attacks, and during the protests themselves, dozens of fire kites were sent over the border, setting aflame Israeli farmland. Thousands of Gazan protestors wielding slingshots, Molotov cocktails, stones, and other weapons charged the border fence multiple times. It would be ridiculous to contend that the IDF soldiers should have simply allowed them to storm the fence and endanger the lives of Israeli citizens. The IDF is one of the most effective and humane militaries in the world, and it takes extreme efforts to avoid unnecessary casualties. There may have been particular situations where excessive force was used, and those specific cases should be condemned, but those mistakes were the outliers, not the norm. Of course, much of the media took up Hamas’ narrative of ‘peaceful protests’ and an ‘unacceptable’ Israeli response. They repeatedly pointed to the number of youth casualties that occurred as evidence of Israeli malpractice, but fail to recognize that it was Hamas and the protest’s organizers that allowed them to be at the front of the protests. Hamas is well known for using innocent civilians as human shields, and there were many reports of them moving youth and women to the front lines in an attempt to make any IDF response far more difficult.

With the situation in the Palestinian-governed territories outlined, it should be clear why the Israelis deserve the support of the United States and its allies. But it is also worth noting the values that Israel itself offers. Israel is the only liberal-democratic nation in the Middle East, and provides the full range of freedoms that that entails. Its citizens are free to worship as they please, whether they are Jewish, Muslim, or Christian. In fact, Israel is the only country in the region in which the Christian population over the past century has held relatively firm. And contrary to the belief that Israel oppresses its Muslim minority, the Israeli government actually bars Jews from praying at their most holy site, The Temple Mount, which in Islam is known as the Dome of the Rock. Additionally, the Joint List, the exclusively Arab bloc in the Israeli Knesset, holds 13 seats. Beyond religious minorities, Israel provides civil rights for many other groups that are traditionally persecuted or oppressed in the Middle East. It is the only country in the region that actually provides full civil protections for homosexuals, unlike countries like Iran and Saudi Arabia that are known to execute LGBT citizens. However, to present the full story, it is also important to note the failures of Israel. There are documented cases where Israel has arbitrarily arrested many under the auspices of ‘secret evidence,’ which violates the individual’s right to know what crime he or she is being charged of. There are also cases where Israel has been credibly accused of using positional torture, which involves forcing prisoners to be in painful positions for extended periods of time. Human Rights Watch did not mention any incidents of torture by Israel in its World Report 2019 on Israel, however.  While the law and civil liberties are respected the vast majority of the time in Israel, there have been exceptions. These cases should not be excused, and are entirely contrary to the values Israel espouses and largely adheres to. 

While it would be narcissistic to try to propose any serious solution to this long-standing problem, there are some basic points that can be made. Before there can be any Palestinian state, the Palestinian authorities must halt all terrorist activity, including the glorification of terrorists. Both the PA and Hamas must recognize Israel’s right to exist (which the PA tacitly does, but Hamas certainly does not), and stop supporting violence against the Jewish state. Hamas must cut all ties with Iran and squelch the network of terrorist activity in its borders, as must the PA work harder to break the back of the terrorists in the West Bank. Any Palestinian state must be democratically governed, with free elections, an independent judiciary, and the full array of civil liberties. Both the PA and Hamas must accept the entirety of Jerusalem as the capital of Israel, for the city will not be divided. An arrangement must be made for the guaranteed protection of Jews in any Palestinian state. Finally, both Israel and any Palestinian state must allow for free travel between each state for family visits, religious pilgrimages, or other valid reasons, subject to security procedures. 

Within this basic framework, there is a viable path to a Palestinian state, but at the moment these requirements are simply not being fulfilled. It is unrealistic to expect Israel to even begin to contemplate accepting a Palestinian state when the Palestinian territories that exist now are in such awful condition, and when hundreds of attacks originate from them every year. Israel has made numerous attempts at peace, and by and large, the Palestinians have proven unwilling to pursue any of them. 

To tie this back to the US political situation, it is important to address the growing anti-Israel and anti-Semitic views on the American far-left. There is a swell in support on the left for the Boycott, Divest, and Sanction (BDS) movement in the United States, which is by and large an anti-Semitic movement. To be clear, the policy itself is not anti-Semitic, nor are all those who support it. The BDS movement is meant to boycott, divest, and sanction Israel, Israeli companies, and Israeli products for alleged human rights abuses among other issues towards the Palestinians. In a vacuum, that argument would be as acceptable as any other, albeit based on an incomplete, generally overblown, and one-sided perspective. But nothing in politics can be considered in a vacuum. If the argument is that Israel should be boycotted because of alleged human rights abuses, than the same should be applied to China (which has over 1.2 million Uyghur Muslims in concentration camps and regularly persecutes dissidents), Russia, Pakistan, Iran, Saudi Arabia, Venezuela, and so forth. The fact that most BDS supporters are silent on that front leaves their motives in question. If they are unwilling to equally apply their principles, then there has to be some other common denominator to the problem. The only thing that makes Israel unique from every other country is its Jewish religious and ethnic makeup. Again, that does not mean all BDS supporters are anti-Semites, but it does mean that those who support the BDS movement should think long and hard about why they do. Beyond BDS, the increasing acceptance of anti-Semitic rhetoric on the American far-left regarding Israel is deeply concerning. When two sitting members of congress can get away with blatantly anti-Semitic remarks without much more than a belated slap on the wrist and still remain icons of the left-wing, there is reason for worry. Israel deserves America’s support in its endeavors. Of course, any support can never be all-encompassing, but it never has been. As America’s most reliable ally, and ranking among the free nations of the world, Israel is a shining light in a region beset by darkness. The anti-Israel ideals that are permeating the American left-wing must be confronted, for to sit by is to be complacent in the attempted undermining and destruction of the only state where Jews are guaranteed to live freely and safe from persecution. Freedom and liberty are not too much to ask for.

The Eternal Guardian of the Future Graduates

Life as a young adult can seem like a never-ending series of changes, some moments more enjoyable than the more tumultuous others. With the passage of freshman, sophomore, and junior year—and the first semester of senior year nearly complete—my heart calls to mind the lines of the great poet Dante: “This mountain is such that even at the beginning below it is tedious, but the higher one goes the less it wearies” (Purgatorio IV, 88-90). Will life get easier upon graduating and finally surmounting the mountains of readings and homework involved in undergraduate studies? On the other hand, I also recall the many blessings my friends and teachers provided me over the last three and a half years at Holy Cross to think critically and contemplate what makes a good life. These gifts instill in me a great hope for the future. Upon graduating, will I set my eyes upon a “Sweet hue of oriental sapphire,” one “gathering in the serene face of the sky” (Purgatorio I, 13-15)? Will I find a place to fully use my talents and one day find rest?

Possibly. However, God announces in the Book of Genesis to the fallen Adam that “In the sweat of thy face thou shalt eat bread, til thou return to the ground” (Genesis 3: 19). Life will be challenging. People inexorably experience sorrow and melancholy following the loss of the persons and goods they encounter and enjoy in the here and now, the things of which cannot abide in our world forever. Only their effects can live on within us as we traverse onwards on our journeys within the cosmos until one day entering, hopefully, a lasting home in the arms of Christ. Fortunately, God promised that “Every valley shall be filled, and every mountain and hill shall be brought low, and the crooked shall be made straight, and the rough ways shall be made smooth / And all flesh shall see the salvation of God” (Luke 3: 5-6). Christ calms the storm of life: the seething waters and howling winds, the deficiencies and excesses (Luke 8: 23-24). Scripture also encourages us further to “Put on the whole armour of God, that ye may be able to stand against the wiles of the devil, ” glorify God, and experience uninhibited joy and thanksgiving (Ephesians 6: 11). God mans the parapet of both our physical and spiritual protection.

Due to our limitations, we cannot traverse this life alone, a reality evidenced in history and literature. We must depend on and ask others and ultimately God for help. In J.R.R. Tolkien’s The Fellowship of the Ring, the whimsical and unfallen Tom Bombadil—the master of nature—sings in response to Frodo’s call for aid a command to the demonic Barrow-wight imprisoning the ring bearer and his fellow Hobbits:

Get out, you old wight! Vanish in the sunlight! Shrivel like the cold mist, like the winds go wailing, / Out into the barren lands far beyond the mountains! / Come never here again! Leave your barrows empty!

Indeed, the Barrow-wight departed like an Olympian in the 100-meter dash after hearing the starting gun! Like Tom, Christ wins over any imprisonment and despair in times of ultimate trial. God uncompromisingly protects our souls. Thus, we should foster great hope that our future holds for us good things and blessings that adversity cannot withhold from us. Despite the apparent dictates of our environments, we can fully develop our talents in prayer and service to God and neighbor.     

For example, within the KGB’s dreaded Lubyanka prison in Moscow, the Jesuit missionary Fr. Walter Ciszek—from Shenandoah, Pennsylvania—came to the epiphany that “religion, prayer, and love of God do not change reality, but they give it a new meaning.” He then added, “In Lubianka I grew firmer in my conviction that whatever happened in my life was nothing else than a reflection of God’s will for me. And he would protect me” (With God in Russia, 159). A Servant of God, who spent over a decade in prison and the Gulag in Siberia, Ciszek witnessed to the Gospel against all adversity. The story of his life reveals that God will never abandon His children despite their collective shortcomings and brokenness. Placing one’s trust in the immutable, eternal, and omnipotent One, the Savior, opens a triumphant reservoir of grace that provides us courage and strength to do God’s will. Such a life in Christ provides a firm foundation of meaning that cannot be swept away.

In short, God desires His people to enjoy an abundance of life. Thus, upon graduating, there will be more joy, the continuation of friendships and the beginning of new ones, along with the witnessing and participation in the creation of new life. Sadly, we get to know these aspects of the divine only in revelatory glimpses due to changes amidst the passage of time. Although all material things pass away at some point in this life, faith provides a great hope for eternal communion in heaven with the Fullness of the true, good, and beautiful, the angels, and our fellow human travelers on Earth. Thank God!

Letters from Europe: Introduction

As The Fenwick Review’s newly appointed foreign correspondent, I’d like to introduce myself and the reasons that led me to take the pen, and in passing, offer a few words on the topics I would like to discuss in 2020. 

Ever since graduating in 2006 I have stayed in close contact with Prof. Schaefer from the Political Science department whose classes on political thought I attended throughout my senior year.

In the course of one of our recent email exchanges in which Prof. Schaefer mentioned the Review’s continued publication, I playfully offered to act as a self-styled foreign correspondent, an offer immediately met with enthusiasm and encouragement.

As few weeks and several e-mail exchanges later, the Review editors and I agreed that I submit an article in The Fenwick Review’s last 2019 edition.

Ironically, I barely read the Review as a student at HC, nor did I read much of the Crusader (now The Spire) for that matter. My connection with HC is fairly dim, I didn’t attend all four required years, rarely went to any sporting events and aside from my favorite Holy Cross tea mug, don’t own anything with the color purple.

However, the time spent on the hill left a remarkable imprint on my life and it is my wish, via these letters from Europe I hope to send, not only to share some views and impressions of current events but also to give back to the HC community a symbolic and humble piece of the mind it helped create.

To this day, walking down the aisle of the old Fenwick building or those of the Dinand library count as the most privileged moments of my life, when as a young man (and a very average student at that) I was given the possibility of studying the great works of western civilization with mentors who had dedicated their life to pursuing knowledge and sharing it with others.

No modesty is spared when saying that studying Plato, Hobbes, Rousseau and Tocqueville left a durable imprint on how I view the world and accompany me to this day, thirteen years later.

I must warn the regular reader of the Review: I am not an ideologue and will not reason within the confined canons of a certain political dogma. As a foreign born American holding both American and German passports and currently living in Paris, my political orientation whilst conservative may still keep a liberal or social democrat streak in it.

Since I first spoke with the Review staff several months ago, I’ve debated what to write about and have come to narrow down a few topics which I hope to address in the upcoming 2020 Fenwick Review publications:

The Fall of the Berlin wall, 30 years after.
2019 marked the 30-year anniversary of the fall of the Berlin wall. 2020 marks the 30-year anniversary of the slow and complicated integration of East Germany and former Soviet block countries into the so-called free market economy. I’m not going to dive into specificities of economic and political transition theory. More so, I will offer an account of what I have observed at hand of my wife and her family. Born in the Soviet Republic of Ukraine and raised in East Berlin, she experienced first-hand a change of systems. Her experience with planned Soviet economy and free-market capitalism and the European Union are the source of much debate at home.

European press coverage of the American elections.
This topic was easy to choose. While less nuanced than former elections, reading European coverage of American presidential elections is one of my favorites.

European identity and immigration
A much more complex topic, but one I am confronted with on a daily basis living and often traveling to large European capitals. The Syrian refugee crisis, south-to-north migration and post-colonial ties make European countries, Germany and France in particular, prone to intense debates about what constitutes European identity.

Mystery Interview
Conscious that I am writing for a conservative newspaper published for a liberal arts student body at a Jesuit College, I would like to interview a Jesuit scholar in Paris and discuss the state of education in France and its particular flavor of secularism, also called “Laïcité.”

Letter from the Editors: November 2019

Dear Reader,

Thanks for picking up the latest edition of The Fenwick Review! 

In our September edition, we mentioned that this year is an exciting time for us, and this edition is further evidence of that claim. For one, we have an exclusive interview with Bishop Robert McManus, the Bishop of the Diocese of Worcester. He talked to the Review about Holy Cross, Catholic education, and how students can live out their Catholic faith on campus. We also have a great article on the Traditional Latin Mass, a call for politics to be taken out of homilies, a brilliant satire on some controversial chapel aesthetics, an insightful analysis of what Dr. Jordan Peterson can (and cannot) teach Catholics about evangelization, a piece on the dangers of political polarization, and a take on the political exploitation of science.

Because this issue takes a close-up and inside look at the Church - both in America and on-campus - it felt fitting to use a blueprint of of St. Joseph’s Chapel for our front cover. Not only is it a unique picture, but it’s a powerful reminder that the Catholic Church is, in a sense, constantly under construction. It’s up to young people like us to build it up.

Finally, we are very excited to host Heather Mac Donald, Fellow at the Manhattan Institute and New York Times bestselling author, at Holy Cross for a talk on her 2018 book The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture.  The talk will take place on Monday, November 18, in Seelos Theatre.  We hope to see you there!

Once again, our goal is to start conversations, give voice to often unheard points of view, and inspire productive reflection. We hope that what you’ll find in the following pages will do just that. 

Seamus Brennan ’20 & Jack Rosenwinkel ’21

Co-Editors-in-Chief

Political Polarization Produces Demons, Real and Imagined

Political demonization is older than the College of the Holy Cross and even the Cross itself. During the Peloponnesian War between Sparta and Athens over 2,400 years ago, the violent demagogue Cleon asserted in the Athenian democratic assembly that public speakers (politicians) use tricks to deceive voters. Cleon conveniently labeled any dissenting opinion as aimed for self-gain. In short, “don’t listen to what my disingenuous opponents say!” However, Cleon likely wouldn’t be airing such dangerous, anti-democratic labels if those speaking in the assembly supported his desired policy: to take as slaves the women and children of the rebellious region of Lesbos while slaughtering the men. Cleon hypocritically strove to deceive his audience to prevent others from acting mercifully, which he considered a base deception against the proper enactment of revenge and gaining the fear of other cities through the shedding of blood.                                     

In 2019, we can find a relative of Cleon’s opportunistic cynicism in the language used in American public debate between the Democrats and the Republicans. Some Democrats like to categorize those who support socially conservative policies as fascists and/or Nazis, while some Republicans attempt to label the Democratic Party as uniformly socialist, especially regarding its healthcare and educational policies, with the connotation that Democrats are destructive communists. However, the use of the loaded labels of fascist and communist sinisterly shields party voters from listening to what the other side has to say. In other words, “We (insert party) don’t have to and must not talk to the evil enemy.” Implicit in this attitude lies the fear that one’s ideology does not contain all the answers and, if undermined, can no longer provide surety of moral righteousness. Convenient.    

Notwithstanding, Democrats and Republicans likely have more in common than they like to admit. Although divergent in ideological tenets and political solutions, both communism and fascism in the twentieth century reacted against certain aspects of modernization. These included the loss of tradition, meaning, and order amidst the whirlwind of technological change—ushered in by the advent of new theological, philosophical, and scientific understandings. Likewise, although not to the totalitarian extent of the Nazis and Soviets and their genocidal nature within concentration camps and gulags, America’s parties both strive ideally to achieve the common good within the spirit of the Constitution, weighing material and spiritual needs within an ever-escalating modernization.

However, taking these labels at face value, is the Democratic Party the party of Marx, Lenin, Stalin, or Brezhnev? Is the current Republican party an illiberal party of Mussolini’s and Hitler’s racist political descendants? Or in admiration of Spain’s authoritarian Generalissimo Franco? Such large claims require evidence.                                    

Compared with Russia in 1917 after its near annihilation on the eastern front against Germany in World War I, the morale of the current-day United States is not equivalent to a society racked by massive defeat that would bring an American Lenin to power. If otherwise, one would have to argue that the political situation that led to the election of Trump rivals a world war costing millions of lives. Do Democrats make such a dramatic claim that Trump is a manifestation of the failure of capitalism (aligning Trump’s election with the Marxist concept of the “crisis of capitalism,” foreboding international revolution) and that one can no longer work with Republicans, requiring a more totalitarian mindset to prevent psychological assaults upon people’s identities? Some Democrats make this claim, but it is a strange claim amidst so much material prosperity in the United States. Further, do large paramilitary armies with members in the millions waltz through the streets creating chaos, like the situation that Hitler manipulated to bring his Nazi Party to power in the early 1930s amidst the Great Depression? No. If yes, one would be forced to make the wild claim that United States law enforcement and ICE parallel the Nazi Storm Troopers and exterminatory SS.

Today’s opposing polemicists who label Democrats and Republicans respectively communists and fascists/Nazis, the historical embodiments of absolute evil on the left and right, reveals that they view the world in pseudo-religious terms. Americans take pride in their freedom from theocracy, but American political parties have filled the void produced by post-Enlightenment secularism. Humanity is intrinsically religious, and one cannot escape from dogmatisms that provide a structure to one’s lived experience. Within their dualist “good and evil” visions of the world, today’s American parties now offer new articles of belief, including identity politics, healthcare, immigration, environmental policies, guns, and economic equity. When former Democrat presidential candidate Beto O’Rourke maintains that religious organizations that do not toe the line regarding LGBTQ+ issues ought to lose their tax exemption status and receives an applause at a Democratic town hall, laid bare is the reality that today’s political elites do not respect alternative visions of the world and will not tolerate heretics or anything that runs contrary to their version of reality.

What is more extensive than propagandist Josef Goebbels’s mass media in Nazi Germany and the local party offices of Soviet Russia is the vast reach of American political advocates acquired through the millions of smartphones and computers into every American home. Hoping to get people off their coaches to cast a vote and shame the opposition, political demagogues and media outlets present each election as an existential threat. However, they offer no final peace free from suffering. Compared with the parties’ presentation of utopian, futuristic visions, where the articles of belief are perfectly codified into law and believed by all citizens, all progress and achievement in the present seems disappointing when held up to the ideals of the articles. Unfortunately, justice for all humanity cannot be perfectly achieved nor comprehended by the limited human intellect. Additionally, technology only offers material solutions, not ultimate spiritual fulfillment and happiness. Nonetheless, America’s political parties have urged us to cease rest until the world is set aright and humanity lives eternally, like gods. This worldview inevitably necessitates a group to be blamed for the world’s continued woes.      

A Timely Warning (Satire)

Dear Members of the Holy Cross Community,

It is my regret to inform you of a discovery concerning a multitude of hate symbols on our campus. A student recently reported seeing swastikas in both Dinand Library and St. Joseph’s Chapel. We laud this student for their bravery in standing up and alerting us to these instances of hate. We encourage you, the Holy Cross community, to do the same if you bear witness to any grotesque language or symbolism.

I must say these particular findings cut deep to my core. Sadly, these symbols of hate have been living under our noses for decades now and, due to the culture of hate on our campus, they were never brought to our attention. I took a trip to St. Joseph’s Chapel and to Dinand Library after the report came forward to see for myself; not that I would ever doubt the brave report of a student, but simply to better acquaint myself with the problem at hand. As I looked carefully, I began to see those execrable, abhorrent symbols of bias that had evaded our sight for so many years. It was apparent –– the very architects our great college decorated the walls of those buildings with swastikas. Now I must admit, we did not know the architect, and many of you may state we should simply assume the design was created with no malintent. However, we cannot assume the motives of the architect, so we can only infer that the design came from a place of pure hate. Further, I know these buildings were constructed before the rise of Nazism in Germany, but that does not excuse the fact that they promote a hateful ideology. The context surrounding the advent of these particular symbols does not matter. They are hateful and they do not belong on our campus.

If you are able to stomach this venture, I invite you to catch a glimpse of these wretched stains of racism in the stone trim of each building. The administration will, for the near future, place professional staff members throughout both buildings for anyone who finds themselves in the buildings and needs them as a resource. 

While we have been ignorant to them for years, we will not let this hinder us in our quick expulsion of these images. 

Firstly, Fr. Boroughs has consulted with the Board of Trustees and concluded that – as part of an ongoing investigation of hate on campus – we will hire a third party investigator, who has no prior connection to the school, in order to conduct a thorough review of all the current buildings on campus. A new committee, The Committee to Review Architectural Prejudice (CRAP), will review the report he will generate. CRAP will then decide a future course of action depending on how many other instances of swastikas, or other hate symbols, have been systemically engraved upon our campus buildings. Further, he will chair an in-depth review of the plans of the ongoing construction on campus and expunge any instances of hate the architects may have included. CRAP will review this report and then determine whether the construction may continue.

But, I know, since this investigation may take years, this is a distant solution to an urgent problem. So in addition, we are offering a series of more immediate solutions. We understand that they too may be unsatisfactory in their nature; hate runs deep in our community and we cannot expect to completely expunge it, but we will try our best. 

So, as a second course of action, tomorrow we will be hanging “Hate Has No Home Here” signs over each and every obscene instance of hate, both in Dinand Library and in St. Joseph’s Chapel. We know this measure will not eliminate the symbols of hate, but it is the best we can do in the meantime.

Thirdly, the Counseling Center is opening their lunch hours every day of this coming week and cancelling all their previously scheduled appointments to, along with CRAP, accommodate support groups for those who feel threatened, or otherwise unsettled, by these recent discoveries. Please know that your feelings are valid. Simply because we, as a campus community, are just now realizing that there, in fact, are longstanding symbols of hate in our facilities, does not mean we aren’t entitled to be fearful; our collective blindness does not excuse this threat. Though we cannot connect these abominable adornments to targeted physical attacks, this does not mean they aren’t acts of violence. The white men who designed these buildings, in fact, committed this act of violence against the Holy Cross community and continuously commit acts of violence against us all until their symbols are removed. We will not let this violence continue into the future, which brings me to the fourth course of action.

Active December 1st, we will be ordering the Construction of the New Luth Recreation Center to cease (until the aforementioned CRAP review is completed) and all efforts will be redirected towards the demolition of the buildings containing the hate symbol.  Both St. Joseph’s Chapel and Dinand Library will be completely removed from our campus. In addition, any records, mentions, pictures, etc. of these facilities will be eliminated. All students will, voluntarily, turn in their phones and other electronic devices (laptops, tablets, etc.) to ITS, where their content will be reviewed to assure they contain no information that recalls or could promulgate the hate entrenched in these buildings. If such information is found, the student’s phone will be, with his or her consent, wiped clean of all memory. (Students who have not yet turned in their phone, or other device, for review will have a hold put on their enrollment and their dining plan. Similarly, students who have not consented to have the memory of their device(s) wiped, if the review deems necessary, will incur the same punishment. Note: our first intention, as always, is the free choice of action on behalf of the student.)

In place of these former temples of hate, we will leave signs declaring, proudly: “Hate Has No Home Here.” These signs shall be installed during a vigil run by the Chaplains’ Office here on campus, and we intend for them to remain permanently. We invite you, our student body, to create your own artistic works inspired by your experience of this hate  – whether that be visual art, a piece of music, a play, or anything your creative intuition wills – to be displayed or performed during these vigils. Please take this opportunity to just feel. Further, we will allow those minority students, whom this particularly effects, to cast a brick, or any other memento they so desire, from either building into a ceremonial bonfire, celebrating their liberation from these monuments of hate.

I know many of you may not find this an adequate response; there is always more we can do. I acknowledge this: we are imperfect. And I particularly want to apologize that these atrocities have, for so long, gone unnoticed. I will be more vigilant in the future. Because of this, we invite any and all of your suggestions moving forward as to how we can better address this culture of hate that runs so deep on our campus. Please join me in the hope for a better future.

Sincerely,

May King-Issues

Dean of Generation and Redress of Minute Affairs