Soleimani and the Terrorist Regime in Tehran

The threat of Iran is not new, and it was not new a decade, or even two decades ago. Since the radical Islamic theocracy took over Iran from the Shah in 1979, Iran rarely deviated from its terroristic behavior. Ceaselessly attempting to spread terror and revolution across the Middle East, Iran and its terrorist proxies have been waging a bloody war against the civilized world for decades. On January 3, 2020, the United States took out General Qassem Soleimani, the head of Iran’s Revolutionary Guards Corps subsidiary Quds Force, and the second-most powerful man in the country. Soleimani was a terrorist —one with thousands of innocent lives to his name, including hundreds of Americans. The vast swath of negative reactions to this justified strike rejects the reality of decades of Iranian provocation and outright violence. There is no question that Soleimani, and Iran generally, posed an imminent threat to the United States and its allies, regardless of whether or not that involved a future strike on a U.S. Embassy compound. From its inception in 1979, the Islamic Republic of Iran has made clear its desire for the destruction of the U.S. and Israel, and its actions have fit such a goal. In the face of consistent provocation, it was high time that the United States reassert its message of strong and resolute deterrence. American policy towards Iran must fit the world as it is, not the world as politicians want it to be. 

It is impossible to give justice to the entirety of Iran’s provocations in an article of this length, but it can be summed up best in an analysis of Iran’s relations with known and accepted terrorist organizations. Beyond the more concrete goals, Iran’s relationships with terrorist groups allow it to spread its tentacles across the Middle East, and exercise undue power in the area. As far back as 1996, Iran’s state-sponsored terror was widely recognized, with President Clinton saying, "Terrorism has many faces, to be sure... but Iran and Libya are two of the most dangerous supporters of terrorism in the world.” To this day, Iran is the largest state-sponsor of terror in the world.

In the 1980s, Hezbollah, a Shiite terrorist group now based in Lebanon, was founded by around 500 members of the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps at the behest of the Iranian government. With its roots based in the IRGC, it should come as no surprise that the relationship remains tight. Hezbollah’s most prominent goal is the destruction of the state of Israel; a goal which Tehran wholeheartedly supports. Hossein Salami, then-Deputy Commander of the IRGC, left little room for speculation:

“In Lebanon alone, over 100,000 missiles are ready to be launched… and strike at the heart of the Zionist regime [Israel]... they are just waiting for the command so that when the trigger is pulled the accursed black dot [Israel] will be wiped off the map.”

Iran is responsible for the vast majority of Hezbollah’s multi-hundred million dollar budget, and provides vast quantities of weaponry to the organization. It is not just small arms– Iran has provided Hezbollah with significant firepower, ranging from drones and anti-ship missiles to anti-air systems. Hassan Nasrallah, currently the Secretary General of Hezbollah, openly admits Iran’s support.

Hezbollah is internationally recognized as a leading terrorist organization, and Tehran is wholly complicit in its bloody reign of terror in the Middle East and beyond. 

Iran’s relationship with Hamas is more complex, but not less significant. A Sunni terrorist group, one would assume that Iran, a Shiite state, would have no interest in supporting it. Yet it does. The Iran-Hamas relationship lays bare Tehran’s priorities: the destruction of Israel, and the extermination of its Jewish population, supersede internal sectarian divides.

From 1990 to 2000, Iran provided Hamas with funds totaling around $20 to $50 million annually. In 2006, Iran provided Hamas with $250 million in funding, partly in support of the group’s activities in the 2006 Gaza War, which beyond funding included weaponry. The aid reached an astounding $23 million per month in 2012 despite a flagging domestic economy, further underscoring Tehran’s priorities.

In keeping with Iran’s support for terrorist groups, the country also props up the Palestinian Islamic Jihad, another organization geared towards the dissolution of Israel through violent means. Like with Hezbollah, Iran’s relationship with the PIJ began in the 1980s as Tehran stepped up its efforts to destroy the Jewish state. A Sunni extremist group like Hamas, the PIJ is also an unusual, but revealing, partner for Iran. With varying funding levels over the decades, Iran provided the PIJ with around $70 million in 2016. In 2017-2018, Iran increased its support of both Hamas and the PIJ by around $100 million total.

Iran has also worked with terrorist entities that bear more direct relevance to the United States. Tehran, more specifically the IRGC’s Quds Force, has since at least 2010 been materially supporting the Taliban in Afghanistan with both weapons and training. While the support was limited, it was not irrelevant. Iran also placed a bounty of $1,000 for every American killed in Afghanistan and $6000 for every U.S. vehicle eliminated. More troubling, however, is Iran’s relationship with Al-Qaeda. The extent of the support is not entirely clear, but Iran is known to have provided safe passage for Al-Qaeda terrorists before and after the 9/11 attacks. Some of those allowed to pass through Iran before 9/11 later participated in the attack itself. Negotiations between Tehran and Al-Qaeda also involved discussions over potential funding and arms transfers to the terrorist organization.

It is only in the context of Iran’s substantial record of state-sponsored terror that Soleimani’s killing can be more closely analyzed and justified. Qassem Soleimani built up a presence and power of huge proportions, and by the mid-2000s was effectively involved in every major extra-territorial Iranian activity.

Soleimani became a commander in the Quds Force, a subsidiary expeditionary branch of the IRGC, in 1998. Since then, he has worked tirelessly to expand Iran’s malign influence, with little care for the methods used. His hands were first stained with American blood in 2004 in Iraq: the IRGC Quds Force provided resistance and terrorist fighters with Improvised Explosive Devices (IEDs) for use against American forces which were responsible for around 600 American deaths, and thousands of others maimed.

Soleimani’s Quds Force has managed to become involved in nearly every Middle Eastern hotspot. In the Syrian Civil War, Soleimani was instrumental in keeping Bashar Al-Assad’s murderous regime in power. Without Iranian support, led by Soleimani, it is highly likely Assad would have fallen to the rebels like most of the other governments impacted by the Arab Spring. In the Yemeni Civil War, which began in 2015, the Quds Force has been the principal benefactor of the Houthi rebels. The Houthis, at the behest of Soleimani, were provided with vast quantities of both small and more advanced arms, which have contributed greatly to the tens of thousands of deaths and humanitarian crisis in Yemen.

More recently, and most relevant to the strike that killed Soleimani, is his direct activity against the West. By June 2019, Iran, without reason or pretext, attacked no less than six oil tankers in international waters in the Strait of Hormuz. The tankers were of numerous different countries, and the attacks were a blatant assault on innocent actors. Also in June 2019, Iran shot down an American RQ-4A reconnaissance drone in international airspace over the Persian Gulf, again without reason or pretext. The provocations continued in September 2019, when Iran was responsible for a major attack on Saudi oil production by 10 drones. The attack forced Saudi Arabia to shut down half of its production capacity, and cut worldwide production by 5%. Again, Iran was taking provocative and violent action without any serious pretext.

In late December 2019, Iranian proxies killed an American contractor and wounded four American troops in a rocket attack on a U.S. base. Shortly thereafter, Iranian-backed militant groups attempted to storm the U.S. Embassy in Baghdad. This was all occurring in the context of domestic protests in Iran, which were brutally put down with the help of Soleimani’s IRGC, with at least 450 killed, and estimates running over 1000. All of these provocations could not have occurred without the express blessing of Soleimani. He was in near complete control of Iran’s external military activities, and no major action happened absent his consent. 

It is in this context that Soleimani was killed, and rightfully so. The U.S. had not responded to any of these provocations in any meaningful way, and the rising frequency and seriousness of Iran’s actions indicate what happens when deterrence is nonexistent. Absent decisive U.S. action, there is no reason to expect that Iran’s terrorist activities would have lessened; in fact quite the contrary. When a country lacks deterrence and fails to enforce proper boundaries, its enemies will always push the limits. Iran, with a robust terrorist past and a desire to harm both the U.S. and Israel, was bound to continue to provoke.

As a country with diminishing international partners, a poor economy, and a restless populace, the regime in Tehran turned, as it always has, to terrorism and violence. It is likely that their hope was to try to force concessions from the world’s powers in return for a reprieve from international isolation, particularly from the spineless Europeans, who still cling to the hapless and neutered JCPOA. The U.S. had to reset its standard of deterrence to stop this escalating violence from the Islamic Republic. While it is likely that the short-term violence from Iran will increase from a retaliatory standpoint, the long-term credibility of U.S. deterrence has been re-established. The message to Iran is clear: attack American interests, murder American citizens, and attempt to spread your malignant power, and severe consequences will follow. Tehran would do well to heed the warning.

The Internet's Obsession: Andrew Yang's UBI

It is a common talking point of those on the right to accuse those on the left of advocating for giving away free stuff or services in exchange for votes. This can be seen with much of the Democratic Party calling for free healthcare or free college. One Democratic presidential candidate, Andrew Yang, who remains low in the polls, takes this idea of free stuff a step further and offers a Universal Basic Income (UBI), which he has ever-so-patriotically named the “Freedom Dividend.” There are a number of problems I see with UBI that I would like to express here. 

Firstly, I see the need to clarify what a Universal Basic Income actually is. UBI is a system, usually replacing existing welfare but not always, that gives a periodic payment to all citizens without exception for wealth status. This means that whether you are unemployed, making $100,000 a year, or a billionaire, you will always receive a set amount of money usually on a monthly basis. Andrew Yang’s UBI takes the form of the Freedom Dividend, which aims to give $1,000 a month, totaling $12,000 a year, to every American citizen over the age of 18.

One of the biggest problems for a national UBI in the United States is on the grounds of implementation: the United States is very large and diverse and the cost of living varies wildly, with $1,000 in my home state of Alabama having a much different purchasing power than the same amount of money in New York, but under Yang’s program, an individual in either place would receive the same amount of monthly income from the UBI. The only way around this in the U.S. would be to implement UBI policies on the state level, but that would require an initiative by each state to implement, which is highly unlikely and impractical.

Another problem is that the UBI might not even be enough to serve its desired purpose as a safety net. If one of the goals of the UBI is to create a job market where people have the freedom to leave or lose their jobs without the fear of becoming homeless, $1,000 in some places might not be enough. If someone has no savings and no means of getting more money and no longer has a job, $1,000 in the big cities where many people live is most likely less than what they were living on before, thereby creating a situation where someone may not be able to afford the housing they are in, which still pressures them to keep maintain their current job.

This all comes with the looming problem of the inevitable inflation that would come from Yang’s method of payment for this program. Yang would tax businesses to pay for his UBI, which will inevitably raise prices and cause inflation. On his campaign website, though, he claims that consumers are “price sensitive” and that those producers will simply find more efficient ways to produce goods. Yang’s UBI will not have any effect on the rate of efficiency that companies operate at, and if companies are faced with an increased cost of production and are presented with a set of consumers who now have more disposable income, they will most certainly raise their prices. The cost of taxes put on businesses are always passed down to the consumer.

The biggest problem that comes with Andrew Yang’s Freedom Dividend is not the UBI itself, but rather his method of payment for such a costly program. According to what appears to be Yang’s conservative estimate, giving each American over the age of 18 $1,000 a month would cost about $2.8 trillion. To pay for this, he proposes a European-style value-added tax, coupled with an assumption that because of each person receiving an additional $1,000 a month, certain metrics that cost the American government will go down.

Yang claims on his campaign website that, miraculously, people will “Be better able to take care of themselves and avoid the emergency room, jail, and the street and would generally be more functional,” all by simply giving them $1,000 a month. This may be true on some level, but just like how giving food aid to Somalia rather than giving Somalians the means to make their own food puts a bandaid on the issue of starvation, the UBI simply provides Americans with a fixed income rather than giving them the means to provide for themselves.

The two final ways Yang claims to pay for his program are by the miraculous creation of new revenue from his UBI and the implementation of additional taxes. Though his UBI would create more revenue, this is only because of the major inflation that his program would cause, which would make this same money worth less. Additionally, he proposes even more taxes such as a carbon tax along with stricter taxing of capital gains, both of which would be hindrances on business and raise prices.

In order to cut spending, Yang makes his UBI and other forms of welfare such as food stamps mutually exclusive, meaning that if you choose to take part in the famously effective program of food stamps, you won’t get your $1,000. There is a reason why the U.S. government chooses to give people stamps tradable for food, and that is because it is effective in helping those who have trouble with money management and impulse control on purchases. If everyone was a savvy consumer, we would not need food stamps as we could just give money directly to the individuals. Disability payments are also on this mutually exclusive list. We shouldn’t have to pose an ultimatum to the American people between receiving a check from the government every month for $1,000, or maintaining their disability payments.

UBI’s main drawing point is that it is a simplification of the welfare system, which might sound appealing at face value to conservatives, but Yang does not jump on this idea and instead adds more complications to an already overly complicated American tax and welfare system. His solution is to put more taxes along the production chain, which inevitably get passed on to the consumer, who he then gives $1,000 back to, thus creating an overcomplicated system that doesn’t do anything better or more efficiently than our current system.

What Yang fails to understand is that although people will have more money to spend, their money will have less purchasing power as the cost of goods will increase with the cost of production. The biggest problem is not the UBI, but the tax that comes along with it. The fact of the matter is that there is no good way to currently pay for such a program that would not ultimately fall back on the consumer and create a cycle of inflation. The threat of automation taking jobs from low-skilled workers - of which Yang is afraid - does have merit, but in a free market economy such as the United States, the economics for a UBI simply do not work out.

A Reflection on FOCUS in Phoenix and Beyond…

From December 29, 2019 to January 3, 2020, approximately 8,500 Catholics hailing from over 300 campuses located in the United States attended the Fellowship of Catholic University Student’s (FOCUS) Student Leadership Summit (SLS) in Arizona to usher in the new year. Some fellow College of the Holy Cross students, Father Gavin, S.J., and I went to the five-day conference, which was held in the heart of downtown Phoenix at the city’s convention center complex.

SLS inspired me. FOCUS’s aim for the event was to instill in Catholic youth an understanding of Christ’s friendship, which He extends to all His sons and daughters. To experience and take delight in such a grace is meant for you, me, a person from another continent, and the neighbor next door to participate in. Through ongoing conversion and discipleship, no one is left out from God’s salvation. Fortunately, we are presented with the Wisdom of the Holy Spirit through the sacraments and the people of faith in our lives. A spirit of charity and building community—imperatives to witnessing to the Gospels—follows from a recognition of the irrevocable dignity of each human being. Such a realization begins with fostering a relationship with Jesus, who continually extends a Love that pierces the shadows of human failure, brokenness, and despair. We cannot face adversity alone. According to a famous old poem, no man is an island.

Bolstered by over 300 priests, countless brothers and sisters dedicated to the religious life, 16 bishops, the archbishop of Philadelphia, the Apostolic Nuncio (a.k.a. ambassador) to the United States from the Vatican, and an important Cardinal from Germany, SLS provided a faith-filled experience centered around the sacraments and the rich tradition of the Roman Catholic Church. Also, surrounded by thousands of young college students like myself striving to embrace a life with Christ by sharing the Good News and—by letting God work through them—forming friendships and community, I found my time in the American southwest spiritually and socially invigorating.

Daily keynote speakers included Father Mike Schmitz of the popular Ascension Presents YouTube channel, evangelist blogger Emily Wilson, and the wonderful Sister Bethany Madonna of the Sisters of Life, among others.  Their energy and zeal provided a glimpse of the many gifts of the Holy Spirit that provide a person with one of the three greatest virtues: hope.

Without hope, one cannot persevere through the challenges that life presents. Inspirited and healed through the Mass, Reconciliation, and Eucharistic Adoration, a person can realize a spiritual harmony in life through the music of faith, which quietly comforts and enlivens the soul. Cardinal Mueller, the German cardinal, made this insightful and beautiful analogy in his homily on the third day of the conference. Matt Maher also summed up this message succinctly, which I hope I have recalled accurately: "Without the Resurrection of Jesus Christ, life simply does not make sense.”

In the past few weeks, which have entailed the heartrending loss of beloved members from our own families, colleges, sports teams, and country, this message comes to my mind in relation to literature. The pathos-ridden, 800-page novel, The Cypresses Believe in God: Spain on the Eve of Civil War by Jose Maria Gironella, provides an account of a Spanish family in the city of Gerona before a conflict full of horrors broke out in the Spanish Republic in the mid-1930s. One of the characters, Matias Alvear, had married Carmen Elgazu. Beforehand, Matias was not religious but upon being wedded to the deeply religious Carmen he became Catholic. His motivation followed from his realization that he could not imagine a world where the love, spirit, and radiance of his wife, body and soul, could not survive eternally. 

Life is indeed full of wonderful people and surroundings. Thus, the ancient idea—based upon the rejection of the conception of there being a loving designer of the world—that everything passes into non-being disturbs me. Consequently, I believe that life does have a deeper purpose and an end beyond death. The greatest hope, which is also the greatest strength, derives from the truth that we are placed on Earth by a Love that knows no bounds. This is revealed through the everyday miracles of life, a natural order that people can learn from which hints at a Reason behind it, and the almost supernatural demonstrations of selfless love and immense thanksgiving that I encounter. The liturgical life of the Church especially reveals these truths through its journey exploring the relationship of God and His people. Despite the vagaries and trials of life that are found in the bearing of the cross, I pray that I might remain confident in the bountiful promises of the resurrected Christ.

Letter from the Editors: December 2019

Dear Reader,

Thanks for picking up the final edition of The Fenwick Review of the fall semester!

It’s no secret that the past several weeks have been a bit tense on campus, due in no small part to our sponsoring of a Heather Mac Donald lecture in mid-November. Ms. Mac Donald’s lecture - as well as other areas of division on campus and across our nation - are addressed in the coming pages of this issue, and although they will inevitably spur disagreement and debate, we hope they will also foster a sense of common understanding and a willingness to engage in productive dialogue. With the liturgical season of Advent upon us, there is no better time to look beyond our differences and seek to cultivate an atmosphere of peace, unity, and harmony.

This issue of The Fenwick Review in particular is more heavy on political commentary than usual: in addition to an insightful piece on Ms. Mac Donald’s lecture, you will find a critique of political hypocrisy, an analysis of President Trump’s Syria policy, a discussion on the importance of the abortion debate, a rebuke against the alt-right, and an overview of the U.S.-Israel alliance. This edition is also not without its share of campus commentary: Will Kessler ’23, in his debut Review article, offers a response to last summer’s required freshman reading book, and Justin Lombardi ’20 presents a profound reflection on God’s fixed presence in our lives, especially during moments of uncertainty and transition. We have no doubt that the contents of this issue will, at the very least, leave you with something to ponder, to reflect, and to deliberate over the Christmas holiday.

We wish everyone a Merry Christmas and a restful break

Seamus Brennan ’20 & Jack Rosenwinkel ’21

Co-Editors-in-Chief

On Liberal Hypocrisy

Growing up with strongly liberal parents, liberal friends, liberal teachers, and liberal news, I am a conditioned liberal in every way. Since becoming aware of my political socialization, I have remained a liberal, but I have become one who is self-critical and consistently reflective of everything I believe. With this mindset has come the difficult process of confronting convictions I’ve held my whole life–one being my deep disgust and hatred for conservatives. Before I really had an understanding of any political or social issue, I was of the mind that all conservatives were racist, sexist, homophobic, greedy… the list goes on. Liberals, on the other hand, were the struggling saviors of the world, fighting for the good of all people. Today, with a more developed understanding of the political right and left, I’ve come to reevaluate both my resentment towards conservatives and the Republican Party and my love of liberals and the Democratic Party. I’ve found that my hatred towards conservatives was unwarranted, but to be expected considering the image of conservatives I had been spoon-fed. Regarding my own political tribe, I have started to distinguish the policies and practices of the left, which I now see as nothing more than a collective liberal ego. The distinction between the two reveals a bothersome display of hypocrisy in need of addressing.

It seems to me that at the heart of the liberal ego is a sense of tolerance and concern for all people, regardless of gender, age, sexual orientation, religion, ethnicity, socioeconomic status, nationality, etc. I see nothing wrong with this when it is put into practice. What bothers me, however, is the hypocrisy of liberals who preach this tolerance, but fail to truly act on it when it becomes inconvenient in supporting their egos or their political narrative. When you surround yourself with a flock of like-minded liberals, your love and support for any underprivileged minority group is expected of you. Thus far, you have only preserved your status as another woke, loving, liberal. My challenge to other liberals is to be tolerant and loving of something that comes at the sacrifice of your ego: to love a conservative. It’s not hard to observe the villainization of conservatives in liberal culture. Conservatives, specifically the image of the privileged, greedy, bigoted conservatives that we tend to make all conservatives out to be, have become the socially acceptable outlet for liberal hatred. The only form of hatred and intolerance that remains in accord with our egos is a hatred that fills us with righteousness, pride, and a sense of superiority. It serves as an emotional validation where our views lack logical soundness. I have taken part in this hatred. Had I ever been confronted about my resentment, I can imagine what I may have said in response: The fight for tolerance surely involves making bigotry socially unacceptable. So, why should I be tolerant of the intolerant? Why should I love the hateful? My answer to this brings me to the most contentious point that I have to make: I do not believe that the fundamental policies and ideology of the conservative movement are inherently intolerant or oppressive, as most liberals would assert.

Are there intolerant conservatives? Of course there are. There is no doubt about that. However, it is a simple genetic fallacy to state that because there are intolerant conservatives who hold views grounded in their intolerance, that the common traits of conservative thought cannot be argued for on their merits. There are, for example, perfectly valid arguments to be made for the pro-life movement that are not grounded in misogyny, as there are arguments for border security that are not grounded in xenophobia. There are arguments to be made against affirmative action that are not grounded in racism, and arguments to be made against welfare, Medicare for All, and other government-sponsored social programs that are not grounded in greed. The purpose of this article is not to present and defend these arguments (especially considering that I still align with the left on most of these issues). But when we reduce conservatives’ arguments to their weakest, straw man forms, we not only fail to engage in a proper political discourse, we fail to have integrity in our own beliefs. Dismissing conservative arguments in this way is not only easier for us; it's a laziness that puts progress in danger.

Where this becomes far more problematic, even upsetting, is where it manifests itself in the policies and practices of the Democratic Party. I find that the most shameful display of hypocrisy within the party I vote for is the consistent assertion by Democratic politicians that they act as the champions of poverty in America. Meanwhile, the policies, rhetoric, and attention of Democratic politicians regarding issues of poverty hold an extreme bias towards issues of urban black poverty, ignoring the issue of rural white poverty that occurs at a higher rate. The first time I heard this critique of my party, I jumped to defensiveness, I scrambled for weak explanations and baseless denials. Now, no longer holding the romantic view of the infallible Democratic Party that I once did, it seems rather obvious: Democratic politicians are politicians. Their careers are not built on doing what is right or, in this case, even what matches the ideology they preach. Their careers are built on votes. Not only are rural white Americans absent from the Democratic Party’s voting base, they are also the image of social conservatives that liberals love to hate.

My challenge to other liberals is to take on the uncomfortable task of distinguishing tolerance and acceptance as a trait of the ego from tolerance and acceptance as a genuine practice, and then bridge the gap. My friendships with conservatives have forced me to think critically about my views and exposed me to the merits of conservative thought. When you only allow yourself to believe in straw man conservative arguments, you sacrifice the integrity of your political views for a comforting validation of your own worldview. What’s worse is the byproduct of hatred towards conservatives that inevitably results. This culture of hatred continues to leave a stain on the left, an embarrassing display of hypocrisy that weakens our intellectual validity. We have much to gain from shifting this culture. Strategically, the Democratic Party stands to gain support from moderates who are fatigued by the unnecessary divisiveness of leftist rhetoric. Far more important than votes and election wins for the left, however, is the creation of a less hostile and more unified political climate, one where we commit ourselves to engage respectively with conservative thought, and–in doing so–commit ourselves to progress.

Heather Mac Donald's Talk Wasn't Perfect, But It Wasn't Racist Either

A few weeks ago, The Fenwick Review hosted Heather Mac Donald, a conservative author and fellow at the Manhattan Institute, for a talk on her latest book, The Diversity Delusion: How Race and Gender Pandering Corrupt the University and Undermine Our Culture. The talk sparked a considerable amount of controversy, prompting many to ask why the Review brought in Mac Donald, what we were hoping to accomplish, and what how we as a publication responded to the talk. This article is an attempt to answer those questions, while also reflecting on the broader implications of Mac Donald’s visit—and the community’s reaction. 

Before we get into the talk itself, we want to make a few things clear. First, although The Fenwick Review sponsored Mac Donald’s talk, our invitation does not reflect an endorsement of everything Mac Donald believes (or how she expresses those beliefs). We invited Mac Donald to campus because we hoped that she could spark a productive conversation about the value of diversity, a buzzword that is becoming increasingly prevalent on college campuses. Given that Mac Donald holds degrees from Yale, Stanford, and Cambridge; is a New York Times bestselling author; and is a respected intellectual, we felt like she could make a valuable contribution to a crucial conversation. 

As for the talk itself—we cannot speak on behalf of the publication anymore, but personally, we were not thrilled, and we know we are not alone. Her argument, which she lays out so effectively in her book, was presented in a way that was dry, devoid of most of the statistical evidence that she presents in The Diversity Delusion, and at times even somewhat condescending. To be fair, Mac Donald was fighting a losing battle: half the audience members were on their phones (with their ringers on), and then proceeded to walk out as part of a pre-scheduled protest. Still, Mac Donald kept talking, and her response to the protesters—she urged them to have faith in their own arguments, and to stay and debate her—was commendable. She also made several valuable points throughout the talk, although undeniably faltered during the Q&A, especially when she butchered a question about sexual assault.

So what, exactly, was the argument that Mac Donald was trying to make?

First, we want to make clear what Mac Donald was not saying. She was not saying that minorities do not deserve to go to elite colleges. She was not saying that minorities are not welcome on campus. She was not saying that racism is fake, that people’s oppression is an illusion, or that minorities should not—or are not—welcome on campus.

Here is an oversimplified version of perhaps the most controversial component of Mac Donald’s argument:

Policies like affirmative action stem from the desire to compensate for disparities in opportunity that disproportionally affect minorities. The thought process is that kids from underserved public schools have not had the same educational opportunities as their peers are more privileged, so colleges need to lower their standards when it comes to admitting students from less privileged backgrounds.

This isn’t anything most sane people will deny. Mac Donald herself does not contest the fact that plenty of students, particularly minority students, are at a serious disadvantage when it comes to applying for college, thanks to increasingly segregated school systems. But according to Mac Donald, these policies actually hurt minority students by pushing them into an academic atmosphere they aren’t prepared for.

Before you accuse Mac Donald of racism, just listen. Schools set certain standards for admissions, not to be jerks, but because they want to accept students who can be academically successful at their institutions. Test scores and high school grades can be an indicator of how much one has learned, or how prepared one is for college. Unfortunately, all the data seems to indicate that minority and low-income students do poorer on standardized testing, because of educational inequalities: they simply don’t have the same resources or means of preparing for college as their white peers. In other words, lower SAT scores do not mean that minority students are less intelligent or less worthy of a good education. But if a student has been deprived of updated text books or subjected to overcrowded classrooms led by underpaid teachers, and if this deprivation is reflected in grades and test scores, then how can we reasonably expect these students to be successful when they have to compete against peers who have faced none of the same handicaps? 

Mac Donald’s argument needs to be at least seriously evaluated by all who claim to have the best interest of minority students at heart. It is not the seething, racist rant that some seem to think it was.

Admittedly, aspects of Mac Donald’s talk were unnecessarily inflammatory. She gave a heinous answer, for example, to a question about sexual assault. Still, we would argue that her talk did not merit the absolute pandemonium that it triggered. We have been to plenty of bad—and frankly offensive—Rehm talks in my time here at Holy Cross, and we can’t recall any getting this kind of reaction.

So then what was all the chaos about? Why did hundreds of students walk out? Why have we spent weeks trying to “put out fires”? Why are we getting emails from the Chaplain’s Office (who have no reason to be involved in this) offering to facilitate “conflict mediation” before the talk even happens? Why did we have to do a walk-through with Public Safety in advance? Why does everybody seem to think that Heather Mac Donald is a threat to our campus?

It isn’t because she’s physically imposing (she was one of the most physically non-threatening people we’ve ever met), or because she was brainwashing Holy Cross students to become neo-Nazis (she was not). No—Heather Mac Donald is dangerous because she challenges the dominant progressive narrative. She represents a threat, not to students of color, but to the various deans, directors, and other administrators whose jobs depend on the narrative that Holy Cross, and the typical college campus, is a cesspool of racism and intolerance. And yet the only real intolerance that Mac Donald’s talk exposed was the intolerance of progressives, who couldn’t stand the idea of a conservative scholar getting a platform on campus.

See, the protests at Holy Cross are not an isolated incident. They are part of a larger trend on college campuses where conservative speakers are consistently protested, threatened, heckled, and attacked, and usually called some kind of nasty name. When people first accused Mac Donald of being racist, we disagreed with them, but understood why they might make that accusation. After all, the woman does spend a large chunk of time fighting society’s obsession with diversity. But it turns out that just about every conservative speaker, regardless of whether they talk about race, is derided as racist. Oh, and Mac Donald didn’t actually make a racist argument. As a result, we began to wonder if most of the ire directed at Mac Donald was really due to the fact that she was a conservative intellectual, and these days, there’s nothing more dangerous or offensive than intellectual conservatism.

That’s because, whether we admit it or not, there’s a sort of “Progressive Orthodoxy” that dominates much of society, and in particular, college campuses. Anyone who is even remotely heterodox—anyone who questions dominant thinking about diversity, gender, sexuality, Trump, abortion, or any other controversial issue—is immediately black-listed, canceled, cast out, and called a bigot, a racist, or a neo-Nazi. Not only does this trivialize the evil of actual racism and Nazism, it stifles free speech, cripples society, and undermines any attempt at civil discourse. Instead of intelligently engaging with Heather Mac Donald’s ideas, Holy Cross students, faculty, and staff resorted to ad hominem attacks, genetic fallacies, and straw-manning to deride, mock, and slander. The fact of the matter is that I didn’t agree with everything Heather Mac Donald said either, but we wanted to have a conversation about it. Not a walk-out.

The moral of the story? We have to stop silencing conservatives, labeling heterodoxy as racism, and using “tolerance” as a weapon to bludgeon the supposedly intolerant into silence. If we want to even pretend that we, as a campus, can approach complex and emotionally challenging issues with any level of maturity and open-mindedness, then we cannot get carried away with petty name-calling, character assassination, and cancel culture. (Both sides are guilty of this.)

One final note. White supremacists have a long history of ruthlessly persecuting people of color. But let’s not forget that they also have a history of vicious anti-Semitism and, to a lesser degree, anti-Catholicism. Groups like the KKK hate Jews and Catholics. Now that’s not to say that there aren’t Jews or Catholics who sympathize with neo-Nazis or white supremacists, but it does mean that people should probably think twice before accusing an Orthodox Jew like Ben Shapiro, or an avowedly Catholic publication like The Fenwick Review, of being in league with the very white supremacists who hate us.

Just a thought.

An Analysis of President Trump's Syria Policy

In early October, President Trump made what seemed to most an abrupt decision to withdraw 50 U.S. troops from northern Syria. About 1,000 United States soldiers had been in the area since 2014 fighting against ISIS with the help of the Kurds, who ran terrorist detention centers with the backing of U.S. troops. The prisons held over 10,000 men, and the Kurds also operated camps holding about 70,000 family members displaced by the conflicts. The Kurds served as staunch U.S. allies in containing the terrorists, and the presence of U.S. troops proved beneficial to the Kurds’ safety.

The Kurds are the largest ethnic group in the world lacking their own state. They primarily reside in southeastern Turkey, northwestern Iran, northern Iraq, and northern Syria. Turkey, bordering where many of the Kurds reside, perceive them as an enemy and even label them as “terrorists.”  Despite the animosity between Turkey and the Kurds, the United States allied with the Kurds to fight extremists, even though Turkey is a fellow NATO member. The U.S. presence in Syria prevented the Turks from entering Syria for quite some time. Balancing relations between the two groups has been quite difficult. A few months ago, the United States persuaded the Syrian Kurds to get rid of defenses and soldiers on Turkey’s border in order to appease the Turks.

Turkey hosts about 3.5 million Syrian refugees who fled there around 2013 as a result of the Syrian Civil War. After a call with President Erdogan of Turkey, President Trump called for the withdrawal of troops from the region, claiming that he was fulfilling his campaign promise to end what he perceived to be endless wars. This reasoning, however, is questionable since the troops did not come back to the United States; rather, they were moved to Iraq. The war was not ended––it was simply moved. 

Erdogan was being pressured to solve the refugee crisis, so he decided the best way to solve it was to create a safe zone. He resolved to create a 20-mile safe zone to which the refugees could start returning. This safe zone was to be established in the area that the Kurds occupied, so once President Trump declared that the U.S. would leave the area, they were left in a very vulnerable position––especially after they had been convinced by U.S. to essentially disarm the border. The Kurds felt blindsided by U.S. abandonment and feared for their lives. Vice President Mike Pence was able to negotiate a five-day cease-fire with Erdogan for the Kurds to retreat. Over 150,000 had to flee their homes, and it is estimated that hundreds have died. As a result of the sudden threat to their lives, the Kurds had no choice but to abandon the Islamic State prisons they had been guarding.

President Trump faced fierce bipartisan criticism following his decision to withdraw from the region, with some accusing him of enabling genocide by allowing Turkish military action. About 100 detainees are estimated to have escaped by now––a result that seems averse to ending a war. After all, Al Qaeda prisoners who escaped Iraqi prisons created ISIS. The escaped prisoners in Syria could face a similar outcome if history repeats itself. Trump made sure to take the worst of the detainees out of the prisons in order to ensure they would not escape. This action seems to show that he anticipated prisoners would be able to escape following U.S. withdrawal, which begs the question of why he would do something that could result in such dangerous consequences.

The only possible reason I can think of for why he would betray the Kurds and tarnish the U.S.’s reputation––for being reliable to its allies, that is––is that President Trump was trying to get into President Erdogan’s good graces. Regardless, it’s unfavorable for any president to follow actions that will knowingly permit terrorists to escape from Syrian prisons. And after long-held support and alliance with the Kurds, abandoning our allies in a time of need certainly reflects poorly on our nation as well as on our alliances going forward. The United States left the region knowing that there would be serious repercussions against the Kurds. This seriously undermines our legitimacy as an international force.

This less active role in foreign affairs does not coincide with Trump’s typical active role in the world. By sitting back and simply letting things occur, Trump is not staying consistent with his generally hawkish foreign policy approach. There are two primary approaches to international relations. One is active and plays a diligent role in affairs––which is what the United States typically does––and the other basically lets things happen passively and acts accordingly. President Trump claims that being thousands of miles away from the occurrences prevents the U.S. from being primarily responsible for some of the fallout from the withdrawal. However, this line of thought conflicts with the United States’ common approach, and being far away from the origins and planning of terrorist groups has never stopped the U.S. from acting before. Trump taking an inactive role is inconsistent with the attitude the United States takes and with much of his own foreign policy approach. By taking an inactive role, the U.S. also risks the Kurds allying with unfavorable people such as the Russians and the Assad regime.

Withdrawing from Syria of all places also seems quite sudden. The Kurds have consistently and adequately helped the United States in fighting the Islamic States, and to turn against a reliable ally seems unwise. And to withdraw from what was one of the better-functioning and less aggressive areas containing Islamic terrorism can hardly be looked at as fulfilling a campaign promise; I doubt this is what anyone had in mind. 

There must be some incentive for President Trump to side with Turkey, who seems like an otherwise risky ally. President Erdogan is unpredictable and is not someone who can be trusted. Last January, after his first official meeting with President Trump, Erdogan returned to the Turkish ambassador’s residence in D.C. People were protesting Erdogan and his regime, so he ordered his guards to attack them––on U.S. soil, nonetheless. This does not seem like something a friend of the United States would do. President Trump failed to acknowledge the incident, taking what was an unusual silent stance for him. There must be some reason why he is careful not to upset Erdogan. Perhaps it has something to do with trade, as Turkey and the United States are consistent trading partners.

Nevertheless, abandoning one ally for the sake of appeasing another seems to be poor foreign policy on President Trump’s part. Siding with those who act hostile and adverse to the United States and its values reflects poorly upon the U.S. Abandoning the Kurds, who have been reliable U.S. allies for a regime that remains obstinate, further undermines the U.S. as a trustworthy global power. Jeopardizing America’s reputation among allies is a dangerous move and may prove to be a mistake. To cause something like this to happen, Erdogan must have something that President Trump wants; otherwise, it seems completely nonsensical to make such a large statement by deserting an area that required little attention.

Taking a Side in the Abortion Debate

There's a good chance that a majority of people won't run into many truly controversial subjects while in college, but those who do will find that they should be taken seriously. One must acknowledge the weight of opposing statements relating to the question of abortion: “There is an overwhelming number of people in the United States who actively support murder,” and “there is a large percentage of people in the United States who are trying to repeal women’s rights.” These statements are scary, as well as overly generalized, and that is precisely why they are so compelling. There is a good chance that you strongly agree or disagree with one of these statements. Most importantly, everyone should take a stand and support a side.

Here’s a helpful exercise: think of a controversial topic you support. Then, imagine what would happen if you were wrong. Think of the consequences of what you are supporting. If the first thing that you think is “well, I’m not wrong,” then you’re failing this exercise. Try to ignore any biases and think of a convincing argument for both sides. If this task is as hard for you as it was for me, then there is a good chance you actually are wrong – not necessarily in your conclusion, but at least in the process leading up to it or perhaps some of the key facts. College is the gateway between our childhood and adult life, and while we may have held opinions on these matters in our childhood, there is a strong chance our opinions were underdeveloped and rooted in what we heard rather than what we sincerely believed. Unfortunately, these topics and the way we think about them come with high stakes.

Whether or not abortion should be legal is a highly controversial subject accompanied by lots of moral implications. On one side are pro-choice advocates, with the argument that taking away the right to abortion is taking away the rights women have over their own bodies. On the other side are pro-life advocates, who argue that abortion is the taking of another human’s life. Of course these are just the simplest variations of each side’s argument, and there are certainly some who may not entirely agree with those points, but still defer to one side. The competing subjects at hand are the suppression of rights and the legalization of murder, and we as a society cannot afford to risk making the wrong decision.

It’s becoming more and more common to see someone say something uninformed online or in public, and then get aggressively confronted by the opposing side. This attack helps no one. First off, the aggression causes resentment, which in turn causes stubbornness. Second, it may inspire some bystanders to take a side without truly understanding the complexity of the problem. This sort of attack has the potential to spiral into a vicious loop of both sides looking uninformed, while neither side of the issue is accurately or fairly represented.

We as humans should take a side on the abortion debate because no matter how you look at it, human rights are being violated. It is vitally important that the side of the argument that is correct comes out on top. Sometimes the only reason we are clinging to one side or the other, without real knowledge of the problem, is because someone told us to do so. We have plenty of outside influences and role models, but they don’t always have our or any other human’s best interests at heart. It is our obligation to take as many resources as possible and look at the issue in as many ways as possible. Philosopher René Descartes begins his famous meditations with removing every fact or stance that he has any reason to doubt, then building up to conclusions. We don’t need to do this to the same extreme as Descartes, as he has already proven the existence of humans, but this approach allows us to step back and see the larger picture. We live in the golden age of information. We have access to countless pieces of information available through the Internet, along with countless bits of fabricated and illogical statements masquerading as truth. If you have any reason to doubt something you hear or previously thought, there is no reason not to do something about it. Reflect on it, look it up online, utilize a library. This process will ensure that you are as confident in your position as possible.

You also might be someone who has no opinion either way on the abortion debate; unfortunately, this is probably the worst position one can take. Participation in this debate should be treated similarly to voting, as a civic duty. A society should strive to better itself at all times, and each member’s civic duty is to participate in that very advancement. The abortion debate is directly tied to our Constitution, which states the rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. Dialogue is needed on a college campus, and if we follow the culture of avoiding the discussion of abortion, then nothing changes. This suppression of the topic does not cause any minds to change. On the contrary, opinions will fester, and only hate will result.