Coronavirus: The Myths, The Truth, The Data

Coronavirus cases have continued to increase in the United States. The data, however, shows that the mainstream media's narrative that states--particularly red states--are reopening too quickly, and that the United States’s case numbers prove the extreme danger of the virus, is false. Let’s look at the top five states to break down the progression and current state of coronavirus in the U.S.

The five states with the highest total number of cases are New York, California, Texas, Florida, and New Jersey. Three states have Democrat governors (NY, CA, NJ) and two have Republican governors (TX, FL). New York, California, and New Jersey have had mask mandates since before this midsummer surge. Even with a strict lockdown and slow reopening plan, New York has remained the state with the most total cases (Figure 1) and the most total deaths (Figure 2). Similarly, California has had a strict lockdown and has the second highest total number of cases. However, California’s death rate is significantly lower, even though their population is much larger than New York and New Jersey. New Jersey, on the other hand, has the second highest number of deaths, even though they only have the fifth highest number of cases. Although they have had strict lock-down orders, all three blue states have had a significant number of cases. New York and New Jersey have likely not seen this same spike due to developing a form of herd immunity. Although the lack of significant increases gives the perception of having the virus under control, their governors caused thousands of deaths through their horrendous decision making, particularly among the elederly population. California, on the other hand, continues to see spikes in cases but has been able to keep their death rate low. These numbers show that strict lockdown orders and mask mandates are not the determining factors of how fast the virus spreads and how to protect the lives of one’s state.

Texas and Florida have been very different. Considering their populations and looser guidelines, they kept their case numbers low, and more importantly, their number of deaths low, when compared to other states. As of July 13, 23 states had more deaths per million than Florida and 35 states had more deaths per million than Texas. Even though their total cases still have not matched the smaller state of New York, there has been a recent spike in cases in these states. People argue this is due to opening up too early. However, there are many other factors that explain why these numbers are going up and which specific numbers are significant.

• Number of tests. The United States testing has gone up significantly. As of March 23, the United States had completed 238,632 tests. Up until May 18, the United States had completed 11,499,203 tests. As of July 13, the United States now boasts 43,238513 tests. The increased amount of testing drives the numbers up. During the beginning of the pandemic, people were only getting tested if they had significant symptoms; now, states are offering testing to everyone, including asymptomatic individuals. 

• Number of deaths. Because there has been a spike in cases, there will inevitably be a slight increase in deaths, but these increases have been nowhere near the significant increase in cases. In the states with recent spikes, California, Texas, and Florida, it is important to look at the deaths per million population (Figure 3). Even though these three states have had an increase in cases, the number of deaths has remained low. This could be due to the age of those testing positive.  Responsible leadership isn’t just about stopping the virus; it’s also about protecting at-risk demographics and preventing people from dying. Low death rates, even in states with higher infection numbers, show that governors are doing their jobs. 

• Age of those with illness. The governors of New York and New Jersey both passed executive orders that forced nursing homes to admit people with COVID. Governor Desantis of Florida, on the other hand, immediately protected the elderly population. He still has designated separate COVID nursing homes to the elderly residents with COVID  so that all other nursing homes can remain safe. Since this spike, up to 50% of new cases are people under the age of 35. The severity for young people is much lower, and Dr. Birx explained that this age group was particularly encouraged to stay home in the past but now are being encouraged to go get tested. Between the highly congested protests, the reopening of bars, and the increased number of parties being thrown, young people have been exposing themselves much more in the recent weeks.

 “Flattening the curve” meant lowering the case and death count so the health care system did not get overwhelmed. Now that cases are going up, hospitalizations and deaths due to COVID have naturally seen a slight increase but not a significant one. This further proves that the immunocompromised and elderly populations must continue to be protected, but keeping the country closed for young, healthy individuals will lead to a continued increase in abuse, mental health issues, and suicide. Flattening the curve for these at risk populations is key, but it’s not necessarily as important for the young population. Being safe and smart is important to protect others, but the narrative that blames reopening efforts is a false attempt to make COVID-19 a political issue during an election year. Rather, we must confront the facts to see what is effective for the American people’s safety and liberty.

Figure 1. The total number of cases of the top five states biweekly from March 23 to July 13.

Figure 2. The total number of deaths of the five highest case states biweekly from March 23 to July 13.

Figure 3. The deaths per million of the top five states with the largest number of total cases as of July 13.

A Summer of Smashing Statues

In the wake of ongoing protests and riots sparked by the murder of George Floyd, numerous statues and monuments around the country have been targets of vandalism and destruction.

Understandably, most of the controversy has centered around the figures of various Confederate leaders. In Richmond, VA, two statues depicting Jefferson Davis, president of the CSA, and Williams Carter Wickham, a Confederate General, were torn down in early June. In Montgomery, Alabama, a statue of Robert E. Lee, found at a high school of the same name, was toppled. Countless more Confederate statues were destroyed or defaced across the South.

Let’s be very clear: these statues should not adorn our public spaces. They glorify traitors who died to defend the evil practice of slavery. However, their removal should not be at the whim of the mob. Local governments, not angry mobs, need to spearhead the process of removing statues. 

Cities across the country have already taken action. On June 9th, Mayor Lenny Curry (R) of Jacksonville Florida, referenced his decision to remove a prominent Confederate statue and promised that, “…the other [Confederate Memorials] in this city, will be removed as well.” Just a few days earlier, on June 5th, Mayor Sandy Stimpson (R) of Mobile, Alabama released a tweet acknowledging his order to move a statue of Confederate Admiral Raphael Semmes from a prominent intersection. 

But, the question of which statutes must be torn down is not as easy as: “If it’s Confederate, let’s tear it down.” These decisions must be made with a certain level of discretion. Monuments that celebrate pro-slavery traitors should be removed from America’s municipal buildings, parks, and schools. But take, for example, the State of Virginia Monument on the battlefields of Gettysburg, topped with an equestrian statue of Robert E. Lee. Here his statue serves as a historical reminder of the man who played a critical role in the battle, for better or for worse, not as a monument glorifying him in the public square. Such statues must be preserved to maintain the history of our nation, lest we forget the bloody battles of the Civil War and the men who fought in them. The context is important.

Further proving the necessity of governmental discretion, the mob’s attacks on statues have broadened beyond Confederate memorials and now target those depicting U.S. presidents, soldiers, and even Saints. A statue of Thomas Jefferson was toppled outside a high school in Portland, OR. In the same city a statue of George Washington was torn down, while another in Chicago’s Washington Park was vandalized. The American Museum of Natural History removed its famous bronze statue of Theodore Roosevelt. In San Francisco’s Golden Gate Park, a statue of Ulysses S. Grant was torn down, along with statues of St. Junipero Serra and Francis Scott Key. On July 4th, a statue of Frederick Douglass was destroyed in Albany, NY. The Tomb of the Unknown Soldier of the American Revolution, found in Philadelphia, was covered in spray paint, and the Robert Gould Shaw and the 54th Regiment Memorial in Boston Common was defaced, as was a statue of Abigail Adams. These are just the most prominent examples. Such men and women have made invaluable contributions to the development of our nation and, through statuary, we rightly celebrate their accomplishments, though not deifying them or denying their (sometimes many) failings. 

Though perhaps the most saddening example of this wave of destruction were the attempts to tear down the Emancipation Monument in Lincoln Park, Washington D.C. - a statue paid for by former slaves to memorialize the titular proclamation. Marcia Cole, a reenactor of Charlotte Scott, the first to contribute to the statue’s building, in an interview said, “If you look at the figure, it’s easy to say he’s on his knees, but,” she continues, “if you look closer, you will see that this man is rising. His chains are broken. His back is not bent... His eyes are looking forward. He's looking forward to a future of freedom.”

History is messy, as is art. Neither lends itself to easy, black and white answers, but rather, a scope of varying interpretations. One historian might read a figure favorably, and another unfavorably, just as someone might view the Emancipation Monument as the ascendance of former slaves, or as the glorification of a “white savior.” This gray zone necessitates the discretion of local governments, along with public dialogue and discernment. An ideologically possessed mob, in its rage, disregards the nuance, complexity, and depth surrounding the role and validity of these statues.

A Summer of SCOTUS

Over the last several weeks, the United States Supreme Court has ruled on a number of controversial and high-profile cases. These rulings, and the precedents they establish, have a number of important implications. Here’s a brief overview (and the Review’s analysis) of some of the most important SCOTUS developments of the summer:

Espinoza v. Montana Department of Revenue: 

Background: In 2015, Montana started a school choice program that gave tax-credits to entities that donated money to private, non-profit scholarship organizations. Parents, including the plaintiff, Kendra Espinoza, were subsequently barred from using these scholarships at religiously affiliated schools because of the state’s so-called “Blaine Amendment,” which prohibits “direct or indirect” funding of religiously affiliated educational institutions by the state. 

Outcome: In a 5-4 decision, the Court ruled in favor of Espinoza. They argued that it was discrimination to exclude religious schools from a tax-credit program simply because the school is religiously affiliated. 

Analysis: The outcome was hailed as a major victory by religious organizations and school choice advocates. Citing the anti-Catholic history of Blaine Amendments, these groups argued that the outcome would both protect religious liberty and educational freedom. 

Little Sisters of the Poor Saints Peter and Paul Home v. Pennsylvania:

Background: An amendment to the Affordable Care Act stipulated that employer-based insurance policies had to provide coverage for contraception. The Little Sisters of the Poor, Catholic religious sisters who operate nursing homes for the elderly poor, argued that the contraceptive mandate violated their Catholic religious beliefs. In 2017, the Trump administration gave the Sisters an exemption from the mandate, but several states, including Pennsylvania and New Jersey filed lawsuits, claiming the exemption was unconstitutional. 

Outcome: The Court ruled 7-2 in favor of the Little Sisters. They argued that the Departments of Health and Human Services, Labor, and the Treasury do have the authority to create religious and moral exemptions under the ACA.

Analysis: While this was another victory for religious freedom, it might not be the end of trouble for the Little Sisters—who have been in and out of court for almost a decade, fighting the contraceptive mandate—because the Court’s ruling was relatively narrow. The Court argued that, while the HHS and other bureaucratic agencies can grant exemptions, those exemptions could be repealed by subsequent administrations. Justice Alito argued that the Court should have gone further, applying the Religious Freedom Restoration Act to mandate exemptions, not just permit them. 

June Medical Services LLC v. Russo:

Background: Louisiana passed a law in 2014 which mandated that abortion providers have admitting privileges at a local hospital (i.e., within thirty miles) in case serious medical complications arise during an abortion.

Outcome: The Court issued a plurality opinion in favor of June Medical services, arguing that the Louisiana law was essentially the same as a Texas law that had been previously struck down.

Analysis: The Court’s decision came as a disappointing surprise for many pro-life advocates. One of the biggest questions raised by dissenting Justices remains unanswered— whether doctors and abortion providers have the legal standing required to bring abortion cases. Laws that regulate abortion are often challenged on the grounds that they limit a woman’s right to have an abortion, not on the grounds that doctors somehow have a right to perform abortions. Yet in many cases,including June,doctors and abortion providers,not women who were unable to get abortions, were the plaintiffs. Because the legal question at hand has nothing to do with doctors’ rights, conservative justices argue that there was no legal standing for the case to be brought up.

Bostock v. Clayton County:

Background: In 2016, Gerald Bostock sued his former employer, Clayton County in Georgia, for firing him because of his sexual orientation. He argued that his firing was a violation of the 1964 Civil Rights Act, which prohibits discrimination based on sex. The question at hand was whether the language of sex includes sexual orientation. 

Outcome: In a 6-3 decision for Bostock, the Court ruled that the language of the 1964 Civil Rights Act does make sexuality a protected class. This would make it illegal to fire an individual for their sexual orientation.

Analysis: Many hailed the case’s outcome as a win for LGBT rights. The most fascinating part about the ruling was Justice Gorsuch’s vote. Considered a stalwart originalist and conservative, Gorsuch voted in the majority and authored the opinion. He argued that, because a woman would not get fired for dating or marrying a man, a man can not get fired for dating or marrying a man—otherwise, it would constitute discrimination on the basis of sex. This raised some eyebrows in originalist circles, because it’s highly dubious that this was the original intention of the 1964 Civil Rights Act. Furthermore, because Congress has not defined sexuality as a protected class, despite having a number of chances to do so, some argue that the Court’s decision took the form of activist legalism.

Letter from the Editors: May 2020

Dear Reader,

Thank you for taking the time to read this edition of The Fenwick Review. We hope that you and your families are doing well, and staying both healthy and sane.

Almost every Letter from the Editors this year referenced the fact that we live in crazy and exciting times. In retrospect, those comments seem funny—even though we anticipated that this would be a wild and surprising year, we never could have imagined that our final issue would be written from quarantine, in the middle of a global pandemic. But that’s just how it goes.

We hope that you enjoy this issue. We have a number of exciting articles, including a review of President Trump’s handling of coronavirus, a discussion of the Easter bombings that took place last year in Sri Lanka, and an explanation of why Catholics use male pronouns for God. We also have a full-length version of an article that was partially published in The Spire, and a reflection on Holy Cross’s identity.

One article in this edition might catch your eye, or at least, raise some eyebrows—Mr. Poellinger’s defense of monarchies. As a publication, we proudly support democratic ideals and the traditional American way of life. At the same time, one of the advantages of living in a free, democratic society is that people, if they feel compelled, can make the case for other forms of government. It is then, perhaps somewhat ironically, that we publish Mr. Poellinger’s article on monarchy precisely because of our democratic ideals and appreciation for our American liberties.

Finally, this edition is the last for both our editor-in-chief, Seamus Brennan, and our editor emeritus, Michael Raheb. They are both graduating this spring, along with several of our staff writers: James Dooley and Justin Lombardi.

Thank you for your support.

Seamus Brennan ’20 & Jack Rosenwinkel ’21

Co-Editors-in-Chief

A Bold Undertaking

Efforts to found the College of the Holy Cross nearly two centuries ago were far from easy. Hurdled by political pushback and widespread anti-Catholic sentiment, Bishop Benedict Joseph Fenwick – the eventual founder of the College in whose honor this publication is named – was fighting a grimly uphill battle. Because Protestant leaders blocked his plan to establish a Catholic college in Boston, Bishop Fenwick was forced to move westward to Worcester. “Will not this be a bold undertaking?” he wrote as the project finally began to take shape. “Nevertheless I will try it. It will stand on a beautiful eminence & will command the view of the whole town of Worcester.”

The founding of the College of the Holy Cross represents an inspiring commitment to the timeless truths of the Catholic Church and a staunch resistance to the social and religious norms pervading nineteenth century New England: rather than caving to cultural pressures, tiptoeing away from ties to the Church, or forfeiting his own integrity for reasons of cultural or fiscal expediency, Bishop Fenwick stood firm in his ambition and held tight to his values. He was, fittingly, a crusader in the truest sense of the word. Situated atop the soaring Mount Saint James, the College of the Holy Cross symbolized a daring defiance against the prejudices of the surrounding region and wielded a resilient pride in its Catholic roots. Upon its founding, the College was truly, both in its physical placement and in its proud radiance of its Catholic heritage, a shining city on a hill.

Although the campus founded by Bishop Fenwick in 1843 still sits atop that same hill all these years later, the mountain of boldness on which it once stood has been almost entirely dislodged. No longer does the College of the Holy Cross stand as a beacon of resilience or as a radiant espousal of Catholic ideals. Instead of furthering its legacy of going against the societal grain and adhering to the truth rather than complying with the times, the College has become a mere absorber of the ideas and attitudes that surround it. Like far too many other religious and even nonreligious institutions, Holy Cross has sacrificed its institutional integrity and countercultural grit on the altar of secularization, fueled by a misplaced desire for acceptance from the masses.

Of course, no one can blame administrators for seeking to bolster the College’s national reputation beyond northeastern Catholic circles. But doing so should never have come at the cost of its Catholic standing. In attempting to broaden its appeal to a national secular audience, the College has stripped itself of its distinctiveness, and in doing so has reduced itself to just another alternative to the plethora of liberal arts colleges struggling to find ways to stand out. When Catholic education is deprived of Catholicism, it neglects to offer anything that secular education cannot.

Unfortunately, the style of “Catholicism” brandished by Holy Cross in recent decades can hardly be considered dependably “Catholic” at all. It merely reflects the progressive social activist ethos prevalent elsewhere in secular American society, permeated by contemporary sociopolitical norms and almost utterly devoid of the universal truths that serve as a foundation for the faith. Holy Cross in 2020 represents a neutered, wishy-washy Catholicism that elevates so-called “Jesuit” and “Ignatian” “values” over the more decisive Catholic ones — which it has achieved by extracting from the faith only what is culturally acceptable and throwing everything else by the wayside.

Examples of the College’s feeble approach to its faith are not difficult to find. Many student tour guides are outwardly ashamed of St. Joseph Memorial Chapel and the religious statues scattered across campus when speaking with prospective students. Some of the main functions of the Chaplains Office include holding “Ignatian Yoga” (or really “Ignatian” anything) retreats and obnoxiously pandering to special interest groups in ways that do not in any way align with Catholic Church teaching. The chaplains’ version of St. Ignatius’s Spiritual Exercises attempts to parallel Christ’s Passion with something as comparably insignificant as climate change, and presents the Stations of the Cross not via Scripture but through written accounts of refugees. In the two years the Chaplains Office office has been preoccupied with producing climate strike and DACA stickers and hanging rainbow flags anywhere it can, it has also cut the number of on-campus Catholic Masses in half.

Meanwhile, the College’s Religious Studies department directs almost more attention to Islam, Judaism, and other faiths than it does to Catholicism, and even the Catholic-centric offerings that remain have been largely taken over by liberation theology and “sexual justice” courses. The current administration has shown itself time and time again to timidly succumb to angry segments of students with lists of “demands,” leaving the impression that the inmates are running the asylum. Even our own Bishop has been effectively ousted from campus for professing the supposedly bizarre notion men are men and women are women. The on-campus diversity bureaucracy seemingly multiplies by the semester, leaving less and less room for Catholic thought or influence in important campus decisions.

Holy Cross is in crisis. It has allowed itself to be defined by its surroundings rather than even attempting to define itself. Its Catholic roots are seen as impediments rather than as unique and much-needed assets. At this point in time, other than its name and the Catholic symbols visible on campus, the College is essentially indistinguishable from the hundreds of other colleges across the country, many of which are in a similarly desperate search for an identity.

Of course, none of this is to say that there is no room for institutional evolution and growth: the small, all-male campus that existed on Mount Saint James in centuries past needed to take many of the steps it has to grow and succeed today. But by surrendering the philosophy of its founding and conceding its once dearly held values to the whims of an ever-changing society, the College has ceased to be the shining city on a hill it once was. Though it may still command the physical view of the city of Worcester as Bishop Fenwick predicted, the world no longer sees an institution of strength, of faith, or of willpower on that hill. It only sees a reflection of itself, albeit with a disingenuous “Ignatian” slant. Until Holy Cross can reassess its value as an institution and embrace Bishop Fenwick’s spirit of determination – even at the risk of unpopularity – it will never again be anything more than a small liberal arts college on top of a hill with nice-looking buildings in central Massachusetts.

Luckily for Holy Cross, it’s far from too late. At some point, perhaps even in the near future, the College will need to finally make a decision it seems to have been avoiding for so long. Going forward, will the College of the Holy Cross choose to embrace its Catholic history and operate as an authentically Catholic institution? Or will it continue bowing down to what it thinks is trendy and leave its Catholicism behind for good? We can’t keep trying to be everything to everyone. At some point, a decision has to be made: are we Catholic? Or will we allow the surrounding world to tell us who we are?

Restoring authentic Catholicism at Holy Cross should be nothing burdensome or out of reach. Summarizing Pope John Paul II’s Ex Corde Ecclesiae, Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester told The Fenwick Review last fall that “a university cannot be a university without academic freedom, but within certain parameters. In some instances, what academic freedom means at Harvard University, or Berkeley in California, that type of academic freedom cannot be exercised at a Catholic university, especially in the fields of theological education. Because we are a dogmatic Church, a Church with a whole doctrinal tradition.” He continued: “When you go to a Catholic college, or a college that claims to be Catholic and strives to be authentically Catholic, then you’re going to be introduced to the great Catholic intellectual tradition, which may be very contrary to some of the tenets of religion that a non-Catholic student may have.”

Should the College choose to heed our Bishop’s advice and once again harness the values, fortitude, and vigor that led to its creation, it would again become a force for meaningful change in the world and a leading voice among Catholic colleges and universities. In the summer of 2016, several weeks before fall orientation, the Class of 2020 voted to select a quote from former Holy Cross president Rev. John Brooks, S.J. as its class quote. The quote, printed on the back of class t-shirts, reads: “What we desperately want and strive to achieve at Holy Cross is an education that leads rather than follows.” When Bishop Fenwick overcame all the obstacles set before him to found Holy Cross, he was leading rather than following. And we should too. Though the Holy Cross community, and particularly the Class of 2020, is facing unprecedented alienation and tremendous uncertainty in the midst of the COVID-19 crisis, now is perhaps the best time to consider how we want to emerge from isolation and redefine ourselves in the wake of new life and new opportunity. For far too long, Holy Cross has subserviently followed other cultural and academic institutions while failing to confidently pave its own path. Now is the time to recognize the extraordinary advantages of our Catholic heritage and, once more, to become an institution that leads rather than follows.

Will not this be a bold undertaking? Nevertheless we should try it.

Apostles at Home

At the time of this article’s publication, we will have just elapsed the feast of the Apostles Saint Philip and Saint James. The latter of these, James the Lesser (deemed as such solely because he was younger in age than Saint James, the son of Zebedee) is known as the first Bishop of Jerusalem and as the author of the Epistle of James found in the New Testament. His story is of particular interest in how it differed from that of his fellow Apostles. After the Ascension of Christ and the descent of the Holy Spirit at Pentecost, Christ’s other Apostles journeyed to the ends of the known world – from what we know as India in the East to Spain in the West, and Ukraine in the North to Ethiopia in the South. Conversely, Saint James remained in Jerusalem, the capital city of his ancestral lands. Though due to the charism of his mission and not a government-mandated quarantine, much like us James, in essence, stayed home.

However, this does not mean he refused the call that all Christians receive to evangelize. On the contrary, it was his specific mission to remain home and evangelize those there who had not yet heard the Good News. Fulfilling this mission, he was eventually martyred, just as all his fellow Apostles, save Saint John. Knowing his call to stay home and subsequent martyrdom, we gleen the necessity of his work on the home front. Though graced by the presence of Christ himself, the people of Judea still rejected Him and had yet to turn towards the Truth. They still needed an Apostle.

At the end of this month, we will celebrate the feast of another great Saint, also known for staying home: Saint Philip Neri (a different Philip from the one sharing the feast day with St. James). Though born in Florence, Rome became his home and the center of his evangelical work. Renowned for his affable and humorous personality, Saint Philip was integral in revitalizing the city’s Catholic populace in the midst of the Reformation. He dedicated his life to driving out the rampant corruption in Rome’s Church and healing the moral poverty of the populace. It was not through fire and brimstone that he found success in his mission, but rather through friendship and simple dialogue with the cities’ inhabitants. In doing so, he founded the Oratorians: a society of priests committed to evangelizing and serving through the same means and example of Philip himself. He has since been dubbed, alongside Saints Peter and Paul, an “Apostle of Rome.”

If you haven’t noticed, we are all stuck at home. States across our nation are under various degrees of lockdown, and countries across the world are very much the same. Though limited to our homes instead of entire cities, we find ourselves forced into a position strikingly similar to that St. James and St. Philip willingly undertook. These are trying times where keeping the faith has become a challenge. Most of us are separated from the Mass and the other Sacraments. It is tough enough being Christians for ourselves, much less Christians for each other. We may even feel like our duties as Christians are on hold, that we can just put them off until the world returns to normal. This, however, is not the case. Each day of our lives is meant to be lived for Christ. So, we must continue to pray. We must continue to fight sin and temptation. And, we must continue to evangelize. This last point is made abundantly clear through the example of both St. James the Lesser and St. Philip Neri.

One thing, among many, we can learn from these two great saints is that our home turf is never perfect. As Jerusalem, the city where Christ walked, and Rome, the Mother City of the entire Church, needed St. James and St. Philip as their respective attendants, serving and nurturing their inhabitants, so too do our homes require us to attend to them. Perhaps, you have a sibling, parent, or child who has fallen away from the faith. My own brother has strayed from the Church - a brother whom I hope one day to bring home. Well, this time of quarantine is inviting us to reach out and, in our forced closeness, engage with whoever these lost sheep may be and draw them back to Christ. Such engagement could be a discussion, but it can also simply be the example of patiently bearing our hardships, avoiding frustration and anger, and living virtuous lives within our households. Take the time to consider how God might be calling you to evangelize your family.

Still yet, there are ways to evangelize our homes themselves. What around your house is distracting you from God? Is it an obsession with video games or other worldly pleasures? Is it porn on your phone? Perhaps, you have a surplus of unhealthy foods? Are there unnecessary clothes and other various items you don’t require that could be donated to the less fortunate? These are all things, using this time within our homes, we can expunge from the physical space around us, and thus prevent from invading our spiritual lives. Improving the space around us not only practically provides means to keep us busy during quarantine, but can also assist us, and our families, in living holier lives. It could even be as simple as hanging a crucifix on the wall. Though I’ve only provided a few examples, there are countless more ways we need to attend to our homes and the things within them. 

Following the example of Saint James the Lesser and Saint Philip Neri, let us devoutly take up our mantle to evangelize our homes - to be Apostles of our confined spaces and those within them. This is not a time to be idle. This is not a time to wait. For, one day, we will have to return to the world outside and, if we have done our due diligence at home, we may more effectively carry that devout spirit we’ve cultivated out into the world – a world starved for Christ.

College, Identity Politics, and the 2020 Election

A public servant of 40 years is now on the offense against President Donald Trump. He has already surpassed the average life expectancy. Honorable in tone and political in nature, his career has primarily pleased his state and constituents. 

On the other hand, his last boss waited over a year to mention his name publicly. His son represented an American corporation that received $1.5 billion from a state-owned company of an adversarial government in 2015. He couldn’t poll more than 1 percent in his three previous attempts for the presidency, yet now represents the only hurdle for President Trump. Although to his credit, Vice President Joe Biden is currently polling higher than the president. 

Critics of Mr. Biden point to his increasingly senile behavior, arguing that any election in the past 50 years would have eliminated his chances for success. That would not have been the ex-Vice President’s fault. It is the reality of life. In their eyes, Christopher Nolan captured the rising theme of Joe Biden in The Dark Knight: he could die a hero or live long enough to become the villain. Maybe Joe Rogan’s bluntness on the issue of age will hold out, and a 78 year old man who mumbles through his interviews cannot win the presidency. In that case, the introduction of this article will be an afterthought. 

I can’t help but ask if the 2020 campaign is the work of an inside job? I still scratch my head entertaining these thoughts, sitting in quarantine as my father’s dehumidifier rumbles in the background of this basement.

Maybe my four years at Holy Cross have given me the slightest insight into how and why things work. Perhaps my refusal to publicly write until April of 2020 validates my sincere discernment of this topic.

In Jesuit fashion, I followed-up my original question with another bigger question: What is wrong with America?  That’s far too big of an inquiry, and would lead to a theological discernment on the nature of man — a subject beyond the scope of this article. Thinking smaller, I found myself posing this question: How do we, as college students, knowingly or unknowingly contribute to our country’s partisanship? That’s the question I will answer here. 

Perhaps the boldest claim I’ll make for this audience is that elite colleges and universities (yes, sometimes even Holy Cross) have tarnished a tremendous intellectual culture that has been imperative for our country’s past success. The transition of our intellectual culture from a culture of reason to one of competing identities is to blame for partisanship, and helps to understand why someone like Joe Biden is the nominee. Reason is innate; identities are subjective and ever changing. Problems arise when people falsely believe identities are innate. The American university system has started to believe these lies.

A common denominator of civilization—a reason—has been gnawed at by subjective ideologies that seek to place identities above our rational functions. Unfortunately, this flawed process is most present at American colleges and universities and leads to deepened partisanship. Though millions of American people are tired of identity politics, our academic institutions have failed to recognize it.

The rise of identity politics correlates with the increasing problems of the American college system. Merriam-Webster's Dictionary defines ‘Identity Politics’ as, “politics in which groups of people having a particular racial, religious, ethnic, social, or cultural identity tend to promote their own specific interests or concerns without regard to the interests or concerns of any larger political group.”

Identity politics adversely affect the majority of Americans who do not attend college. This ideology removes people of the same fabric and places them into separate ideological and political categories. Moreover, identity politics attaches itself to the brightest among us (top universities), only to further divide and alienate the most talented from each other. It also lends a hand to managerial dysfunction that severely weakens Americans’ interest in sending their kids to college. 

A recent Pew poll showcased how identity politics have infiltrated college-educated voters. When asked if, ‘they were bothered’ that the Democratic nominee was not ‘of color,’ 58 percent of post-graduate students responded that Biden’s nomination bothered them. On the other hand, over 70 percent of black and latino voters responded that Biden’s nomination ‘did not bother’ them. 

The real world operates at a radically different  and more successful level than a college campus. How can we measure that? Take supply and demand as basic indicators. How can a college education continue to get more expensive in spite of the historically high supply of American universities and low student demand? That math fails to work. 

The anecdote that allows this math to work mainly rests on a bloated administrative state. In the face of the largest economic recession since the Great Depression, U.S. colleges expanded administrative roles by 15 percent. From 1993 to 2015, administrative roles at colleges and universities grew 60 percent. Why?

Simultaneously, educational polling suggests that over eighty percent of Americans cannot afford college. The same polling shows that a mere two-thirds of Americans are unable to identify what a 529 college saving plan is. The Department of Education has reported that, “Between 2006–07 and 2016–17, prices for undergraduate tuition, fees, room, and board at public institutions rose 31 percent, and prices at private nonprofit institutions rose 24 percent, after adjustment for inflation.” Yet, the same report indicates that student enrollment at U.S. colleges and universities is down 7 percent from 2010 to 2020. Steadily, a minority of Americans attend college.

So, why in light of an extreme lack of affordability and falling enrollments, would public and not-for-profit colleges and universities expand their bureaucracy?  Author of the book, The Changing of the Guard: The Political Economy of Administrative Bloat in American Higher Education, Todd Zywicki, writes, “The interesting thing about the administrative bloat in higher education is, literally, nobody knows who all these people are or what they’re doing.” Reason and logic cannot answer why colleges operate in this manner. There must be a deeper ideological problem that has circumvented the generational American interest to afford college.

Obviously there are other contributing factors to university failings, such as the incentive structure of the federal student-loan system and private banks. These serve as an additional incentive for colleges to increase costs. However, credible and normative observations showcase that the prevalence of identity politics is the core failure of our university system.

Holy Cross, as an institutional actor, naturally perpetuates identity politics. Just ask the Admissions office what the chances are that a female from Massachusetts is accepted, compared to me, a male from Michigan? Lucky for me, I have the advantage. Yet, is it unjust that Holy Cross desires geographical diversity and 50/50 gender delineation in its ranks? No one questions if justice was not served in this scenario. However, I’m willing to bet a year’s worth of tuition that there were female candidates with higher qualifications than myself from Massachusetts who drew the short end of the stick. 

Apply this standard when considering the acceptance of any race or religion on campus. It follows a similar logic. Although, the social and political pressure becomes intensified. Suddenly, the sense of justice is shifted. As you can see, identity politics are vague and subjective, yet become problematic when applied to individual groups.

The real problem arises when this logic becomes pervasive on campus. Many professors apply identity politics as a serious standard in their academic inquiry. Students in a ‘majority’ identity and ‘minority’ identity are placed in a hierarchical standard of assessment. Identity politics suddenly impedes each group’s natural capacity for reason and diminishes the normative pursuit of truth.  

For instance, think about the feeling of second-hand embarrassment that runs through your veins when the subject of race is mentioned in a mandatory administrative fishbowl. How awkward is it when students refuse to address a topic as simple as race?  Of course, there are major historical complications in race relations, but why are we afraid to say it?

As you can tell, when the topic is cloaked in a hierarchical standard of identities, nobody in a majority group would seek to diminish the standing of a minority group. It counters our capacity for good if we think we are hurting others. No rational person desires to hurt someone. However, if you pull back the subjective cloak of hierarchical identities, suddenly you are in the objective pursuit of truth and feel free to present competing ideas. No one is being hurt. 

St. Ignatius teaches us that our natural emotions can help guide us to truth. The unnatural feelings of second hand embarrassment with a topic as simple as race suggests that we are being led by a false ideology. With identity politics at the helm, students are inherently limited from presenting their ideas due to factors outside their control. Moreover, when students do share ideas, their ideas could be discounted, again, due to factors outside of their control. A student's parent’s, job, skin color, hometown, and citizenship can stand in the way of pursuing truth if identity politics control the narrative. This runs contrary to the American education system, and more importantly, a Jesuit education. 

I’d argue that the feeling of second-hand embarrassment propagated by identity politics turns rational people away from engagement and enhances partisanship among those who do engage. The shyness of intelligent people forces them to withdraw from political engagement. They would rather withdraw from identity politics, an ideology they know is subjective and illogical. They make a conscious choice to not engage, rather than take the risk of social alienation. They think to themselves, “Let the Gender Studies majors solve the problems that they created. I can’t change their mind.”

Identity politics removes our most talented people from government and places them in business and finance. Whereas governing addresses the laws of society, business and finance point toward monetary gain. If American society’s morals are presented in a narrative that alienates its most talented citizens, why would they want to engage in those platforms to create law? In this case, identity politics in universities and government serve as a detriment to our joined national interest. 

For instance, Wall Street steadily maintains deeply vested interests in communist China. If our own citizens sell American companies to this communist state, our government is severely undermined when trying to hold China accountable for severe human rights and trade abuses. We as a people are speaking with two contradicting voices, thus speaking with no voice at all.  

The rise of Wall Street partly stems from the social, academic, and economic benefits of non-engagement with identity politics. Instead of recognizing a joint purpose, identity politics at American colleges alienate our country’s brightest students. Billions of dollars are being made by our smartest individuals at the expense of their fellow citizens, because our universities decide to pursue subjective narratives that underscore the pursuit of truth. 

The governing and political fabric of our nation deteriorates at the hands of a small subsection of society who educate students at our most esteemed universities. Unfortunately, many students today leave college with an underlying framework that tells them that the necessity to rectify certain social groups’ ills outweighs the needs of the aggregate.

If one is looking for evidence of this, look no further than the last time Congress passed a bipartisan comprehensive immigration reform. It occurred in 1986. Despite at least three documented attempts, the inability of our largest deliberative body to disregard factional identity interests now results in millions living in shadows and our sovereignty questioned.

Our true national interest is lost at the behest of an ideology. Partisanship backed the interest of identity politics and created no room for compromise. Now, compromise is viewed as the harming of a minority group, rather than the pursuit of the common interest. Rather than tending to the needs of both sides, identity politics restricts Congress and harms both immigrants and the American population. 

There are people in this country, especially in academia, that see identity politics as a driving force in our attempt to structure a just society. On the other hand, there are people in this country, especially young people, that see identity politics as a hindrance to society and choose not to engage. 

Perhaps the steady stream of identity politics in the last decade has turned young people off from engaging entirely. Why is it that sixty-five percent of people who actually vote are over the age of 60?  Young people, who make up the largest segment of society from the ages of 18 to 44 participate at the lowest levels. 

Ideals such as freedom, equality, and justice are diminished when universities consistently structure their institutions to perpetuate identity politics. Identity politics transcribes our ideals reactively, drawing from our country’s worst sins, rather than the settled truth decided at our country’s foundation. What I’ve learned most about the United States while at Holy Cross is that our country maintains an everlasting commitment to uphold natural rights, alongside the pursuit of a more perfect society. Both these endeavors are lost if the best formats to pursue a just society limit the flow of ideas, intentionally or unintentionally.

When the perceived victimhood of groups within society overcomes the pursuit of truth, then serious inquiry is lost. Citizens choose not to engage and free discourse disappears. The only way to combat identity politics is to talk about them. A full picture is finally illuminated when we talk about the most pressing and controversial issues, without special regard to any one group. 

If reason is to be practiced again, then professors, students, and administrators will need to jump over a fundamental hurdle and assume that people do not intend to harm others with their ideas. In the off chance they do harm others, they need to jump over another fundamental hurdle, and not let it bother them. If hurt, they can again say to themselves, while embodying the Christian virtue that Martin Luther King extolled in his crusade, “Forgive them, for they know not what they do.” When this change in attitude occurs, many college bureaucrats will become irrelevant. Happily, tuition will be lowered and more Americans can afford college. How could this happen? 

Identity politics will inevitably fail. Its logic fails to work, for; consistent subjectivity erodes into an oblivion. Maybe the Trump administration represents the beginning of a cultural paradigm that defeats identity politics and bolsters the reunion of the smartest financial and government actors.

So back to the 2020 election. Who’s going to win? President Trump. Why? In addition to Joe Biden’s inability to communicate thoroughly, there are sectors in the Democratic Party that, rather than working within the constitutional logic ingrained in American culture, prefer to dabble in identity politics. 

It’s why President Trump could win in 2016 by hammering the establishment that was built on identity politics. Most Americans do not have a four year degree. They are not directly exposed to subjective and alienating narratives. In the large portion of America, there is a concerted effort to end identity politics. That’s why the Democratic establishment failed to elect any candidate that promotes these narratives. Rather, the Democrats placed their chips on a 78-year old moderate who can barely finish a 10-minute TV interview, because they hope he can relate to Americans who reject identity politics.

If the unprecedented increase of tuition continues alongside the perpetuation of identity politics at American universities, we should not be surprised that our political choices are two individuals in their seventies who do not faithfully follow identity politics. Americans reject identity politics, yet universities fail to follow suit. If post-secondary institutions cannot grasp reality, we should be prepared to see that our generation is becoming further polarized or has become disengaged all together. 

Perhaps the reason that we - college students, professors, and administrators—fail to understand the successful rise of President Trump—is because we do not fully understand ourselves.

God Is (Not) A Woman: Why We Use Male Pronouns for God

More and more lately, I’ve heard people refuse to use pronouns for God. Some even object to gendered God-language like “Our Father,” or “Lord.” Others go even further—they replace male pronouns with female pronouns.

The argument that people often make is that God is not a created being, and does not have a gender. Using male pronouns and other distinctly “male” words—like Lord or Father—reflects not God’s nature, but our own patriarchal mindset. By refusing to use pronouns for God, or by using female pronouns, people argue that they can combat the patriarchal recasting of God, while emphasizing certain qualities (like His tenderness) that can be overlooked when male pronouns are used.

To an extent, people are right. God does not have a gender. That said, there are several compelling reasons to use male language for God.

1. We have pronouns for a reason.

Pronouns are clean. They’re efficient. Without pronouns, language is incredibly clunky and awkward. To talk about how God reveals God’s self to show us God’s love might be politically correct, but it’s also a poor usage of the English language.

2. Specifically male pronouns for God are a convenient and widely agreed upon linguistic convention… with Biblical roots.

Blame it on the patriarchy if you’d like, but almost everyone knows what I’m referring to when I talk about Him. Talking about Her, however, would likely be confusing. That’s because male pronouns for God, better or worse, are part of our language and culture. Plus, the Bible uses male language (although there are attempts to translate the Bible using only gender-neutral language). 

3. It’s just distracting. 

Using female pronouns for God isn’t just confusing, it’s distracting, and talking about Mother God is probably the fastest way to derail almost any group prayer, by triggering either laughter or confusion.

4. When God reveals Himself, He does so as Father and Son (and Holy Spirit).

In our P.C. culture, the best way to figure out a person’s pronouns is to ask, or at least wait for them to tell you. In the Christian Bible, when God reveals Himself, He does so as Father and Son, not Mother and Daughter.

One objection to this argument is that the Son (the second person of the Trinity) had to come as “Son” and not “Daughter” because of Israel’s patriarchal norms, and not because of any deeper spiritual reality. In other words, if Jesus was a woman, nobody would have taken him seriously. And sure, I sympathize with this argument a little… but not much. See, initially people didn’t take Jesus seriously, even though he was male. But then he started performing miracles, walking on water, and raising people from the dead, and he eventually got people’s attention. You’re telling me that, if God had wanted to become incarnate in a female body, there’s no way He could have somehow gotten people’s attention or earned some respect? After all, the ancient world was full of religions that took female goddesses seriously. Besides, that argument only accounts for one person of the Trinity. Jesus frequently referred to the first person of the Trinity as Father. After Jesus had earned respect, he could have talked about God as Mother, but he preferred to use the term Abba, or Dad. 

Now that’s not to say that God does have a gender (although it’s worth noting that Jesus is definitely male), but it does mean that the gendered language we use for God might not be inconsequential. In fact there might even be some spiritual significance for—

5. There’s real spiritual significance associated with using male language to describe God. 

Ok, ok, so I will admit that, at various points in the Bible, there are feminine images of God. That’s true. But when those images come up, they always reveal some deeper, spiritual meaning. The same is true for using primarily male language for God.

Here’s one nugget of spiritual wisdom that can be drawn from male “God language.” When we speak of God with male pronouns, it signals a complementarity with the ancient understanding of the soul as feminine. The idea here is that the “male” instills the feminine soul with divine life. In other words, the soul is like a womb for God’s grace. It’s a little weird… but it’s also beautiful. 

6. While gendered “God language” fails, so does all God language.

Often, people argue that we can’t use male pronouns for God, because God doesn’t have a gender. To describe God as “He” is to anthropomorphize God, or turn Him into a being with human characteristics. Instead of using inherently flawed language, people argue, we should give up on pronouns and other gendered terms altogether.

This argument makes some sense… except that all attempts to describe God are inherently flawed. For example, when we say that God is good, we have to acknowledge that our understanding of “goodness” is radically shaped by our own human limitations (the maximum degree to which we can understand goodness is the maximum extent to which a human being can be good). It would be, for example, like an ant calling a human being “strong.” The ant isn’t wrong, per se, but the ant cannot begin to fathom how strong human beings are, and we cannot fathom how good God is. When it comes to God, all language, not just gendered language, fails.

Confronted with this confusing dilemma, we might be tempted to give up altogether on trying to say anything about God. But theologians and philosophers have argued that we can speak about God analogously. Now the whole concept of analogous language is more complicated than we have time for today. Essentially, it should suffice to say that all language about God is, somehow, inadequate. Gendered language might also be inadequate, but that doesn’t mean we should stop using it, any more than we should stop saying that God is good. 

7. What’s the motive?

More often than not, it seems like people advocate for gender-neutral or feminine God language for political and ideological reasons, and less because they have a legitimate theological argument. Admittedly, it would be fallacious to argue that the conclusion (gender neutral or female pronouns for God) is wrong simply because the means of arriving at that conclusion (via ideological or political agenda) are flawed. However, wouldn’t it be worse to conform God to our political agenda, than to conform Him to widely agreed upon linguistic constructs?