9/11: Holy Cross, Don't Forget

Growing up in the Long Island suburbs, 9/11 has been a day of collective mourning and sorrow for as long as I can remember. With many families, friends, and friends of friends being impacted by the attacks, thoughts of the tragedy overwhelm us all. It was largely recognized during school on each anniversary, with many teachers drawing on their own experiences from the day.

That being said, when 9/11 came around shortly after my freshman year at Holy Cross began, I was quite disheartened by the lack of recognition the day received on campus. I recall many of my friends from New York, New Jersey, Connecticut, and other areas being surprised when the day was met with little formal recognition from Holy Cross itself. None of our professors mentioned it, and the only email we received about it came from the Chaplain’s Office. They displayed the names of Holy Cross graduates who died from the 9/11 attacks in a memorial in St. Joseph Memorial Chapel and remembered them at daily Mass. I attended mass that day, but I was still left a bit uneasy by receiving only one brief email. “Isn’t there more that Holy Cross can be doing?” I thought to myself.

The next year, the response was about the same. Pax Christi advertised a guided reflection of the 18th anniversary and reminded students of confidential resources for healing through the College, but the Holy Cross administration itself still failed to reach out. 

This year, Holy Cross didn’t send a single email. They posted on Instagram and Facebook, but that was the extent to which the College recognized the day. Even if most students aren’t on campus, that doesn’t change what happened and the fact that it needs to be acknowledged. Memorial Plaza certainly serves as a reminder on its own, with the names of the seven Holy Cross alumni––Edward A. Brennan III ‘86, Thomas D. Burke ‘85, Neilie A. Heffernan Casey ‘90, John G. Farrell ‘91, Todd A. Isaac ‘94, Beth A. Quigley ‘97, and John J. Ryan ‘78––who were lost etched on a stone marker, but more attention must be brought to the events and those we lost. 

Perhaps New England feels detached from New York, but isn’t Holy Cross a community which knows no geographical bounds? Especially now that Holy Cross has only allowed a limited number of students on campus this semester, the administration has emphasized how our sense of community will be strengthened. This has not been the case, as seen through their neglect to continue past minimalistic traditions. When did it stop being worth mentioning?

Seven Holy Cross alumni were lost, but imagine the family members and friends of those from the Holy Cross community. How are we recognizing them? What about those who were in the Towers and managed to make it out? Are we going to recognize their struggle? In 2012, over 5,000 Holy Cross alumni lived in New York City. I doubt the numbers were much lower in 2001, but let’s say even 2,500 (half the number from 2012––unlikely) lived there on September 11, 2001. That’s still a very significant number. That isn’t even accounting for all of those who must have commuted into the city from surrounding areas. What does this neglect say about how we are defining community?

I am not merely criticizing the neglect of the Holy Cross administration, though. I think that we as Holy Cross students must do more on our own as well. Pax Christi had the right idea in 2019. However, how can we reach the larger student body? One way would be to get involved in Young America’s Foundation’s 9/11: Never Forget Project. Over 200 high schools and colleges across the nation participate by placing 2,977 American flags into the ground. According to its website, the Project was started “to help students create meaningful memorials to the innocent victims of radical Islamic terrorism, and to inspire commitment to defending our freedoms whenever they are attacked.” Why haven’t we done the same on the Hoval? There is more that we can do to make Holy Cross more cognizant of the events that impacted many from our own community. With most from the class of 2024 not being alive when the attacks occurred, it is imperative that we help them participate in our collective mourning with a fervent reverence for all those who were impacted that day.

I’ll end with this. If Popcorn Tuesday and a STAR outage at 6:00 AM have always warranted emails of their own, why doesn’t the largest act of terrorism to hit our country to date? Holy Cross: do more. Our administration, faculty, and students can all do more. Next time you walk through Memorial Plaza, remember Edward A. Brennan III ‘86, Thomas D. Burke ‘85, Neilie A. Heffernan Casey ‘90, John G. Farrell ‘91, Todd A. Isaac ‘94, Beth A. Quigley ‘97, John J. Ryan ‘78, and the other 2,970 lives that were lost on 9/11.

Masks and the Problem with Individualism

In the face of an ongoing pandemic that has already taken over 170,000 American lives, the most effective individual action that can be taken to prevent further loss of life is simple: wear a mask. A recent news story that emerged from a Missouri hair salon attests to the importance of this simple measure. In July, two of the salon’s stylists tested positive for COVID-19, but remarkably, because they had consistently worn masks while working, none of the 139 customers they served while infected ended up contracting the virus. A study conducted in May by researchers in Hong Kong provides data to support this anecdotal evidence. The scientists found that airborne transmission of COVID-19 occurred nearly 67 percent of the time when no masks were worn. In contrast, when the infected subject wore a mask, the infection rate dropped by half, and when both parties wore a mask, the risk of transmitting the virus dropped to just 15 percent. 

In most other countries, mask-wearing is as prevalent and innocuous as it is effective. However, the United States, with over 5.5 million cases and counting — or surging, rather — is another story. Among Americans, masks have become not only controversial, but highly politicized. A Pew Research survey from June found that 63 percent of Democrats agreed that masks should be worn in public places at all times, while only 29 percent of Republicans believed the same. No doubt the example set by President Trump, who first donned a mask in mid-July — more than three months after the pandemic began — has contributed greatly to this polarization. It is no wonder, then, as Pew reports, that nearly a quarter of Republicans say masks should never or rarely be worn in public, compared to just four percent of Democrats. A recent projection by University of Washington scientists found that 45,000 or more additional deaths could be prevented if 95 percent of Americans were to wear masks in public spaces. This means that resistance to masks, especially by Republican officials who have a public responsibility to set the right example, is now not just irresponsible, but deadly.

Not only does this issue have immediate life-or-death consequences for thousands of Americans, it highlights a broader problem afflicting US culture: extreme individualism. Individualism here does not mean the benign freedom of personal choices and self-expression, which is indeed an essential element of the American experiment. Rather, it refers to a more pernicious attitude in which extreme personal autonomy blocks the ability to accept and defer to what is right and true. In other words, a person’s individual attitudes and opinions become supreme, and consideration for the common good falls by the wayside. It is an ideology as degrading to society as it is antithetical to Christian faith.

Pope Francis himself in a 2017 address decried individualism as “exalt[ing] the selfish ideal,” whereby “…it is only the individual who gives values to things and interpersonal relationships,” and worse, where it is “only the individual who decides what is good and what is bad.” In a letter released by the Vatican in 2018, the plague of individualism today is described as a modern reflection of the ancient heresies of Pelagianism and Gnosticism. The Pelagians, who taught that God’s grace was unnecessary and that free will alone could allow humans to attain salvation, and the Gnostics, who emphasized personal religious experience over the teachings and knowledge of the Church, share much in common with the individualists of today. Like those ancient heretics, too many people today are effectively gods within themselves — they distrust authority and expertise, for they are their own source of truth and wisdom.

Thus, the refusal by many Americans, but especially Republicans, to wear masks in order to stop the spread of a deadly pandemic is just the latest manifestation of this deep affliction of the Western mind. To be sure, this is not just a problem affecting conservatives. The progressive mantra of “speaking your truth” — which implies that truth is nothing more than personal experience — is evidence enough that this mindset holds sway among Democrats as with Republicans, just in different ways. However, this attitude is more troubling — and in fact hypocritical — among conservatives, because of the two major political parties, the GOP is the only one which retains at least ostensible loyalty to Judeo-Christian values. The Democrats of today, meanwhile, are hardly a party of faith, so it is not shocking to see such an un-Christian mindset find a home there.

Why, then, has the individualist mindset, so antithetical to Christian life, become entrenched even among many religious conservatives? Part of the problem is that the decline of orthodox Christian belief that has been occurring in this country for the last fifty-odd years has now also begun to affect the GOP, the party of the religious right. Polling data since 2016 consistently shows that President Trump, whose character and public persona represent a marked departure from the sincere religious grounding of past Republican presidents, draws his support disproportionately from voters who attend church infrequently or never. Republican voters who regularly attend religious services, meanwhile, give Trump significantly lower approval ratings. While church attendance does not necessarily indicate authentic faith, it does provide some sense of greater adherence to orthodox Christian practice with respect to doctrine and communal life — the opposite of the self-oriented, individualistic pseudo-faith that Pope Francis has said “denies the common good.”

Humans are intrinsically social creatures — indeed, we are designed to be. From the home, to the school or church or workplace, to the halls of government, we have a responsibility not just to ourselves but to others. One silver lining of this pandemic is that people are confronted with this truth. The best we can hope for during this dire time —and afterwards — is that all Americans, but especially conservatives, who should be a beacon of Christian life to our post-Christian society, will be galvanized to step outside themselves, and with each action, consider the common good.

In Defense of Free Speech

"I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." Voltaire’s thinking about the fundamental nature of free speech should not be controversial. In today’s political climate, few are willing to stand up for, let alone “defend to the death,” speech which they disapprove of.

The Founding Fathers created our nation based on respect for the natural rights of its citizens. One of the most important of those natural rights is the freedom of speech. James Madison recognized that individuals have the right to freely form their own opinions, stating, “the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men.” Inherent in the right to have an opinion is the right to express that opinion. Thomas Jefferson explained that “there are rights which it is useless to surrender to the government and which governments have yet always been found to invade. These are the rights of thinking, and publishing our thoughts by speaking or writing.” The recognition of free speech as a natural right led to free speech being preeminently enshrined as the First Amendment to the Constitution.

However, free speech has increasingly come under attack, not by the government but by a growing intolerance of ideas and a lack of interest in rational debate. Joshua Katz, a professor at Princeton University, criticized an open letter to the Princeton administration that was signed by over 350 faculty members which made forty-eight demands to address “anti-Black racism” at Princeton. He published a piece in response to the letter titled “A Declaration of Independence by a Princeton Professor.” In response, the President of Princeton University accused him of failing to use his right to free speech “responsibly.” Princeton alumni and students called out on Twitter for the University to take action against Katz. His colleagues in the department condemned his remarks. A spokesman for the University stated that the Princeton administration would “be looking into the matter further.” Fortunately for Katz, the administration chose not to investigate. While this was good news for Katz’s tenure at the University, the damage had already been done to his reputation. 

The attacks on free speech are also affecting journalism. New York Times editor Bari Weiss recently resigned, leaving a scathing letter as her final discourse. Weiss joined the New York Times after the 2016 election, and hoped to bring new voices to the Times’ editorial page. Instead, her opinions made her “the subject of constant bullying by colleagues” who disagreed with her views. Those colleagues did not engage in a rational debate but instead called her “a racist” and “a Nazi” (which is particularly perplexing as Weiss is Jewish). As a result of the “hostile work environment” described by Weiss, “self-censorship has become the norm” at the New York Times.

Those attempts to curb free speech are not isolated incidents but are part of a larger trend. As the disdain for free speech increased, many intellectuals, who had previously stood idly by, have begun to take notice. In early July, a group of moderate and center-left professors, journalists, writers, and artists signed “Harper’s Letter on Justice and Open Debate”. The letter addresses the need for “the free exchange of information and ideas,” and recognizes the recent trend that shows “a new set of moral attitudes and political commitments.” Those trends have weakened our norms of “open debate and toleration of differences in favor of ideological conformity.” The drafters argue that the “democratic inclusion,” which they want to attain, can only be achieved “if we speak out against the intolerant climate that has set in on all sides.” 

There is also an increasing intolerance of ideas among college students. A May 2019 College Pulse / Knight Foundation survey found that 51% of college students believe that shouting down speakers or trying to prevent them from talking is either always acceptable or sometimes acceptable and 15% say it would be acceptable to use violence to stop a speech, protest or rally. Students are willing to shut down speech, some advocating violence if necessary, but are unwilling to listen to ideas they disagree with. That unwillingness to respect others’ opinions leads to students being afraid to engage in discussions. In the same survey, 68% of college students (including 54% of Republicans and only 15% of Democrats) said their campus climate precludes students from expressing their true opinions because their classmates might find them offensive. This is consistent with a July 2020 CATO Institute poll finding that nearly two-thirds (62%) of Americans say the political climate these days prevents them from saying things they believe because others might find them offensive. 

The American Civil Liberties Union recognizes that freedom of speech is paramount on college campuses. According to the ACLU, restrictions on speech by colleges “deprive students of their right to invite speech they wish to hear, debate speech with which they disagree, and protest speech they find bigoted or offensive.” Additionally, the ACLU believes that “more speech — not less — is the answer most consistent with our constitutional values.” A 2017 CATO Institute survey found that 67% of Americans agree that free speech ensures the truth will ultimately prevail. Many colleges and universities have moved to protect free speech by adopting the "Chicago Statement"  which commits to “free and open inquiry in all matters” and “guarantees all members of the University community the broadest possible latitude to speak, write, listen, challenge, and learn” 

As Greg Lukianoff and Jonathan Haidt explain in their 2015 article on “The Coddling of the American Mind”, college is a place where we need to learn “how to think rather than what to think.” Lukianoff and Haidt explain that listening to the opinions of others “sometimes leads to discomfort, and even to anger, on the way to understanding” but avoiding that discomfort “teaches students to think in a very different way” and “prepares them poorly for professional life, which often demands intellectual engagement with people and ideas one might find uncongenial or wrong.” College students should be open to discussion and debate and should heed Voltaire's admonishment from his Essay on Tolerance to "think for yourselves and let others enjoy the privilege to do so too.”

Holy Cross: Lowering Our Spirits, Not Our Tuition

For years, liberal arts colleges like Holy Cross have justified sky-high tuition prices by arguing that schools are selling students a unique style of education and a holistic college experience. “It’s an education you can’t get anywhere else… like at a big university,” admissions counselors declare. And especially, as a Jesuit school, we’ve had the montra “Cura Personalis” driven into our heads as a staple of the experience beyond the classroom. But then, when the coronavirus pandemic forced campuses around the country to close, the narrative changed. Suddenly, administrators were forced to argue that colleges, despite being unable to provide those quintessential aspects of the “college experience,” were somehow still worth more money than most Americans make in a year. Given Holy Cross’s announcement on Monday that campus would be closed this fall and that all classes would be conducted online as well as their statements that they won’t lower tuition, it’s crucial to take a step back and acknowledge that something has to change. A Holy Cross education is not worth $54,050, not when it’s conducted over Zoom, and there is no legitimate financial reason for Holy Cross to charge such an enormous amount of money. 

As classes are moved online, the quality of education at Holy Cross will decline. Humanities classes built on lively discussion will be stale and rigid over computer screens and laggy internet connections. STEM students will lose the spirit of collaboration with their peers and their ability to perform hands-on lab work. Those in the arts will miss their opportunity to perform and create in the theater or the studio. The quality of the one thing that the College is using to defend its ridiculously high tuition prices—rigorous academics—is going to suffer. If the primary purpose of a college is to instruct its students, then a Holy Cross education is worth less if academic quality suffers. If Holy Cross is about more than just academics—as administrators have opined for years—then this point is even more pressing: in 2020, when the “college experience” is no longer possible, a Holy Cross education isn’t worth $54,050. However, the College of the Holy Cross has expressed no interest in decreasing already absurdly high tuition rates in order to reflect the decreased value of enrollment. As Father Boroughs expressed in a June 24th email, “the College will eliminate the previously announced tuition increase and freeze tuition for the 2020-2021 academic year at the 2019-2020 rate.” This was reaffirmed by Fr. Boroughs in August 11th’s town hall. So, while the college has done us the gracious favor of not raising tuition, they will not be decreasing tuition. This is highway robbery. 

It is unjust for the College, as a non-profit institution, to charge tuition based upon the amount of money they would like to make, rather than the actual value of the service they’re providing . This violates, not only their identity as a non-profit, but as a Catholic college, and as a college supposedly dedicated to “social justice.”

The response to this decision might be greeted with empathy if people believe that the college is under threat of financial ruin. Father Boroughs seemed to perpetuate this idea when he stated, in a May 15th email, “At this point the endowment has endured substantial losses and is down approximately 10% in the calendar year to date. Like so many colleges, Holy Cross is highly tuition dependent:  70% of our revenue comes in twice a year when students and their parents pay their tuition, room and board fees. Consequently, we are vulnerable to any changes in enrollment or to prolonged time spent studying remotely.” It appears that the college is using such figures to justify their decision not to reduce tuition, however, this is not adequate justification.

In the fiscal years ending on June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2019, (the most recent available data), the college’s operating revenues exceeded their operating expenses by $8.8 million and $8.9 million respectively. Operating revenues are largely, as Fr Boroughs himself pointed out, generated by tuition. Operating expenses encompass all the costs accrued by the functioning of the school: salaries, employee benefits, supplies for campus, etc. This, in essence, means that the college has close to $9 million by which to reduce the total income from tuition before it merely breaks even. The college approximates that there are roughly 3,000 students enrolled, so Holy Cross could decrease tuition by about $3,000 per student before it began to lose money on operating expenses. And this is only when considering the operating revenue. When factoring in the non-operating activities, which include donations, the return on investments, etc., we see that over the fiscal years ending on June 30, 2018 and June 30, 2019, the net assets of the college have increased by $71 million and $10 million respectively. In other words, the College—a non-profit institution—is far from losing money or being “in the red.” They can lower tuition without bringing serious economic ruin on the school.

This is before we consider the endowment. Returning to the May 15th email, Father Boroughs warned that, “At this point the endowment has endured substantial losses and is down approximately 10% in the calendar year to date.” The college reports that, as of June 30th 2019, the College of the Holy Cross had an endowment worth $785.9 million. Considering this 10% decrease as of May, and generously inferring other potential losses, we can assume the current value of the endowment is around $700 million. 

The College appears to be using this vast financial resource to fight financial losses due to COVID-19. In the same June 24th email, Fr. Boroughs announced, “The College will increase the draw from the endowment adding an additional $5 million to our operating budget.” Certainly this is a generous and timely use of the endowment: according to the Holy Cross website, “The purpose of the endowment is to provide sustainable financial support to existing operations as well as to provide for future generations of students, faculty and staff In other words, the endowment exists to provide the school with a level of financial security, especially for times like these. Yet, Holy Cross’s decision to dip into the endowment is not as impressive as it might seem. 

The College of the Holy Cross reports that its strategy in handling the endowment is to spend 4.5% of the endowment each year. This is relatively low compared to schools like Boston College and Georgetown, who spend 5% of their endowments annually. Indeed, 5% is a generally accepted standard of spending from an endowment; for private foundations, it is legally required by the IRS to spend at least 5%. Holy Cross uses .5% less of their endowment than other establishments. This might seem insignificant, but it equates to $3.5 million dollars (of the supposed $700 million endowment). Now, considering that Holy Cross is pulling an additional $5 million from the endowment this year, (which would constitute 0.7% of the total value of the endowment) Holy Cross is still only spending 5.2% of their endowment… only 0.2% greater than the standard, non-pandemic norm for other top-tier educational institutions. Holy Cross has been stingy with their endowment, and now that they finally have a legitimate reason to spend some of that money—it’s hard to think of a better time to fall back on the endowment than in the middle of a pandemic— their generosity is a lot less generous than they would like us to think.

If the College pulled that additional $3.5 million from the endowment annually, they could  decrease the tuition per student by another $1,200. If one factors in the several million dollars of surplus revenue the College brings in annually, then, without losing money or spending an atypical percentage of their endowment, Holy Cross can decrease tuition by $4,200 per student. And while this might seem like a small chink in the $54,050 tuition (not including the cost of room and board as well as other fees), it is a considerable amount, particularly for economically disadvantaged students. 

And all this is before we even consider the drop in the value of our education due to coronavirus. Indeed, that $4,200 should probably be taken off our tuition regardless. But now we find ourselves being charged the same amount of money for a worse education. Admittedly, by decreasing tuition, the college will lose money. The answer lies in the endowment. 

If Holy Cross decreased tuition to better represent the decreased value of the services they are providing, then they can rightfully draw on the endowment to “provide sustainable financial support,” until normal operations resume. Admittedly, this will create a large dent in the endowment. But if the endowment is not drawn upon now—in a time of international crisis—then when will it be drawn upon? If they won’t use this large reserve of money to support students in the middle of a pandemic (and potential economic crisis), then when will they? If they will not use this money for the direct betterment of students, what is the endowment even for?

Though the College of the Holy Cross purports to care deeply for its students, their spending habits seem to betray such care. Rather, it seems that their concern, or at least their primary concern, is making money and sitting upon a vast, relatively untapped endowment. Not only does this violate almost every Catholic principle related to fiscal stewardship, it also constitutes a real injustice: the school is charging exorbitant amounts of money for students to sit at home and watch professors awkwardly fumble through Zoom lectures. 

It must be noted:  I do not wish for this article to simply conjure vitriol and resentment towards Fr. Boroughs. We must recognize that this situation doesn’t fall entirely on his shoulders. Indeed, though I lack the knowledge of the specific workings of the college bureaucracy; he may very well be acting solely as a messenger for the Board on this matter. This is about exposing unjust policy, not cancelling an administrator.  So, to the College of the Holy Cross, its administration, and its board of Trustees, I would like to say: stop with the platitudes. Stop lamenting your disappointment that students will not be able to return to campus. Stop gushing over your intense concern for us. Treat us students with the justice we deserve - justice you say you care so deeply about. It’s time to put your money where your mouth is.

Note: Holy Cross administration was approached for a comment but did not respond in time for publication.

Democrats Who Stand up to the Mob

America is as politically divided as ever - from the COVID-19 pandemic to police reform, and from rioting and looting to cancel culture.  Americans find themselves in the middle of a fight against radicalism.  The aftermath of George Floyd’s murder has devolved into violence in American cities and the tearing down of memorials of influential Americans. Let’s discuss  Democrats who stand up against these radical behaviors and the near-Marxist principles behind them.

Mayor Keisha Lance Bottoms (D-Atlanta, GA)

Mayor Bottoms took a hard stance against violence in Atlanta following the death of George Floyd.  Bottoms’s message to rioters and looters was to “go home.”  She condemned actions by the rioters.

“You are disgracing our city.  You are disgracing the life of George Floyd and every other person who has been killed in this country.”  

Bottoms noted Atlanta’s history of minority business ownership, black mayors, and black police chiefs as signs of progress.  Instead of participating in and condoning violence, Mayor Bottoms encouraged citizens to peacefully protest in the likeness of Dr. Martin Luther King, Jr. and to vote in November.

Senator Kyrsten Sinema (D-AZ)

Sen. Sinema is known as one of America’s most bipartisan politicians.  In her Maiden Speech, she stated that America needs more politicians that “choose country over party.” 

Sinema has long worked with Republicans and Democrats alike to push Veteran Affairs reform and the safe reopening of America’s economy.  

During President Trump’s 2020 State of the Union Address, Sinema, at times, found herself the only Democrat standing and clapping for American successes within a sea of pouting Senators and Representatives.  

Sinema most recently chose country over party when she openly opposed calls to defund the police, highlighting the need for mental and behavioral health within police departments.  

Representative John Lewis (D-GA05)

The late Rep. John Lewis fought for Civil Rights and racial equality his whole life with dignity and respect.  From protesting Jim Crow Laws in Nashville, TN to his final days in the House, Rep. Lewis never lost his passion for peaceful protest as opposed to violence.  

He encouraged Americans to be “constructive, not destructive.  History has proven time and again that non-violent, peaceful protest is the way to achieve the justice and equality that we all deserve.”

Former President Barack Obama (D-IL)

Many may be surprised to see President Obama on this list.  However, Pres. Obama both condemns violence and cancel culture.  

During the 2015 Baltimore Riots, Pres. Obama condemned rioting as “counterproductive,” and that rioters are “thugs and criminals.”  In fact, hundreds were arrested, and the National Guard was called in to restore order.  

This applies to today’s riots since President Trump is being criticized for taking similar positions and actions. 

Additionally, Pres. Obama stated in 2019, “This idea of purity and you're never compromised and you're always politically 'woke' and all that stuff. You should get over that quickly. The world is messy, there are ambiguities. People who do really good stuff have flaws. People who you are fighting may love their kids. And share certain things with you." 

He went on to call out college students for attempting to silence other students using judgement, condemnation, and intimidation.  

Chiefs Renee Hall (Dallas, TX) and Carmen Best (Seattle, WA)

While Chiefs Hall and Best are not publicly known Democrats, they should be included.  They both fight the mob ideology while staying true to public safety.  

Renee Hall faced criticism when she ordered the arrest of 647 protesters in Dallas for blocking a major highway after giving them several warnings.  She defended her decision by saying, “Although peaceful, the protesters broke the law,” and she stated her first priority is to keep Dallas safe, not to make others happy.  

Carmen Best’s police department has faced CHAZ/CHOP and more recently a 50% cut in the SPD budget.  

“I will fiercely advocate that we focus on realistic, rational and responsible solutions – not political gestures or pandering or political posturing.  I do not believe we should ask the people of Seattle to test out a theory that crime goes away if police go away. That is completely reckless.”

Best is persistent on keeping police funding,  even fighting off council member Lisa Herbold’s suggestion to fire officers by race.  

Conclusion

Moderate Democrats do not have to compromise their beliefs to pander to the radical wing in order to be successful, and Republicans can co-act with Democrats to work toward a more perfect union.    

Governor Cuomo, Take Responsibility

Governor Cuomo has been lauded by many for his response to  COVID-19. His daily press briefings and overconfidence attracted attention and praise quickly. However, his incompetence in dealing with the virus, and his willingness to blame  everyone but himself for the deaths in his state, shows that he failed New York state.

The evidence is in: Cuomo’s strategy wasn’t as successful as his fans claim. New York’s deaths per million is currently the second highest in the country (behind only New Jersey). One major reason for this is Cuomo’s executive order stating that nursing homes had to accept COVID positive cases. Anywhere from 4,300 to 6,300 recovering COVID patients were put into nursing homes, which caused major outbreaks and a devastating number of deaths. This order was eventually reversed in May, but the damage had been done. Instead of implementing policies to protect the at-risk elderly population, like Governor DeSantis did (he created  COVID specific nursing homes so as not to mix recovering patients with healthy elderly), Governor Cuomo endangered—and ultimately killed—senior citizens. He then refused to take the blame.

After people realized this mistake, Cuomo knew he had to acknowledge it. Instead of taking responsibility and apologizing to the heartbroken families who lost loved ones, he began pointing fingers to everybody but himself. He cited a study by the New York Health Department (meaning it was not independent; it was conducted by his own administration) that claimed the real cause of increased death rates  in nursing homes was infected staff members, not infected patients. However, many experts have pointed out major flaws in the study, including that there is no data on nursing homes that had no cases before the executive order. This means that the study only looked at nursing homes with those known to have positive patients before the executive order and therefore does not look at patients who were forced into nursing homes afterwards. Another issue is the study does not include elderly individuals who were moved and died in the hospital rather than in the nursing home. There are arguments to be made about the extent in which this order had an effect on the death toll, but for Governor Cuomo to claim it is not a major contributing factor is simply avoiding blame.

In recent weeks, there have been major spikes of COVID cases across the country. Even though New York isn’t experiencing the same surge as other states, no state’s death toll—even with this latest wave of cases—has topped New York’s. Some, including Cuomo himself, are claiming New York “beat COVID” because they are not experiencing the same spike as states like Arizona. The spike in cases, however, started around Memorial Day Weekend—at the same time that protests broke out across the country, and people likely got together for cookouts and celebrations. The spikes therefore are not necessarily from states opening up too soon, like Cuomo and Democrats want to claim. Besides—states started reopening two weeks earlier than Memorial Day. This means their spikes should have been sooner, and even states such as California, who never fully opened back up, have seen spikes.

There are, however, concerns that  New York is seeing a rise in cases and deaths. Because of this, Governor Cuomo has begun to pause phases of reopening, often citing “large gatherings” as a major concern, even though he did not stop the large protests in his state.  And yet people are still praising Cuomo, and he’s certainly been throwing himself a victory party. He came out with a poster about New York “beating COVID,” was a guest on Jimmy Fallon’s show laughing about his dating life, and continues to blame President Trump for his own incompetence. Jake Tapper, a CNN host, even critiqued Cuomo’s poster stating, "There are no illustrations, however, of the more than 32,000 dead New Yorkers, the highest death toll by far of any state. No rendering on that poster of the criticism that Governor Cuomo ignored warnings, no depiction of the study that he could have saved thousands of lives had he and Mayor De Blasio acted sooner, no painting of his rescinded order that nursing homes take all infected patients in.” 

Governor Cuomo failed to protect his state and his people, yet he has been praised by many in the media for his leadership. He consistently refuses to take responsibility, and instead blames nursing home workers and the President. It is time for Cuomo to apologize to his people, and for the country to be honest about the disaster over which he presided.

The Sentence Imposed

On July 14, 2020, for the first time in seventeen years, an inmate took his last breath on the bluish-grey gurney at United States Penitentiary, Terre Haute–home to the Federal death row and execution chamber. The same process would occur twice more that week. In the span of merely four days, the Federal Government doubled the number of people it has executed since reinstating capital punishment in 1988, putting Daniel Lewis Lee, Wesley Ira Purkey, and Dustin Lee Honken to death by lethal injection on the 14th, 16th, and 17th of July respectively.

As with most notable events this year, the three executions attracted a great deal of controversy and even outrage. In The New York Times, lawyers Cate Stetson and Ruth Friedman denounced the executions as “shameful” and argued that the executions were part of a “reckless push to bring back the federal death penalty” on account of a lethal injection protocol that supposedly violated the Eighth Amendment. It was because of this protocol that District Court Judge Tanya S. Chutkan placed a preliminary injunction on all three executions. Others have criticized the executions for failing to represent victims’ interests, being inconsiderate to the family of Lee’s victims, who wished to see him spared, and creating unnecessary political controversy around a topic which was not at the forefront of national conversation.

A closer examination of these reservations reveals serious faults with all of them; the execution protocol utilized in the three executions was by no means untried. On the contrary, multiple states that impose capital sentences have utilized pentobarbital as their drug of choice for years without incident, including Texas, Georgia, and Missouri. Furthermore, the issue of execution protocol has already been considered, as Judge Chutkan issued an injunction which demanded examination of the protocol, an injunction which was lifted six months later in a per curiam decision by the D.C. Court of Appeals. Taking these facts into consideration, it can hardly be said that the Federal protocol either violated the Eighth Amendment, or was not given proper consideration.

It must also be noted that the three condemned were not rushed to their executions. Alongside the 17 year moratorium on Federal executions, Lee, Purkey and Honken spent 21, 17 and 14 years on death row respectively, enough time for all three to exhaust their appeals. Additionally, the father of Jennifer Long, one of Purkey’s victims, stated after the execution that it had “taken too long” to put him to death. Long was raped and murdered by Purkey, after which her remains were burned and thrown in a septic pond. The grisly acts for which Purkey was sentenced to death are of a similar nature to those of Lee and Honken. Lee was an accomplice to the torture and murder of a family of three in a plot to acquire weapons for a white separatist state, while Honken was sentenced to die for the murders of five people, including a six and ten year old girl, whom he feared would testify against him in a narcotics case. While the relatives of Lee’s victims wanted his sentence commuted, the families of the other two victims supported the executions. Evidently, it appears that the last minute attempts to delay the executions of the three men were more likely to have not been in the interest of the victims’ families - not the executions themselves as some people have claimed.

As for the supposedly political nature of the executions, it is undoubtedly true that capital punishment remains a contested issue. However, as it stands, the death penalty remains on the books as a legitimate punishment that can be handed down by the Federal Government. And, as a legitimate punishment, it is the obligation of the state to take all necessary measures to ensure that it is carried out. Upon issuing the death warrants for the three condemned, Attorney General William Barr stated that the American people “have long instructed that defendants convicted of the most heinous crimes should be subject to a sentence of death” and that the Federal Government has a duty to “to carry forward the sentence imposed.” Regardless of where individuals may stand on the issue of capital punishment, it must be concluded that the three Federal executions were carried out in a manner that was both consistent with the rule of law, the nature of the crimes committed by the offenders, the wishes of the American people and family of the victims, and with the Constitution.

Conservative Ideals Can–and Should–Shape Police Reform

As of late, some United States law enforcement officers have exhibited undeniable incompetency through their harsh interactions with citizens, in large part with the Black community. The tragic loss of these lives at the hands of perhaps ill-trained officers who should be leading our communities—rather than tearing them apart—is inexcusable. Police reform is a necessity that our country yearns for. By recommitting to the conservative principles that undergird this nation, our police forces will be better able to serve and protect American citizens.

First, conservatism promotes respect for our inalienable rights and the Constitution. We Americans champion our inalienable right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That means that the institutions that are meant to protect us and our rights should not compromise them; rather, they should promote them. The police department should emphasize these principles as the foundation for their organization to a greater extent than they do now. Hence, before going on to become an officer, it should be distinctly clear that the potential officer is committed to these principles without question. They should clearly be the paradigm for someone who adheres to the precedent of the Constitution. Put into practice, this would mean that law enforcement officers treat every life with the utmost respect. Our inalienable rights should serve as the conscious foundation by which officers act. A commitment to the Constitution is vital in order for them to truly protect and serve.

Among the other tenets of conservatism is a respect for authority. This includes the respect that ordinary US citizens should have for law enforcement officers, but it also means that officers should respect  the higher ideals that shape our nation. The understanding that officers are not in and of themselves the law is a requisite to being able to serve well as one. This fervent commitment to our Constitution and inalienable rights as a higher authority implies unyielding patriotism. Conservatism promotes American exceptionalism, which when put into practice, would endow officers with the understanding that our country and its people are to be protected above all else. Anything done to harm them should be a last resort in pursuit of self-defense in accordance with the rule of law.

Lastly, an emphasis on tradition will further American patriotism and the commitment towards protecting our country and its principles. Traditional American values at their core, employed in an enlightened 21st century, are necessary in order for a united nation to move forward and do better. This is why a call for police reform, and not complete abolition, is necessary. The system can be reformed in a manner that places value on the Constitution and the ideals that led to our being the first nation to choose itself––the first to choose to endow its people with inalienable rights and a democracy that protects us from our own government. We are a government by the people and for the people, and our police force should be as well.  

I must conclude by assuring readers that this article was not written as a promotion of a partisan, Conservative police force. Instead, it was written to show how tenets of conservative ideology may prove useful when looking at ways to reform the police force. Reaffirming these principles through more pointed reforms will hopefully make for a police force that exudes mutual respect.