Desecrating the Dictionary

Has anyone noticed that people on the Left keep changing the definitions of words? It’s a problem.

Sometimes these redefinitions seem blatantly strategic and premeditated, like when Cecilia Rouse, the president of one of President Biden’s economic advisory councils, suggested that we need to “upgrade” our definition of the word “infrastructure.” Rouse’s comments come as Democrats try to ram through a $2.25 billion infrastructure bill that pumps money into a variety of projects that have nothing to do with infrastructure—like childcare.

The same thing happened with the term “court-packing” during the last election cycle. Biden and Harris dodged questions about court-packing for weeks—until they realized that they could just change the phrase’s definition and accuse Trump of court- packing. (According to Democratic politicians, court- packing no longer referred to the practice of adding more seats to a court to water down the influence of a previous politician’s appointees; it suddenly meant any attempt to fill judicial vacancies quickly.) Dictionary. com bought the new narrative and changed their definition of court-packing to “the practice of changing the number or composition of judges on a court, making it more favorable to particular goals or ideologies” (emphasis mine). In other words, any attempt to appoint a judicial nominee, especially a nominee who differs ideologically from their would-be predecessor, is now considered court-packing. That is absurd, dishonest, and a distraction from the threat posed by real court-packing.

It’s not the only redefinition that happened during Amy Coney Barrett’s Supreme Court nomination fiasco. Hours after Coney Barrett used the phrase “sexual preference” during her Supreme Court confirmation hearings, Miriam-Webster added a line to its entry for the word “preference” denoting that, when used in regard to sexuality, the word “preference” is considered offensive. Coney Barrett was then accused of bigotry.

Sometimes though, definitions change more subtly. The word “violence” no longer refers to physical harm. It can now refer to intentional emotional or verbal harm, too. And in recent years the Left has radically changed the definition of “gender,” separatingit from the biological concept of sex. By arguing that gender and sex are inherently different concepts, they shut down debates about gender theory.

Constant redefinition is super problematic. For one, it’s a butchery of the English language. It’s also blatantly dishonest and fallacious: one cannot simply change the definition of words to get what one wants. (Although the strategy seems to be working for the Left.)

Redefinition isn’t just dishonest; it also makes it impossible for people to reach consensuses or develop viable solutions to legitimate issues. An essential prerequisite for having a productive conversation about public policy—or any serious topic for that matter— is an agreed-upon linguistic framework. Given the nuanced nature of most policy issues, precise, well- defined terminology is especially important. And so, when politicians, journalists, and policy advocates change the definition of a particular term in order to sell legislation, drum up concern about an issue, or smear political opponents, they generate confusion and prevent productive, bipartisan conversations. How can we develop effective infrastructure legislation if we don’t even have a shared sense of what infrastructure is?

Nowhere is the danger of imprecise and shifting language clearer than in current conversations about racism and white supremacy.

Once upon a time, there used to be a hierarchy of racist sins. At the top of the list was white supremacy. “White supremacy” referred to the belief that white people were biologically superior to other people; it often led to violence, attempts at ethnic cleansing, and other atrocities. Examples of white supremacist groups included the KKK and Nazis. Below white supremacy, there was racism: according to the OED, racism also involved a belief that one racial or ethnic group was superior to another; it generally manifested itself in some form of discrimination, the use of racial slurs, etc. Below racism was racial prejudice. Racial prejudice typically referred to beliefs that certain people had about individuals in other racial or ethnic groups. Those beliefs could inform actions, and thus feed racism. But being prejudiced (thinking a particular way) was different from being overtly racist (intentionally acting a particular way because of someone’s race or ethnicity). Finally, there was racial bias—the innate tendency to prefer people who looked like oneself. Bias, unlike other racial sins, was usually less intentional and more implicit than prejudice.

But in the last several years, the hierarchy of racial sins has been obliterated by proponents of Critical Race Theory, who have pushed for much broader definitions of terms like “racism” and “white supremacy”—definitions that encompass, well, just about everything. Suddenly, the Metropolitan Museum of Art, the SAT, and even attempts to ignore race are all considered forms of, or are rooted in, white supremacy.

Using terms like white supremacy or racism with impunity can raise awareness about the prevalence and harms of racism, which is a noble motive. And yet, it’s kind of like a doctor calling everything “terminal,” regardless of whether or not it’s actually terminal: sure it might push patients to re-evaluate their lives or pursue more aggressive treatment, but it’s also dishonest. It can lead to ineffective solutions, and—in the long run—can lead people to take serious diagnoses less seriously. If everything is white supremacy, we run the risk of people believing that nothing is white supremacy. And then we lose the capacity to address real racism.

I’m convinced that this problem is playing out in real time across the country, hampering America’s capacity to heal racism and other divisions that bifurcate the nation. When activists like Ibram Kendi and Robin DiAngelo toss out allegations of white supremacy and racism like candy at a parade, they push reasonable people to stop taking allegations of racism seriously. Even when people do want to address racism, confusion about what racism actually is adds unnecessary conflict to public discourse. As a result, instead of addressing, say, the influence of white supremacist groups on social media, we bicker about metrics that gauge the health and stability of the Black community (like high school graduation rates), because somehow those metrics— which can and should inform public policy—are racist.

As a final note—I’m willing to concede that language changes over time, that old definitions can be clunky and outdated, and that, sometimes, we need a richer understanding of what a particular word means. But I do not buy that the meaning of words does (or should) correspond neatly with the Democrats’ policy agenda. Furthermore, if a word’s meaning does need to shift, then let’s actually have a conversation about terminology. Let’s debate whether or not sex and gender

are different, whether or not infrastructure includes childcare, or whether an affinity for capitalism makes a person racist. Even middle-schoolers are taught that, in order to make an argument, they need to define their terms accurately. Why can’t we start holding politicians, journalists, and academics to the same standard?

The Militia, Sir, Are The People

Within the span of one week, a pair of mass shootings rocked Atlanta, Georgia and Boulder, Colorado, bringing an outpouring of mourning and reigniting the debate over one of the most incendiary political issues: firearms in America. Almost immediately after the shooting in Boulder, renewed calls for gun control came from prominent Democratic politicians. These included President Joe Biden, who called for a ban on so-called ‘assault weapons’ and closing loopholes related to the purchase of firearms. While enacting these policies is often touted as ‘common sense’, the reality of gun control is far different. As a matter of fact, when consideration is given to the origins of the Second Amendment, its breadth, the history of firearms in America and the implications of their restriction, the idea of heavy-handed gun control becomes quite senseless.

Oftentimes, the nature of the Second Amendment itself is the first item drawn into question by advocates of strict gun control. Many point to the text itself to make the claim that the amendment merely covers “well regulated militias” rather than an uninfringeable right to keep and bear arms. A closer examination of the Founders’ thoughts on firearms demonstrates that this is clearly untrue. George Mason summarized it best when he rhetorically asked “who are the militia,” answering with “the whole people.” In his drafts of the Virginia Constitution, Thomas Jefferson wrote that “No freeman shall be debarred the use of arms.” Jefferson’s writings are not unusual, as the other state constitutions drafted at the time include protections of the right to bear arms, including Vermont’s which declares “that the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and the state.” Considering the thoughts of the Founders and the context in which the Second Amendment was conceived, there can be no doubt that the right to keep and bear arms was indeed the amendment’s intent.

The next question is the extent to which weapons are covered under the Second Amendment. In the aftermath of the Boulder Shooting, Joe Biden justified his renewed efforts for gun control by stating that “no amendment is absolute.” Setting aside the troubling implications of this statement for a moment, it is clear that Biden and his supporters believe that the Second Amendment does not cover certain types of firearms. This assumption is flawed on its face as it suggests that the Founders had no conception of technological development and could not have anticipated the development of modern firearms. As a matter of fact, various innovative weapons including the rotary magazine Puckle Gun and repeating arms such as the Belton Flintlock and later Girandoni Air Rifle. Evidently, the Second Amendment does not merely apply to flintlocks as some gun control proponents claim. Further, considering that flintlocks were the foremost weapons in the era the Second Amendment was written, the amendment would apply in the same weapon to common firearms in the present, just as the First Amendment applies to both the quill pen and the smartphone.

Of course, the most widely owned rifle in America is the basis of many complaints concerning the breadth of the Second Amendment; the dreaded AR-15 and its derivatives. The AR-15 and similar rifles are touted as “weapons of war” and “assault weapons” by gun control proponents, who argue that they are disproportionately deadly and most commonly used in mass shootings. These terms are inherently misleading. Assault rifle is a military classification referring to a rifle which fires an intermediate cartridge. While AR-15 utilizes a .223 caliber cartridge, which is intermediate, it is not a true select-fire assault rifle, and has not been used by the military in any significant capacity. The AR-15 is semi-automatic, each time the trigger is squeezed, one round is expended. On the other hand, the term “assault weapon” is pure fiction, formulated as a matter of categorizing firearms by such superficial features as pistol grips and detachable magazines, features not inherent only to rifles like the AR-15. The Ruger Mini-14, for instance, is also semi-automatic, is chambered in .223, and has a detachable magazine. Unlike the AR-15, the Ruger has no pistol grip, and lacks the common black carbon appearance which renders the AR-15 frightening or military-esque in appearance.

Appearances and technicalities aside, the AR-15 is not in fact the weapon of mass murder as commonly portrayed by the media. FBI crime statistics reveal that, despite firearms being used in 10,265 homicides in 2018, rifles, including the AR-15, were only used in 297. By contrast, blunt objects were used in 443 homicides, while cutting instruments were used in 1,515. Even when taking mass shootings into consideration, handguns once again eclipse firearms, being used in 95 mass shootings between 1982 and 2021, while rifles were used in 48. Despite its reputation, the statistical evidence demonstrates that the AR-15 and weapons like it are neither disproportionately responsible for mass shootings, nor homicides with firearms generally.

Even when measures have been taken to restrict ownership of superficially designated ‘assault weapons’, they have proven entirely ineffective. In 1994, the Assault Weapons Ban prohibited the manufacture and importation of specific weapons that included AR-15s and similar rifles, along with magazines containing more than ten rounds. Over the course of its ten years, the Assault Weapons Ban saw no discernible reduction in firearms crime, and 16 mass shootings, including the infamous Columbine Shooting in which one shooter used a Tec-9, a firearm prohibited under the act which he was too young to have purchased himself. It is doubtful that similar legislation would prove any more effective.

In the wake of this legislative failure and others, the logical conclusion has been reached by some gun control advocates,  Robert Francis O’Rourke among them, that only a gun confiscation, or at least a confiscation of “your AR-15s, your AK-47s” will suffice. In doing so, they would be following in the footsteps of history’s worst tyrants. The Soviet Union mandated that citizens turn in their firearms in 1918, Cuba in 1959, and more recently, Venezuela in 2012, which ironically has skyrocketing crime despite its restrictions. This is the true end of strict gun control: a populace which is passive and has no significant means to defend against government repression. If, as President Biden maintains, “no amendment is absolute,” once the Second Amendment falls, those other ‘non-absolute’ amendments will be open to restriction, or  worse.

There are indeed reasonable precautions to be taken with firearms. While valuable tools, firearms are still weapons to be treated with the utmost care. Indeed, many laws are already on the books to prevent guns from falling into the hands of felons and the mentally ill. Rather than rendering the populace defenseless, perhaps the best thing to do is to enforce these existing laws and educate the public about firearms in the way individuals are educated about their other civil rights.

A Token Effort

Racism is an undeniable evil that has poisoned many societies throughout history, including our own.  From slavery and Jim Crow, to the genocide of Native Americans, to the internment camps for Japanese Americans during World War II, America has struggled with fulfilling its founding principles time and time again.  The self-evident truth that “all men are created equal” and the universal right to “life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness” have not been perfectly applied in America and have been outright attacked many times throughout our short history.  

Despite this, America is more free, accepting, and equal to people of all races today than ever before.  We have elected a black president, a black and Asian American vice-president, many men and women of color (from both parties) into Congress, Governorships, and other high positions. We have seen women and ethnic minorities in the Supreme Court and in courts across the land, as successful entrepreneurs, as leaders, and as academics. Cities like Atlanta, Dallas, Houston, and Miami are new beacons of hope for ethnic minorities in this country.

That being said, the sin of racism still poisons our society.  Racially motivated hate crimes are not just a relic of the past, but a present struggle for many Americans of all ethnicities.  Racial slurs and hurtful words too often invade our daily lives. Social media punchlines too often separate friends into separate, racially segregated camps. Additionally, many Americans of all colors still live in abject poverty.  Disproportionately, these are black and Latino Americans as well as immigrants and refugees, mostly in inner cities.  Even cities like Atlanta, which has high rates of ethnic minority business ownership and wealth, still suffer from poverty within black and Latino communities.

These issues are universally known and recognized, so I will not speak to these any further.  However, I will focus on what is being done to solve these problems.  Sadly, it seems that many people are so much more focused on virtue signaling on their Instagram stories than going out and making a difference in a person’s life. Additionally, the same people who claim to advocate for people of color attack people of color who identify as conservative, like Sen. Tim Scott (R-SC), Amb. Nikki Haley, and Rep. Michelle Steel (R-CA), calling them “tokens.”  However, the token effort is not simply an attempt by Republicans to showcase conservatives of color - it is a problem that transcends partisan lines and is evident every day.

Since last summer, there has been a campaign to rename buildings and remove monuments of historical figures.  This is not limited to avid racists and slaveowners - even abolitionists like Frederick Douglass and Abraham Lincoln, and Left-wing leaders like Sen. Dianne Feinstein (D-CA), have had buildings once named in their honor changed and monuments to them removed.  The removal of names and monuments, even when justified, do not do anything for underserved communities.  Do you really think a single mom in the ghetto of Memphis cares about the name of a residence hall on a New England college campus?  Do you think a child stuck in a failing school in Detroit cares about the name of a military fort in North Carolina?  Do you think an immigrant teacher who cannot find a job because she doesn’t know how to speak English cares about a monument in a park?

The obvious answer is “no.”  When someone is worried about where his next meal will come from, he will not have time to be concerned about a military base being renamed or by a monument being removed.  These actions do nothing for underserved communities, and they only help the “the system” feel more comfortable with itself.  This is what one would call “a token effort.”

Renaming a building, discontinuing brands of syrup and rice, removing monuments and gravestones, posting on social media, and sending out statements do nothing for underserved communities.  In fact, it is a slap in the face of those who need help the most because instead of getting the help they need, they get empty claims of support.  If a person truly supports those who are less fortunate, that person supports them through constructive action, not simply words.  Becoming an “ally” for persons of color does not start with your Instagram bio, it starts with your hands.  Having trainings for the observance of old Native American lands is good and all, but unless you are serving underserved Native American communities or actively working for change, you are doing nothing for those who are struggling.

So, you who writes, “Black Lives Matter” on your Instagram bio, are you in Atlanta, or Memphis, or Baltimore, or your own community serving black lives and others who are forgotten by society?  You who writes, “Support immigrants,” do you support immigrants and refugees in deed rather than just in word?  You who writes, “Stop Asian hate,” where are you when colleges and universities actively discriminate against Asian Americans in admissions and scholarships?  You CEO who caves at each political wind, where is your company when the people in the same city as your headquarters struggle to make ends meet?  You college administrators who write beautiful emails condemning injustices and the evil of white supremacy, where are you when millions of Americans of all colors struggle to be represented and to find opportunity?

Even the College of the Holy Cross has fallen short in its “fight for social justice.”  On their “Social Justice Awareness” page on their website, there are links to bail funds, readings and videos, and political and protest organizations such as Black Lives Matter.  What does not appear are non-profit organizations that seek to assist underserved communities directly.  In fact, linked on the Holy Cross website is an Innocence Project article that proposes eight ways to “get involved” and “advocate for justice.”  These eight things include: donating to a bail fund, donating to “Black-led organizing projects,” joining a protest, checking in with friends and family, demanding accountability of leaders and law enforcement, speaking up, reading, and watching.

What is missing from this list is active engagement and volunteerism.  All of the links that Holy Cross provides are either to donate to George Floyd’s family, who has already raised $14 million and gained $27 million from the City of Minneapolis, to donate to bail out those arrested during protests and riots, and to protest organizations.  There are no links to service or volunteer organizations.  Not one. When George Floyd died under the knee of Derek Chauvin, protests broke loose, and a fund was set up to help his family - and, perhaps, rightfully so.  However, how much more is merited when over 600 black Americans are murdered per year in Chicago, 300 black Americans are murdered per year in Baltimore, 250 black Americans are murdered per year in St. Louis, and so many more are murdered in various cities across this country?  Where is the outcry?  Where is the national news media?  Where are the politicians?  Where are the social media hashtags?  Where is Holy Cross?  Nowhere. Nowhere to be seen.  No one says their names.  

The fact of the matter is that if organizations were serious about helping black people in need and other underserved communities, they would be more focused on action and not protest, on serving the underserved rather than posting a hashtag or sending an email. These trivial actions benefit the poster or “protester” much more than those in need.  It’s so easy to make it look like you’re virtuous if you post “#blacklivesmatter”, send an email about “racial inequity,” or if you create a “social justice webpage.”  But, these actions do nothing for those in need, and only make privileged people feel better about themselves.

So, social media activist, next time you post that you “stand in solidarity with” so-and-so, consider actually going and serving those with whom you claim to stand in solidarity.  Holy Cross, next time you send an email about disparity and inequity, work to help solve the problem rather than just giving students propaganda to read and a link to the Counseling Office. It’s time to stop talking the talk and start walking the walk.  Instead of being at each other’s throats about politics and disparity, we should have our hands on the plow in serving others.  Working to end disparities takes more than talking about it; it’s high time to act on it.  Reach out to your local non-profit, your local ESL organization, your local YMCA, your local Habitat for Humanity, your local career development center, etc.  Let’s stop giving a token effort.

Here are some non-profit organizations local to Holy Cross where you can get involved and make a difference in someone else’s life:

Salvation Army: (508) 756-7191; 640 Main St, Worcester, MA 01608

Habitat for Humanity: (508) 439-7655; 11 Distributor Rd, Worcester, MA 01605

American Legion: (508) 799-9800; 326 Plantation St, Worcester, MA 01604

YMCA Central Massachusetts: (508) 791-3181; 1 Salem Square, Worcester, MA 01608

Framingham Adult ESL Plus: (508) 626-4282; 31 Flagg Dr, Framingham, MA 01702

The 2021 Honorary Degree Recipients: A (Mostly) Inspirational Bunch

Holy Cross will award four honorary degrees at this year’s graduation ceremony in May. The recipients, announced by Father Boroughs in an April 1st email, are Dr. Michael Collins ‘77, chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School; Reverend David Beckmann, an anti-hunger activist; Sister Donna Markham, president of Catholic Charities USA; and Ambassador Linda Thomas-Greenfield, current U.S. Ambassador to the United Nations. Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will deliver the commencement speech, while Dr. Collins will offer a reflection to the graduating class. Rev. Beckmann and Sister Markham will speak at a special virtual convocation on May 22nd, the day after commencement.

While outdoing last year’s surprise commencement appearance by Dr. Anthony Fauci would be a difficult task, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield is an impressive pick in her own right. A career diplomat, she has served in U.S. missions in Switzerland, Pakistan, Kenya, The Gambia, Nigeria, and Jamaica, as well as several tours in Washington, DC. After an ambassadorship to Liberia between 2008 and 2012, she served as Director General of the Foreign Service between 2012 and 2013 and as Assistant Secretary of State for African Affairs from 2013 to 2017, before retiring after thirty-five years at the State Department. Her devotion to public service provides much for Holy Cross students to appreciate and emulate.

Unfortunately, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield’s shameful recent comments cast a negative light on her previously apolitical reputation. Speaking last week before Al Sharpton’s National Action Network (itself a problem, given Sharpton’s history of racism and anti-Semitism), Thomas-Greenfield recounted her personal experiences with racial discrimination, before stating, “I have seen for myself how the original sin of slavery weaved white supremacy into our founding documents and principles.” She went on to judge racism as “a problem in every society,” citing as examples the ongoing genocides against the Rohingya in Burma and Uyghurs in China. Beyond the obvious issue of equivalating—even indirectly—the United States with the murderous, authoritarian regimes in China and Burma, Thomas-Greenfield’s remarks raise serious concerns regarding her role as US ambassador to the UN. As the Wall Street Journal editorial board rightly noted, her role as UN ambassador is to “speak for American values and interests” on the world stage. Instead, she has chosen to revive a version of President Obama’s apology tour and use her platform to self-flagellate and denigrate the country she is supposed to represent and defend.

Thomas-Greenfield is just the latest in the College’s recent tradition of inviting progressive political and media figures to speak or receive honorary degrees. Recent commencement speakers who fit this mold have included Obama speechwriter Jon Favreau, Pennsylvania Senator Bob Casey, Democratic state representative Mark Kennedy Shriver, NPR host Michele Norris, racial activist Bryan Stevenson, and MSNBC’s Chris Matthews. To be fair, while several of these—including Favreau, Casey, Matthews, and Shriver—are alumni, the fact remains that Holy Cross has frequently drawn commencement speakers from the left, but rarely from the right. Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas, the College’s most famous alumnus (the recent Fauci fad aside), has received an honorary degree from his alma mater, but never spoken at commencement. If the Holy Cross administration is unwilling to host commencement speakers from all ideological backgrounds, it would be best to avoid inviting political figures at all.

Before her recent comments, Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield was fairly nonpartisan, with only a controversy or two under her belt. During her confirmation hearing, she was criticized by some Republicans for a 2019 speech delivered at a Communist Party of China-sponsored Confucius Institute in which she praised China’s Belt and Road Initiative. She described the speech as a “mistake” at her Senate hearing, and was ultimately confirmed in a bipartisan 78-20 vote. She later denounced China’s treatment of its Uighur population as a “genocide” in a speech before the UN General Assembly—a promising sign that she will continue to stand up for human rights in spite of Chinese pressure.

Another concern was her pledge during her testimony that a “personal priority” would be to protect women’s access to “a full range of reproductive health services,” which, as a Heritage Foundation article noted, in the UN context, includes abortion. As an invited speaker to a Catholic college, this is obviously problematic. However, as noted by Patrick Reilly, president of the Cardinal Newman Society, it is acceptable for a non-Catholic with personal disagreements with Church teaching to deliver a speech at a Catholic college in most circumstances. An issue only arises when the speaker in question has been “publicly and… stridently in opposition to clear, fundamental Catholic teaching.” With this in mind, it is important to note that the vast majority of Thomas-Greenfield’s career was spent within the Foreign Service, serving in a nonpartisan capacity under presidents of both parties, as a member of the State Department bureaucracy. So while some of her views might not align with those of the Church, there is no reason for this to overshadow her merit as a leader in other areas, particularly in advancing democracy overseas.

Recent controversies aside, her life story actually holds a lot for conservatives to appreciate. A descendant of slaves, she was born and raised in a small town in Louisiana, where she grew up attending segregated schools and witnessing Ku Klux Klan cross burnings in her neighborhood. As she later testified before the UN General Assembly on the International Day for the Elimination of Racial Discrimination, “I know the ugly face of racism. I lived racism. I have experienced racism. And I survived racism.” She not only survived—she thrived.

After graduating in 1970 from a (still) all-black high school, she opted not to attend the local historically black college like many of her other classmates. Instead, she set her sights on Louisiana State University—which she was only able to attend “as a consequence of a lawsuit.” There, despite unsympathetic white professors, she was able to graduate and went on to earn her master’s in public administration from the University of Wisconsin. She later began a PhD program before leaving to enter the Foreign Service in 1982.

That a black American from the Deep South who grew up under segregation and amid Klan violence could go on to become one of the country’s top foreign policy leaders is a remarkable achievement in itself. Even more remarkable is that she was able to accomplish this without the interference of affirmative action programs or institutional “anti-racism” efforts. Hers is a story of pure grit and determination. As Thomas-Greenfield put it in her confirmation hearing, “To me, that represents the progress, and promise, of America” (too bad her recent comments have undermined this message). In an age where universities—Holy Cross included—increasingly prioritize “protecting” students and validating their fragility rather than teaching them resilience, Thomas-Greenfield’s story is an invaluable one.

The other invitees to this year’s ceremonies, while less prominent, are similarly impressive figures in their respective fields. Dr. Michael Collins ‘77 is chancellor of the University of Massachusetts Medical School and senior vice president for health sciences for the university as a whole. Before starting at UMass, he headed the Archdiocese of Boston-sponsored Caritas Christi Health Care system for ten years between 1994 and 2004. He has served as chair of the board of both the College of the Holy Cross and the Catholic Health Association of the United States. Most recently, he oversaw the creation of the UMass Medical School Vaccine Corps, which recruited over 6,400 volunteers to distribute COVID-19 vaccines throughout the state. Collins’ career exhibits not only a clear dedication to public service, but fidelity to the Church’s mission in healthcare. Deserving in his own right, he is an even more welcome choice when considering Holy Cross’s past decisions to honor pro-abortion speakers like MSNBC host Chris Matthews.

The Rev. David Beckmann and Sister Donna Markham are similarly respectable choices. Beckmann, as president of Bread for the World, a Christian anti-hunger advocacy organization, led campaigns to reduce hunger in the United States and abroad. A former World Bank economist, he currently serves on the steering committee of the Circle of Protection, an interdenominational Christian anti-hunger advocacy network. He was awarded the World Food Prize in 2010. Sister Donna Markham is president of Catholic Charities USA. She previously taught at St. John’s Seminary in Michigan and at the Kellogg School of Management at Northwestern University. A Dominican sister and clinical psychologist, she is Catholic Charities’ first female president in its 110-year history. It will be refreshing to hear the perspectives of these two servant-leaders whose work is grounded in faith and moral principles, rather than the narcissistic progressive orthodoxies that often seem to define conversations surrounding social justice at Holy Cross.

As alumni well know, Holy Cross has a mixed track record when it comes to honorary degrees—and preserving the College’s Catholic, Jesuit tradition more broadly. This year’s invitees are (mostly) a welcome breath of fresh air. While the Holy Cross administration consistently eschews tradition and the liberal ethos in favor of divisive political agendas, the Class of 2021 will at least get to hear from some sources of true inspiration at this year’s commencement and convocation ceremonies: Dr. Collin’s story of leadership and Catholic medical ethics; and Rev. Beckmann and Sister Markham’s spirit of faith-inspired activism and service. Hopefully Ambassador Thomas-Greenfield will strike a similar note in her commencement address, and draw on her impressive story to offer a message of resilience, patriotism, and public service—rather than use the opportunity to once again pick at America’s racial scabs.

Bill Gibbons v. Holy Cross

An esteemed community member and basketball legend, former Women’s Basketball Coach William Gibbons is bringing a civil suit against Holy Cross for emotional distress and other damages. On January 31, 2019, Coach Gibbons was suspended for unclear reasons, and eventually terminated after an ambiguous process. Critically, Coach Gibbons was relieved from his position at a time when two faculty members at Holy Cross were accused of sexual misconduct, thereby creating a false impression that he was facing similar accusations. 

The Holy Cross community must stand against any effort to assault the dignity and well-being of another human being, whether along sexual, racial, gender, or religious lines. Mr. Gibbons’ good name must be cleared from the shroud of secrecy and misinformation that has implicated him in any act of discrimination and tarnished his reputation. Decades of HC women’s basketball players and alumni of Coach Gibbons’, such as Marcy McManus Vandale ‘87,  have come forward to defend his character, and to advocate for a reasonable settlement in his suit against the College. 

Judge Ricciardone of the Western Worcester District Court has already sided with Coach Gibbons’ lawyer, Stephen G. Abraham, on the intentional infliction of emotional distress claim, allowing that count to move forward. More counts remain to be determined, including breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, unjust enrichment, personnel record statute violation, loss of consortium and defamation.

To understand the situation of Mr. Gibbons, one must first examine the record of facts leading from his suspension to his termination. The College began an investigation into Mr. Gibbons after a November 15, 2018 on-court disagreement between him and an assistant coach. Coach Gibbons made a substitution with which assistant coach Danielle Parks disagreed. After this, she “loudly and insubordinately remarked, ‘Wow, Wow, Wow, Wow, Wow’ (5 times), so loud that players, parents and others clearly heard,” according to the lawsuit. Gibbons, finding the assistant coach’s remarks undermined his authority, responded “Wow what? Don’t ever question my decision during a game in that way again, or you will not be working here.” Coach Gibbons addressed the incident at halftime with Ms. Parks and again with other assistant coaches the next day, emphasizing that the coaches must “remain unified in front of the team at all times.” He explained that he wanted their input on decisions, but that his as head coach was “the final one.” Then-Athletic Director Nathan Pine reviewed the game videotape and affirmed that Mr. Gibbons’ actions were “appropriate” and that he handled the situation “well.” Pine also stated that the insubordinate assistant, not Coach Gibbons, deserved to be suspended. 

Meanwhile, without the knowledge of Coach Gibbons, Ms. Parks had gone to the College’s human resources office on the morning of Nov. 16, 2018. She claimed that Mr. Gibbons’ statements to her constituted a “threat” rather than  “constructive criticism.” Over the course of further meetings with HR (Dec. 17, 2018 and Jan. 10, 2019), Ms. Parks would claim that Coach Gibbons had been ignoring the input of assistant coaches, and also displaying “racism” towards her and some minority players on the team. It goes without saying that any racist act towards an individual or group is unacceptable, and must be met with punishment. However, in his suit,  Mr. Gibbons describes these allegations as “fabricated stories” that were never corroborated by any players and that the claims were meant “to advance a hidden agenda of the assistant coaches.” It is unclear whether the assistant coaches acted with any agenda, or what the nature of these efforts might have been.

In mid-December of 2018, HR Director David Achenbach notified Coach Gibbons that a complaint had been made, and that an investigation would take place. Coach Gibbons received few details about the investigation, but stated that it was not necessary. Interim Athletic Director Brendan Sullivan responded that it was “just procedural” and nothing to worry about. During further meetings with HR, Coach Gibbons was assured that he would have an opportunity to review an investigative report. But according to Coach Gibbons’ suit, he never had an opportunity to review any report or to speak with Achenbach before a 60 day suspension was announced on Jan. 31, 2018. Coach Gibbons emphasizes that “This sequence of events was completely in violation of the appeal procedure” outlined in his employment agreement. 

In addition to never having been able to review an investigative report or speak to the HR Director, Coach Gibbons was never able to respond to any of the accusations put forth by Ms. Parks. Coach Gibbons’ suit alleges that “In bad faith, Holy Cross eschewed the word of a deeply loyal and exemplary thirty-eight year employee, for the fabricated allegations of the disloyal, manipulative assistants who were scheming to disparage Coach Gibbons for their own benefit.” It would seem logical to provide Coach Gibbons with the chance to address such serious accusations before making any decision about his employment at the College. According to the suit, Coach Gibbons was also unable to appeal the suspension to the College’s senior vice president — a right outlined in the Coach’s contract. 

Coach Gibbons’ lawyer, Stephen G. Abraham, argues that because this confusing process took place during a string of sexual assault allegations on campus, the College “intentionally and recklessly created a false impression to the public that Coach Gibbons had been found guilty of inappropriate sexual behavior or improper behavior toward a student.” A reasonable onlooker in the situation may have inferred that this was the case, and that Coach Gibbons was being investigated for similar charges. This incorrect public speculation may have been prevented if the College had issued a public statement explicitly stating the reasons for the suspension, or at a bare minimum stating that the suspension was separate and unrelated to the other investigations taking place. 

Coach Gibbons is fighting to overcome the negative image in which he has been shrouded. One can only imagine the negative impact that a litany of false rumours would have on someone. As outlined in the suit, “This false impression has irreparably damaged Coach Gibbons’ sterling personal reputation and has caused him to sustain emotional, mental and physical damages, for which he has required medical care.” Following the 60-day suspension period, the College announced in March of 2019 that Coach Gibbons would not be returning to his position. On April 2, 2019, Coach Gibbons and his wife went to the College to collect his personal belongings. During this time, there were arguments and disagreements between Coach Gibbons and the administrative staff. According to the suit, “there ensued, once again, miscommunication between Achenbach and Sullivan” and “further false allegations from Parks and McInerney about Coach Gibbons” that resulted in “a second unfair, inappropriate and unjustified ‘no trespass’ order.” The suit also alleges that Coach Gibbons’ ability to gain future employment has been “severely damaged” by the College’s actions, as he has not received any phone calls about coaching vacancies elsewhere. 

It is always necessary to explore all sides of a story, especially one as charged and difficult as the case between Coach Gibbons and Holy Cross. The Holy Cross community must seek justice in all actions and gestures, including in listening to the words of a man who has demonstrated a superb character and loyalty to the College for thirty-eight years. There is strong evidence that the College breached Mr. Gibbons’ contract, and more importantly, denied him an opportunity to defend himself and his name. Any individual under this amount of scrutiny would have a very difficult time, and it is disheartening to see a beloved Holy Cross coach facing this difficult situation. It is in the hope of truth and justice that the College and court determine a reasonable avenue of remediation for Coach Gibbons and his family. 

An Interview With Dr. Vincent D. Rougeau

This interview was conducted on Monday, March 29, 2021. We centered our questions around Dr. Rougeau’s disposition towards more orthodox Catholicism and conservatism. The interview as it appears here in print is not a direct transcription. Some content was removed for the sake of brevity, and other minor changes were made to improve clarity. Despite these modifications, we made sure to reflect Dr. Rougeau’s words faithfully. The full, unedited, twenty-five minute audio recording of the interview will be posted on our website. We would like to thank Dr. Rougeau for taking the time to speak with us - it was a wonderful opportunity.

Students might be unaware about the specific role of the President, could you provide us with a brief explanation of your jurisdiction and your responsibilities as you see them?

Sure, though obviously this is a new thing for me too. I think as a general matter, [the college President] is the chief executive officer of the institution. So, he or she is ultimately responsible for everything that happens on campus. As president I report to the Board of Trustees, but they hire me to be responsible for the college. That means every aspect of what happens on campus, ultimately, falls under my jurisdiction. Now, that’s a lot for one person to do, so that’s why we have talented Deans and Vice Presidents, Associate Deans, Vice Provosts, Provosts, all these people who are working with me to make sure the college is executing its mission.

The Holy Cross administration has come into conflict with Bishop McManus of the Diocese of Worcester in the past. We were wondering how you would plan to navigate the Diocesan- Collegiate relationship, and whether you intend to improve the relationship, or try to improve the relationship with the Diocese?

I think it’s really important for the College to have a good relationship with the local ordinary, with the local diocese, and I’ll do my best to come in and build that relationship with a clean slate, as it were. I also think it’s important to recognize the important role that Catholic colleges and universities play in the life of the Church - and it’s a unique role. It’s not the same as, say, a diocesan highschool or another diocesan institution, that fall directly under the aegis of the local bishop. So our mission as a college, that was founded by the Jesuit order, and that ultimately is part of the Jesuits’ charism and the educational mission of the Jesuit order, means that we have a variety of different responsibilities that we have to execute. I want to do that in partnership and cooperation with the bishop, and not in tension with him. But, I also think it’s important that we all recognize the things that we do that are unique and important and don’t necessarily fall into the same kinds of categories that one might ordinarily associate with things that happen in a particular diocese.

Following up on that, is there a particular instance, or any broader experience, where you at Boston College have had to work with the Bishop of Boston?

Well, absolutely. Cardinal Sean O’Malley, in the Archdiocese of Boston, has been an excellent partner with Boston College, and for the Law School in various ways. And, in particular, with the Social Justice activities and mission of the Law School - the work we’ve done as a Law School to make sure the lawyers we educate are sensitive to the roles they play in the legal system, and the fact that many many people do not have access to legal services. So, that’s just one example of the important way that we work with Cardinal Sean. And of course, he’s a participant in a number of activities that we have on campus - not often, but in ways that recognize the important role he plays for the Catholic community in greater Boston.

Students for Life, an RSO at Holy Cross, sent an email this past year, reaching out to see if the administration would make a comment about abortion on the anniversary of Roe v. Wade. The administration turned down this request, and we were wondering, would you consider such a request to make such a statement?

Well, I won’t make a statement as president in terms of what I would do or would not do yet, since I still have another job [laughing]. But I do think I would be open to hearing from you regarding exactly what you would be seeking in a statement from the administration in that regard. So, I hope that we would have a healthy dialogue about what would be the best way for us to communicate in that regard.

There are those on campus who might see Holy Cross as not promoting genuine Catholic ideals, through the struggles with the Diocese, and its tacit support for abortion. Do you have plans, broadly, to revive and promote more orthodox Catholic teaching at Holy Cross, or some even particulars you might have in mind?

Holy Cross is a liberal arts college and our mission is one that is rooted primarily in our role as an institution of higher education. We of course have a distinct role as a Catholic, Jesuit institution and we want to make sure we aren’t doing anything to undermine that mission. In the pursuit of knowledge at the highest level, in the pursuit of excellence and rigor in intellectual endeavor, there will be debates, disagreements, challenges. If I am to educate students to be the best at what they do, they need to understand and engage with disputes, with difference, with conflict. We can’t hide from conflict, that doesn’t mean that we try to promote conflict that undermines things that are important to our identity as a Catholic institution, but at the same time we need to be prepared for discussion and debate. I don’t think that we can understand Catholic orthodoxy around one specific issue. It is a network of issues that make up Catholic identity. And I do think there has been a tendency, in this country in particular, for the abortion issue to be seen as a sine qua non of what it means to be Catholic. And I would hate to see that happen at an institution of higher education, where we are teaching students in the traditional liberal arts model. Of course the abortion issue is one that needs to be thought about and discussed. The Church is very clear in its view, and it is not my intention to undermine that view, but at the same time, it is an issue that is causing deep conflict within this country, so we just have to be aware of that - it’s not an issue that is settled in American life. It’s a highly contested issue - as are many others, where the Church has strong opinions and views that don’t often get the same level of scrutiny, and the same level of engagement. I want all those issues to be discussed in a way that respects the role we play as an elite liberal arts college.

Could you provide a few examples of some of these ideas that you think might need more attention.

Absolutely. We have a crisis in this country around economic justice. We have a crisis in this country around racial justice. The Church speaks very clearly about the sin of racism - we need to be a part of that conversation. The wealth gap in this nation and the increasing distress of those at the bottom of the economic scale is something that the Church has spoken to for centuries. The immigration issue in this country is a crisis, and it goes directly to the state of human life - people are dying and children are being subjected to inhumane conditions at the border. The reasons for this are complex, but Catholics have been present in these discussions. What are we calling for in terms of addressing these issues at the highest levels in our nation’s government? Are we demanding change, are we asking people “why?,” in the the same way we are doing so around the question of abortion? I’m not saying that we’re not, but I’m saying that this is something that needs to happen. We need to be present on all these questions. And it’s a very complex set of questions. But they all go to the basic question, the basic issue, of human dignity. The Church is very clear about the person being made in the image and likeness of God. And, if we’re not present across a range of issues on that, then we’re not playing our role appropriately, and we’re picking and choosing based on other commitments we may have.

In the same regard, what do you think Holy Cross can do to help integrate these issues into the conversation?

What I see at Holy Cross is a real attention to a rich Catholic intellectual life, that, you know, we [inaudible] these issues together based on core themes, core intellectual and faith commitments, like the dignity of the human person, like the person made in the image and likeness of God, the idea that we need to be present with the poor and the marginalized. I think if you start at those foundational commitments, these other issues start to come together in a more coherent way. I mean, you can make a more coherent claim about why you need to be on this or that side of, say, a legal question or a policy question because you are promoting some core value in the Catholic intellectual tradition that makes this all come together in a way that is sensible and coherent to, perhaps, people who aren’t Catholic. The other thing that we have to do, if we are promoting a sort of high level, highly intellectual Catholic approach to learning, is that we have to recognize that we are not just speaking to Catholics. Just saying something is wrong or that we don’t believe in it, isn’t necessarily going to get real traction in that kind of conversation. So we need to be able to unpack our arguments, think carefully about what others who disagree with us are thinking and why they are thinking that. What I want to see us doing at Holy Cross is training students to think in the most rigorous way about these issues. And I hope, and I would expect that people trained at Holy Cross would do better.

In 2019 protestors prevented their fellow students from attending and engaging with Heather Mac Donald, a speaker that the Fenwick Review had invited to campus. Further, there have been ongoing talks in the administration of implementing a “Free Speech Philosophy Statement” which might restrict certain speakers from being welcomed on campus. So how would you ensure that students are able to hear speakers, regardless of their political persuasions, as Chapter 8 of the Statutes of the Faculty details: “As an institution of higher learning, dedicated to the pursuit of truth wherever it may be found, the College encourages free access to ideas, as a matter of policy. Accordingly, the College shall extend its hospitality to any speaker invited by a recognized student organization or department.”?

So I am, obviously, very supportive of the notion and the value of free speech, and as a lawyer I understand the constitutional commitment we make in this country to free speech. Now, of course, at a private institution there can be limits on what we think of in terms of the kinds of speakers we have on our campus. But I don’t want to think of it in terms of why we would limit things, I want to think about how we can have the broadest possible selection of speakers on our campus as possible in service of the goal that you just mentioned: the highest level of intellectual inquiry. That said, I do think there are going to be some times when speakers are promoting things or representing things that are undermining our core values, like the dignity of the human person, and if someone has a reputation for stoking hate or for fomenting violence, or they have associated themselves repeatedly with people like that, I think we have to look very carefully at what is gained by allowing that person a platform on our campus. We may have some very controversial speakers on campus from time to time, because it’s important to have that conversation. But, as a general matter, I think we have to be wary of people who are trying to use free speech as a platform for stoking hate, division, and violence. That’s just one example of where you might have to draw the line, but as a general rule, I want to make sure that we can have a lively intellectual debate on our campus, and I want to work with all constituencies on campus to make sure that we do that, while making sure that everyone on this campus can feel safe and a part of this community without feeling that they have to run some kind of gauntlet around racist, or antisemitic, or some other hate filled rhetoric.

As a follow up for that, would someone be allowed to [or] would you support someone coming to campus to speak about the intricacies of the issue of abortion itself, would that be something you would be supportive of?

Well, I mean, as a general matter, I don’t know specifically, I am not going to speak specifically to any speaker, but as a general matter I would think we would want to be able to have a conversation on our campus about abortion - as a public policy matter, as a legal matter, as a moral matter, and all of those things in the context which I described, where we are promoting the highest level of intellectual inquiry on our campus. And so, if people are going to have debates about public issues, they need to be informed of all of the sides of the argument.

Even more than speakers, how will you ensure that students of all political persuasions feel welcome at Holy Cross? And what value do you think conservative students bring to Holy Cross?

It’s critical that people of different beliefs can share a community at Holy Cross, because if we can’t do it at Holy Cross, God help us, we are not going to be able to do it in our country. Now, unfortunately, our country is not doing it very well. We can’t be naive and pretend that we are going to have highly charged political debates on the Holy Cross campus that are highly charged in other contexts outside of campus, and that they won’t create tension and conflict. One of the things we have to be thinking about as a community at Holy Cross is looking more broadly at what is going on in our country. If we are talking about conservative and liberal views sharing a space on our campus and being in respectful dialogue, we may have to spend some time thinking about how that looks - how do we make that happen in the context of our community. We don’t really see a healthy dialogue, for instance, in Congress, in public policy discussions in the United States right now. There is a huge divide, politically, between conservatives and liberals, left/right, in this nation, and the issues are not minor. If we are talking about something like voting rights for instance, people are going to be very passionate about that issue, for all kinds of reasons both historical, personal, and political. So I think that the best way to avoid the kind of dysfunction we are seeing politically in our nation, on campus is to remember that we are a community, and we need to build relationships with trust and respect across difference. So, what can we be doing, initially, to support and to encourage the kind of community where we respect one another as human persons, as people who come from different backgrounds, as people who have different ideas, as people who are joined together in the life of this community for a particular purpose? From that [we can] start to explore and engage difficult topics from a perspective of mutual respect. So, I absolutely agree that we need to have people who have different beliefs, because those beliefs are meaningful and important - they’re the reality of the world we live in, and if we are hiding from them, we are not doing our work as a great liberal arts college.

What is something important that you have learned from engaging with conservative thinkers? Who is a conservative intellectual or commentator you especially respect, and why?

Well, I’ve learned a lot from talking to people who have different ideas from mine. I am trying to think, I have a lot of different perspectives in terms of conservative thinkers who I’ve engaged with over the years. John Finnis was my colleague at Notre Dame for many many years, and I think he is one of the greatest minds of our era when it comes to being a thoughtful, deep thinker, a conservative, in the political sense for many, and in the religious sense. I have gained so much knowledge from my interactions with him, from reading his work - that’s just one example. I don’t think that there is ever a reason not to be in dialogue with people who are [different], engaging in topics from the appropriate position of respect.

One more quick question: Who is your favorite saint and why?

My favorite saint! Well, I got to shout out St. Vincent de Paul, since that’s who I was named for!

Questioning the Narratives

Many narratives posited by progressives are popular because they are simply phrased and easily repeated. However, the answers to a few simple questions can demonstrate that those narratives lack a basis in fact. If you are willing to put what you think you know to the test, answer the following questions and see if the narratives hold true.

Narrative: The minimum wage is good for all workers. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that because of the minimum wage, 800,000 people will be lifted above the poverty threshold.

Question: What is the Congressional Budget Office’s estimate of the effect on employment of a $15 an hour minimum wage as proposed in the Raise the Wage Act of 2021?

A. 1.5 million jobs created

B. 800,000 jobs created

C. 800,000 jobs lost

D. 1.4 million jobs lost

Answer: D. The minimum wage may help some people rise up out of poverty, but it will cause a much larger number of people to lose their jobs. That definitely is not good for all workers.

Narrative: There is a significant income inequality between the highest earners and the lowest earners in the United States.

Question: How much do the top 20% of earners in the United States make compared to the bottom 20% after taxes and transfer payments ?

A. The top quintile makes 3.8 times the income of the bottom quintile

B. The top quintile makes 7.7 times the income of the bottom quintile

C. The top quintile makes 10.6 times the income of the bottom quintile

D. The top quintile makes 17.1 times the income of the bottom quintile

Answer: A. The average household in the top 20% pays $109,125 in taxes and is left, after taxes and transfer payments, with $194,906. That is only 3.8 times as much as an average household in the bottom 20% which would have income after taxes and transfer payments of $50,901. 

Question: Accounting for taxes and transfer payments, what has happened regarding income inequality in the United States over the last 50 years from 1967 to 2017?

A. Income Inequality Decreased by 7%

B. Income Inequality Decreased by 3%

C. Income Inequality Increased by 7%

D. Income Inequality Increased by 20%

Answer: B. Despite claims of worsening income inequality, the facts actually show that income inequality has been decreasing over time. Further, both income inequality and the wealth gap decreased from 2016 through 2019.

Narrative: Wealthy taxpayers don’t pay their fair share of taxes.

Question: In 2018 (the latest year for which data is available), the top 1% of taxpayers earned what approximate percentage of income in the United States?

A. 10%

B. 20%

C. 40%

D 50%

Answer: B. In 2018, the top 1% of taxpayers earned 20.9% of the total United States income.

Question: In 2018, the top 1% of taxpayers paid what percentage of the total federal income taxes?

A. 10%

B. 20%

C. 40%

D. 50%

Answer: C. In 2018, the top 1% paid 40.1% of the total United States income taxes while the bottom 50% paid 2.9% of the total United States income taxes.

Question: What effective federal income tax rate is applied to the top 1% of earners?

A. 10% 

B. 15%

C. 20%

D. 25%

Answer: C. In 2018, the top 1% of taxpayers averaged a 25.4% individual income tax rate, which is more than seven times higher than taxpayers in the bottom 50%, who paid at an average rate of 3.4%. 

Although there can be genuine debate about what tax rates are appropriate, the taxes paid by the top 1% are significant. The top 1% earn 20% of the income in the United States, but pay 40% of the nation’s federal income tax. The top 1% also pays taxes at a rate that is nearly 7.5 times the rate paid by the bottom 50%. Those figures demonstrate that the taxes paid by the wealthy are not patently unfair.

Narrative: President Biden’s infrastructure plan is great for the economy. 

Question: The Biden administration has said that the “American Jobs Plan” is going to bring millions of jobs to the economy. Approximately, how many jobs is President Biden’s “American Jobs Plan” projected to create?

A. 2.7 Million

B. 7.5 Million

C. 12.4 Million

D. 19.1 Million

Answer: A. White House officials have said that the proposal will bring 19 million jobs; however, that number is not quite accurate. The “American Jobs Plan” will only bring 2.7 million jobs on its own while the rest of the economy is expected to create 16.3 million jobs even without the passage of the plan.

Question: Approximately, how much will the total output of the United States economy be affected by the “American Jobs Plan?” 

A. Increase of 5%

B. Increase of 1%

C. Decrease of 1%

D. Increase of 5%

Answer: C. By 2031, experts at the Wharton school of business project that the size of the economy’s total output will have shrunk by 0.9 percent as a result of the American Jobs Plan. The reason for that decrease in the economy is the secondary effects of higher government debt and higher taxes.

Thus, the Biden Administration’s “Jobs Plan” has been overly exaggerated and will actually be a long term disadvantage for the US economy.

Voter Laws

The Narrative: Georgia’s new voting law, which requires voter identification for mail-in ballots and set rules regarding early voting, is “racist” and out of sync with laws in the rest of the country.

Question: How many states had laws requesting or requiring voters to show some form of identification at the polls that were in effect at the end of 2020?

A. None

B. 11

C. 25

D. 36

Answer: D. Thirty six states, including North Carolina whose law was upheld by the Fourth Circuit Court of Appeals in December 2020, have voter identification laws.

Question: According to a 2016 Gallup Poll, what percentage of non-whites support voter identification laws?

A. 22%

B. 33%

C. 55%

D. 77%

Answer: D. In the Gallup Poll, 77 percent of non-white respondants and 80% of respondents of all races supported voter identification laws. It is difficult to characterize a policy that is supported by an overwhelming majority of people of every race as being racist.

Question: How many days of early voting does Delaware (Joe Biden’s home state) and Georgia have, effective for the 2022 elections?

A. Delaware 17 Days, Georgia 0 Days

B. Delaware 17 Days, Georgia 10 Days

C. Georgia 17 Days, Delaware 0 Days

D. Georgia 17 Days, Delaware 10 Days

Answer: D. Georgia has 17 days of early voting and Delaware has 10. You get partial credit for C, because in the 2020 election, Delaware did not have any days of early voting. Joe Biden really can’t criticize Georgia’s new law because his home state of Delaware provides fewer days of early voting.

Narrative: Due to the prevalence of shootings of unarmed black people by police, the police are systemically racist and should be defunded.

Question: In 2020, how many unarmed people of all races were killed by police?

A. 7

B. 80

C. 287

D. 1,497

Answer: B. Of the 80 people, 31 were white, 27 were black, and 15 were Hispanic. All of those deaths are tragic and we should do everything we can to reduce them.

Question: Since the death of Michael Brown in Ferguson, Missouri in 2014, the number of police killings of unarmed black people have:

A. Increased by 200%

B. Increased by 100%

C. Stayed the Same

D. Decreased by 50%

Answer: D. The number of unarmed black people that were killed by police was 64 in 2014 and 78 in 2015. In contrast, the number of unarmed black people killed by police was 28 in 2019 and 27 in 2020. Although this progress is hopeful, there is more that can be done.

Question: Since the death of George Floyd and the subsequent protests in Minneapolis, what has happened to the homicide rate?

A. Decreased by 50%

B. Decreased by 20%

C. Stayed the Same

D. Increased by 70%

Answer: D. In Minneapolis, the number of homicides has increased from 48 to 82 last year (70 %) and gunshot wound victims increased from 269 to 551 (105%) compared to 2019. Similar increases have happened in other cities, causing some to rethink defunding the police.

Question: Approximately, what percentage of black people would like to see the same or more police activity within their communities?

A. 80%

B. 60%

C. 40%

D. 20%

Answer: A. A 2020 Gallup Poll showed that 81% of black Americans want to see more or the same amount of policing in their communities. The reason would seem obvious, black people are significantly more likely to be victims of crime. In the United States in 2019, there were 7,484 homicides of black people. That represents 54% of all homicides which is significant because black people represent about 13% of the population. The call by affluent, mostly white, progressives to defund the police will have a disproportionate impact on the poor and on minorities. Often, the first thing to be cut from police budgets is training. That training is a large part of the solution to police killings of unarmed people. Rather than defunding the police, a better narrative is that we need to fund better policing.

Narrative: The filibuster is racist and must be abolished.

Question: President Biden stated that “last year alone, there were five times [as] many” uses of the filibuster than in the past and indicated that the filibuster is “being abused in a gigantic way.” How many times did each party use the filibuster in 2020?

A. Republicans 15: Democrats 56

B. Republicans 1: Democrats 327

C. Republicans 174: Democrats 70

D. Republicans 300: Democrats 33

Answer: B. That number of uses of the filibuster is somewhat deceiving because it only measures the number of cloture votes used. A large number of those cloture votes are on judicial nominees and are also of votes that invoke cloture ending debate and permitting a vote to begin. This is however, the measure that President Biden was using in his statement. The Democrats were able to keep five Republican proposals from advancing to a vote in the Senate where those proposals would have passed.

Question: Which party filibustered a bill proposed by a black Senator to address policing issues regarding minorities and to make lynching a federal crime?

A. Republicans

B. Libertarians

C. Democrats

D. Socialists 

Answer: C. The Democrats blocked Senator Tim Scott’s JUSTICE Act from being voted on. The JUSTICE Act would have restricted no-knock warrants, encouraged bans on chokeholds, increased use of body cameras, developed a database of police discipline records, made lynching a federal crime and directed the Justice Department to develop and provide training on deescalation tactics.

The Democrats also filibustered two COVID-19 relief bills (one in the spring and one in the fall) and the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act which would have requried that babies which survive abortions be provided with medical care. All of those bills had sufficient votes to otherwise pass the Senate. The filibuster isn’t racist (despite the Democrats filibustering a law making lynching illegal in 2020), rather, it is merely a mechanism that is about, in the prior words of Joe Biden, “engendering compromise and moderation.”

If the answers to my questions are correct, just maybe, the narratives are wrong. At the very least, the facts are more complicated and the issues more nuanced than the narratives suggest. Let’s discuss the facts and debate the issues rather than just restating the narratives.

Nuclear Deterrence is Indispensable to National Security and World Peace

After the end of the Cold War and the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991, it has been the constant temptation of Americans to overlook or diminish the importance of the nuclear arsenal. The nation’s triad, however, is at a critical juncture, facing significant concerns over age and reliability, and falling behind near-peer adversaries. As an essential component of America’s deterrent against aggression, the modernization of the country’s nuclear forces is a strategic imperative. Equally important is the maintenance of America’s longstanding nuclear weapons strategy. President Joseph R. Biden, however, has voiced criticism over the cost and necessity of efforts to bring the triad up to date, and supports significant departures from existing strategy, calling into question the extent to which the country will be able to provide a credible deterrent well into the 21st century. 

Nuclear weapons tend to be perceived in a negative light, as tools of Armageddon, devices that have no place in the modern cosmopolitan world. Such perceptions lead to calls for disarmament, for a world free of nuclear weapons, with the belief that such a circumstance would contribute greatly to world peace. On its surface, that is a reasonable contention: fewer weapons should lead to fewer lives endangered. But what is often lost in the moralistic rhetoric of undoubtedly well-meaning activists is a careful analysis of the state of world peace. The past 75 years have been unprecedented in modern history: not since the Second World War has there been a direct and major conflict between the great powers of the world. World peace is taken for granted, but a look back at the previous 500 years reveals that doing so would be a major mistake. Until 1945, a major conflict between great powers occurred at least once every fifty years, with the longest peace (43 years) being between the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 and the First World War in 1914.

It would, of course, be a vast oversimplification to claim that nuclear weapons alone are responsible for the current unprecedented peace. The maintenance of the international order established by the United States post-WWII, the spread of democracy and Western Civilization, along with the integration of world economies, have played indispensable roles. But while each of these developments serve to reduce conflict, they cannot, alone, prevent it. Nations inevitably (I use this word sparingly) have varying and often contradictory interests, making the soft power of economic and cultural integration unreliable in the maintenance of peace. Nations with opposing aims do not abide by ‘international norms’, because one's own interests — in this case the nation’s — will always take precedence over the interests of the international community. For better or worse, selfishness is what characterizes state-to-state relations. The point is that, in the end, force is the only thing standing between international order and anarchy. The potential destruction of oneself at the hands of an opponent is the strongest tool to enforce order, and by consequence, peace. 

Hence the importance of nuclear weapons. Unlike conventional military strength, which, because similarly matched adversaries can reasonably assume that they will not be destroyed in a conflict, does not provide a guarantee of deterrence, nuclear weapons are the great peacemakers of international relations. There is no defense against nuclear weapons when possessed in large quantities. There can be no reasonable assumption that one will not be destroyed in a nuclear war — one most certainly will. Thus, in a world of rational actors, nuclear weapons are as close to a guarantee of peace as one can achieve. There are, of course, caveats to this. It is the responsibility of nuclear powers to take proper precautions and maintain open communications with adversaries to prevent miscalculations. In this sense, limiting the growth of arsenals is also a net positive, when kept within reason. There is a certain number of nuclear weapons that a nation must maintain for it to have a credible deterrent, which must be enough to destroy the two greatest adversaries of that nation (thus the number varies by country). For nuclear weapons to be a positive, they must be maintained at a level where adversaries know that they could never win a nuclear war. If a nation does not maintain enough, then their deterrent is not entirely credible. Therefore, having too many or too few nuclear weapons is a negative, but at roughly the right amount, nuclear weapons are the keystone of international peace. 

I will not pretend to know what the ‘perfect’ number of nuclear weapons would be for the United States, but some speculation can be had. The military maintains a nuclear triad, whereby there are three separate methods of delivery: air, ground, and sea. This system was devised so that the nation always has a credible deterrent capability, because it would be nearly impossible for an adversary to neutralize all three branches of the American nuclear response. Assume that there was only one branch, sea, as there is in the United Kingdom, where the only deterrent is submarine launched ballistic missiles (SLBMs). An adversary could hypothetically neutralize that threat if they could detect the few deployed submarines (the US only has 14 ballistic missile submarines, and they are never deployed all at once), which would leave the United States without any credible nuclear response. Each branch of the triad must be capable, by itself, of providing a credible deterrent, which would mean that the US’ stockpile will have to be relatively large, certainly at least 1550, which is the limit imposed by New START (an arms limitation treaty signed in 2010 between the US and Russia). This may seem large, but one has to factor in the potential for technical failure, preemptive and counter-strikes by the adversary, and the US’ worldwide deployment, among other issues, making several hundred per branch of the triad the bare minimum. It is not worth saying much more regarding numbers, because a precise estimate would require extensive analysis not suited to an article. 

While the US maintains a sufficiently large nuclear stockpile numerically at the moment, numbers can be deceiving. US nuclear forces are woefully outdated and in dire need of modernization. The land-based component, the silo-launched Minuteman III intercontinental ballistic missile (ICBM) was designed in the 1960s, and is nearly 40 years past its original retirement date. They are widely considered to be incapable of continued life extension programs (LEPs), as the technology is simply too old, and essential components are out of production. The sea-based component, the Trident II D5 submarine-launched ballistic missile (SLBM) was designed in the 1980s, and is a few years past its original retirement date, with the current retirement date set for 2042. The air-based component, the AGM-86 air-launched cruise missile (ALCM) was designed in the 1970s, and is nearly 30 years past its original retirement date. As equipment ages, it loses its technological edge, and reliability becomes a significant concern. This equipment is delivering a weapon with massive destructive capacity, and high reliability is key to providing a credible deterrent — if adversaries suspect the delivery systems are unreliable, they are more likely to engage in provocative and dangerous behavior. Therefore, it is imperative that delivery systems are kept up-to-date and capable of meeting the needs of the present and the near future. Russia and China are quickly modernizing their nuclear forces and producing brand-new delivery systems, making the modernization of America’s arsenal a pressing concern.

The other problem facing US nuclear forces are the warheads themselves. Every warhead currently deployed was developed and tested during the Cold War, making them all at least 30 years old. Part of the problem is the inability of the US to test its warheads due to the 1996 Comprehensive Nuclear-Test-Ban Treaty, which leaves computer simulation and AI as the only methods by which the efficacy of the current stockpile can be assessed. There is no clear data on the impact of such extreme age (30+ years) on a nuclear core from deployed warheads, and that data is impossible to produce absent a nuclear test. Tests do not have to be open-air, they can occur underground in a ‘controlled’ setting, and do not have to be the full-yield of the weapon. There is suspicion that Russia and China have engaged in low-yield underground testing, and if this is the case, it leaves the US at an even greater disadvantage. The US is developing a new warhead, the W93, which will replace the current SLBM warheads in both US and UK inventory. While this is a positive development, the problem is that it will be developed and deployed without any testing. No one would ever use a brand new vehicle if it did not go through any testing, and this should no less be the case for a weapon that will serve as the core of US nuclear deterrence for decades. Mr. Biden also potentially has the W93 on the proverbial chopping block, which could pose serious challenges, particularly for the UK, which relies on US nuclear weapons for its own stockpile. In short, there needs to be a return to testing of nuclear warheads — this can be low-yield underground testing — if there is to be certainty about the efficacy of the US stockpile.

A final problem is the state of the US nuclear establishment, which while still very capable, is a cause for concern. According to the US Department of Energy, much of the infrastructure utilized is over a half century old, if not older: “Nearly 60 percent of facilities and equipment are more than 40 years old. Nearly 30 percent of facilities were constructed during the early Cold War era, and 10 percent are deemed excess to mission needs.” While the infrastructure can be updated or replaced with (relative) ease, the talent that is lost is a resource of far greater value and one that is much harder to replace. The US is also not producing enough plutonium pits (the cores of warheads) to replenish current stockpiles (a plutonium pit’s lifespan is estimated to be “somewhere between 45 and 60 years”) and produce the necessary warheads. Currently, the system is capable of producing around 10 per year, although this is expected to be ramped up to about 80 by around 2030. This is certainly a step forward, but Lisa Gordon-Hagerty, Administrator of the National Nuclear Security Administration, said in March 2020 that, “The Nation must be able to produce no fewer than 30 pits per year during 2026 and produce at least 80 pits per year during 2030 to maintain stockpile effectiveness… Any interruption or delay to pit production, due to the lack of resiliency, will have huge cost increases across the entire NSE [Nuclear Security Enterprise] in the future.” In other words, the US will be cutting it very close.

The state of the US nuclear deterrent is not dire at the moment, but if the country does not continue to commit a full-scale modernization program, it may become dire in the near future. Mr. Biden has criticized the decade-long modernization plan, which is estimated to cost between $1.2-1.5 trillion, as too expensive, and some of the procurement as being unnecessary. While undoubtedly expensive, the nuclear deterrent of the country is well worth the cost, as has been argued above. The President’s criticisms of some of the procurement programs are more precise, but equally wrongheaded. One of the most important criticism is of the deployment of the W76-2 low-yield warhead on the Navy’s Trident II D5 SLBMs. His contention is that the deployment raises the likelihood that nuclear weapons will be used, because the low-yield of the warhead will make it more suitable for a response short of full-scale nuclear war. In some sense, he is correct, the deployment does provide a recourse for military commanders short of all-out nuclear war. Somewhat counterintuitively, however, this is actually a great advantage. The deployment was not conducted in a vacuum; it was in response to Russian deployment of low-yield warheads. The concern with the Russian deployment was that the US did not have a proportionate response: there is nothing that the US could use (before the deployment of the W76-2) that would serve as a proportionate deterrent to the Russian threat, which would make the Russians more likely to use a nuclear bomb, because they would know that the US would not pursue full-scale nuclear war over a low-yield attack on, say, a Carrier Strike Group — the cost-benefit analysis simply does not add up. Therefore, the likelihood of the use of nuclear weapons would actually increase if the US did not deploy the W76-2, because there is not a proportionate deterrent that the US could use in response. It is better to have more options than to be relegated to choosing between defeat and full-scale nuclear war.

The AP reports that Mr. Biden’s campaign website states, “the sole purpose of the U.S. nuclear arsenal should be deterring — and if necessary, retaliating against — a nuclear attack.” The problem is what is excluded from this statement: current US nuclear policy states that nuclear weapons may be used in response to “significant non-nuclear strategic attacks” in “extreme circumstances.” The conclusion to be drawn from this omission is that Mr. Biden does not believe a nuclear response would be justified against, say, a serious biological or chemical weapons attack. Reducing the stated willingness of the United States to respond to a massively destructive non-nuclear attack with a nuclear response makes the country less safe. It simply encourages adversaries to turn to non-nuclear weapons of mass destruction in any potential conflict. 

Mr. Biden has also indicated that he supports the US adopting a no first use policy, whereby the United States relinquishes the right to launch a preemptive strike. On the surface this position seems reasonable: the US would not want to be the first one to pull the trigger of mass destruction. But that is not the full picture. The policy of calculated ambiguity (the potential willingness to strike first) has been key to deterring adversaries from taking provocative and potentially deadly risks by creating “uncertainty in the mind of a potential aggressor about just how the U.S. might respond to an act of aggression, and this ought to reinforce restraint and caution on the part of that potential aggressor.” A no first use policy nullifies the deterrent effect of nuclear weapons in part because it incentivizes, or at least does not deter adversaries from launch significant non-nuclear strikes on US or allied assets, for they know that the US would not respond with a nuclear strike. At a time when America faces strengthening adversaries, particularly in the Asia-Pacific, adopting a no first use policy could prove disastrous. The US is ill-positioned to respond to a massive conventional strike in the Pacific, in part due to the anti-access area denial strategy of the Chinese along the first and second island chains (in short, the Chinese have so heavily fortified their coastline with long-range anti-ship and anti-aircraft missiles that any approach within a few hundred miles of the eastern seaboard of mainland China would be incredibly costly). China, by contrast, would be fighting in its back yard. Should they choose to launch a conventional attack on US installations in Japan, Guam, or the like — which would be more likely without the threat of nuclear war — it would be very difficult for the US to muster a credible response. The result could very well be rapid escalation culminating in nuclear or massively destructive conventional conflict. There are no costs to having a calculated ambiguity posture — the US has full control over when and where it uses nuclear weapons, but there are significant risks in abandoning such a policy.  

If it is not already clear, one of the most important facets of nuclear deterrence is its psychological effect. The threat of nuclear war is the very thing that prevents major conflict (and potentially nuclear conflict) in the first place. That threat needs to be clear and ever-present. Weakening it — by indicating, for example, that the US would be less willing to use nuclear weapons — weakens the psychological effect, which in turn means adversaries will be more willing to act in provocative and dangerous ways. The same goes for creating clearly defined characteristics of the situations where the US would launch a nuclear strike. By clearly limiting the parameters, America gives its adversaries a confident sense of just how far they can push. In a time of war, the adversary will go as far as it can to achieve victory, and circumscribing US nuclear strategy encourages the enemy to go right to the limit. If there is ambiguity around when the US would launch a nuclear strike, the adversary is forced to exercise caution and relative restraint. The key is to look at the deeper, often counterintuitive effects of policy. Good intentions do not mean that the result will be good.

In a perfect world, complete denuclearization would be a desirable outcome. Nobody wants to have weapons of such immense destruction sitting in silos or on airfields awaiting an order to begin Armageddon. But the world is imperfect, and nuclear weapons are not going anywhere. In fact, in this imperfect world, if one desires the least likelihood of another worldwide conflict, then nuclear weapons are indispensable. As a deterrent force, nuclear weapons have contributed greatly to the prevention of the great-power conflict that characterized the centuries before the end of the Second World War. The nations of the world should do all within their power to prevent rogue and dangerous regimes from acquiring nuclear weapons, but in the hands of rational great powers, they are not the force of evil that they are all-too-often branded as. The next century of America’s security will depend upon the actions the country chooses in the present day. If one wants to ensure that the US is in the best position to weather the great-power rivalry that is undoubtedly coming, then the modernization of US nuclear forces must be a paramount priority. 

The Heritage Foundation’s “U.S. Nuclear Weapons Capability” report served as an important primary source reference for this article.