The Fauci Complex

The one-sided Holy Cross love story continues as President Rougeau announced over email that Anthony S. Fauci, M.D. ‘62, director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), will have the Holy Cross Integrated Science Complex named in his honor this coming June. I find this decision to be incredibly premature, and I believe it sets a bad precedent for the future by essentially endorsing individuals before their careers have even been concluded. In the announcement email, President Rougeau also emphasized Holy Cross’s commitment to social justice, which accompanies a number of earlier commitments to anti-racism. Yet, Holy Cross has decided to name another place on campus after a white man, snubbing a notable black alumnus, Clarence Thomas. Fauci has produced questionable Covid-19 policies and is actively involved in certain controversies that are yet to be resolved. His record should be allowed to be scrutinized over time to properly demonstrate what his legacy shall be.

This announcement came far too early as Fauci is still a very active participant in affairs that many would consider partisan. His oversight of US government decision-making during the pandemic has resulted in many questionable decisions that lack substantial reasoning and have no consideration for other factors like mental health and quality of life. I covered this issue more extensively last semester in the Fenwick Review and would advise all those who are interested to read that article. 

Additionally, Fauci is still under substantial scrutiny concerning NIH funding of suspect research overseas, and the possibility of a cover-up is a critical concern at this moment in time. With news stories that look bad for the media's agenda being suppressed and labeled as fake news, most notably the Hunter Biden laptop story,  begs the question if certain right-wing anti-Fauci “conspiracies” are really conspiracies, or reality. If Fauci is untrustworthy, then the media cannot push its Covid agenda. Thus, Fauci’s image must be protected, and stories about Fauci that do not paint him in a good light are labeled as fake news.

One example of a controversy relating to the experiments Fauci’s NIAID has funded involves suspicious use of fetal tissue and its unconfirmed origins. Even though I believe there is still a lot to be explored with these controversies and that they should be taken with a grain of salt, they are concerning nonetheless and deserved to be explored. The first example is that Fauci’s NIAID reportedly gave $400,000 to the University of Pittsburgh to perform an experiment where human fetal skin is grafted on the rib cages of mice to measure the hair growth. Many claim that the skin for the experiment was taken from the scalps of aborted babies. This experiment represents just one of many potential blots on Fauci’s legacy that have yet to be fully examined.

Another example that has been presumably disproved by fact-checkers, yet doubt still remains due to the apparent untruthfulness that the media has displayed in the past, is that Fauci, through the NIAID, sent funding to a lab in Tunisia where inhumane experiments that would not be allowed in the United States were performed on Beagles. In these experiments, beagles’ heads were put in cages to which sand flies were introduced to eat the dogs’ heads. After a bipartisan letter requested answers it was claimed that the NIAID was falsely attributed as a funder of this experiment although skepticism remains. The point here is not that Fauci was complicit in these inhumane actions, but that Fauci is still an evolving figure, whose legacy has not been fully decided yet. Holy Cross should not make any rash decisions for the sake of being able to advertise the Fauci complex on campus tours.

Two larger issues also concern Fauci as a figure of admiration. The first issue is the use of gain-of-function research. During testimony on this subject, Fauci clearly and deliberately lied and misled congress members conducting oversight. The question of the NIAID's use of gain-of-function research was raised by Senator Rand Paul (R-KY) in May of last year, where Fauci concretely asserted that “We did not fund gain-of-function research in the Wuhan Institute of Virology.” Gain-of-function research is controversial because it is research that increases the transmissibility and/or virulence of a pathogen, generally involving its transmissibility towards humans, and could result in a virus that could be a pandemic-level threat if done improperly and dangerously. It was not till October 20th of last year that Fauci’s claims were disproved by a letter sent to Congress by the NIH, the parent organization of Fauci’s NIAID, which stated that gain-of-function research was funded and did occur in the Wuhan Institute of Virology by the NIAID. As of April of this year, Rand Paul has noted to the press that 11 yes or no questions related to gain-of-function research were given to Fauci in January that have still not been answered, pointing to a clear case of stonewalling of congressional oversight.

This first controversy segues into the lab leak theory; the second big controversy that will undoubtedly become more clear with time. The lab leak theory postulates that COVID-19 was in some way created in a lab and then somehow released into the public, resulting in the deaths of millions from COVID-19. The concern with Fauci is that his NIAID funded the gain-of-function research that took place on coronaviruses in bats at the Wuhan Institute of Virology, and with a bat from Wuhan having been determined to be the origin of the virus, much concern is raised about the possibility of Fauci and the NIAID’s involvement in the creation of COVID-19. While I highly doubt that Fauci and the NIAID deliberately created that COVID-19 virus, the research done in Wuhan with the Chinese scientists under the authority of the Chinese Communist Party raises great concern. Seeing how Fauci lied about the NIAID’s involvement in gain-of-function research, the idea that Fauci may be lying about the origins of COVID-19 to protect himself is concerning and should be given greater scrutiny. Fauci’s legacy is still up in the air, and if internal emails or other evidence are revealed in the future that confirms suspicions about misconduct around experiments that Fauci’s NIAID funded, the College would be in a terrible position.

One might ask why this needed to be done. Did the science complex really even need a name in the first place? If Holy Cross is choosing to set a precedent for naming complexes after currently acting important figures, who have yet to finish their careers, then I request that President Rougeau name the complex consisting of O’Kane, Fenwick, Smith, and the Brooks Concert Hall the Thomas Complex, in order to honor United States Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas. Thomas is currently the longest-serving justice on our nation's highest court, having held his position for 30 years and is a Holy Cross Alumni class of 1971, and has had a long career of originalist and textualist interpretation of the constitution. Thomas has rejected the notion of legislating from the bench, unlike other activist judges who seek to make policy through their decisions, and through this has stood up for the rights enshrined in the constitution for three decades.

Through dedicating this building to Justice Thomas, Holy Cross can take a step to make good on its policy of “anti-racism” and social justice by dedicating an unnamed complex to an esteemed and accomplished black civil servant who could give black students on campus representation that a complex named after another white man cannot give. Naming the complex after Justice Thomas would then accompany Healy residence hall as the only other building on campus named after a black man, even though it is noted that Healy identified and passed as white during his lifetime. During his time at Holy Cross, Justice Thomas helped found the Black Student Union on campus and stood up against a racist Holy Cross administration during a walkout to protest unfair treatment. Despite my request, I would rather see that neither man is honored on campus just yet, as the two are still evolving figures, whose legacies can still be shaped dramatically.

All in all, Fauci is fundamentally a political figure at this point in time, just like Justice Thomas, and setting the precedent of naming buildings or complexes after still active figures is a premature action to take. By naming the entire science complex after Fauci, other names within the science complex are minimized, and by using his name, Holy Cross appears to endorse every action that Fauci undertakes, some of which have yet to take place. It is clear that Fauci has done significant work in his field, much of which he should be applauded for, but certain controversies have yet to be resolved, and certain information has yet to be revealed, particularly about the pandemic. In this way, Fauci is still a polarizing figure, and any dedication to him should be postponed until his full history and legacy are made apparent over time.

An Examination of Privilege

At the beginning of March, the chaplain’s office adapted a version of the Ignatian Examen prayer and placed a basket of copies in the chapel. In Jesuit volunteer Maddie Murphy’s rendition of the exercise, each aspect of prayer is directed toward one of today’s most disputed social justice issues – racism. Her hope is that we can use the Ignatian formula to fix the racism that she sees at the core of our society, starting at a spiritual and individual level.

The original Examen is an end-of-day reflection in five stages. First, one places oneself in God’s presence and gives thanks. Second, one says a prayer for grace to understand how God is acting in one’s life. Third, one recalls feelings and moments from the day. Fourth, one reflects on how one handled those moments and feelings. Finally, one makes a general plan that considers what one did well and what one did not do well for reference and improvement the following day. The exercise is concluded with a recitation of the Lord’s Prayer. Murphy reworks these stages so that they are directed towards the healing of our internalized racism and white privilege. She hopes that by revisiting our emotions during moments when we used our white privilege throughout the day, we can change our attitudes towards the sin of all sins and begin to eradicate it within us.

Murphy’s prayer imitates the Ignatian Examen in that it has five stages, but they are all directed towards making “white folk” into “racial allies.” First, where Ignatius calls us to become aware of God’s presence, Murphy invites us to remember the marginalized and recognize “Her” face in the faces of the oppressed. She also asks us to remember the “systems that seek to keep us from loving one another,” that is, the institutionalized racism in our country. Then, instead of saying a prayer for grace, Murphy invites us to reflect on the ways in which we used our white privilege that day. She raises questions like, did we open our ears to the people of color we encountered that day? Didwe make our workplaces as comfortable as possible for those of all cultures? Third, rather than reviewing our day and recalling specific moments and feelings we had, Murphy asks us to remember where we felt negative emotions like fear, anger, and hatred in “reflecting how we utilized our privilege today.”  If we have prejudices we are not aware of, or we remember a time when we felt “discomfort” (towards racism, I suppose), she recommends that we address this feeling and educate ourselves so that we can stand up for the oppressed next time a situation presents itself. In the fourth step of the prayer, where Ignatius tells us to reflect on our feelings from the day, she invites us to recall an opportunity we had to use our privilege to “make or take space” from people of color. She asks us to pray for certain virtues that will apparently help with this issue, like “courage, insight, humility, and self-awareness.” Finally, she essentially tells us to act now, and to look into the next step towards “white allyship,” which may mean joining an activist group or educating ourselves through reliable mediums like books and articles. This step replaces Ignatius’ instruction to look to tomorrow and think of ways to better align ourselves with God’s plan.

A crucial problem that arises when we change a prayer formulated by a great saint so that it fits some preferred ideology is that it quickly loses its spiritual focus. It shifts from its purpose, which is to recenter the hearts of those who pray it towards God. It presents the human person through a narrow lens and deprives the Examen of its introspective qualities. Murphy’s prayer is also quick to assert blame. It magnifies a sin it claims we already have, tells us to humble ourselves, and attempts to motivate us to fix it. Ignatius allows for freedom in self-correction and reflection. He sees human reason for what it is: a powerful God-given tool that we can use to identify our vices as well as our virtues. Upon reflection, we can know ourselves well enough that we can, with the grace of God, improve our lives. By contrast, Murphy’s prayer sounds more like a call to social action than a reflection for spiritual betterment: “Be prepared to translate this spiritual work into concrete, physical actions.”

Murphy’s emphasis also contributes to her prayer’s lack of spiritual nourishment. She occasionally tells us to note what we did well throughout the day, but she wants us to consider in particular what we did wrong. Ignatius, on the other hand, never tells us to focus solely on our faults. He understands that we have to recognize God’s grace in our lives and the virtue He gives us to live out His will.

The Ignatian prayer is universal. It is meant to be meditated upon by all people. When it is directed towards something like eradicating one’s alleged white privilege instead of ordering one’s actions towards God, it is deprived of its universal nature – ironically, making it so that white people are the only population that can pray it. Murphy’s fourth step points directly to this kind of faulty logic. She asks that we remember moments when we “make or take space from people of color.” This is incredibly patronizing. It necessitates using one’s white privilege: it gives power to the white man, suggesting that it is he who must pave the way for people of color.

So, when the Chaplain’s office placed a basket containing copies of Murphy’s prayer in the chapel, we might ask, cui bono? Who stands to gain by it? Murphy’s prayer is not inclusive. It is exclusive towards some members of the Church. It cannot be prayed universally. And universality is one of the key elements of a good prayer, because the ultimate end of prayer is unity and fellowship in Christ. As a Jesuit Catholic college, our students should be encouraged to love and welcome all people. But the College ought to lead by example.

A Talk by the Sisters of Life

On March 29 in the Rehm Library, the Students for Life and the Society of Saints Peter and Paul co-hosted a talk from the Sisters of Life called "Loved and Made to Love." The Sisters of Life, like other Catholic sisters, take vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience; however, they also take an additional vow to "protect and enhance the sacredness of every human life." Though abortion, like much else in our world today, has become a hotbed for angry political debates, the speaker, Sister Maria Regina, spoke about it with such genuine love and gentleness that I could not imagine even her most stark ideological opponent being able to respond angrily to her. Not once did she make a judgmental remark about women who have had abortions, nor about anyone who disagrees with her. Her message was that each person is made to give and receive love. She was able to speak on a contentious issue with a grace that has become very rare.

Sister Maria Regina began her speech by focusing on what it means to be loved and to receive love. In keeping with the Sisters' belief that "every person's life has deep meaning, purpose and worth," she reminded her listeners that God created each one of them, knowing and loving each thing about them. She cited fun traits that God knows and loves like an individual's sense of humor or freckles.

She then told a story about her niece who likes to wear flowing dresses and spin around saying, "Just look at me!" This invitation, Sister Maria suggested, voices the desire of every human heart, a desire that is fulfilled by God. He looks at each person just as parents look at their new born babies: with delight. He must then find ways to communicate this love to us. She shared an anecdote about a friend of the Sisters' who is a priest who was trying to extend a consoling and loving hand to a woman who was feeling down about herself. However, there was a language barrier that made communication more difficult. He made the sign of the cross over her, and from her warm reaction he felt his message was effectively communicated. Sister Maria recalled how the cross is a sign to each person that he is chosen, good, and blessed, and how the priest's efforts mirror those of God as he tries to effectively and creatively communicate to us that we are loved and that we are good.

Following these positive messages, she acknowledged the "mess in the world and in ourselves." Sister Maria recalled that something went wrong in the world, laughing that this statement is perhaps a gross understatement of reality, and that we must now live with real sin and suffering. She continued by saying that God's response to this badness in the world was to take it all upon himself on the cross. Sr. Maria asserted that the cross guarantees two things: that we are loved infinitely, and that we have the capacity to love infinitely.

Sr. Maria then discussed what it means to give love. She began by citing Vatican II: "man cannot fully find himself except through a sincere gift of himself." With this paradox in mind, she told a story from her pro-life ministry. Sr. Maria shared that a woman, "we will call her Jenna," was pregnant, and the father of the child as well as her family wanted her to get an abortion. Jenna had an abortion in the past and did not want to suffer through another one, and she came to the Sisters asking if there was another way out. She asked how she would know the Sisters would truly help, and she was put in touch with a woman they had helped before. This woman, who lived with the Sisters during her pregnancy, shared a message with her: "God chose you to be a mother to this child." This message stayed with Jenna, and she had her baby. She was so thankful to the Sisters and to the woman with whom she spoke that she asked to be the one who speaks to the next woman who comes in. Alicia, a 19 year-old whose family was encouraging an abortion, called and spoke to Jenna. Jenna said, "I've made both decisions, and there is not a day that goes by that I do not think about my first baby. You cannot make a decision based on what other people are telling you to do because they forget about it the next day, but you live with it for the rest of your life."

Sister Maria connected this story to the theme of "Loved and Made to Love" because it illustrates how a person can be touched by another's kindness and help, and then feel a desire to extend this same kindness to someone else. Sr. Maria shared a story from when she was in Poland speaking to a young man, and she asked him, “what was the most beautiful thing you have seen?” He responded that it was the mutual giving of the self that he witnessed between his parents when his father was diagnosed with cancer. His mom rearranged the house so it was easier and more comfortable for him to get around, she changed her cooking to fit his dietary needs, etc. He also noticed that his dad was fighting to stay alive more for her than for himself. Sr. Maria pointed out that what we learn from this story is that love does not shy away from the crosses of others: it means leaning in when things get hard. She then referenced Lord of the Rings (the cherry on top of a great talk), saying that Sam shows us this love by telling Frodo, "I can't carry [the ring] for you, but I can carry you." The general message is that we cannot carry the cross of another, but we can help them through it by being loving.

Although the flyers for this pro-life talk incited some skeptical remarks across campus, the talk itself communicated a message of love that was far from insidious or divisive. The message, of course, was directed to a largely Catholic audience; however the general message that one's life is endowed with intrinsic meaning, and that each person is loved and can love, can be applied to anyone's life. The message of the giving of oneself, especially as communicated by the story of the young Polish man’s parents, is another lesson that anyone can hear and be touched by. One last story that beautifully illustrates the giving of oneself is the story of Chiara Corbella Petrillo, frequently called "a saint for our times." She was a young Italian mother who suffered through the death of two of her babies, but still had a third. During her pregnancy, she was diagnosed with cancer. She refused treatment until her son was born because she did not want any harm to come to him. She delivered her son before succumbing to the cancer. She endured great suffering, but is reported as being joyful throughout the suffering because it was for the protection of her child. This story parallels that of the Polish boy because it shows people finding joy even amidst horrible suffering because of love and self sacrifice.  No matter how one feels about abortion, stories like these, and a speech like Sister Maria's, can hopefully be appreciated by anyone because they reveal moments of selfless love in our world.

Sic Transit Gloria Collegii Sancti Crucis

As Alexander V processed from St. Peter’s Basilica during his Papal Coronation, carried on his gestatorial chair, a man fell to his knees before him, holding a smoldering cloth, and reminded the new Holy Father, “sic transit gloria mundi (thus passes the glory of the world).” These words must have served as a chilling reminder to the new Pope, adorned with the Papal Tiara, seated on a rich throne, clothed in luxurious vestments, emerging from the opulently gilded Basilica, that these things, though certainly “glorious,” will pass – as would the new Pope himself. We are dust, remember, and to dust we shall return. So too everything around us will fall to dust.

The College of the Holy Cross, as I see it now, could use this reminder. And so, as I leave Mt. Saint James, I wish to give this to her. I do so, not out of spite and malice, but rather out of love. As Saint Augustine tells us in his Monastic Rule:

Do not consider yourselves unkind when you point out such faults. Quite the contrary, you are not without fault yourselves when you permit your brothers to perish because of your silence. Were you to point out their misdeeds, correction would at least be possible. If your brother had a bodily wound which he wished to conceal for fear of surgery, would not your silence be cruel and your disclosure merciful? 

Holy Cross, as my Alma Mater, has given me many of my greatest memories, my greatest friends, and my greatest share of wisdom. I will always be thankful to her and her faculty, who provided an incomparable opportunity of study, and I will always be thankful to her as the catalyst for my growth in faith and love of God. These are the great goods available at Holy Cross, through Holy Cross. These are the reasons so many of us love her and continue to love her. The fervent love of God and the wisdom of the ages have seeped into the very soil of Mt. Saint James. They will forever live here as long as Holy Cross does.

But, that does not mean our beloved college is without her faults. The College has made a drastic turn down the path of worldly glory, further obscuring these foundational and all important principals. In the pursuit of wealth, her endowment grows as does students’ tuition. Each year we are faced with an exorbitantly high bill for our education that creeps higher and higher, percentage by percentage. The Holy Cross website now lists the cost of attendance, tuition along with room and board and other fees, at $74,980. 

This growth, we are told, is necessary for the goods that the College provides. It is not because they want more money, but because students need more services. It is under the guise of student betterment that the College expands her bureaucracy, draining our bank accounts so that they might flood our emails with correspondence from 82 offices on campus. Only one of these  constitutes the entirety of the academic sector. The other 81 are distinct from the immediate function of the College as an educational institution. I’m not suggesting all these are unnecessary. We need an Admissions office and we need Public Safety. But, do we need both an Office of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion and a distinct Office of Multicultural Education? With each of these offices come more Directors, Deans, and Assistant-Deans. With each of these offices come more programming and responsibilities to justify their existence as distinct departments. With each of these offices comes a greater financial burden to the students.

This financial burden runs counter to the College’s apparent dedication to Social Justice. We are inundated with the message of equity, with the condemnations of privilege, and with calls to service and charity. But, might I contend, what is more inequitable than an elite college driving up her already steep cost of attendance? What is more privileged than sitting on an endowment of $1.04 billion, which, I might add, has only increased since the beginning of the pandemic? And it has been no small increase, but a growth of $254 million from its $785.9 million as reported June 30, 2019. The endowment, more than anything, proves the great farce of the College’s supposed dedication to the underprivileged and impoverished. She twists the Catholic principles of Social Justice and embraces Critical Race Theory to condemn many of her students as perpetrators of privilege, while sitting upon vast sums of money to ensure her own stability into perpetuity. She must maintain this endowment to assure that she survives into the ages to come, as a singularly elite institution among the many in our world. She must reserve these stores of money to continue promulgating a message that aligns with the popular trends of the world, so as to glorify herself in its eyes. She, herself, must be seen “fighting” the injustices of the world, and she needs this money to make sure she’s always here, ready and able to do so.

In this quest for glory, the College has pitted herself against the Holy Catholic Church. Rather than seeing herself as a faithful daughter of the Church, her true mother, she has claimed a position of parallel authority. As a Catholic institution, the College of the Holy Cross holds a privileged position in being able to express and develop the varied and complex teachings of the Catholic Church. She can encourage debate and deepen the understanding of the faithful. There is room for discussion within the bounds of the Catholic Church. However, she has sold the long standing teachings and traditions of the Church for 30 pieces of silver, and instead embraced those beliefs which the World wants the Church to believe. She has antagonized and ignored Bishop McManus in his calls for basic adherence to the Church's teachings on gender, sexuality, and even life; a pride flag hangs from her Chaplains Office, and she has publicly condemned McManus for defending life at all stages. She did not stand by him as students started a petition to disinvite him from graduation. Further, through offices like the McFarland Center she presents a warped view of the Catholic Church as no more than a vehicle for charitable service, committed only to a watered down form of “kindness” and the promulgation of the shallow contemporary view of “diversity.” She fails to address the fact that at a Catholic College, no more than 300 students attend Mass on Sundays. 

It would be daunting to defend the Church and all she teaches in this day and age. No doubt, the College of the Holy Cross has ignored this privileged opportunity in search of acceptance among the world – in search of glory among the world. Indeed, she has sold the very core of her being and mission in order that the world might praise her as progressive. She seeks better statistics, better rankings, better objective quanta by which she might prove herself as important, as elite, as glorious.

But, what has she lost? She has lost the simple, intrinsic beauty that makes each individual a beloved child of God, in exchange for a corrupted view of the individual as an agglomeration of various “identities.” She has lost the quiet, internal joy that sprouts from a life lived in virtue and true contrition for our own sins and failings in exchange for a view of evil that directs us only outwards towards all-encompassing societal ills so that we can ignore our personal vices. She has lost the wealth of knowledge and wisdom passed on to us from generations gone by, in exchange for classes and faculty who seek to destroy and reshape all that has passed into their own creation. She has lost the true glory that comes from turning all things over to Christ, the eternal glory that never fades, in exchange for that worldly glory that will fade in the blink of an eye.

Indeed, despite the College’s purported dedication to her Jesuit identity, she has lost this identity’s cornerstone, which serves as the motto for the Society of Jesus itself: Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam, For the Greater Glory of God.

Though the time when Holy Cross, as all things in this world, must pass into dust has not yet come – the eye of her lifetime has not yet blinked – my time to pass from her grounds has arrived. I leave her with great sadness, both for those things here which I love and for my fears about her future. At the end of Walter Miller’s novel A Canticle for Leibowitz, a contingent of monks leave the earth, tasked with carrying on the Catholic Faith even as the earth meets a nuclear apocalypse. While atom bombs detonate in the distance:

The last monk, upon entering [the spaceship], paused in the lock. He stood in the open hatchway and took off his sandals. "Sic transit mundus," he murmured, looking back at the glow. He slapped the soles of his sandals together, beating the dirt out of them.

In this act, he follows the instruction of Christ missioning his Apostles to go out and spread the Good News in Matthew’s Gospel. Though He gives them the power to heal the sick and cast out demons, He also tells them, “if any one will not receive you or listen to your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town.” The monks leave earth, bringing the Faith and Church of Christ with them, for neither was received on earth; the world neglected God and so destroyed itself. In this twist on the phrase, sic transit gloria mundi, only the world (mundus) passes away, not its glory. The earth’s true glory – the Church of Christ – doesn’t pass, for She will live on in the cosmos through the witness of the monks.

As I leave Holy Cross, I know it’s my time to dust off my sandals. The Catholic Church, in her beauty and greatness, is not fully received here, nor are decent values. As the dust from the Apostle’s sandals would remind those who did not accept Christ of their mortality – that they are dust – and thus hasten them to accept Christ’s message, might this article serve as a similar reminder to Holy Cross. May this article, this dust off my feet, serve not as her condemnation, but fill her heart with repentance and remind her of her dependence on God. Might she remember she is mortal, that her glory will fade. Unless, and only unless, she directs all things Ad Majorem Dei Gloriam. And, might I remember to bring that which is truly glorious with me to the whole world.

Athanasius and the Incarnation: A Transformation of Man Through the Word Made Flesh

In less than a month, on 26 May, Christians will celebrate the Feast of the Ascension, marking the moment the incarnate Christ ascended into heaven, taking his seat at the right hand of the Father. It is, among other things, a time to reflect on the Incarnation of the Word, fully divine and fully human, and the role He played in salvation history. One of the greatest expositors of the theological narrative of the Incarnation was Saint Athanasius of Alexandria (298-373 A.D.) in On the Incarnation. It was through the Incarnation that Christ entered into human history in physical form, appearing to man in a perceptible manner, re-instilling knowledge of the one, true God that had been lost since the Fall. The Word’s becoming flesh was necessary to liberate man from the chains of sin and to return him to a state of immortality, recreated in the Image of God.

Athanasius’ description of the Incarnation had a very different purpose – and was of a divergent construction – than the metaphysical Christology that was the product of the Councils of Nicaea and Chalcedon. Whereas the Councils expounded upon – in the rich philosophical tradition of the Greeks – the coeternal existence of Christ and the Father and the divine and human natures of Christ respectively, Athanasius sought to fit the Incarnation into the wider Economy of Salvation (Anatolios 32-33). His was a theology that aimed at explicating the importance of the incarnation rather than working out the precise philosophy (which is equally important). It was a functional explanation that gave color and vibrancy to the Christological formulations of the Councils (Anatolios 33). For Athanasius, the miracle of the Incarnation is dynamic, continually evidenced through the actions of the faithful (Behr 93; Athanasius 50).

Christ came to save man from corruption and death, doing so to prevent the creature whom God created in His Image from collapsing into its original state. Central to Athanasius’ theology of the Incarnation is understanding creation as having arisen ex nihilo, out of nothing (Behr 92). This must be so, for God’s power is illimitable. If matter already existed, and Creation was merely a reordering of this matter, God would be tied to a finite resource, limited insofar as the eternal matter was limited. Athanasius uses the analogy of the carpenter: he is limited by the supply of wood; if there is no wood, the carpenter is useless (Athanasius 18-19).

The corollary to Creation coming from nothing but the Will of God is that Creation can lapse back into nothingness (Behr 91-92). This was the state of man after the Fall and before the Incarnation of Christ. God “bestowed a special grace” upon mankind, allowing man to “share in the reasonable being of the very Word Himself (Athanasius 20).” In this, man has the capacity to reason, he has free will to choose, as he did in the Fall. This free will is essential for Athanasius: man, created in God’s Image, has an innate desire to know God, his Creator. In making the choice to follow God, man is performing the Will of God: to enter into eternal communion with Him. In this sense, “God’s Will and the human will are inherently complimentary (Douglas 63).” Communion with God granted man, despite his inherent corruptibility, the capacity to “[escape] from the natural law [mortality] (Athanasius 22).” But man must contend with varying desires, including those of the flesh, the earthly wants that cloud his judgment and distract him from what is truly important (Douglas 63). Succumbing to his earthly desires – the Fall – man became corrupted and hence condemned to suffer under death, unable to comprehend God, distracted by sinful passions (Athanasius 21-22; Behr 86). With the Image of God being a central facet of man’s existence, the desire to know his Creator inherent but beyond his corrupted capacity, man turned to idolatry (Behr, 84). Corruption engendered a spiral of sin, leading to ever greater corruption, driving man towards destruction and a return to nothingness (Athanasius 24; 32).

Athanasius believes that God could not countenance such a result as the destruction of His greatest creation, that which He made in His Image. God faced what Athanasius calls “the divine dilemma,” whereby God would not simply lift the reign of death from man, for that would make God untruthful, but neither would He allow man, made in His Image, to perish into nothing (Athanasius 24-25). If God were to let man destroy himself, there would have been no purpose to his existence in the first place, indeed, Athanasius asserts, it would have been better if man had never existed at all (Athanasius 24-25). Further, allowing man to collapse into corruption would seem to limit God, who is of infinite goodness; yet God is illimitable. Athanasius is effectively reading “back into the framework of creation as a whole the pattern established by the Savior Jesus Christ in his work of salvation (Behr 89).” God, having made man in His Image at the time of creation, was tied to man by His love, necessitating, in essence, the saving of man. Necessitating does not mean constraining God, but rather, it is looking backwards and seeing that His love for man made saving man part of His plan for the world, for salvation. God cannot be constrained, so it is in this sense alone that it was ‘necessary.’

It was the divine dilemma that called for the incarnation of the Word, for it was the incarnate Word that could re-instill knowledge of God and save man from the reign of death. Man could not be relied upon to bring knowledge of God to men, for there would be nothing to provide credence to his preaching (Athanasius 34). Moreover, because all men were corrupted, there would be little hope that they would be capable of “convert[ing] the minds and souls of others (Athanasius 34).” Nor could God rely on Creation to teach man of His existence, for Creation had existed for as long as man and had failed to be sufficient (Athanasius 34). The Word would have to enter into the world, taking on the human body, for man had been seeking God in earthly things, in idols, and the only way to reach him was to “[meet his] senses, so to speak, half way (Athanasius 35).” By working the power of God through a human body, man could be convinced of the transcendence of God, and brought back to knowledge of Him (Athanasius 35).

The crux of Christianity, however, is the redemption from sin that was bestowed by the Incarnation, Crucifixion, and Resurrection of the Word in the form of Christ. For man to be justified, he would first have to be freed from the rule of death that he incurred in the Fall, and then, no longer doomed to corruption, re-created in God’s Image to elevate him to the stature of God (Behr 97). Only the incarnate Word would be appropriate to save man from the reign of death, for the curse was placed upon man, necessitating that a human suffer (Athanasius 40). The union of the Word, the Lord of all, to a human body allowed for Him to fulfill the law, “[settling] man’s account with death, and free[ing] him from the primal transgression  (Athanasius 40).”

This union was an equal one, whereby neither the human body nor the Word overpowered or dominated the other. The body was truly His body, and truly a human body, for the body was born of woman and mortal, capable of suffering and death (Athanasius 40). Neither was the Word marred by His union with a human body, rather, Athanasius asserts, the Word “sanctified the body by being in it (Athanasius 37).” Further, the body was “free from every stain (Athanasius 27),” “prepared… in the virgin as a temple for Himself (Athanasius 26).” His union did not mean, however, that He, as Word, took on the nature of humanity as a replacement of His divinity (Athanasius 37), but rather that the two coexisted. Both had the independence consequent to their natures, the Word was not trapped by the body, for He was still “in all things, and outside all things, resting in the Father alone (Athanasius 36-37).” Because of this coexistence, the Word did indeed suffer in His human nature, enabling Him to be “sufficient exchange for us all (Athanasius 27),” but the Word qua Word remained incorrupt (Athanasius 40). The power of such an exchange, the end of the reign of death, carried over to all men because of His union with humanity, “[f]or the solidarity of mankind is such that, by virtue of the Word’s indwelling in a single human body, the corruption which goes with death has lost its power over all (Athanasius 27).” In becoming flesh, the Word “adopted [all humanity], and [instituted] a new humanity (Douglas 64).”

Further, it could have been no other than the Word to have dethroned death, for the Word created man in His Image, and hence only He could recreate that Image (Athanasius 33). Athanasius uses the analogy of the blighted painting: if a portrait is damaged, the only way to recreate it is to have the original subject return and be repainted. The damaged painting is man, the subject, God. No other Image but that of God would suffice (Athanasius 33).

Man, however, was not truly saved until the resurrection of Christ. Indeed, Christ had to die on the cross so that He could rise, as it was the Resurrection that “was to be the monument to His victory over death, the assurance to all that He had Himself conquered corruption and that their own bodies also would eventually be incorrupt (Athanasius 42).” Athanasius argues that man can empirically determine that Christ had indeed conquered death in His Resurrection simply by observing those of faith. The faithful “[hasten] to death, unafraid at the prospect of corruption… [or] descent into Hades… indeed with eager soul provoking it (Athanasius 50).” In lacking fear of death, those with faith are small monuments to Christ’s victory over death, just as His Resurrection was a great monument to the same (Athanasius 42; 50). Indeed, the faithful also indicate an important facet of man’s salvation through Christ: it was not an event relegated to the past, but rather of a continuing nature. The Word and man are in union, and the Word maintains His presence among men in the form of the Church, and the actions of the faithful who “put on the faith of the cross and live in creation (Behr 96).”

With the end of death, man was recreated in the Word’s Image, and his will re-centered. Man had become adopted by the Word in His becoming flesh, reentering communion with Him (Douglas 65). In this, the will of man is able to mirror the Will of the embodied Word. Christ’s human will was in complete harmony with His divine will (Douglas 64), which is the ideal, the “deepest desire,”of humanity (Douglas 63), but which was impossible in the corrupt state of man before the Incarnation. Through the Resurrection, man was given the ability to choose to follow Christ, to accept and satisfy his “deepest desire, [his] telos,”and enter “eternal communion with God (Douglas 65).”

Athanasius’ theology of the Incarnation was an attempt to create a coherent, functional explanation of how the Incarnation fits into salvation history. It is functional in that it avoids the philosophical complexity of the Councils, the products of which, such as the Nicene Creed, while descriptive and undoubtedly essential in a metaphysical and doctrinal sense, do not fully elucidate the importance of the Incarnation in salvation (Anatolios 33). The Incarnation was God’s response to the self-destruction of man after the Fall, the corruption that was leading man back into the nothingness from which the Word created him. The path to free man from the curse of death was through the Word – and it had to be the Word – becoming flesh. Only the Creator could recreate man in His Image and only the sacrifice of He who was in all men could save all men. Through the death and resurrection of the Word incarnate, man was liberated from corruption and given the capacity to once again be in eternal communion with the Lord. Men and women throughout history died in defense of the Creed not simply as words on a page, but in defense of the great truth of Creation and salvation that those very words signaled. Indeed, their willingness to die for Christ was (and still is), as Athanasius explained, proof of Christ’s victory over death.

Bibliography:

Anatolios, Khaled. “Athanasius’s Christology Today: The Life, Death, and Resurrection of Christ in On the Incarnation.” In In the Shadow of the Incarnation, edited by Peter W. Martens, 29-49. Notre Dame, IN: University of Notre Dame Press, 2008.

Athanasius. On the Incarnation. Translated by A Religious of C.S.M.V. S.Th. Louisville, KY: GLH Publishing, 2018.

Behr, John. “Saint Athanasius on ‘Incarnation’.” In Incarnation: On the Scope and Depth of Christology, edited by Niels Henrik Gregersen, 79-98. Minneapolis: Fortress Press, 2015.

Douglas, Mary. “God and Humanity Brought Together: The Incarnation as Gospel.” Evangelical Review of Theology 45, no. 1 (2021): 61-68.

You Don’t Say? Don’t Say Gay and the Sexualization of Children

The Parental Rights in Education Bill, signed into law by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis on March 28, has stirred significant controversy. Coined the “Don’t Say Gay Bill” by the left, the law restricts students from kindergarten to third grade from receiving instruction pertaining to sexuality and gender identity. While such a bill would be common sense, and arguably does not go far enough, the bill has attracted the ire of sex and gender theory advocates, who argue that it is harmful to restrict teaching on the subject. Of course, this row over school curriculum inevitably raises some serious questions. When did it become the duty of schools to teach children and adolescents about sexuality? What is the nature of the material schools are utilizing and promulgating to students? What are the origins of the sexual and gender theories currently being espoused?

Like the social evil of abortion, the current sexual education curriculum emerged from the work of Planned Parenthood. In 1964, Planned Parenthood’s medical director launched the Sexuality Information and Education Council of the United States, which, in 1990, constructed a framework for a sexual education curriculum. This curriculum centered around a goal of “sexual health,” defined by the World Health Organization in 1975 as having fundamental principles of the “right to sexual information and the right to pleasure.” While this definition is not wholly inaccurate, it is certainly incomplete, lacking understanding of sex as a procreative and unitive act. Furthermore, it is clear that the insertion of sexual education into schools was an ideological goal of a non-governmental organization (NGO), rather than a popular demand by parents and students.

As for what this sexual education curriculum involves, many programs have featured material that is graphic in the extreme. For example, according to the New York Post, the Dalton School in New York promulgated material to first graders discussing masturbation. In another example, according to the Daily Progress, a Virginia high school showed a video to a freshman class giving explicit detail about how to properly perform certain sexual acts. Still elsewhere, according to the National Review, a Sacramento school held a “transition ceremony” for a kindergartener. These specific schools are indicative of a larger, disturbing approach aimed toward an ultra-explicit kind of sexual education and gender theory.

As if these matters were not sufficiently troubling, the origins of sexual and gender theory are arguably more insidious, finding their birth in the conclusions of Dr. John Money. Money was a psychologist from New Zealand who conceptualized gender identity, believing gender was a social construct rather than a biological determination. Money also made a study of sexual paraphilias, emerging as an apologist for pedophilia. However, Money may have been more than a simple defender of pedophilia. The true sordidness of Money and his theory became manifest during his involvement in the Reimer case.

After a botched circumcision left baby Bruce Reimer disfigured, his desperate parents turned to John Money for advice. Jumping at the opportunity to prove his ideas, Money recommended Bruce have gender reassignment surgery, be placed on hormones, and raised as a girl. According to Phil Gaetano of The Embryo Project Encyclopedia Money had Reimer and his twin brother “inspect one another’s genitals and engage in behavior resembling sexual intercourse.” The boys were photographed during these twisted experiments and berated by Money if they failed to cooperate. Money falsely claimed that the experiments proved his gender theory, opening the door to sex reassignment for children. Reimer never did identify as a girl, taking the name David and living as a man for the rest of his life. Tragically, both brothers took their lives, undoubtedly due to the psychological trauma inflicted by Money.

This is the true nature of the gender ideology being presented to children as young as five years old. This is nothing short of insanity, as up to 95% of prepubescent children who suffer from gender dysphoria ultimately grow out of their condition. On the other hand, encouraging the indoctrination of children through gender ideology only stands to coerce impressionable youngsters to make permanent, life-altering decisions that could leave them infertile or without body parts.

The destructive consequences of incorporating gender theory into education are also true of modern sexual education. Removal of parental control from teaching about this intimate matter has enabled a curriculum that portrays sex graphically and as ubiquitous, degrading a sacred and unifying act to a mere matter of physical pleasure. This debauched perspective has given rise to a variety of social disorders. STIs are at an all time high, according to the CDC. Hookup culture and promiscuity have created serious problems for pair bonding between partners and left generations of sexually-scarred women and men in its wake. Even more sinister, the exposure of children to this kind of graphic material and sexualization of children bears a strong potential to enable the acceptance of child sexual abuse, as child predators commonly expose their victims to pornographic materials in an effort to influence their victims and convince them that their molestation is normal.

In a country that prizes parental control, it seems unthinkable that such a significant matter as human sexuality is left to a slate of faceless, unaccountable educators. It is highly questionable that the promulgation of explicit material to children concerning any other significant matter, such as religion, would be considered acceptable or even debatable by the same people pushing for sex and gender education. The fact that restricting third graders, eight and nine-year-olds, and younger from this kind of dramatically graphic sexual material and fallacious gender theory has become so contentious represents a clear indicator of the state of our system of education, along with public morality. If anything, the Florida bill represents only a timid step back in the right direction that does not yet come close to addressing this social and educational rot. If sanity and sexual morality are to be restored, it will be necessary to completely overhaul the current system of sexual education. Then again, perhaps it is time schools relinquish this aspect of parental authority back to where it belongs: with parents.

Funding a Dictator: America and Egypt

The consistent aid being provided to Egypt over the last three presidencies show that Egypt is regarded as critical to US interests in the Middle East.  While Egypt, since President Abdel Fattah el-Sisi’s rise to power, has undermined human rights, it has played a large role in the US national interest in two key areas: Israel and counterterrorism.  Egypt’s relationship with Israel is of paramount importance to the US, with Israel being America’s closest Middle Eastern ally.  Plus, Egypt’s close proximity and history of conflict with Israel makes Egyptian-Israeli peace essential to Israeli security.  After the 1979 peace treaty, Egypt and Israel went into a cold peace, where tensions remained while military conflict was eliminated.  Because of this peace, Egypt was guaranteed military aid from the US, and this aid likely kept the two countries at peace.  After the fall of Morsi, however, Egypt and Israel started to collaborate on many fronts, including counterterrosim in Sinai, natural gas in the Mediterranean Sea, and negotiations with Hamas in Gaza (Sharp 3). This cooperation works toward both countries’ national interests and are mostly unsolicited by the US, so it is doubtful that US aid plays a major role in this newfound relationship between Egypt and Israel (Malinowski).  Had US aid been a player in this relationship, Israel and Egypt would have had this relationship since 1979; but, this relationship manifested after Sisi came to power, and especially increased after the 2020 Abraham Accords, showing that Sisi’s geopolitical strategy has more to do with this relationship than US aid (Sharp 4).

First of all, Egypt and Israel have begun to coordinate against terrorist violence in Sinai.  With Sisi’s opposition to the Muslim Brotherhood, increased terrorist attacks on both Egypt and Israel, and Israel’s continued conflict with Islamist groups in Gaza and the West Bank, the two countries have a shared interest in combatting terrorism in Sinai, a region of Egypt that composes Israel’s longest internationally-recognized border.  This interest is shown in Egyptian-Israeli cooperation in intelligence and military operations, with Egypt allowing Israeli airstrikes in Egyptian airspace and Israel allowing Egypt to militarize in the Sinai to fight insurgent groups (Miller 5). While this cooperation positively impacts American national interests in both Israeli security and in counterterrorism, this cooperation is mutually beneficial and unlikely to fall apart if the US withholds aid from Egypt.

On top of counterterrorism, Egypt has played a major role in facilitating negotiations between Israeli and Palestinian leaders in Gaza.  This was shown in May 2021, when violence broke out between Israel and Palestine.  Egypt, in an attempt to re-establish itself as regionally important, facilitated discussions between the two to come to a ceasefire.  Egypt holds leverage over Hamas since the Rafah border crossing is the only land crossing not controlled by Israel (Sharp 5).  Because of this leverage, Egypt maintains relations with Hamas while seeking to contain it within Gaza, and Egypt is in a place where it can help mediate between Israel and Hamas when conflict arises, like it did in 2021.  President Sisi’s role in negotiating a cease-fire and helping evacuate American citizens rendered praise from President Joe Biden and Secretary of State Antony Blinken  (Sharp 5).  This role for Egypt concerning Israeli security would likely also hold should American funds be withheld, since such a role helps raise Egypt’s standing in the region, solidifies a mutually beneficial partnership with Israel, and, due to Sisi’s abhorrance for Islamist parties (he overthrew an Islamist government and banned the Muslim Brotherhood in 2013), contains Hamas in Gaza (Times of Israel).

The third way Egypt and Israel have reached a self-sustaining relationship is in natural gas production.  In 2018, Israel and Egypt entered into a decade-long agreement worth $15 billion, where Israeli natural gas is exported to Egypt to be liquified and re-exported or used domestically (Sharp 7).  Additionally, Egypt and Israel, along with other Mediterranean countries, have united to compete against Turkey and Libya in the natural gas industry (Sharp 7-8).  This economic partnership clearly sustains itself independent of US aid, as the economic ties between Egypt and Israel help bolster both countries’ role in the region.

The second major US interest in which Egypt plays a role is counterterrorism.  The first time this affected US aid to Egypt was in 2015, when President Obama released formerly withheld Foreign Military Financing (FMF) aid to Egypt.  This was due to the rise in the Islamic State’s Sinai Province (IS-SP) and attacks against tourists and Copts in Egypt (Sharp 6). While the US has continued to grant aid to Egypt to fight terrorism, Egypt has contsantly undermined this battle because of its prisons, heavy-handed attacks, and unprepared military.  How Egypt runs its prisons undermines the fight against terrorism in Sinai because the government groups political prisoners with ISIS-affiliated and violent prisoners, uses torture even against peaceful dissidents, gives ISIS prisoners special priveleges, and does not provide sufficient medical care (Human Rights First 3-6).  Tom Malinowski states that President Sisi’s priority is not to counter terrorism, but to ensure that a 2011-like revolution never happens again, and this greatly affects how the Egyptian government handles its prison system (Malinowski).  Because the government continues to hold around 60,000 political prisoners, and these prisoners are subjected to long sentences without justification and brutal torture, animosity toward the Egyptian government exponentially grows, and because ISIS prisoners are mixed with non-ISIS prisoners, terrorists are able to radicalize formerly peaceful dissidents by using government abuses as a reason for violent insurrection (Human Rights First 9; Abrams).  According to Ben Rhodes, Egypt wants this radicalization to take place so that it can justify cracking down on its opposition (Human Rights First 7).  This shows that the issue is not only Egypt’s prison conditions, but also the Egyptian government’s prioritization of cracking down on dissents over eliminating violent extremism in Sinai. 

Another way Egypt undermines counterterrorism efforts is its heavy-handed and conventional approach to an unconventional enemy.  The heavy-handed approach, including crackdowns on civilian populations and state-sanctioned violence, turns the sympathies of the Sinai populace away from the Egyptian government and toward Jihadist groups (Abrams).  In addition, Egypt’s military is ill-prepared for fighting terrorism, as they have purchased weapons from France, Germany, and Russia that do not aid in fighting non-state actors like IS-SP (Abrams).  Furthermore, US FMF aid has been ineffective in providing Egypt the necessary tools to defeat IS-SP.  These tools are not weapons, as Egypt has more than enough weapons to win, but rather training and advice (Miller 3).  Egypt’s strategy for combatting terror in Sinai is ineffective at best and counterproductive at worst.  Instead of adopting the counterinsurgency tactics that were so successful in Iraq and Syria, Egypt continues to use overwhelming force against insurgents in residential communities (Miller 3).  This also works to alienate the people of Sinai, making it harder for Egypt to effectively defeat IS-SP.

Egypt’s role in relation both to Israel and to terrorism shows its importance in regional affairs despite the common claim that Egypt’s significance in the region is diminished.  The Israel-Egypt relationship is seemingly self-sufficient, but good relations between countries can deteriorate quickly, especially if a change in regime occurs.  Such a change in regime is entirely possible, as the 2011 and 2013 revolutions happened very quickly and without warning, and Egypt remains both economically and politically unstable (Dunne).  Further, Egypt is still reliant on the US for counterterrorism, though the strategy is flawed ( Miller 3).  Thus, the US should not cut or eliminate aid to Egypt, but the conditions placed on  aid should be increased so that the US can better ensure it is serving direct American interests and is not seen as an entitlement by President Sisi (Malinowski).

Many argue that aid should be cut or eliminated based on Egypt’s poor human rights record (Whitson 2; Human Rights First 7; Human Rights Watch 2-3).  While human rights is undeniably important, attempts to get President Sisi to budge on human rights have failed time and time again.  Therefore, the conditions for aid should be, at least initially, targeted toward direct American interests, such as maintaining a positive relationship with Israel and fighting terrorism, rather than unrealistic demands that will go unanswered.  If the US conditions aid on achievable goals, this will increase trust between the American and Egyptian governments so that human rights conversations down the road can be more fruitful.  There are some instances where human rights are of immediate American interest, such as the treatment of political prisoners (Human Rights First 8-12), the unjustified incarceration of American citizens (Katersky & Finnegan 2-3; Malinowski; Abrams),  and the restrictive non-governmental organization (NGO) law (Sharp 10; Malinowski).  These are directly related to American national interests, since the treatment of political prisoners breeds violent extremism (Human Rights First 1), unjustified incarceration of Americans violates our national sovereignty and hurts American efforts to aid Egypt (Malinowski), and the NGO law restricts not only American humanitarian efforts, but also Egyptian NGOs from serving the Egyptian people (Sharp 10; Malinowski).  These three issues are the human rights issues the US government should emphasize the most, since they most directly relate to the national interest and are relatively reasonable compared to conditions that will likely never be met in the near future, like a requirement that democratic institutions be strengthened (Sharp 35-36).

There is some evidence that targeted conditions can work.  First of all, President Trump’s withholding of $65.7 million until Egypt scaled back its relationship with North Korea and released 43 NGO workers proves that Egypt is willing to negotiate when met with cuts in military aid (BBC Report; Miller 5).  The main difference between this successful action and the lack of success that is seen in all three administrations is that these demands did not directly come into conflict with Egypt’s national interest or Sisi’s personal interest.  President Obama’s conditions in 2013 were unrealistic since it required a complete change in regime, which the administration realized in 2015 when faced with terrorist threats in Sinai (Sharp 35-36).  Also, while President Biden’s withholding of $130 million was unsuccessful as well, and the demands were reasonable, this was undermined by the $2.5 billion arms deal to Egypt, which even though it was not purchased with FMF funds, was a case of the US providing weapons without any regard for American interests being promoted; furthermore, President Biden’s actions were undermined by the release of the remaining $170 million (Times of Israel Report).   Therefore, if the United States is consistent in its conditional stance toward Egypt, targeted in its approach, and applies reasonable benchmarks, there would be more success in meeting American goals in its relationship with Egypt.

In addition, the message that Egypt is entitled to American aid hurts the US’s leverage and allows Egypt not to take American wishes seriously (Malinowski).  So, the president’s waiver ability should be revoked, at least temporarily until Egypt improves.  This would ensure that presidents are unable to override the Congressional restrictions on Egyptian behavior and undermine the US’s bargaining power over Egypt (Human Rights First 7).  Once the US’s bargaining power is re-established, presidential waivers might be able to be reinstated based on the progress Egypt attains.  However, this waiver has been used by all presidents in the name of national security to give aid unconditionally to Egypt, so this power must be taken away so that Egypt does not continue to receive an unconditional entitlement from the US government.

Furthermore, both nations have emphasized the value of a “trade, not aid” relationship in terms of economic aid (Sharp 37), so there is no reason why a “trade, not aid” relationship should not be adopted in terms of military aid as well.  As stated above, Egypt does play a significant role in two areas of American interest, but in order to merit American aid, the Egyptian government must work toward, not against, American interests.  Therefore, in exchange for aid, Egypt must meet certain requirements so that American aid is used to promote shared American and Egyptian interests rather than allowing Egypt to pursue policies at the expense of the national security of the United States and its allies.  

Overall, the FMF aid provided to Egypt should be considerably altered.  First of all, all aid should be conditioned on different points.  Rather than grouping all of the US’s desires into one multi-part condition, the US should individually link items for improvement to specific amounts of money.  With this, all aid should be conditional to increase pressure on Egypt and to send a message that American aid is not an entitlement, but must be earned (Malinowski).  The $1.3 billion total would stay the same, but all of it should be conditional on meeting specific demands, with the percentage of aid that could be withheld being proportional to the importance to American national interests and on the necessity of the aid.  30% should be conditional on progress in its fight against terrorism with a requirement that Egypt heed American training and adopt the successful strategies used in Iraq and Syria, 30% should be conditional on prison reform, 15% should be conditional on the release of American citizens from Egyptian prisons, 15% should be conditional on the maintenance of a peaceful relationship with Israel, and 10% should be conditional on the repeal of NGO laws that adversely affect American economic and humanitarian aid. 

Egypt cannot damage American interests beyond what it already has.  Ruining its relationship with Israel would be self-sacrificing (Miller 5; Whitson 6-7; Abrams), and Egypt’s unsuccessful efforts to combat terrorism and prison conditions cannot be made much worse (Human Rights First 1; Abrams).  Thus, if Egypt were to not acquiesce to American conditions on aid, Egypt’s interest would be hurt more than the US’s (Miller 5; Whitson 7). While Egypt has turned to Germany, France, and Russia in the past to purchase weapons, the US’s FMF aid allows Egypt to buy high-tech weapons with American money rather than its own (basically free weapons), and Egypt (Sharp 33), through its relationship with the US, gets access to foreign markets (Miller 5).  This means that Egypt needs the US much more than the US needs Egypt, and the US should promote this attitude.  Another reason the US should not concern itself with Egypt’s relations with other countries in terms of weapons purchases is that Egypt constantly uses both Russia and the US as political tools to get more from both of them, and America’s free high-quality weapons and access to the global market make the US indispensable to Egypt (Miller 5).

Letter from the Editors, May 2022

Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up the final Fenwick Review issue of the academic year. We are both immensely grateful for all your support throughout the year and we hope to have provided you engrossing and enriching reading. As our time as Co-Editors comes to an end, we are happy to introduce Anthony Cash and Evan Poellinger as our successors here at the Review. We are confident they will carry on the good work we’ve been able to accomplish this year.

As we look back over the year, we can’t help but consider how “quiet” things have been for us. We haven’t had the sparks of conflict that arose from events like the Benny Liew article or when Heather MacDonald came to campus. We never strive to create controversy, yet we also do not purposely avoid addressing contentious issues or from providing a perspective that differs from the apparent popular consensus.

Take this as you will, but we hope it sets the stage for a future of the Review free from the bog of its mistaken appearance as a firebrand publication. We hope this will challenge readers to engage more earnestly with our articles, not simply dismissing them as “hateful.” Again, this is not to say we have or that we plan to water down our message or our values. But, this does anticipate an appealing future for our publication.

We hope to see issues of The Fenwick Review adorning campus for decades to come, and we hope likewise for the mailboxes of all our donors. Thank you again to everyone who has supported us.

Sincerely, 

Andrew Buck ‘22 & John Pietro ‘22 Co-Editors-in-Chief