Defending the Defenders: ROTC at Holy Cross

Every September 14th since 1982, protestors have come to Holy Cross to demand the removal of the ROTC, or Reserve Officers Training Corps, program from the College. This year was no exception, with protestors handing out flyers describing their beliefs to students on the steps of Dinand Library. This demonstration is led by members of the Catholic Worker Movement, who are Catholic pacifists. They argue, quoting both the Bible and notable Jesuits, that the Christian faith and any form of violence are fundamentally incompatible.  Training for war should not exist at an institution of higher learning, especially a Jesuit liberal arts college, according to the demonstrators. They believe that ROTC takes advantage of impoverished students by offering free college tuition, doing little more than making the poor fight the wars of rich men.

Certainly, pacifism has a place within society. The Christian tradition has a long history of pacifism, including those who refuse to choose violence even when their own lives are at stake. Martyrs such as St. Peter, St. Sebastian, St. Maximilian Kolbe, and even Christ Himself are demonstrators of the nobility of those who choose not to lower themselves to violence. They remind humanity that violence should not exist, and that evil has corrupted the human soul and world. Even outside an explicitly religious context, non-violence has been proven to be an effective way to change societies and the human heart. The Civil Rights Movement with MLK Jr. and the Indian Independence Movement led by Mahatma Gandhi show that peaceful protests can work. But do not be mistaken — there are times when violence is justified and necessary.

Christianity has long held the idea that just wars are not only possible, but even necessary in a fallen world. In the Old Testament the Jewish Kingdoms were instructed many times by God to go to war to defend themselves. Later, as Christianity began to spread  in the Roman Empire and eventually become dominant, Christians found themselves having to understand the relationship between their faith and the necessity to defend their civilization. St. Augustine in the early fifth century, St. Thomas Aquinas in the thirteenth century, and other theologians have all discussed this idea. It has been agreed, in both Catholic doctrine and much of wider Christian thinking, that wars in the pursuit of peace and defense of the common good — if waged morally — are not only justified, but could even be the duty of a society. This is not just an invention of post-Biblical thinkers, however; passages such as Luke 3:14, Romans 13:4, and more all suggest the justification of warfare in certain contexts. An understanding of the necessity of warfare and militaries is not something that only exists within the Christian context. Other faiths, Abrahamic and non-Abrahamic, along with secular thinkers also agree with the justification of armed conflict.

This is because the failures of society-wide pacifism are evident to all critical-thinking human beings. If the United States did not have a military and was unable or unwilling to protect itself and the free world, who would instead reign? At this moment, a war is waging in Eastern Europe between Putin’s autocratic regime in Russia and the people of Ukraine who only desire to live independent and happy lives free of tyranny. Would the protestors who came to Holy Cross recently tell those people to lay down their weapons and live as slaves? Well, they very well might, as they complain of the US “financing a seemingly endless war in Ukraine” in their handouts. Meanwhile in East Asia, the People’s Republic of China threatens the free people of Taiwan, menacing the small island nation with constant aerial incursions and declarations of an inevitable reunification. It is only with the deterrence of war through military strength by nations such as the United States can we hope a shooting war does not begin in the near future. History has also demonstrated the necessity of violence to protect what is right, as seen in America’s own history with World War 2 and the American Civil War. If it is clear that wars are sometimes justified and necessary, and therefore militaries are essential to the protection of free societies, why should America not want its military officers properly educated?

One of the key reasons for students at Holy Cross to receive a liberal arts education is that regardless of their career path after graduation, a broad education and understanding of the world will be invaluable. A military career does not make one ineligible for such an education. Do warriors not need to be able to think and understand? We want sailors, marines, soldiers, and airmen who are intelligent and well-rounded individuals. We want our nation’s guardians to have instilled in them the Jesuit, Catholic tradition of the College of the Holy Cross that enables them to be “men and women for and with others.” We want servicemen and women who love and respect human life, understand what is right and wrong, and have the knowledge and strength to protect good and fight evil. What we do not want are uneducated and improperly formed brutes, like those who committed war crimes in Bucha, Ukraine. What we do not want are unthinking automatons, like those who marched under the swastika eighty years ago. If we truly desire intelligent and moral leaders in our military, what better place to educate them than Holy Cross?

Our college certainly has its issues, the price of tuition being one of them. Many readers would agree with the idea that tuition should be lower than it is now, tuition with room and board costing a colossal $74,980. But, the idea that the ROTC program takes advantage of the poor by offering a full scholarship for eligible cadets is incorrect. Should society not reward those who risk so much to protect it? Across the United States, there already are many veterans who lack proper health coverage for service-related injuries and struggle to attain valuable employment. Taking away any such scholarship for our officers would not only decrease economic mobility for those who would no longer be able to attend college, but also saddle both our active-duty military members and veterans with large debts. If one wants to address the student loan crisis as a whole, that is a valuable conversation, but it is separate from the legitimacy of ROTC at the College of the Holy Cross. Those who serve the United States and are willing to put themselves in danger’s way should be honored and cared for.

So, should ROTC continue to be offered at the College of the Holy Cross? It certainly should, as our military is necessary for our defense and needs educated leaders. Holy Cross, with our uncommon Catholic liberal arts tradition, is a perfect place for our servicemen and women to be trained. Holy Cross offers ROTC not to help fight wars, but rather to protect peace.

Schuler Access Initiative Insanity

On the morning of September 14, 2022, President Rougeau announced that the College of the Holy Cross will be partnering with the Schuler Education Foundation through its Schuler Access Initiative. This Foundation states that it is “committed to investing in access for undocumented and Pell-eligible students.” I do not have a problem with private organizations and entities providing financial assistance to college students. However, I do have a problem with organizations and entities providing financial assistance to undocumented immigrants, as this creates incentives for illegal immigration and results in an inevitable influx of immigrants. Recent news has demonstrated that the United States cannot handle immigrants as easily as some may think, with governors such as Texas governor Greg Abbot authorizing initiatives for immigrants to be bussed to different democrat-controlled portions of the country, including DC, New York City, and even Martha’s Vineyard. These ventures have proved to Democrats in those areas that the struggles of handling any number of migrants, legal or not, is a difficult task.

Now, before I start, I would like to get the correct wording out of the way. The politics of immigration is wrought in the media and debate stages with the divide between undocumented and illegal immigrants. Here, I will choose to denote those immigrants who have entered the country illegally as unauthorized because that term is arguably the most correct. Undocumented implies there is some sort of mistake and that these immigrants simply do not have documentation, ignoring the violation of the law in the process. Illegal cannot be used because illegal describes an action and not a person. Despite this, the term illegal immigration is still correct because the immigrants did illegally immigrate. The issue of rhetoric in this particular section of American life has become a litmus test for where you stand, instead of trying to properly describe the situation. That is why I will be using the terms unauthorized immigrant and illegally immigrated in this article.

The main issue that arises from policies like what Holy Cross is pursuing is that it creates incentives for illegal immigration in an already stressed system. The College should provide financial aid for those in need, but to explicitly target unauthorized immigrants creates a dangerous message; not only will we not send you back to your country of origin, but that we will also give you and your family opportunities that some Americans do not even have access to. 

I would like to make it very clear that I do not believe that Holy Cross is single handedly causing a migrant crisis. I would instead like to point out how Holy Cross’ decision to join the trend of virtue signaling on the issue of immigration does little to help immigrants and does more to hurt Americans who have to deal with the influx along the border. Holy Cross alone does not hold enough power to incentivize illegal immigration, but through advertising together with other colleges across the country, it creates a dangerous narrative. Illegal immigration is fueled by two factors: How bad are the conditions in my home country? And how likely am I going to be able to cross and settle into this new country? Colleges creating this narrative that Americans are looking for unauthorized immigrants to educate cultivates a sense that not only are they welcome here, but they are wanted, which is even more dangerous as it actively invites them.

So, the question must be asked then, is illegal immigration even bad? Some may point to the fact that unauthorized immigrants work jobs that normal Americans would not, doing construction or farm labor, often for less than minimum wage. This view is inherently selfish, as it implies that those not born in the US and come here illegally do not deserve the same standard of living as Americans. Others may point to the economic benefits they may bring, such as creating more areas of commerce, providing taxes in some cases, and doing jobs some Americans will not, but the real issue arises when an unexpected influx of migrants flood local services. Similar to how stay-at-home orders were issued in the pandemic in order to slow the spread and ease the burden on healthcare workers and facilities, a flood of immigrants can stress the areas that these migrants pass through and settle in. A small stream is sustainable, which is built into the system with legal immigration. However, a sudden influx caused by a change in policy and an optimistic outlook of migrants crossing the border results in an inevitable disaster that border states like Texas and New Mexico will have to deal with which states further from the southern border will not.

The college’s announcement is especially strange considering that states like Massachusetts do not bear the brunt of a wave of migrants flooding over the border. By incentivizing illegal immigration, Holy Cross is actively stressing border areas while claiming moral superiority without facing the consequences. This kind of posturing is not indicative of the Jesuit value of “serving the greater good” as the college claims, as it actively promotes a crisis that it will not have to deal with, all the while it claims to be helping the community by advertising that it is providing education to unauthorized immigrants.

Texas, to prove the damaging effect that an influx of immigrants can have on cities and towns, has resorted to bussing immigrants from Texas to places like DC and Martha’s Vineyard. This policy was deemed necessary because of the increase in illegal immigration under the Biden administration due to illegal immigration friendly rhetoric and policy. The main point of evidence for Biden’s weak stance on illegal immigration is his revocation of the Trump era ‘Remain in Mexico’ policy that made migrants seeking asylum stay in Mexico while they await trial in the US. Under Biden’s tenure, southern border encounters have jumped from 1,473,691 in 2021 to 1,997,769 in 2022 according to the US Custom and Border Protection’s website.

Because of the unauthorized immigrants bussed to DC, the mayor, Democrat Muriel Bowser, declared a public emergency, acknowledging the effect an influx of migrants can have on an area’s resources. With this, she also acknowledged that the federal response has been lacking in terms of handling traffic on the border. Washington, DC, has long considered itself a sanctuary city, declaring that unauthorized immigrants are welcome and are free from the hands of immigration enforcement there. It is difficult not to point out the irony that a city so welcoming of unauthorized immigrants declares a state of emergency for when they arrive.

Now, it must be acknowledged that many of the unauthorized immigrants that would be taking advantage of the Schuler Access Initiative most likely were brought here as children and grew up in the United States, and while they might not have citizenship in the United States, they are citizens somewhere, and should therefore be treated like international students. In turn, they should still receive the same amount of need-based aid that others at Holy Cross are afforded. The problem comes when the college directly allocates and advertises funds for unauthorized immigrants. The people deserve the aid, but the way in which Holy Cross and the Schuler Foundation is going about it only serves to virtue single rather than truly help the issue.

An emphasis of President Rougeau’s announcement was that is aligns with the college’s Jesuit values, yet this move only stands to prove to the community its Jesuit values, advertising it as the Jesuit thing to do, when, if something is the Jesuit thing to do, it would need no declaration of being so, as it would be recognized on its individual merits. By advertising that the college, among others, are giving out aid to unauthorized immigrants, it only stands to worsen the migrant crisis, however slight the effects might be. If Holy Cross would like to do its part to ease the migrant crisis, then it should instead look for students abroad in Central and South America to sponsor. Instead, the college would rather boast about its Jesuit values, while 2,000 miles away, other states are forced to deal with their decisions.

The Left Believes No Human is Illegal, Until They’re Standing On Their Doorsteps

It’s rare nowadays to walk through a high end housing development without seeing an “In this house we believe…” sign on at least one home’s front lawn. The problem is, when a person places such a sign out on their front lawn, they better believe what it says. Unfortunately, in regards to immigration policy, it doesn’t seem that such individuals have any interest in practicing the beliefs they espouse on their yard signs.

In the wake of Donald Trump winning the 2016 Presidential Election, Kristin Garvey, a Wisconsin librarian, was particularly distraught that Trump had won the election. In awe of the result, Garvey decided to list key values of hers and other Americans that she believed would be threatened by the Trump administration on a white poster board. Shortly after images of her sign made their way to the internet, an activist noticed the sign and recruited an artist to rework it into a colorful yard sign along with the help of Garvey. After the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests following the death of George Floyd, sales for the sign spiked.

All across rural Vermont, my home state, such signs stood in the front yards of most homes immediately following the BLM protests. Many of my white classmates with such signs standing on their front lawns decided to post a black square on their Instagram pages, believing that such action would significantly benefit the African American community rather than directly engaging with African American individuals.

The very individuals decrying white privilege were the same people who failed to immerse themselves in communities with high percentages of non-whites. Perhaps this is because my friends live in rural Vermont, the state with the second highest percentage of whites of all U.S. states, at 94.2%, according to the World Population Review. The wealthiest members of our society living in bubbles secluded from reality often feel that they are the most qualified to offer critiques of the general population. This is elitism at its finest. Unfortunately, such elitism has transferred to other social issues too, the most recent example being elitist Democrats’ reaction to Republican governors sending migrants to liberal parts of the country.

A key line from Kristin Garvey’s “In This House We Believe…” sign is “No Human is Illegal.” As of late, it doesn’t seem as if the people with such signs on their front lawns have been obeying this key tenet of their belief system. As Democratic politicians bringing home salaries well into the six-figures decry the actions of Republican politicians sending migrants to Leftist havens of Washington, DC, Martha’s Vineyard, and in one case Vice President Harris’ home, they evade the necessary facts of the Biden administration’s current shortcomings in dealing with the out of hand crisis at our southern border with Mexico. Since President Biden took office on January 20, 2021 up until August 17, 2022, just about one month ago, nearly 4.9 million illegal immigrants have crossed our borders, according to Cision PR Newswire. According to agency reports, the crossings of approximately 900,000 illegal immigrants went undetected by American Border Protection Agencies. Of course, Biden has failed to take responsibility for such an uptick in illegal immigration flowing into the United States, constantly blaming the Trump administration for handing him the reigns to an incapable border response.

In response to calls that he tighten his policy regarding the border between the United States and Mexico, President Biden responded, “I make no apologies for ending programs that did not exist before Trump became president that have an incredibly negative impact on the law, international law, as well as on human dignity.” In essence, Biden, when given the opportunity to take responsibility for his failure in dealing with an influx of migrants, instead deemed Trump’s actions to contain the threat as negatively impacting the global order. In fact, Biden’s actions, not Trump’s, appear to be a major threat to the global order because they have caused instability within the United States, typically thought of as the epitome of strength to the world.

The inactions of the Biden administration threaten the prospect for political stability within Central America through failing to address the ways in which some Mexican government officials have coached citizens in how to immigrate illegally to the United States as well as the shortcomings of Central American countries such as Honduras and El Salvador in failing to address transnational crime as laid out by a United States Senate Committee on Foreign Relations Minority Report. Additionally, a recent Department of Homeland Security report revealed that Venezuela was sending caravans of violent criminals to the U.S.-Mexico border as recently as July, in the hopes of migrating to the United States. This report further discloses that there have been nearly 130,000 encounters with Venezuelan migrants from October of 2021 up until July of 2022. These issues are very much at the root of our border crisis, as Central American political corruption and pervasive crime leads to cartels being at ease to take advantage of their governments.

As journalist Adam Isaacson wrote after many trips to the border in both the U.S. and Mexico, “It would be hard to devise a migration system that benefits…‘cartels’ more than the current one does” as of April 2022 under the Biden administration. These cartels are responsible for human trafficking and other human rights violations and crimes, often unchecked by the incompetent Biden administration. For instance, in June of 2022, Reuters reported that at least 51 migrants died “after being trapped inside a sweltering tractor-trailer truck found abandoned in Texas…” Two Mexican nationals ended up being charged in U.S. federal court in connection to this devastating incident, each “charged with possessing firearms while residing in the United States illegally” according to court documents and U.S. authorities. According to Craig Larabee, a special agent tasked with running the investigative arm of ICE (U.S. Immigration and Customs  Enforcement, referred to this particular event as marking “the greatest amount of loss of life on record from a human trafficking attempt in the U.S.” according to a Reuters news report. All this, blood on the hands of the Biden administration. It gets to the point where constantly blaming all of your administration’s incompetency wears off and the American people demand accountability rather than constant scapegoating. 21 months into a presidency is more than enough time to start accepting any shortcomings as your own.

What’s more disturbing than elected officials not taking responsibility for their actions in the current border crisis with Mexico is that they don’t have to feel the brunt of their foreign policy incompetency. Instead, everyday Americans living on our southern border and the governors of those states are tasked with either learning how to live with the constant threat of danger or formulating policies and taking action to counteract the incompetence of the federal government in regards to the latter. Recently, we’ve in fact seen governors take matters into their own hands through deciding to send migrants to Martha’s Vineyard, New York City, Washington DC, and Vice President Harris’ home in one instance. The White House has deemed the actions of Florida Governor Ron DeSantis in sending migrants from his state to Martha’s Vineyard as “disrespectful to humanity.” These words come from an administration that according to a June NBC news story, under the Department of Homeland Security planned to “transport migrants awaiting immigration proceedings from U.S. cities along the southern border farther into the interior of the country beginning with Los Angeles.” President Biden, just months earlier, planned to do the same thing that he chides Republican governors for currently doing. What’s more frustrating is that the only brunt of failed immigration policy that Biden has to deal with is that of public opinion. Republican governors, on the other hand, directly feel the effects of the Biden administration’s failures through being forced to determine what to do with an influx of migrants and how to incorporate them into their thriving society with jobs filled, among other difficulties that until now, Democratic leaders, especially President Biden, hadn’t really been forced to handle.

A second contradiction of the Left is that it openly encourages mass migration, calling for Americans everywhere to recognize the dignity of all immigrants regardless of legal documentation status, while referring to such migrants in a derogatory fashion when these migrants are at their front doorstep, in some cases, literally. Max Lefield, who helped found the Casa Venezuela Dallas foundation, which seeks to help migrants adjust to living in America, recently responded to DeSantis’ actions regarding sending migrants to Martha’s Vineyard on charter planes. In his tweet, which was recently deleted by NBC News, Lefield said, “Florida Gov. DeSantis sending asylum-seekers to Martha’s Vineyard is like me taking my trash out and just driving to different areas where I live and just throwing my trash there.” Lefield benefits from providing shelter and support to illegal immigrants, yet compares such migrants to “trash.” This is emblematic of other actions of the Left, which has actively encouraged illegal immigration up to the point where Republican governors take action to deal with the implications of such policy, placing migrants on the doorstep of Democratic elites. Then, all of the sudden, these previously wonderful immigrants have to be sent to a Cape Cod military base because these Democrats can’t possibly be forced to deal with the problems they’ve created.

Conclusively, the Left’s response is emblematic of their tendency to employ “rules for thee, but not for me” approach. Until Americans recognize the massive hypocrisy and shortcomings of the Left’s response to immigration, specifically illegal immigration, our national security is in peril.

Another Pawn for the MAGA King

President Abraham Lincoln, when he declared that “a house divided against itself cannot stand”, was warning against the dangers of hyperpartisanship that ultimately plunged the country into civil war.

Fast forward to 2022, and it appears that the Republican Party has finished building the house. The occupants? The MAGA Republican and the Moderate Republican.  And believe me, these factions are  keeping their distance.

The January 6th attack on the Capitol solidified support for the former president as the red line dividing the MAGA republicans and the “R.I.N.O.S” (Republican in Name Only) who have spoken out against the former president.  As polls increasingly point to Democratic gains in the midterm elections, the Republican Party will no longer be able to toe this line. Membership in the party will soon be based on one question: do you support the former president?

Ronny Jackson had to answer that question. The former physician to both former President Trump and Obama, won his bid for Texas’ 13th Congressional District in 2020, boosted by an endorsement from Trump. Since entering office, Jackson has been one of the most fervent supporters of former President Trump. And it’s not shocking why Trump endorsed Jackson. Jackson fits the bill for a MAGA Republican: faith-based, family-oriented, tough on crime, etc.

However, it is Jackson’s virtue-signaling support of veterans that demonstrates the dichotomy of the MAGA Republican. There is no question that Congressman Ronny Jackson is outspoken in his support for our nation's veterans.

As he should be. The only problem? Jackson is an empty suit when it comes to supporting veterans. 

A simple click on the veterans’ issues page of his campaign website is evidence of this.

There were two paragraphs on that tab. Barely. The tab lacked any notion of a coherent, specific plan to help our nation’s heroes.

Instead, he uses his words to prop himself up.

“As a retired U.S. Navy Rear Admiral with nearly three decades of military service I understand the commitment and sacrifices made by servicemen and servicewomen to serve our country. I am very in tune with their needs, and that of their families.” 

Translation: I have no plan.

Congressman Jackson’s thirty-year service in the Navy is heroic, and must be emphasized. However, Jackson is another MAGA Republican to trade away the virtues of public service for the virtues of popularity.

The 2022 Midterm Elections will test the durability of the MAGA Republican platform. Swing states, like Ohio and Pennsylvania, are the crux to gaining the majority in Congress. The Republican nominees in these respective states, J.D Vance (R-OH) and Mehmet Oz (R-PA), are caricatures of former President Trump, as they are willing to reiterate every conspiracy theory and lie that Trump has claimed throughout his presidency for the glory of a Senate seat.

Pennsylvania Republicans practically handed the Senate seat to John Fetterman and the Democrats by nominating “Dr. Oz.” Oz has run a terrible campaign and is completely out of touch with working class Pennsylvanians. He has a net worth of $500 million, and owns ten properties. As of August 2022, the average salary in Pennsylvania is about $53,391. It will be interesting to see Oz debate Fetterman, especially when the only point he makes is that he was endorsed by Donald Trump.

J.D. Vance was once a never-Trumper. Aside from calling Trump “reprehensible”, he claimed that Donald Trump could become “America’s Hitler” in a text message sent to his law school roommate. So what does J.D. Vance do? Base his entire campaign on Donald Trump. On major issues, Vance has managed to weave tenets of Trumpism into every debate, interview, and town hall he participates in.

We always say that a monarchical system of government is the antithesis of the United States, but the MAGA faction of the Republican party has treated Trump like a Monarch. They know that they cannot win a Republican election without selling their morals for Donald Trump. Call it greed, a lust for power. It’s truly disheartening.

What is the MAGA Republican? The MAGA politician is blindly loyal to President Trump. No questions asked. He tells them to jump, they ask how high.  And the truth is whatever President Trump decides. If President Trump declares that the 2020 election was rigged, then it was rigged, despite the overwhelming evidence arguing against this. If President Trump brushes off the dangers of COVID-19, the MAGA politician must do so.

Why was the United States hit harder by COVID than other countries? Science points to many things: a lack of medical equipment, weak regulations regarding mask-wearing, and an incoherent and oftentimes contradictory strategy from the federal government. Ask Trump that question and he’ll say it’s due to the massive testing campaign ushered by his administration. 

“We have it totally under control. It’s one person coming in from China. It’s going to be fine”

• President Trump, January 22, 2020

More than one million Americans have died from COVID. 

In the MAGA Kingdom, truth is malleable. The moral compass is broken. Moral absolutism turns into Moral relativism. The Republican Party has an identity crisis. To win elections, the Republican Party must moderate its views and most importantly ditch Trump.

Hostile Institutions: The FBI and the Government’s War Against Its Citizens

On August 8, 2022, the FBI conducted a raid on former President Donald Trump’s home at Mar-a-Lago with authorization from U.S. Attorney General Merrick Garland. Ostensibly, the raid was authorized because of Trump’s alleged mishandling of classified material. Setting aside the matter of the FBI looking the other way while Hillary Clinton maintained an unauthorized private email server in her basement and had aides smash her used phones, Trump is well within his rights to possess the material in question under the Presidential Records Act of 1978. But lest apathetic observers content themselves with the short-sighted prospect that their primary choices in 2024 may be made easier, President Trump’s statement that “they’re after you” has held true of the FBI for decades and is more pertinent than ever before.

Formed in 1908 to deal with the growing threat of anarchists in the United States, the Federal Bureau of Investigation was undoubtedly founded with the noble intention of bridging the gaps between state law enforcement agencies. However, as the FBI took an increasingly influential role in enforcement of Prohibition and the “war on crime,” it began to stretch its powers in questionable fashion. Under Director J. Edgar Hoover, the FBI engaged in the wiretapping of potential suspects, later being limited to bugging operations under the Communications Act of 1934. The Bureau took the opportunity in 1939 to compile a list of individuals who would be taken into custody in the event of a war. The FBI took action hours after the Attack on Pearl Harbor, arresting thousands over the course of a few weeks without warrants.

The FBI only became more brazen during the latter period of Hoover’s time as director. Under the Counter Intelligence Program, or COINTELPRO, designed to infiltrate, disrupt, and discredit political organizations that the FBI deemed to be problematic. FBI agents resorted to disinformation, harassment, blackmail, and even violence in order to achieve these ends. Perhaps the most notable target of the COINTELPRO operations was Martin Luther King Jr. King was subjected to surveillance by the FBI, who then proceeded to send King an anonymous letter encouraging him to take his own life, which was accompanied by audio recordings of King’s alleged sexual dalliances.

A pair of incidents in the 1990s stand out as the most egregious examples of the FBI’s willingness to shed the blood of people it deemed to be enemies of the government, regardless of their actual innocence. After failing to show up to court on a firearms charge because of scheduling confusion in 1992, Randy Weaver refused to surrender to federal authorities due to fears of a setup. After an encounter with U.S. Marshals in which Weaver’s son, Sammy, was killed by law enforcement and Weaver’s friend Kevin Harris killed Deputy Marshal William Degan — for which Harris was later acquitted on self-defense grounds — the FBI set rules of engagement that allowed them to essentially shoot on sight. On August 22, FBI sniper Lon Horiuchi shot Weaver as he was paying respects to his deceased son, then fired through the door of the cabin at Kevin Harris as Weaver fled to safety. Horiuchi struck and killed Weaver’s wife Vicki, who was standing behind the door with her baby in her arms. After surrendering days later, Weaver was acquitted of all charges except for missing his original court date and bail violation, for which he was released after sixteen months. The FBI was never called to account for its actions in the Weaver case.

One year later, after a botched ATF raid on the Mount Carmel compound over questionable firearms charges, the FBI began a 51 day siege of the Branch Davidians religious organization. During the siege, the FBI cut the power and water to the compound, blasted loud music and sounds at night, and ran over the vehicles of the Branch Davidians. On the final day of the siege, having grown impatient with the slow progress of negotiations, the FBI launched an assault with tear gas on the compound. The building burst into flames and burned to the ground, killing 76 people, including 25 children. The FBI admitted that the tear gas used in the assault was flammable, but has maintained that the Branch Davidians, and not the FBI, was responsible for the fire at the compound.

The American people are not exempt from similar treatment simply by virtue of the fact that they do not live on an isolated mountain range or in a religious compound in Waco. An organization that has overseen extensive espionage and the deaths of numerous innocent men, women, and children is unlikely to treat political enemies any differently than targets of its other operations, particularly considering the extremely partisan nature of the current administration. Indeed, parents who are concerned about the ideological indoctrination of the public school system have already been framed by the National School Boards Association as “domestic terrorists” in a letter to President Joe Biden, calling for FBI involvement. 

Rather than investigate concerned parents and the former President of the United States, it is time for the FBI to face scrutiny for its decades of malfeasance.

Ukraine is Putin's Peril

Whether the Ukrainians win or lose the war with Russia, the ultimate loser is Vladimir Putin. His blundered invasion of Ukraine, coupled with the incredible resistance of the Ukrainians themselves against the Russian invasion, has opened a once in a generation opportunity that I pray our president can take. There have been three main benefits of this war for the United States. 

The war completely knocks Russia off the board as a serious threat. The Ukrainians, with the weaponry that has been supplied to them, have been able to completely decimate the Russian army. This is a tremendous benefit for the United States because it allows us to completely focus on China as the primary geopolitical threat. China has lost a powerful ally, been cut off from the world, and set diplomatic ties with the Europeans back decades. In 2018 the United States sought with great difficulty to prevent Europe from buying China’s 5g Wi-Fi system. If that happens again we won’t have to do any begging. Europeans also will not be as open to peace with China as they were in the past, which will unite the west against China. It also halts China’s ambition towards Taiwan because they know if they move against Taiwan, the United States and all of the west will react in unison to defend it. And no matter what your opinion is on Xi Jinping, he is not foolhardy enough to think he can take the entire West on by himself. So not only has the war revealed that Russia’s military is even weaker than expected, but it has also produced significant consequences for China.

The war has refocused the political calculation of almost every nation and causes a massive realignment in loyalties. Before this war the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) was essentially defunct and countries were happy to make agreements with Russia because they faced no downsides. Whether it was the Europeans buying Russian oil, NATO members not spending enough on defense, or some nations simply staying neutral, Russia had not been seen as a threat. Instead it was merely a trading partner. But now all of that has changed. Germany will now invest more than 2% of its gross domestic product (GDP) into the military which is a massive increase from the 1.5% it spent over the entire year. Europe also is cutting itself off from Russian natural gas and oil, realizing that it could be used as a weapon against them. Finally, previously neutral nations like Sweden, Switzerland, and the Netherlands are now joining both NATO and the European Union (EU). Meanwhile any nation that might have wanted to ally itself with Russia will now have to face the prospect of cutting themselves off from all of Europe and the United States. Presently, there is no incentive for any nation to align itself with Russia.

The west has been reunited under the American banner. Before the war the Europeans had largely been distancing themselves from the United States, and even other European states. As mentioned earlier NATO was basically defunct. The war in Ukraine reinvigorated the Europeans as they realized there are other threats in this war, and they cannot win without standing with the United States. This war has been a once in a generation foreign policy boon for the United States and her allies. Hopefully, President Biden does not mess it up, because another nation will take the lead, and we will be left behind if he does. 

We can finally defeat an enemy who we have been fighting for a century, since the Soviet Union was formed in 1922, and who has outlasted seventeen presidents, from Warren G. Harding to today with President Biden. If President Biden decides to actually take advantage of this moment we can not only finally defeat our longest-standing foe, but we can also reunite the west under a shared purpose, severely weaken China, and save millions of lives. But he cannot let this moment pass and he cannot let any other nation take the lead. He must take the advice of his predecessor, President Trump, and engage in America first foreign policy. Once he does so, America can finally defeat Russia.

Religious Disaffiliation in America

In October of 2021, The Wall Street Journal reported that "half of young people ages 13 to 25 surveyed said they don’t think that religious institutions care as much as they do about issues that matter deeply to them…Those issues include racial justice, gender equity, immigration rights, income inequality, and gun control." I want to discuss why these grievances are misguiding.

Let us take Catholicism, for example. In speaking with a Massachusetts Bishop, I learned that the input he received from the synod was that the Catholic Church needed to be more welcoming. I immediately thought of a parish in this Bishop's diocese in which the priest says a special intercession for gay and lesbian children each week. He is welcoming, yet I see very few, if any, young people attending masses there. This is not an intercession said at every parish, but then I thought, “People put a whole lot of time and effort into researching the best place to go to school, the best place to buy a car, the best place to go out to dinner, etc., so why can they not put the same amount of time and effort into finding a parish that suits them?” It seems that unlike getting a good deal on a car, going to church is not high on many peoples' priority lists. So perhaps the criticism the Church is receiving is coming from somewhat unreliable sources because the people giving the criticism are not invested in the faith.

Research presented by scholars at Public Religion Research Institute supports this hypothesis. Betsy Cooper, Daniel Cox, Rachel Lienesch, and Robert P. Jones, Ph.D. reported in their 2016 article "Exodus: Why Americans are Leaving Religion — and Why They're Unlikely to Come Back" that 72% of religiously unaffiliated Americans say "that in their day-to-day life, they do not spend much time thinking about God or religion." Of the religiously unaffiliated, there are two prominent groups that personally reject religion: rejectionists and apatheists ("unattached believers" make up a third group that will not be discussed here). Rejectionists, who make up 58% of the group, "say religion is not personally important in their lives and believe religion as a whole does more harm than good in society." Apatheists, "who make up 22% of the unaffiliated, say religion is not personally important to them, but believe it generally is more socially helpful than harmful." 83% of rejectionists and 76% of apatheists report that they "seldom or never attend formal religious services." I then pose the question that if 72% of the unaffiliated admit that they do not think about God on any regular basis, and if more than three-quarters of rejectionists and apatheists never or extremely infrequently attend religious services, then how are they to have informed views and, therefore, helpful answers to questions like "what is the Church doing wrong that is driving you away?" In my research, I was encouraged to hear that houses of worship are not actively driving away the unaffiliated by traumatizing them with bad experiences. On the contrary, "more than two-thirds (68%) of unaffiliated Americans say their last time attending a religious service, not including a wedding or funeral service, was primarily positive."

One of the first lessons I learned in a college English class is to not make statements about something I do not know. If I want to make the statement "throughout Shakespeare's works, he stresses the deceptiveness of outer beauty," I ought to have thoroughly read and analyzed all of his works, and not just have read a few sonnets for homework one night. I would say the same to the religiously unaffiliated: if you are going to make strong statements against a given religion, you ought to have done your homework. You ought to have deeply thought about the possibility of a God throughout your day-to-day life, even if you do not believe in Him. And if one is a rejectionist trying to claim that Catholicism has no positive impact on the individual nor on society, it would probably be wise to attend mass at many different parishes, go to Adoration, try to pray, etc. In short, give Catholicism a real try. If your views on Catholicism remain unchanged, then at least now your views can be better substantiated, and you will be a more informed conversationalist on the subject of religion. I assume that Catholics like myself who are wondering why so many modern people reject the Church would be very interested to hear a substantial explanation for the emptying of our pews.

When asked "Why do you not come to church?" many of the disaffiliated will point to one of the trademarked criticisms of the Catholic Church (likely because 86% of apatheists and 79% of rejectionists report not spending "much time in their daily life thinking about God or religion," and people do not like to admit they don't know). For example, many will say, "In this day and age, why can't women be priests?" Perhaps this bothers an individual, and she claims it is the reason why she does not attend mass on a weekly basis. But I seriously wonder: if women were suddenly able to become priests, would that individual begin attending mass again? Or, if Catholic Churches started displaying rainbow flags in response to the criticism that the Church is "unwelcoming," would droves of people be crowding into churches again? To begin to answer these questions, we can look to Episcopal or Methodist Churches. Many of them display rainbow flags, and many denominations, "including the Episcopal Church and the United Methodist Church, now allow women to be bishops and hold other top leadership positions." However, in 2019 the Pew Research Center still reported that "both Protestantism and Catholicism are experiencing losses of population share. Currently, 43% of U.S. adults identify with Protestantism, down from 51% in 2009. And one-in-five adults (20%) are Catholic, down from 23% in 2009." If these social issues are so prominent in the minds of Christians, why are they not attending Episcopal or Methodist services? My hypothesis is, again, that these issues are not the problem. So we should endeavor to find out what has drawn Americans away from religion. I think in this case we would be smarter to look at the people themselves rather than the religions they reject for the answers.

My research points to the progressively secularized upbringings of each subsequent generation. A National Review article by Daniel Cox entitled "Stop Blaming Young People for Leaving Religion" explains that "young people are showing the greatest movement away from religion." The next step has been to "focus primarily on the distinctive characteristics of Generation Z and Millennials — things such as their higher rates of educational attainment, their attitudes about sex and sexuality, or their widespread adoption of social media." But, these explanations were left unsubstantiated; "for instance, higher rates of formal education among young adults are unlikely to have contributed to the surge in secular identity given that most young people disaffiliate before they ever step foot on a college campus." These explanations neglect the "single most important predictor of adult religiosity: our religious experiences in childhood." Each successive generation, from Baby Boomers to Generation Z, has "grown up with less formative religious engagement than the one preceding it." 57% of Baby Boomers attended religious services weekly in their childhood, compared to 40% of Generation Z. 61% of Baby Boomers attended Sunday school growing up, while 42% of Generation Z did.  Cox makes the statement: "Young people are leaving a religion they were never particularly connected to in the first place. A 2016 study found that young people cited their family's lack of strong ties to religion as an important reason they no longer belong to a religious group, more so than politics, sex-abuse scandals, or a specific negative experience."

Another interesting fact was that most people disaffiliate before they turn 18. However, the religion of childhood, if one has a traditionally Catholic upbringing, often sounds something like: "my parents tell me to go to church on Sundays and pray before bed and before meals, so I do." Church on Sundays and regular prayers are things that are expected and part of regular living in these increasingly rare families. But when a young man grows into adulthood, I would imagine somewhere around 18, he can now take ownership of his faith more and claim it as his own. In other words, he may now go to church and pray because he chooses to, not because his parents are expecting it of him. Religion becomes less associated with obligation and more associated with a genuine love of God. But without the solid groundwork laid by childhood faith, many Americans are missing out on the spiritual richness of adulthood faith. And, "there is little evidence to suggest that Americans who have disaffiliated will ever return."

 After doing research, I have a much better idea of the real reason for the decline of faith in America, and once the source of a problem is identified, it is much less frustrating and futile finding a solution to it. However, it is very hard for the Church, or any other religious institution, to solve a problem that originates in secular homes. I want to offer my own opinion on possible ways of bringing people back to religion. I begin by thinking, “What in the modern world does hold nearly all people's attention?” Some definite possibilities are movies and shows. Jonathan Rothwell at The New York Times states, "Other than sleeping and working, Americans are more likely to watch television than engage in any other activity." He continues to cite "a new wave of social science research [that] shows that the quality of shows can influence us in important ways, shaping our thinking and political preferences…" That being said, some entertaining TV shows or movies could be written that appeal to a wide audience while also featuring a positive portrayal of religion. If I ever had a doubt about the power of shows to influence thinking or introduce new ways of living into peoples' minds, I remind myself of how the ideologies governing today's world have gotten into the minds of so many young people and adults alike: through media, movies, shows, popular books, celebrities, etc. Perhaps with the added option of a show in which there is a likable character going to Church and practicing his/her faith, young people (and adults) in secular households will be exposed to a way of living that is perhaps foreign to them. It would, for once in mainstream modern entertainment, show religion in a positive light, and get people thinking about it and perhaps consider trying it out themselves.

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.