February 2019 by The Fenwick Review

The Independent Journal of Opinion at the College of the Holy Cross

Quod Verum Pulchrum Volume XXVI, ISSUE III â&#x20AC;&#x201D; February 2019

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Crossâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s independent journal of opinion, The Fenwick Review strives to promote intellectual freedom and progress on campus. The staff of The Fenwick Review takes pride in defending traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas, and does its best to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to help make it the best it can be by strengthening and renewing the Collegeâ&#x20AC;&#x2122;s Catholic identity, as well as by working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

Disclaimers This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross two or three times per semester. The College of the Holy Cross is not responsible for its content. Articles do not necessarily reflect the opinion of the editorial board.

Donation Policy The Fenwick Review is funded through a generous grant from the Collegiate Network as well as individual donations. The Fenwick Review is a student organization affiliated with, but not funded by, the College of the Holy Cross. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to College of the Holy Cross (memo line: The Fenwick Review) and mail to: Michael Raheb and Seamus Brennan P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Like Us: @FenwickReview Visit Us: www.fenwickreview.com

February 2019

Email Us: fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu

Table of Contents Letter from the Editors......................................................................4 Michael Raheb and Seamus Brennan ‘20 The Problem With Asking More....................................................5

Staff 2018-19 Co-Editors in Chief Michael Raheb ‘20 Seamus Brennan ‘20

Seamus Brennan ‘20 To Live the Faith of Our Fathers....................................................7

Deputy Editor Cameron Smith ‘20

John Buzzard ‘19 On the Relation of Feelings, “Demands,” and Reason in Liberal Education ...............................................................................9 David Lewis Schaefer, Professor of Political Science Dancing With Your Eyes Closed..................................................11 Michael Raheb ‘20

Social Media Editor Ryan Foley ‘21

Layout Editor John Buzzard ‘19

American Exceptionalism: The Nation’s Binds......................13 Staff Writers

John Pietro ‘22 An Actual Man for Others...............................................................16 Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21

James Dooley ‘20

James Garry ‘20 Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21

Be Careful What You Fight For…................................................18 Jonathan Klinker ‘21

Jonathan Klinker ‘21 Marisa George ‘21 Andrew Buck ‘22 John Pietro ‘22

Faculty Advisor Professor David Schaefer Political Science

Cover Photo Michael Raheb ‘20

Fenwick Hall, ca. 1888. Public domain.

February 2019

Editors’ Note

Thank You We must reserve the space to offer a heartfelt thank you to our benefactors, without whom The Fenwick Review would not exist. We extend our profound gratitude to the Collegiate Network and the generous individual and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review, for their ongoing enthusiasm and support of our mission. Mr. Robert Abbott ‘66 Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. Jim Carter ‘59 Mr. Kevin Collins Dr. and Mrs. John P. Connors Dr. Thomas Craig MD, MPH, ‘59 Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. John J. Ferguson Mr. Michael F. Fox

Dr. Dennis C. Golden Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up the first issue of The Fenwick Review of 2019. We hope you didn’t mind the wait! This year marks the Review’s 30th anniversary. Three decades ago, our publication’s founders vowed “to publish a journal of opinion” in which they hoped “to provoke intellectual discussion and stimulate ideas.” Here, in 2019, we hold true to the mission they instituted and aim to advance the values, principles, and ideas they so boldly defended. In 1989, 30 years ago, The Fenwick Review was founded on the defense of traditional Catholic principles and conservative ideas in order to provide alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. The contents of this issue hold true to that mission. In the wake of continued campus controversy and student protest, Professor Schaefer of Political Science offers his insights on last December’s ENGAGE Summit and the foundations of liberal education. Mr. Buzzard and Mr. Rosenwinkel reflect on living the Catholic faith and acting as a man for others, respectively. Mr. Klinker comments on the role of sex in the present-day culture, and Mr. Pietro defends American exceptionalism through historical and contemporary political contexts. Though there is no doubt that Holy Cross is a different campus than it was 30 years ago when this publication first hit the newsstands, The Fenwick Review and its mission remain imperative and our founders’ vision remains relevant. We seek the best for Holy Cross and hope you can find something to enjoy, to ponder, or to reflect upon in the coming pages of this issue.

Mr. Patrick D. Hanley

Seamus Brennan & Michael Raheb Co-Editors-in-Chief

The Hon. Paul J. Hanley Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan

Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Brian Kingston, ‘68 Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Mr. Bernard Long ‘62 Mr. Francis F. Marshall ‘48

Dr. Ronald E. Safko Dr. William Sheehy ‘59 Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Mr. George Van Setter Dr. John Verdon

Mr. Carrol A. Muccia Mr. Kevin O'Scannlain Fr. Paul Scalia

February 2019

The Problem With Asking More Seamus Brennan ‘20 Despite its blatant contradictions to Holy Cross’s mission statement, to Jesuit values, and to the objectives of Catholic education, the College’s “Ask More” tagline is decidedly appropriate for the current state of the school. Rooted in fallacies and dangerous inconsistencies, the now five-year-old motto is not only a direct source of the College’s intellectual and cultural decline, but it has also fundamentally distorted the College’s mission as an educational institution – whether those behind the motto acknowledge so or not. Because of the “Ask More” motto and its inevitable philosophical consequences, Holy Cross has devolved, on an institutional level, from a campus of higher learning to a campus void of answers, a campus void of lasting knowledge, and a campus void of truth. In February 2014, Fenwick Review co-founder Fr. Paul Scalia said in an interview that his experience as a Holy Cross student could best be summarized as “the constant questioning, but never the articulation of an answer.” Scalia continued: “Once we say the purpose of a college is to ask questions, […] that’s a huge problem.” As Scalia rightly noted, the act of questioning innately presupposes an answer; interpersonal dialogue in and of itself – both formal and informal – is contingent upon the existence of truth and an underlying desire to reach it. But that’s not how many Holy Cross professors and administrators are inclined to approach their lectures and class discussions. Holy Cross’s version of ‘asking’ is not based upon seeking the truth or reaching a final conclusion, but on needless exposure and experimentation for their own sake. The College’s “Campus Life” webpage suggests that “deep exploration” and the “uncover[ing of] new perspectives” are valued above all else. The Montserrat program’s webpage indicates the program “encourages engagement” and “fuels an enduring quest” for “growth.” The Office of Diversity and Inclusion pur-

ports “the best way to understand the world around us is to embrace the full spectrum of perspectives and life experiences.” And the list goes on. Several courses and seminars I have taken during my time at Holy Cross introduced students to a wide assortment of “perspectives” and “experiences,” but never once sought to analyze or dissect them, to dig deeper, or to – dare I say – answer any of the questions professors so tirelessly pose. A multitude of perspectives can be noble and worthwhile, but only when presented in a way that compares and contrasts them – in a way that acknowledges their flaws and their fine points and isn’t afraid to elevate one over the other, or cast one aside because it might fall short. When teaching their classes, it seems many Holy Cross professors are consumed with following endless roadmaps with infinite numbers of twists and turns, divergent paths, and no destination anywhere in sight. Just as roadmaps might be deemed useless if they fail to direct one to a final destination, the act of ‘asking more’ is fruitless and meaningless when answers are abandoned and truth is left unacknowledged. Asking without any intention of answering can only lead one down an eternal rabbit hole of uncertainty, indecision, and emptiness. Unfortunately, the College’s apathy towards truth is not limited to the classroom. The administration and student offices have taken up similar methods: the bleak intellectual consequences of ‘asking more’ have bled over to other components of the school and have further exposed the fallacious nature of one of the College’s most highly touted marketing slogans. The Foundation for Individual Rights in Education labeled three of Holy Cross’s policies and codes of conduct as “red light policies,” indicating they are guidelines that “clearly and substantially restrict freedom of speech.” In its Use of Information Technology

“...Holy Cross has devolved, on an institutional level, from a campus of higher learning to a campus void of answers.”

“Holy Cross’s version of ’asking’ is not based upon seeking the truth or reaching a final conclusion, but on needless exposure and experimentation for their own sake. ”

February 2019

Services policy, for instance, Holy Cross leadership not be an acceptable perspective. One cannot logically states that “the determination of what is obscene, offendirect a body of students to “ask more,” but only up unsive or intolerant is within the sole discretion of the til someone’s feelings are hurt. College.” Its Code of Student Conduct for Emotional The “Ask More” tagline aptly characterizes the genAbuse denotes that “emotional injury” – for which the eral academic and cultural atmosphere on the Holy College offers no reliable definition – is considered a Cross campus as palpably self-contradictory. Of course, violation of community standards. Four additional rules not every professor or every class abides by this faulty and guidelines are categorized as “yellow light policies,” approach: intellectual honesty and appreciation for which the Foundation describes as truth have not yet been not entirely having the capability to “easily be terminated from campus, but they used to restrict protected expresseem to be lessening every new sesion.” mester. Catholic Jesuit education For a college that prides itself is built upon pursuit of the truth. on “asking more,” encouraging Holy Cross’s own mission state“engagement,” and promoting an ment, ironically enough, calls for “a “enduring quest” for “growth,” passion for truth.” When will we aren’t free speech restrictions of start living up to it? any sort antithetical to the school’s Truth is not always easy. The mission and branding campaign? If quest for truth can be distressing, the “power of a question and the onerous, and at times downright door it opens” is truly the infuriating. But that doesn’t mean “fundamental idea” behind the Holy Cross experience, it’s worth forsaking. The act of ‘asking more’ is noble, as the school itself asserts, why should the College have but asking must lead somewhere or to something. A the right to silence students based on what it subjecrestoration of meaning, purpose, and value would lead tively perceives as “emotional injury” or “intolerant”? If to immeasurable improvement and would do infinite all ideas and perspectives must be acknowledged and good for Holy Cross’s campus. As St. Ignatius Loyola, discussed on equal playing fields, what gives the supfounder of the Jesuits, wrote, “It is not much knowledge posed champions of ‘asking more’ a right to shut them that fills and satisfies the soul, but the intimate underdown? Here lies the problem with the morally relativstanding and relish of the truth.” In order for Holy istic and multicultural lenses through which the ColCross to live up to its strong potential as a Catholic liblege is entrapped: if eral arts institutruth does not exist or tion, it must shift is not worth pursuing, from the pursuit why should Holy of knowledge for Cross administrators its own sake to have the right to tell the pursuit of one that his knowledge for the “perspective” is wrong attainment of or intolerant? If all what is true and “perspectives” are what is equally valid and good. Like truth worth exploring, then itself, Holy Cross why aren’t some? Peris worth protectImage courtesy of the College of the Holy Cross haps most importanting. It is in seek(https://www.holycross.edu/askmore/) ly, how does censoring the answer, ship of “emotional injury” complement one’s “enduring not the question, that we can open our minds, revitalize quest” for “growth”? The College that insists exposure our intellect, and reach our potential as a campus of to a multitude of perspectives is the basis for intellectuhigher learning. al and personal growth should not be the College that flaunts its “sole discretion” to determine what might

“As St. Ignatius Loyola, founder of the Jesuits, wrote, ‘It is not much knowledge that fills and satisfies the soul, but the intimate understanding and relish of the truth.’”

February 2019

To Live the Faith of Our Fathers John Buzzard ‘19 There is a stirring hymn by The Reverend Father Frederick William Faber from 1849 which, titled “Faith of our Fathers,” commemorates the sacrifice of the English martyrs that were killed under the Tudor rule of Henry VIII and Elizabeth I during the establishment of the Church of England. The martyrs include notable saints such as Saint Thomas More, Saint Oliver Plunkett, and Saint John Houghton, O. Cart. The hymn was written for the audience of both English and Irish Catholics, whose allegiance was found in their shared faith and persecution by an unjust authority. Its lyrics speak of how our Catholic faith is “living still in spite of dungeon, fire, and sword” which serve to remind the listener that the Catholic faith has and will continue to overcome persecution because of its truth. When performed on an organ, it is sure to have “our hearts beat high with joy whene’ver we hear that glorious word.” It should also serve as a reminder that the freedom to celebrate the faith openly is a luxury won after centuries of martyrdom. So, what does this hymn have to do with us as Catholics? To start, reflection on the title of the hymn itself is important. For Catholics with a strong baptized lineage, it serves to remind us that this is indeed the “Faith of Our Fathers” in the literal sense of ancestry. There is a sense of pride here in being able to look back in our family trees and find solace in knowing that we are not alone in our faith. For converts to the faith, it is still important to look back upon spiritual fathers in the sense that many of the men and women who endured martyrdom for Christ were converts. There is the connection in the pursuit of truth, for while the two are not related by lineage, they are related in the sense that they are baptized into the Body of Christ. In both senses, this is a title which pulls on the heartstrings to invoke a sense of con-

nection and a bond that transcends time. In its composition, in order to properly honor the memory of the martyrs, there were important messages to give to the reader. The lyrics touch upon how “Our Fathers, chained in prisons dark were still in heart and conscience free: how sweet would be their children’s fate, if they, like them, could die for thee,” a message that may seem unfitting or uncomfortable for our modernity. We are called to remember that sacrifice that our predecessors made for us to be free. While chained, bloodied and bruised, these phenomenal men and women did not see this as their end, but rather they held out hope for Christ. Their hearts were purely intentioned because they were willing to give up their lives for the truth that they could pass on to future generations. How sweet it would be for us to honor their memory by making our hearts and consciences free due to our hope in the salvation of Christ! The call to martyrdom is not something that we will likely have to answer, due in part to the sacrifices of others. How can we, who have the luxury of having daily masses free from violent persecution, possibly “die for thee?” This call is answered in the hymn and it can apply to our modern lives. The hymn is overwhelmingly a message of Hope. It is hopeful that we as Catholics will “love both friend and foe in all our strife: and preach thee too, as love knows how by kindly words and virtuous life.” We are called to love our friends and our enemies, preach the Word of God, and live a virtuous life. All of those things are extremely difficult to do and through human error we are likely to fall. In our shortcomings, we are never alone. We have Christ, His Church, the Communion of Saints, and many more aspects of faith available to us.

“There is a sense of pride here in being able to look back in our family trees and find solace in knowing that we are not alone in our faith.”

“Their hearts were purely intentioned because they were willing to give up their lives for the truth that they could pass on to future generations.”

February 2019

Though this road is difficult, we can become more and hours of the week. In our daily lives, let us try to be betwe are commanded to do a better job. ter and actually commit to the centuries of foundation How can I, a Catholic in college, do a better job? To set before us. start, remembering constantly that this is a faith for “Faith of Our Fathers” is a very classic hymn with a which people have shed their blood. To honor of the timeless message. It is important that we pay attention faith of our fathers, we should act like the Church that to the lyrics whenever we are fortunate enough to hear we are baptized into is the truth for which people would it during Mass. In our Church, we have both genealogidie to protect. cal and spirIt is not someitual Fathers thing to which that we can only partial follow in order attention to model our should be paid; Faith. Being rather, all of Catholic is not our attention easy, but we should be tohave been afwards salvaforded some tion through luxuries that Christ. We were not previshould seek to ously available live out a virto those before tuous life, one us. We have that is set in governmental the virtues of freedoms that humility, kindallow us to ness, temperavoid being ance, chastity, put to death; patience, charsurely we can ity, and dilitake adgence. When we falter in our Image courtesy of Suffolk Churches (https:// vantage of that and use our pursuit of virtue, rather than http://www.suffolkchurches.co.uk/kesghf.htm) time to glorify God. It is time scorning the Church, we must be reminded of the Faith, Hope, and Love found in Christ. We will never be perfect - no human being is perfect - but we have models that we can strive to imitate. It is not enough for one to say, “Oh I went to a Catholic school” or to say, “Well, I was raised Catholic” in order to claim some authority as to why he is out of line in his views. Catholicism is a living faith. It requires faith and works and for its members to do more than sit in a pew with half-attention once a week. We need to do better, and to do so requires dedication and a willingness to pursue something more than ourselves. When our Church has a history of individuals who selflessly gave up their lives with their last words being “Deo gratias” (thanks be to God) rather than denying Him, it is not enough that we call ourselves ‘Catholic’ and then proceed to give up Christ for the other 167

to rock the cradle enough for us to fall out of our habits and become like our Fathers, who only sought to preserve the truth so that future generations would be able to worship our Lord freely.

“When we falter in our pursuit of virtue rather than scorning the Church we must be reminded of the Faith, Hope, and Love found in Christ.”

February 2019

On the Relation of Feelings, “Demands,” and Reason in Liberal Education David Lewis Schaefer, Professor of Political Science This past November 11, in reply to the student/ faculty letter demanding that the College cancel classes for as long as a week in response to an alleged "hate crime" (as well as to other alleged but unspecified incidents of bias-motivated "hate and violence")—a demand to which the College administration acceded in part by canceling all classes and extracurricular activities for an afternoon so that students and faculty could attend a mandatory "Summit" to address the issues raised in the letter—I arranged for the following notice (slightly edited here) to be posted on my office door. (Since I am currently on sabbatical, I wouldn't have been in my office on that date, nor even, I suppose, expected to participate in the Summit, but I thought it essential to make a statement regarding the significance of the shutdown,) I have not signed the letter asking the College to suspend classes on account of a reported hate crime. This is because I believe the primary purpose of a liberal arts college is to engage in the pursuit of learning, through classes and the study of readings that are of lasting importance. So far as I know, Holy Cross maintained a regular class schedule even during the Second World War, when many of our students and recent alumni were abroad fighting for our country. We cannot afford to set a precedent of calling off classes whenever faculty and/or students are upset about some particular incident, however ugly it may have been. (I say "may have been" because the circumstances of this incident have not been made clear to the faculty, the student body, or the public at large.) The foregoing statement elicited a remarkable response from a student I have never met, which she emailed to a dozen or so College administrators from the president on down, as well as to the chair of my department: As I was passing through the hallway in Fenwick, I saw a very concerning letter from Prof. Schaefer posted outside of his office door. I felt like this letter is very inconsiderate and insensitive as it minimizes past and recent events that have been impacting many students, faculty and staff on our campus. It makes me feel ex-

tremely uncomfortable, especially coming from a professor, because I feel like this is disrespectful to those who have been affected by these events. I noticed on the ENGAGE Summit schedule, the Political Science department is hosting an Open House, and as a faculty member that represents that department, what he mentions in his letter contradicts the message the department is trying to put forth for tomorrow in their session. Last year, I was the student that found and reported a swastika that was in one of my classrooms. It is extremely upsetting and disheartening to be in this position, as a student, to have to make reports like this– but especially when they are coming from our own professors. Thank you.by [sic]. According to a report subsequently issued by the Office of Public Safety, it appears that no proof has been found of the alleged incident that provoked the mass letter calling for a suspension of classes. But whether or not the incident occurred is beside my present point. What centrally concerns me—as it did when I posted the "offending" message on my door—is the misunderstanding of the function of a liberal arts college, or the very meaning of liberal education, that is embodied in the original petition that led to the Summit; in the resultant cancellation of academic and extracurricular activities; and in the student letter I have quoted. To anyone old enough to have been in graduate school during the late 1960s, as I was, the cancellation of classes has an ominous ring. That was the era in which students forcibly shut down college campuses, sometimes occupying academic buildings, even with weapons, for the sake of demonstrating their opposition to the Vietnam War, for racial "causes," or for other political agendas. (This occurred, most famously, at Harvard, Columbia, and [sadly for me] my own undergraduate alma mater, Cornell—where a supine University president was photographed squatting on a podium floor, soda can in hand, while a student "activist" railed at him before a large audience—this in preparation for the University's surrender to demands that punishments for rioting students, including those who had

February 2019

occupied the student union with guns, be canceled.) To those who possess some historical memory, the surrenders also recalled the sacrifice of the pursuit of learning to a radical political agenda that destroyed German universities in the 1930s. By contrast, I am proud to say, my graduate alma mater, the University of Chicago, refused to suspend classes, or allow those who occupied the administration building to go unpunished. This isn't because many or most faculty didn't agree with the political beliefs of the protestors—regarding the war, race relations, etc.—but because at Chicago, then and now, the pursuit of learning is sacrosanct. In this light, what is striking about the student's response to my notice is the expectation it exhibits that all professors (as well as students and administrators, presumably) should suspend their joint pursuit of learning, just in order to accommodate her (and other students') feelings of distress. If a professor's daring to dissent from the demand that classes be canceled makes her "feel extremely uncomfortable," I fear that Holy Cross has poorly prepared her to face the much more strenuous tribulations that adult life is likely to hold. To say that she "feels like" my dissent "is disrespectful" exhibits a significant misconception of what "respect" means, or to whom it is properly owed. Since when is it the job of professors to accommodate their students' "feelings," justified or not? How does she react if she is assigned a book in class that she disagrees with? (Does she require a "trigger warning," if not the removal of the offending text?) The proper function of liberal education, as understood from as far back as Plato and Aristotle through such nineteenth-century champions as Matthew Arnold and John Henry Newman (and in the twentieth century, University of Chicago president Robert Maynard Hutchins), isn't to accommodate learners' feelings, but to challenge their received opinions or prejudices on the basis of rational arguments and free debate. Apparently, none of the letter writer's teachers thus far have got this message through to her—perhaps because they themselves, like the Baby Boomer protestors of the 1960s (or their predecessors, German youth of the 1930s) don't really believe in the superiority of rational thought to political advocacy based on mere emotion. If this is so, then they have been failing in their vocation. (As an aside, I must observe with great regret the egregious recent discoveries of individual faculty sexual

misconduct towards students, two of which have recently been acknowledged by the College administration. In that regard the third of the complaints submitted by "@sexualassaultonthehill" subsequent to the Summit urgently merits firm administrative action—although not another suspension of classes that would only divert attention from the real problem. Nonetheless, the fact that the complaints are listed as "demands" exemplifies a distorted understanding of the proper relation of students to College faculty and administrators as a whole—eerily reminiscent of the assaults on Chinese professors and teachers in the 1960s under the auspices of the government-sponsored, terrorist "Cultural Revolution." Additionally, the sixth "demand"—that the College "protect" self-identified student "survivors" from Secretary of Education Betsy Devos's proposal that accused perpetrators of sexual abuse "be able to hire a separate investigator to cross-examine" their accusers—bespeaks an ominous disregard for the Anglo-American tradition of due process of law, recalling the Salem witch trials. Will administrators and faculty have the backbone to stand up against such lawlessness?) I close this essay by mentioning that as a Jew, I would have had far more reason than the letter writer to be offended or even upset at the discovery of a swastika on campus. However, it would never have occurred to me to respond by demanding that classes be suspended in consequence. To do so would play into the hands of those who seek to suppress rational debate, as well as respect for legitimate differences of opinion. (On the other hand, judging from my long acquaintance with Holy Cross students, I would guess that the swastika was far more likely a stupid prank provoked by the College's ever-increasing barrage of "multicultural" indoctrination than a reflection of Nazi sentiment.) I earnestly hope that the suspension of classes is not an event to be repeated. And I urge the letter-writer to take some challenging classes in which classic, difficult texts— philosophic, literary, historical—are read closely with a view to understanding what their authors have to teach us, rather than judging them by the standard of our own pre-existing "feelings." What else is liberal education—the education that is supposed to equip a human being for genuine freedom, with reason governing rather than serving the passions, and with respect for the rule of law—for?

“...the pursuit of learning is sacrosanct.”

February 2019

Dancing With Your Eyes Closed Michael Raheb ‘20 In my first year as a resident assistant here at the College of the Holy Cross, I was given the opportunity to participate in an event called “Pie Your RA.” “Pie Your RA” was relatively self-explanatory: at a specified time in front of the Hogan Campus Center, residents could purchase, for a dollar, a whipped-cream “pie” and promptly deposit it onto their garbage-bag-clad RA’s face. I, ever being a jokester, was all-for the event. The donated monies would go to benefit the Holy Cross Dance Marathon, wherein students dance the night away (literally, mind you – they dance all night) to raise money for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Society. What could go wrong? To make a long story short: once I knew what I’d be getting into, I didn’t let one drop of whipped cream touch my face. The Dance Marathon has been waltzing around the College since 2012. A Holy Cross alumna co-founded the event during her senior year, according to her blog “A Job Well Dunn,” for the sake of “bringing students and the community together to raise money and awareness for the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric AIDS Foundation.” During the initial year, the Marathon raised almost $24,000 for the Foundation; in the next year, the number increased by roughly $4,500. It seems that the donations peaked in 2014, where an enterprising group of students raised over $40,000, although the amount has dwindled to back around $27,000 as of last year. (The Campus Activities Board hosted the event again on January 25th, but I haven’t found the total amount donated this year.) I suppose that these numbers indicate how easy it is to say to a group of students: “hey everyone! Let’s all dance together, have a fun time, and save the lives of some children suffering from HIV/AIDS! Everyone wins!” and have an overwhelmingly positive response. It makes sense, to be sure; who wouldn’t want to protect the lives of children? Who wouldn’t want to purge HIV and AIDS from the world? Noble, to be sure. But the “everyone wins” is false. The children don’t all win, nor do their mothers, nor do we. The Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, despite what it seems, is unadulteratedly pro-choice; furthermore, it disagrees fundamentally with Catholic sexual ethics.

Frankly, I don’t know if Holy Cross itself knows that, and I’m sure that most of the students who attend the Dance Marathon don’t know either. The Lepanto Institute for the Restoration of All Things in Christ, a “research and education organization dedicated to the defense of the Catholic Church against assaults from without as well as from within,” marks the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation (EGPAF) as “Not Safe” on the grounds that it facilitates abortion and contraception. On a page dedicated to explaining this grade (see https:// www.lepantoinstitute.org/elizabeth-glaser-pediatric aids-foundation/), they explain why. EGPAF, in 2013, published a progress report on its “Cote d’Ivoire” project in Kenya. “Page five of this report,” claims Lepanto, “clearly indicates that its distribution of 400,000 condoms was one of its accomplishments for just one year.” Indeed, on page five of the PDF document linked to the Lepanto webpage, the statement “Over the year, EGPAF distributed over 400,000 condoms” appears. Please note that section 2370 of the Catechism of the Catholic Church explains that “every action which... proposes, whether as an end or as a means, to render procreation impossible is intrinsically evil.” This prohibition includes condoms, which render procreation impossible. Perhaps far worse is that EGPAF also supports abortion. According to the Lepanto Institute, EGPAF celebrated the repeal of the Mexico City Policy in 2009. The policy requires that nongovernmental organizations must, in order to receive federal funding, not involve themselves in family planning via abortion in other nations. The Mexico City Policy has vacillated, being repealed and reinstated, over various presidencies and was repealed under President Obama, although Trump has recently reinstated it again. The EGPAF’s support of Obama’s repeal can be affirmed by a statement from Pamela W. Barnes, the President and Chief Executive Officer of EGPAF in 2009. She commented that “the prevention of unintended pregnancies is one of the four cornerstones of the United Nations’ and World Health Organization’s strategy for preventing mother to child transmission (PMTCT) of HIV.” Barnes also noted that “the ‘Mexico City Policy’ denied funding for these basic

February 2019

family planning services.” In a 2014 report (after the Dance Marathon had already begun donating to the Foundation), the EGPAF noted that it provided “key results in prevention of undesired pregnancies: EGPAF -supported programs provided family planning counseling and methods to 11,678 HIV-positive individuals in 2014.” As noted by Barnes, that counseling includes abortion. Although most people are well aware of the Church’s stance on abortion, I’ll include some of Pope St. John Paul II’s words on the subject; he is, after all, a saint. And a pope. And a magisterial authority. In section 14 of his encyclical Humanae Vitae, he comments that “above all, all direct abortion, even for therapeutic reasons, (is) to be absolutely excluded as lawful means of regulating the number of children.” I suppose that’s firm enough for me to say and be done with the subject. EGPAF is, consistently and objectively, in opposition with the teachings of the Catholic Church and anyone who holds pro-life ideals. Ironic that an organization so concerned with healthy children has no qualms with killing those unborn.

What’s more ironic? Last year, despite how a quick Google search determines that EGPAF isn’t a Catholicfriendly charity, a Mass collection was held for the group around this time. I’d been sitting in a pew with a close friend, fishing for my wallet as the collection basket floated down our way, whispering to him “shouldn’t you be donating to help stop pediatric AIDS?” His retort: “for the good of your soul, you’d better not donate to them.” I stuffed my wallet back into my pocket and passed the basket along, all the while mildly confused with his sentiment (until I learned the truth about the Elizabeth Glaser Pediatric Aids Foundation, of course). Now, what of those other Catholics and pro-life students among us who danced the night away with the Dance Marathon this year? Holy Cross has done them a disservice by making the Marathon into a celebratory festival where the goal is promoting life, albeit quietly at the expense of other lives waiting to be born. Over the course of seven years, the truth about EGPAF has, as far as I’m aware, never come to light. I’d almost be amused if it weren’t so terrible.

“Ironic that an organization so concerned with healthy children has no qualms with killing those unborn.”

Photo by the American Life League (https://www.flickr.com/photos/americanlifeleague/15755017273/)

)

February 2019

American Exceptionalism: The Nation’s Binds John Pietro ‘22 The Hague, America, a unique country on the world stage, is truly a gift to humanity. The world as it stands today exists only because of the awesome power of the United States and its diverse people. American Exceptionalism – the aggregate of values and traditions that makes the American identity – undergirds America’s social structure and binds the nation together, enabling the United States’ strength. American identity is heavily influenced by classical Western identity, and thus the two can not be completely separated. The JudeoChristian values of individualism, equality, and charity underpin American strength and generosity and solidify the country’s character. Formidable constitutional protections – unprecedented prior to America’s founding – sustain the freedom that personifies the United States’ international image. A firm historical record of overcoming adversity and championing freedom provides a distinctive legitimacy. However, in the 21st century, there is an increasing percentage of Americans who see the U.S. in a negative light, shunning past achievements and viewing the U.S. as fundamentally flawed. A loss of faith in American exceptionalism risks the collapse of the democratic world order. Judeo-Christian values have, from the very start, fashioned the basis of American behavior. The Pilgrims came to America seeking the freedom to practice their faith, and many subsequent colonial settlements followed suit; be they Rhode Island as a home for disparate religious groups or William Penn’s Quaker Pennsylvania, Judeo-Christian faith was the heart of what would become America. Likewise, the Founding Fathers recognized the indelible importance of faith in society. George Washington stated: "Of all the dispositions and habits which lead to political prosperity, religion and morality are indispensable supports.” Alexander Hamilton also saw value in faith and God: “The sacred rights of mankind... are written... by the hand of the Divinity itself, and can never be erased or obscured by mortal power.” Finally, even Adams spoke of their importance: “And what were these general Principles [on which America was founded]? I answer, the general Principles of Christianity, in which all those Sects were United: And the general Principles of English and American Liberty, in which all those young Men United, and

which had United all Parties in America, in Majorities Sufficient to assert and maintain her Independence.” Since its founding, America has remained a nation rooted in Judeo-Christian values. These principles contribute to the American identity and exceptionalism in their outgrowths. Every moral system sprouts from a foundation of deeply held beliefs, and the clear JudeoChristian origins of America’s, and indeed the West’s, moral precepts guide the liberal democratic order. Central to Judeo-Christian teaching is the idea of free will. Free will is alike to the very American concept of individualism, which makes possible the foundation of our economic prowess: capitalism. The American capitalistic, free market society has the individual at its core, without which it would collapse onto itself. The most successful economy on the face of the planet, worth about $19.4 trillion, America is the hitherto unchallenged economic superpower. Placing after minuscule nations and oil rich gulf states the U.S. ranks 19th in terms of GDP per capita at $59,500, and that is in a nation of around 330 million. None of this would be possible in any economic system without the individual at the center and a reasonable expectation of receiving rewards for labor. Of course this is not solely unique to the United States, but it is an originally Western phenomenon that has been brought to its highest point in America. In Europe, the individual is not such a priority, since the government plays an outsize role in its citizens’ lives. The nature of American history – the frontiersman attitude – lends itself to the continued prominence of individualism in the American identity. The Western and American vision of equality has its foundation in the Biblical truth that humanity is created in the image of God. While it might not sound remarkable to the modern mind, it is assuredly profound. If every man, woman, and child is created in the image of God, then the only logical conclusion is that there is a universal and equal dignity present. It is this line of thinking that helped lead to the abolition of slavery and mass suffrage, which was first realized in the Western world. With religion being such an important factor in the nation’s founding, it is no surprise that the message of equality has become so integral to America’s national character.

February 2019

American exceptionalism is exhibited most profoundly in the generosity of the American people – a generosity that remains unequaled. Charity, a core tenet of Christianity and most Abrahamic faiths, is as much a part of America’s ethos as the ideals of individualism and equality. In 2015, the United States gave roughly $31 billion in foreign developmental and humanitarian aid, more than any other nation. While that is indicative of the support of government generosity, the individual charity of Americans is far more extraordinary. U.S. charitable giving, by private charities and individuals, topped $400 billion in 2017, more than any other nation, and an increase of 5.2% from 2016. That individual generosity is truly unique to America, and there is indeed something deeply admirable when people give to a greater cause, not by government spending, but through their own free will. Arguably the most remarkable aspect of America is the strength and level of veneration of the Constitution. The most sacred right protected by the Constitution is the freedom of speech. No other nation has the breadth of protected speech as the United States, and the courts have consistently upheld the wide definition of freedom of speech. In the seminole case of Schenck v. United States of 1917, the Supreme Court established limits to free speech, which it defined as anything that poses a “clear and present danger” to cause illegal harm. This case set the standard for what types of speech government can and cannot regulate, and established a wide interpretation of free speech. The case of Brandenburg v. Ohio, which extended the realm of free speech to include support of violence assuming that it does not incite violence or a violation of law, further strengthened free speech protections. Owing to the specificity of the case, the ability to prosecute speech was curtailed even further. The only manner in which the boundaries of speech can be reinforced is if they are made clear and precise, and Brandenburg v. Ohio helps to secure that. Finally, the case of R.A.V v. St. Paul in 1992 secured protection of a kind of speech that is most under assault today: ‘hate speech.’ While what many consider to be ‘hate speech’ is indeed disgusting and abhorrent, it is nonetheless worthy of protection. The obscurity of ‘hate speech’ is a problem unto itself, for there is no way to adequately define what it is, and thus making it a powerful tool to silence opponents. Compared to Europe, the region

morally and philosophically closest to the U.S., America is leagues ahead. In October 2018, the European Court of Human Rights upheld a verdict from Austria that convicted a woman for insulting Islam. Ruling that speech denigrating another faith is able to be prosecuted, the floodgates of suppression opened. This is troubling enough, but unfortunately it is one case in a litany of free speech violations. Cases like this is what makes America exceptional: the government is forced to be the least invasive of people’s lives, regardless of how unsavory the action. Held equally as dear as the freedom of speech is the right to bear arms. A free people are only able to ensure their freedom with the ultimate check on government power and tyranny. Citizens without coercive power are subjects; with coercive power are an independent people. One of only three existing constitutions securing the right to bear arms, the U.S. Constitution is already unusual, but it is also the only constitution to do so without any specified restrictions. The unique protections of weapon ownership in the U.S. again point towards the exceptional makeup of the nation – a nation in which people are guaranteed a base freedom unsurpassed worldwide as well as the ability to defend it. Key court cases such as District of Columbia v. Heller, which struck down a ban on handguns and excessive restrictions, reinforce the already strong constitutional apparatus. American exceptionalism is truly embodied in the commitment to constitutional rights, the core of all free societies. Any identity is framed not only by its enduring values, but also by the progressive advancement of history. United States history is the best evidence for the exceptional nature of the American people, providing a legitimacy all on its own. From the abolition of slavery to the advancement of suffrage rights, American history is steeped in success. It is also not just a self-serving history, but a history abounded with positive outreach. U.S. humanitarian interventions provide a particularly salient example of the outward looking posture of the nation. Somalia in 1992 was of no particular importance to America, and there was certainly no reason to send soldiers to die. Despite this, the U.S. sent troops to the country in Operation Restore Hope to mitigate the damage of the civil war that befell Somalia upon the collapse of its central government. While other nations eventually joined, the operation was spearheaded

“Judeo-Christian values have from the very start fashioned the basis of American behavior.”

February 2019

by the U.S. A willingness to sacrifice for a disparate people in a far-flung land for the purpose of preventing violence is nothing short of magnanimous. Similarly, the United States intervened in the Balkans in 1995 to halt the mass genocide during the Yugoslav wars. With the war continuing to rage in the area and the failure of the United Nations to stop the violence, the U.S. led a very risky, and what would prove to be a successful yet costly, intervention. Again, the American resolve and ability to defend the vulnerable is peerless. Of course, the U.S. also has an enduring reputation as the defender of the free world, and it is a reputation well-deserved. As the only nation capable of withstanding the demands of protecting freedom, the U.S. has been fully committed to the advancement of democracy. The most salient example is of course the Second World War, but a more recent example better exemplifies American exceptionalism. The Korean War of 19501953 was the first post-WWII intervention of the United States with the goal of defending sovereignty. Following the North Korean invasion and subsequent route of the South Korean Army to the Pusan Perimeter, the U.S. and its UN allies sent hundreds of thousands of troops to ensure the freedom of the South Korean people from communism. With 2.5 million total dead, including nearly 40,000 dead American troops by the end of the conflict, the United States paid a heavy price to protect the independence of a nation on the other side of the globe. The Vietnam and First Gulf War, which were relatively similar to the Korean War in their goals of protecting sovereignty, prove that the United States has maintained its commitment to freedom despite the passage of time and horrendous loss of life. Being prepared to give the ultimate sacrifice is the epitome of nobility and selflessness. While not posing much of a threat to American lives, U.S. relief to those suffering from disasters is indicative of the exceptional nature of America. Any major relief effort can cost vast sums of money and require massive logistical support. Following the 2010 earthquake in Haiti that resulted in upwards of 300,000 deaths, the U.S. led the international relief effort. Deploying well over 20,000 troops, the U.S. military led the way in bringing supplies, shelter, and care to the people of Haiti. The strength and size of the U.S. response and the public support for it once again bring to the forefront American generosity for the needy. Being a nation that is not defined by race, faith, or any other arbitrary divide, the common belief in American exceptionalism is the thread that binds the nation

together. In the 21st century, however, there are increasing numbers of Americans whose belief in American excellency is failing. About 92% of Republicans in 2017 were recorded as being very/extremely proud to be American, compared to only 67% of Democrats according to Gallup. Many Americans feel, especially after the election of Donald Trump to the presidency, vulnerable and afraid. Minorities with a history of discrimination see their advancements in jeopardy. In addition, there is a common view that America does not have a historically evident strong moral foundation, but rather a history of oppression. Whether it be slavery, Jim Crow, or the Chinese Exclusion Act, oppression is seen as being the salient issue in the United States. While writing off these fears would be wholly counterproductive, it is essential to intelligently break down and refute them. Donald Trump is quite far from being a bigot. He certainly lacks a filter, but there is little that he says that can be deemed overtly racist. Much in American society has been excessively racialized and put in the context of individual identity, which pushes people to the extremes. The term “racist” has been vastly overused, which is harmful both to those who are falsely accused of it and to those who legitimately suffer from it, as it wrongly lessens their plight. As for an American history of oppression, it is important to note that the U.S. was one of the first nations to abolish slavery, fight its largest war over it, and enshrine its prohibition in the Constitution. America could not have eliminated it from the start, despite support from many of the Founding Fathers for doing so, for there would be no America if slavery was crushed in 1789. The South never would have joined the Union and it is very likely that they would have held onto slavery much longer had the Union not formed. In the face of oppression throughout history, American justice and resolve have won out, freeing the repressed and expanding liberty. No nation in circumstances like the United States’ has been able to reform in such radical and successful ways. Exceptionalism of American identity is the primary aspect that brings every American citizen together. Regardless of individual identity, there is the common view of a uniquely American ingenuity, resilience, and justice that unites the nation’s disparate peoples. If that identity is lost, there is not much left to hold together a nation as vast and diverse as the United States. America thrives off of its rich history and achievements, and the unity behind that history is absolutely essential to a future of success and greatness. Sources available on The Fenwick Review website.

February 2019

An Actual Man for Others Jack Rosenwinkel ‘21 I’m a storyteller. I love to tell stories. Sometimes they’re about real things that have happened to me— like that time I (accidentally) bought a hotdog from a homeless man. Other times, I hear a story somewhere else, and because it made me laugh, or cry, or inspired me, I become convinced that other people need to hear it. That’s the case with the story I’m going to tell now: the story of Pier Giorgio Frassati. When I heard Pier Giorgio’s story, I became convinced that it needed to be heard by everyone I knew, especially college students. I can’t promise that it’ll be better than the hotdog story, but I still think it’s worth telling. Pier Giorgio Frassati was born in the Italian city of Turin in 1901. I’m tempted to say he was born in the summer, but in all honesty, I’m not entirely sure, and it’s really not that important. His father, Alfredo, was the founder of a prominent newspaper, and would become a senator and ambassador. His mother, Adelaide, was a relatively successful painter. The family was wealthy, popular, and relatively normal. Despite being Italian, the Frassati’s weren’t especially religious. Alfredo was an agnostic, and Adelaide was a lukewarm Catholic. Which is what made Pier Giorgio such a mystery. From a young age, Alfredo and Adelaide’s son was oddly and inexplicably religious. He liked praying and going to church, and he would often give food, money, and even his own shoes to the beggars who’d come to the Frassati mansion. Realizing that his parents looked on his religiosity with an air of confusion bordering on concern, Pier Giorgio decided to take his charitable activities underground. He gave to beggars, joined prayer groups, and bought medicine for children in the slums. Alfredo and Adelaide, resigning themselves to the fact that they’d never quite understand their son, didn’t ask questions about how Pier Giorgio spent his free time— or his allowance. Pier Giorgio was okay with that. In fact, after giving his bus money away, he’d run several miles home so he’d be on time for dinner.

But Pier Giorgio wasn’t just a little religious zealot. He was handsome, popular, and rambunctious. He was a skilled mountain climber, a terrible musician, and a mediocre student. His friends called themselves the Tipi Loschi, or shady characters, and got kicked out of a Catholic youth group for being too rowdy. People adored Pier Giorgio, and when he walked through the slums, children ran into the street and hugged him. He joked with everyone, sang lines from Dante, and constantly smiled. He also financially supported countless families in Turin by convincing the people he encountered to give him money. One day, a family friend informed Pier Giorgio’s mother that the priests had been preaching about her son. He, of course, denied it. And so life went on, with Pier Giorgio serving dozens of families. When the time came to go to school, Pier Giorgio decided that, instead of taking over his father’s newspaper, he would become a mining engineer so that he could evangelize the miners. His family was, understandably, flabbergasted. When he was twenty-four years old and two weeks away from graduating from college, Pier Giorgio caught an aggressive strain of polio, likely from someone in the slums. Within three days, Pier Giorgio’s legs were totally paralyzed. Unfortunately, his grandmother was dying in the room next to him. Unwilling to distract his family from her, he said nothing about the paralysis quickly taking hold of his body. When he couldn’t make it to his grandmother’s funeral, his parents complained that he was just being selfish. They had no idea that he only had a couple of days left to live. On the fourth day of Pier Giorgio’s illness, his family finally realized how sick he was. They called in teams of doctors, but to no avail. Meanwhile, Pier Giorgio was frantically writing notes to his friends. His notes were instruction sheets, telling them where they could find food or medicine, and to whom they should bring it. Even in his last days, his primary concern was others. On the fifth day of Pier Giorgio’s illness, the Cardinal of

“He joked with everyone, sang lines from Dante, and constantly smiled.”

“They had no idea that he only had a couple of days left to live.”

February 2019

Turin showed up to visit him. Confused, his parents sent the prelate away. Finally, after six days of illness, on July 4th, 1925, Pier Giorgio Frassati died. Within hours, the Frassati manor was surrounded by people—homeless, the destitute, the abandoned—trying to get in. Pier Giorgio’s sister, Luciana, urged her parents to let the strangers in. People poured in silently, and the crowds streamed into Pier Giorgio’s bedroom. They began to kneel in front of his body, venerating this amazing young man. “And that,” recalls Luciana, “was when Mama and Poppa realized that their son was a saint.” Pier Giorgio’s story yields several crucial lessons, especially for students on a college campus. First, Pier Giorgio’s story speaks to a question that lies in the heart of almost everyone: how do I live a meaningful life? We often fall into the trap of thinking that if we just network enough, take a fifth class, pull more allnighters, and commit to more extracurriculars, then we can live a good life. Pier Giorgio reminds us that that isn’t true: greatness is achieved by leading from behind, by serving the least among us, and not by seeking a reward or constant validation. People fell in love with Pier Giorgio because he loved them first, regardless of whether or not it benefitted him. Pier Giorgio exemplifies the paradox of greatness: by lowering himself down, by spending his time among the rejected and the destitute, he became great. His story is also a story of sacrifice, and it points to something that our society seems to be forgetting: the necessity and value of suffering. So often, we run away from discomfort. I’m no different: I hate being cold, hungry, tired, or sore. Society as a whole seems obsessed with making suffering disappear, a crusade that manifests itself in the quest for immortality, the emergence of safe spaces, and a push for universal healthcare. Pier Giorgio’s life was marked by suffering. Not only did his family misunderstand him, but his mother prevented him from marrying a young woman he had fallen in love with. He bore it patiently. He also routinely stayed up all night in prayer, woke up early for Mass, fasted, and endured long, arduous mountain climbs. His last six days were marked by excruciating suffering which he bore patiently. His willingness to suffer wasn’t masochistic. It was a sign of authentic

love. Pier Giorgio understood that love demands suffering. Love isn’t just a fuzzy feeling, a warm emotion, or something we do when we feel like it. It’s hard. It’s gritty. Love is what gets a dad out of bed at three in the morning to clean up his daughter’s vomit. It’s what drives a mom to take on more shifts to support her family. It’s what pushes a husband to persevere for his bride, and vice versa. It’s no wonder that, in a world driven by a desire to eliminate suffering, the divorce rate is skyrocketing, relationships are falling apart, and love seems hard to find. Pier Giorgio is a testament to the enduring value of suffering. In some ways, Pier Giorgio’s life may seem remote, unrelatable, or unattainable. But he wasn’t so different from all of us. Not really. And his life is a testament to what our lives have the potential to be: full, vibrant, loving, and glorious. There’s so much talk about toxic masculinity, or what it means to be a “woman or a man for and with others.” Pier Giorgio reminds us what a man for others really is: a man consumed by love.

“His willingness to suffer wasn’t masochistic. It was a sign of authentic love. Pier Giorgio understood that love demands suffering.”

Image courtesy of Word on Fire (https://wordonfire.org)

February 2019

Be Careful What You Fight For Jonathan Klinker ‘21 Imagine opening up the Podcast app on your iPhone while preparing for your morning commute, expecting to find your regularly scheduled Ben Shapiro Show or Barstool News program. Instead, you find a show with cover art boasting two scantily clad twenty-something women. Curiosity getting the better of your judgment, you tap the phone to investigate what possible topic such a provocative image could be advertising, only to be greeted with the auto-tuned voice of two women asking “Do you call him daddy? Do I call her daddy? Call her Daddy,” in as seductive a way as possible. Disconcerted, but with your intellectual curiosity piqued, you keep listening. To your horror, it soon becomes clear that the show is a weekly synopsis of its two female hosts’ lives of blackout drinking, smoking copious amounts of weed, and dozens of drunken hookups. Now, keep in mind: last semester, “Call Her Daddy” was the second most popular podcast on Apple Podcasts in the U.S. Adults everywhere seem to crave each week’s episodes on increasingly riskier topics, each with evermore explicit personal detail provided by the hosts. With titles like “SEXT ME SO I KNOW IT’S REAL,” “Sliding into the DMs – It’s Time to Get Laid Boys,” and “If you’re a 5 or 6, Die for that Dick,” the hosts leave no topic off limits. This is not simply a Cosmopolitan write-in Q & A session. No, these topics come from the women’s personal lives and their first-hand encounters on the streets of New York City. When I first listened to the podcast, I was very much taken aback (as were the men in the recording studio, as noted by the hosts in their first episode). Aspects of our culture like this one speak to the dangers of the changes our society has undergone over the last fifty years. In light of recent events on the Hill last semester, I find such a podcast even more troubling. Imagine if two football players from one of the big-ten schools started a podcast where they talked about all the sexual conquests, substance abuse, and wild behavior they partook in over the previous week. There would be such an outcry of public protest that the noise would be deafening.

Herein lies the fundamental issue with our society: a false sense of equality. Surely we can all agree that the behavior of the stereotypical jock who sleeps with countless partners on a weekly, or even nightly, basis is one we need to banish from our culture. As a society and campus community, we should despise such behavior and work to end the veneration of “studs” or “Brads and Chads.” One just needs to read the ever-growing number of stories shared on the “Sexual Assault on the Hill” Instagram to realize the profound effect this athlete hookup culture has on the women who bravely share their experiences and understand its insidious threat to our campus community. There seems to be a double standard for men and women in the post-sexual liberation era. While we condemn men who constantly hook up and brag to their friends, we encourage women to be sexually active and oversexualize every aspect of their being. Media platforms such as “Call Her Daddy” are proof enough. Those two women reveal their sexual conquests in extremely detailed accounts as they participate in a standing competition of who can sleep with more men each week. It all happens on the everlasting medium of the Internet, over and over, for the entertainment of the masses. Yet in this #MeToo Era, if the genders were reversed, the actions of the hosts would be seen as appalling - if not criminal. The problem at its root is the definition our society uses for equality. We use people’s past actions to judge our standard of equality today instead of striving for a better, equitable world. Men have, historically, been able to act promiscuously and treat women in whatever way they please. So women, starting in the 1960s, wanted the same freedom and liberation to act just as men did to, in their mind, act “equally.” Yet this is not true equality, for equality is inherently good and of a lofty nature aimed at bettering the world. If women felt they were unequally treated and wanted a better, fairer, more equal society, then how could repeating the actions they themselves termed unseemly give anyone a sense of equality? Look to post-Civil War America for an exam-

“Herein lies the fundamental issue with our society: a false sense of equality.”

February 2019

ple. Booker T. Washington and W.E.B. Du Bois did not argue that blacks would achieve equality by being given the legal right to own whites. Such an idea would be ludicrous! Instead, they encouraged people to strive to sculpt a better, more just, more moral, more equal society. By leaving the evil in the past and encouraging all people, oppressor and oppressed, to use methods that help cultivate a sense of humanity, equality, and shared relationships, they sought to craft a truly equal society. Years later, we have ignored that formula by encouraging people to instead use each other as mere sexual instruments. The modern culture we have created regarding sexuality is not equal, nor is it fair, nor does it advance a better community now or for future generations. If we want to create a truly just, fair, and equal world, one free from sexual abuses and the degradation and belittlement of the human person, we must work to check inappropriate sexual behavior for everyone. For oppression is regression, and the consequences of the sexual liberation movement have oppressed the growth of the human person and his dignity in society. We have been

enslaved by our vices instead of liberated. We need to create a society more focused on caring for and uplifting the dignity of the human person in all aspects of daily life. Then, and only then, will we enjoy true equality.

â&#x20AC;&#x153;Years later, we have ignored that formula by encouraging people to instead use each other as mere sexual instruments.â&#x20AC;?

Photo clipped from https://www.barstoolsports.com/shows/call-her-daddy/podcasts

February 2019

The Fenwick Review Is Proudly Sponsored By:

@FenwickReview

fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu