March 2022 by The Fenwick Review

The Fenwick Review Quod Verum Pulchrum | Volume XXIX, Issue IV, March 2022

Featuring a critique of the college’s recent COVID strategy, a warning about the challenges posed by low global birth rates, coverage of the invasion of Ukraine, and more.

The Fenwick Review Volume XXIX, Issue IV, March 2022

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’ 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 endeavors to articulate thoughtful alternatives to the dominant campus ethos. Our staff values Holy Cross very much, and desires to make it the best it can be by strenghtening and renewing the College’s Catholic identity, as well as by working with the College to encourage constructive dialogue and an open forum to foster new ideas.

fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu. Follow us on social media:

@FenwickReview

Sign Up for Our Newsletter The Fenwick Review has started a monthly newsletter called The Crusader’s Brief. This publication, more lighthearted and casual in tone than our print publication, seeks to cover those day-to-day happenings at Holy Cross which those of our readers who don’t spend their lives on Mt. Saint James would otherwise miss. Within the Brief you will find a quick list of some more comical campus sightings, followed by a couple shorter articles covering topics of slightly greater note. We hope to develop this format and include other content, be it political cartoons, brief satires, poetry, you name it! Email us or fill out the form on our website if you’re interested in signing up!

Table of Contents 4

Letter From the Editors

Andrew Buck & John Pietro

COVID and Coercion at Holy Cross

SCOTUS as a Political Institution

Elitism

Population Crisis

The Fight for Freedom

The Review Reviews:

Co-Editors-in-Chief

The college’s COVID policy has been lacking at best, and dangerous at worst.

Forays into the political sphere by the Supreme Court have and continue to threaten US politics.

Your value as a citizen, especially in the political sphere, is not determined by a college degree.

Dangerously low global birth rates threaten the world’s future.

Ukraine’s heroic struggle against Russia proves a chilling reminder for the West.

Andrew Buck

Co-Editor-in-Chief

Evan Poellinger

Deputy Editor

Will Kessler Staff Writer

Kevin Akalski Staff Writer

John Pietro

Co-Editor-in-Chief

Anne of Green Gables

Anna Moran ‘24 Guest Writer

Irresistible Revolution

Stacey Kaliabakos ‘23 Staff Writer

Encanto

Anthony Cash ‘23 Deputy Editor

Spider-Man: No Way Home

Joe Nepomuceno ‘25 Guest Writer

Disclaimer:

This journal is published by students of the College of the Holy Cross several 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 Staff..

Letter from the Editors Staff 2021-2022 Co-Editors-in-Chief Andrew Buck ‘22 John Pietro ‘22

Deputy Editors Anthony Cash ‘23 Evan Poellinger ‘23

Social Media Editor Katie Romaine ‘22

Staff Writers Tim Andre ‘22 Kevin Akalski ‘23 John Dashe ‘22 Teresa Esquivel ‘23 Stacey Kaliabakos ‘23 Will Kessler ‘23 Anna Moran ‘24 Andrew Shipley ‘24

Dear Reader, Thank you for picking up a copy of The Fenwick Review. We realize we are inaugurating the year a little late, so we appreciate your patience. We are sure you will find this issue is well worth the wait. Indeed, in addition to a collection of great articles as usual, we are happy to announce the beginning of a new section to our publication: The Review Reviews! As the title suggests, this new section will include reviews by our writers of any variety of media, whether books, movies, music, and perhaps even art installations. We cannot wait to see how this project develops and changes. We also hope that it provides you with at least a few suggestions to add to your reading, watching, or listening lists (which we are sure are not already worryingly long). There are other plans in the works as well, though at the forefront of our minds is the expansion of our alumni network. At The Fenwick Review, our success is due in a large part to our donors, many of whom are Holy Cross alumni. While we develop concrete strategies, we encourage you all to spread our name and our mission to other alumni you think would be interested in our writing. We have come to realize there are many conservative alumni and parents who don not know who we are. Hopefully, with your help, we can show them that our common values are still present on Mount St. James. We wish you all well and truly hope you will profit from reading this edition of The Fenwick Review. Until next time. Sincerely, Andrew Buck & John Pietro, Co-Editors-in-Chief

Sam Silvestro ‘24

Faculty Advisor Professor David Schaefer,

Political Science

Fenwick Hall, ca. 1888. Public Domain

COVID and Coercion at Holy Cross Andrew Buck ‘22 Co-Editor-in-Chief

he College of the Holy Cross recently made the announcement that it would begin the process of rolling back mask mandates in spaces across campus on February 28th – a process which the administration already retroactively delayed indefinitely as of February 25th, due to a spike in cases. They claimed that they were only able to make this move because 90% of the student population had received their booster shot. Indeed, students received frequent emails encouraging them to report their booster status, with the message that “the only thing preventing us from removing masking is the students who have not uploaded their booster.” However, after the new masking policy was announced, the booster requirement began to be enforced with the threat of un-enrollment for students who didn’t comply. Why did the administration stress the need for a 90% booster rate, despite the City of Worcester voting to roll back their mandates starting February 18th? And why did the outcome from not being boosted so quickly shift from not being able to receive the privilege of not wearing masks to effective expulsion from the college? It seems, simply put, that these measures are a means to mask and soften the administration’s own behavior by pitting students against each other adversarially as a means to mitigate the ire they attract from students. I’m not suggesting that there is some grand conspiracy from above to turn students against each other; however, the lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the administration at the expense of the student body does contradict their

continuous effort to develop “community.” Indeed, these tactics are a means of coercion – deliberately manipulating the optics of policy to make them more appealing and limit pushback. But, why am I complaining? Shouldn’t I just be happy that mask mandates are falling away? Yes, I am happy. Perhaps, I’m too cynical regarding the function of the administration, and maybe I’m reading too far into the minutiae of these policies and into the wording of emails. But, if a Liberal Arts education has taught me anything, it’s that we are called to scrutinize everything we read, especially from those in positions of power.

“

The lack of accountability and transparency on the part of the administration at the expense of the student body does contradict their continuous effort to develop “community.”

o begin revealing these coercive measures, I will begin with the debacle regarding the basketball courts in the Jo. On January 26th, students received an email announcing a five day closure of these courts as a response to certain students playing on the courts

The Fenwick Review while not wearing masks. It went so far as to say that this noncompliance with the mask mandate was “egregious” (quite a severe word for wanting to be able to breathe easily while exercising). The email also included a warning about students not wearing masks on other exercise equipment. While these students were technically breaking the rules, it’s hard to think they were doing anything “egregiously” wrong. The Jo is a wide open, well-ventilated space, where students are constantly moving. There’s little more risk of transmission there than carrying out the same activity outside. But, even if the behavior was that bad, why did this entail the closing of the courts? It’s not like some students playing on the courts without masks infused the courts and the air above them with COVID particles. Like a parent punishing their child by taking away their phone or putting them in time out, they wanted to punish us, so they took away something we enjoyed. Worse, though, was the use of this punishment to blame students and turn us against each other. The email announcing the closing of the courts places the blame on students: “Students in noncompliance jeopardize their access to The Jo.” It is us, the students, who might ruin the experience for everyone else, not the administration’s arbitrary punishment.

from the email stating the imposed requirements for removing mask mandates on campus: “The only thing preventing us from removing masking, is the students who have not uploaded their booster.” Besides the description of “students” as “the thing,” which is suggestively (though hopefully accidental) dehumanizing of students, it also directly places blame for the continuation of masking onto those students who haven’t complied. So, for students who want masks gone, who else can they be mad at than the students who haven’t been boosted or haven’t reported their booster? Perhaps the college should have been more honest and said “The only thing preventing us from removing masking is that we arbitrarily set a 90% booster compliance rate, and we have to wait until that is met. And no, we can’t go one iota lower.”

“

We reached the goal that was supposed to [roll back mask mandates] but, apparently, the booster rate doesn’t really matter whatsoever, only the number of cases on campus.

“

Like a parent punishing their child by taking away their phone or putting them in time out, they wanted to punish us ...Worse, though, was the use of this punishment to blame students and turn us against each other.

he arbitrary nature of the 90% required booster rate becomes all the more apparent as the college has decided to indefinitely delay the roll back of mask mandates. We reached the goal that was supposed to grant us this privilege but, apparently, the booster rate doesn’t really matter whatsoever, only the number of cases on campus. It is this arbitrary nature that suggests more coercive inventions. In the email notifying students of this delay, the wording for the justification is much the same as for the closure of the gymnasium courts, “we have experienced a sustained spike in our positivity rate due to two student clusters, one where a policy was violated.” Students are to blame. Students are again the adversary to removing masks on campus. Further revealing the arbitrary and coercive nature of this booster threshold, the college has changed the consequences for not being boosted.

Why do I bring this up? It is a relatively small administrative intervention, despite the worrying implications. Well, there is a suspicious similarity between this punishment and the College’s arbirtary 90% booster quota. Remember the wording

XXIX - IV - March Before, not having the shot was an impediment to removing masks, now beginning February 25th, not being boosted will result in your unenrollment from Holy Cross. In the former of these policies, the booster was the key to a privilege: we needed students to report their booster to be able to remove masking on campus. As described previously, this policy positioned students who hadn’t complied as an impediment to their fellow students from achieving that privilege. Now, the same requirement, to receive the booster, is a matter of attending the college or not. So, the push to achieve a 90% booster rate in order to remove masking was entirely pointless. It created a situation where students were uselessly pitted against each other in order to achieve their goal, when in reality, the college was planning to threaten students with being kicked out anyways. Why not enforce the un-enrollment procedure (which is an ethical can of worms I will not even begin to open here) from the beginning? One might argue that setting the masking compliance quota was a way to encourage students to report their booster shot. But, surely, threatening un-enrollment would have been more than effective to achieve a 90% booster rate, at which point the college could have begun to roll back masking without creating a false competition between students. But, that would have made the college the big, bad guy; they would have seemed harsh and demanding. Rather, the college temporarily made students the adversary to encourage a majority of students to comply with the booster mandate, while positioning themselves as the beneficent gateway to a mask-free campus. It was they who wanted to remove masks, if other students would just get boosted! Then, only after most students complied, the college positioned itself adversarially to the remaining 10% of students who weren’t boosted.

“

The push to achieve a 90% booster rate ... created a situation where students were uselessly pitted against each other in order to achieve their goal, when in reality, the college was planning to threaten students with being kicked out anyways.

in no way mean to suggest that our mostly calm, mostly peaceful, and mostly affable campus is the site of a full blown class war, but I do think it’s important to notice and reveal the more worrying procedures of the college. So yes, I am overjoyed that mask mandates are falling away, and I thank the administration for making the right decision and moving forward with this matter. However, they have claimed and enforced new authority over students – the ability to enforce masking and boosting – through coercive means. I hope that the administration will fully own its policies and their ramifications in the future. Further, I hope, in the goal of building community on campus, they will be more careful in their own wording towards and treatment of students.

SCOTUS as a Political Institution Evan Poellinger ‘23 Deputy Editor

n January 27, Justice Stephen Breyer, the most senior justice of the United States Supreme Court, announced his retirement from the court at the beginning of October. During the announcement, Justice Breyer held up a pocket copy of the United States Constitution and stated “People have come to accept this Constitution, and they’ve come to accept the importance of a rule of law.” Textualist interpreters would rightfully note the irony in Breyer’s statements, as he has played an active role in reshaping the constitution according to his activist interpretation to suit radical policies, rather than judging the document according to how it was written. But Breyer’s statement highlights a deeper issue: that the Supreme Court is often rooted more in the rule of politics than in the rule of law. While recent vitriolic battle over appointments has made this more apparent, the U.S. Supreme Court has been a political institution almost since its inception.

the jurisdiction of the court outside of constitutional stipulations. This established the power we now know as “judicial review” through which legislative and executive actions are subject to judicial scrutiny. With this establishment of this power, Marshall managed to preserve a veneer of impartiality by avoiding a seemingly partisan judgment on Marbury’s case. However, the establishment of judicial review also arguably marked the beginning of the Supreme Court’s entrance into the political arena, with justices having a de facto ability to strike down or even make laws from the bench.

“

The establishment of judicial review also arguably marked the beginning of the Supreme Court’s entrance into the political arena.

nitially deemed by Alexander Hamilton as the least dangerous of the three branches of government, the Supreme Court first emerged as a political institution through the 1801 case Marbury v. Madison. The justices faced the task of determining whether to force James Madison to deliver a commission as justice of the peace for William Marbury, one of John Adams’ midnight appointments, which Madison had refused to deliver. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote the majority opinion, ruling that the court did not have original jurisdiction in Marbury’s case, striking down a section of the 1789 Judiciary Act that expanded

Fifty-six years later, Chief Justice Roger Taney would make this sinister ability apparent in his opinion in Dred Scott v. Sandford. Even prior to the case, some hoped for the court to resolve the issue of slavery in the United States, and so included provisions in the Compromise of 1850 to ensure appeals on the matter went before the court. The key moment came when Dred Scott sued for his freedom on account of living with his master in a state where slavery was prohibited. While representing Scott, Montgomery

XXIX - IV - March Blair thoroughly cited the writings of the Founders that illustrated the power of the federal government to restrict slavery, and that masters who had taken slaves to free states in the past had been made to free them, proving Scott had both the law and precedente on his side.

substantive judgment on which [Roe] rests is nowhere to be found.” Indeed, as the historical decisions of the court make clear, the Supreme Court has always been a consistently political institution, even if pretenses exist which declare such to be untrue.

“

ehavior by both the legislative and executive branches concerning the court also firmly establishes the Supreme Court as a political, rather than unprejudiced legal institution. Shortly after Chief Justice Taney’s death in 1864, Abraham Lincoln quickly saw fit to nominate Salmon Chase as his replacement, a man whose philosophy was precisely the opposite of Taney’s concerning slavery. In 1937, Franklin Roosevelt’s proposed court packing scheme may have encouraged the formerly hostile court to begin accepting his New Deal legislation. While Congress has been slower to acknowledge the political nature of the court, the increasingly partisan nomination hearings, beginning with the rejection of Robert Bork in 1987, are testaments that the legislative branch has also come to realize that court’s position as an additional legislative conduit.

Taney’s attempt to use the court as a political arbiter caused the already simmering tensions concerning slavery to boil over, contributing to the worsening crisis that led to the Civil War. Unfortunately for Dred Scott, Chief Justice Taney was both from a slave owning background and had tremendous animus toward the abolitionist movement. Moreover, Taney was keen to use his power of judicial review to settle the slavery problem permanently. Chief Justice Taney stated in the majority opinion that, not only did Congress not have the power to regulate slavery, but created an argument out of thin air that blacks were never intended to be and could not be United States citizens. Taney’s attempt to use the court as a political arbiter caused the already simmering tensions concerning slavery to boil over, contributing to the worsening crisis that led to the Civil War. In the succeeding decades, the court has continued to prove itself a highly political institution, with its judgment often depending on the philosophy of the justices on the bench. This political judgment has been made readily apparent by social decisions handed down by the court, such as in Griswold v. Connecticut and Roe v. Wade. In each of these cases, the court handed down judgments not at all grounded in the rule of law, but certainly grounded in the rule of politics. As a matter of fact, legal scholar John Hart Ely once said of Roe that the case “sets itself a question the Constitution has not made the Court’s business” while legal scholar Laurence Tribe concluded “the

“

The increasingly partisan nomination hearings ... are testaments that the legislative branch has also come to realize that court’s position as an additional legislative conduit.

While the Founders certainly did not plan for the Supreme Court to become another partisan engine, it nonetheless has manifested in such a way throughout the majority of its existence. Whatever the court was intended to be, it has all too often acted as a largely unaccountable oligarchy, able to overturn and establish law under the cover of judicial review and dress these questionable interpretations with colorful legal language that makes vague reference to the law. Unfortunately, whatever reform might be implemented to hold justices accountable for

The Fenwick Review presumably partisan rulings would in and of itself likely amount to partisan activity. In 1804, amid allegations of partisanship, Associate Justice Samuel Chase was impeached with the encouragement of President Thomas Jefferson, in no small part because he perceived Chase favorable to the Federalist Party. Chase was eventually acquitted by the Senate in 1805, and no federal judge has since faced impeachment on partisan grounds since. Thus, much as it might be wished that judges who issue blatantly activist rulings could be held accountable, it is almost certain that setting such a precedent would invite a flurry of impeachments against judges who rule contrary to the perspective of the party in power.

ronically, in the absence of a viable formal system of accountability, the best solution would seem to be a modified version of the screening technique so often employed by Democrats who hope to appoint activist judges to the court. Yet, rather than screen justices by willingness to bend and reshape the law, textualists must instead examine candidates to ensure a consistent application of the laws by candidates as they are written, and be unafraid of rejecting judges who do not pass muster. While Democrats have generally seen fit to offer substantial resistance to originalist appointments, Republicans seem to be reluctant to do so, with Justices Ginsburg and Breyer receiving majority approvals of 96 and 87 votes respectively despite their activist leanings. If the originalist interpretation of the Constitution is to be preserved, Conservatives must take a similarly unyielding approach to judicial confirmations.

“

The best solution would seem to be a modified version of the screening technique so often employed by Democrats who hope to appoint activist judges to the court.

The Supreme Court, https://commons.wikimedia. org/wiki/File:Supreme_Court.jpg

Elitism Will Kessler ‘23 Staff Writer

eing born and raised in Alabama and now attending a New England liberal arts college, I stand at an interesting intersection of viewpoints between two groups that often talk of each other in American discourse, but never seem to really understand each other. These two groups are the liberal educated elites and those who have been labeled the populist uneducated Trump supporters. I do not believe it is fair to label them as simply Trump supporters, because their ideology is bigger than just Trump, but he has embodied the idea so well in the last few years that that is what they have been referred to by academics and the media.

a problem. While there is no issue with presenting these facts, the media chooses to focus on them to a point of obsession, trying to plant in the minds of the American people that we simply must educate the masses for four more years after highschool in order to usher in a new Democratic utopia. This appears to be the mindset of the liberal elites.

rom my experience there is no greater place to learn about the educated liberal elite mindset than from inside the walls of many of this country’s colleges and universities. Fundamentally, I have found, through listening to my college professors, that the stance of many academics on the psychology of what we will call Trump supporters can be summarized by the concept of politics of resentment.

“

The media ... [tries] to plant in the minds of the American people that we simply must educate the masses for four more years after highschool in order to usher in a new Democratic utopia.

“

In this way, the liberal elites see themselves as the concerned parent. Politics of resentment is the concept that every position that these so-called “uneducated” Trump supporters take on an issue is only adopted because they wish to oppose the educated elite. Their motivation, therefore, is that the Trump supporters resent the educated and their elitist attitudes towards them. An example I was given in class was that it was said that Trump supporters only support protections on gun rights because they resent the elites trying to impose restrictions. Their opposition is then presumed

The contention between these two groups is inflamed by the media that has enjoyed showing maps over the past few years comparing those without college degrees to those with college degrees. The media then chooses to make it a point of discussion and often

The Fenwick Review not from a perception of tyranny, but rather because they resent the elites because they are jealous of their status and power. In this way, the liberal elites see themselves as the concerned parent who has to take away or control something, for example a cellphone, because as the parent they know better and should be trusted to do so for the betterment of the child. This idea attempts to ignore any other reason a Trump supporter might support gun rights, such as for hunting, protection from criminals with guns, or most importantly as a means to defend oneself against a tyrannical government. Additionally, in our now intersectional world, this concept has been tied to racism and white supremacy, with claims that Trump supporters do not support woke notions like implicit racial bias simply because they wish to rebel against the elites. I encourage those interested in the concept to simply search ‘politics of resentment’ or even ‘uneducated Trump supporters’ and look at the alarming number of support and discussion of the largely academic concept online.

college or university, and for most pay thousands of dollars, you are not allowed to have a valid opinion as you have not been taught how to think by an accredited institution.

he issue with this line of thinking is that the ability to think and to reason is not dependent on a college degree. Someone born to a rich family may be able to be pushed through a bachelor’s degree program while someone from a poorer background may elect to enter a trade due to financial concerns, even if the individual from the poorer background has the capabilities to excel in a college setting. I would even go so far as to argue that a college education has little to no bearing on how rational one’s political opinions are. The problem with the college curriculum is that it often deals in theory and ideals and rarely in practice and application. Those who enter college are often taught idealistic philosophies that can often fall under marxist or utopian umbrellas from professors who subscribe to the ideas of liberal elites, while those who don’t attend college are forced to see the real world and the realities that come with that. These people often do not gain the idealistic perspective of changing the world that is purveyed to many college students.

“

To be clear, I do not see uneducated as an insult, simply as a distinction that someone has not received a college education.

“

The issue with this line of thinking is that the ability to think and to reason is not dependent on a college degree.

To be clear, I do not see uneducated as an insult, simply as a distinction that someone has not received a college education, and would prefer a different term to be used because it is in fact extraordinarily rare to find someone who is completely uneducated in the US. Instead uneducated has come to mean those who have not received a college degree. This statement in and of itself is very concerning, considering the vast majority of those we call uneducated in America have gone through 13 years of schooling and received a highschool diploma or underwent the efforts to get a GED. Instead though, this idea of politics of resentment shows us that many of these liberal elites, whether they will admit it or not, see a college degree as a license to have an opinion. Without this distinction that requires you to attend a four year

On the flip side of this contention, I can often say that many of these “uneducated” Trump supporters have a bad take on many issues, and while I often agree with them politically, I agree for different reasons. Despite this, they still clearly have reasons for which they have their opinions. These reasons may not be as nuanced as a political science student who has studied the issues extensively, but the question can still be asked: how much do we actually talk about the relevant issues in college political science classes? During my 2 ½ years as a political science major, we have never once talked about important issues in the

XXIX - IV - March modern American landscape, like abortion or gun control, in any seroius capcity, only side references by professors which usually indicate their political leanings.

to convey that information more effectively. Every class I have taken at Holy Cross under the political science umbrella has had me write at least two essays, generally more, to which I am judged on how well I can rhetorically craft an argument. From my experience, these essays have never been about the issues that politicians care about, though there may be rare exceptions. Instead, the essays focus on topics like the pros and cons of certain party systems or the different philosophies around the idea of a social contract. The bulk of what colleges teach on politics is about structure rather than the issues. This is the focus of a liberal arts education, to which those who distinguish between educated and uneducated in such a vitriolic manner judge others by. The emphasis in a liberal arts education on crafting arguments is not to rationalize one’s opinions, but rather to convince others. Those who lack this education may not be able to articulate their ideas as well, but that does not mean that they do have them. They may not be equipped to run the system as elected officials, but they are certainly equipped to vote on them competently.

“

It is clear that a college education oftentimes does not give you more reasons or evidence to pull upon for the many important issues, but instead the ability to convey that information more effectively.

t is clear that a college education oftentimes does not give you more reasons or evidence to pull upon for the many important issues, but instead the ability

Flags of the Ivy League By Kenneth C. Zirkel - Own work, CC BY-SA 4.0, https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=74512794

Population Crisis Kevin Akalski ‘23 Staff Writer

homas Malthus was wrong. Dead wrong. In 1798, Malthus’ book An Essay on the Principle of Population was published. It argued that the global population would eventually become so large that it would be impossible to feed everybody. The result, known as the “Malthusian Trap,” would be mass starvation. While Malthus’ theory has been disproven, the idea that the world is becoming overpopulated remains dangerously influential globally today. After all, it was only in 2015 that China repealed its onechild policy, and it was only last year that it abrogated all limitations on the number of children that families are allowed to have. Nonetheless, Brevin Anderson, writing in First Things, highlights John Ibbitson and Darrell Bricker’s argument in their book Empty Planet, that the world will be facing problems of underpopulation in the future. Ibbitson and Bricker’s research shows that, because of the influence of urbanization and the increasing access to and knowledge of birth control, the birth rates in developed countries have decreased, and due to globalization, developing countries will soon follow. Instead of arguing for a “Malthusian Trap,” they illustrate that there will be a “fertility trap,” as individuals live longer and the number of working-age people who are most necessary for economic consumption and production decreases. Moreover, the International Strategic Analysis (ISA) confirms the negative economic effects of low birth rates. In 2019, before the accelerated decrease in birth rates brought on by the COVID-19 pandemic, the ISA stated that lower birth rates will lead to a decrease

in workers and consumers, older populations, the decline of affluent markets, and an increase in the demand for automation. Further, the ISA said that a greater portion of the world’s population will live in underdeveloped countries in the future than do so today.

“

Because of the influence of urbanization and the increasing access to and knowledge of birth control, the birth-rates in developed countries have decreased, and due to globalization, developing countries will soon follow.

n order for a country’s population to remain constant, its birth rate (the number of children born divided by the number of women) must be at least 2.1. The ISA reports that in the 1950s and the 1960s, the world’s birth rate was approximately 5.0. The world’s birth rate today, by contrast, is approximately 2.4, barely above the rate needed to keep the global population static. Further, many countries that either have a robust economy or are located in the West have birth rates well below 2.1. The following list of

XXIX - IV - March countries — which is kept much shorter than it could be for the sake of brevity — shows the birth rates in parenthesis: South Korea (1.1), Germany (1.6), Italy (1.3), Poland (1.4), and China (1.6). Even the United States is now below the 2.1 mark, with a birth rate of 1.8. Christine Emba of the Washington Post translates what this means for the United States’ economy: “Fewer babies means less economic growth in the future — a crunch in funding government programs and Social Security payments going out faster than they come in. A shrinking population leads to less market dynamism and fewer taxpayers.” Some may suggest that a way to at least keep the population static (i.e., keep the birth rate around 2.1) would be for states to offer more benefits to parents. For instance, a state may offer its citizens, as Germany and Estonia have, “more child-care options and better-paid parental leave,” as Joe Pinsker of The Atlantic reports. He writes that, since the onset of these policies, these two countries have seen an increase in their birthrates. Nonetheless, Pinsker admits, overall, “In the long term, the effects of policy on birth rates are generally more modest, but still apparent.” What, then, can be done to combat the global decline in birth rates? An investigation into the causes of the decline in birth rates might be able to suggest what the cure for the problem may be.

rate declined from 1730-1895. The researchers found that, in Stone’s words: [F]ertility fell before child mortality declined very much, before literacy rose, before agriculture employment fell, before any change in economic mobility had set in. None of the conventional explanations for causes of fertility declines explain [the] case of Saint-Germain-d’Anxure. Rather, the most likely explanation relates to cultural values: fertility fell by one whole child per woman between 1787 and 1815 [the period of the French Revolution], for example. Before that revolutionary period, fertility had been gradually declining, but had remained mostly stable. And after 1815, fertility bounced back up . . . until the revolutionary dislocations of 1848 and the beginning of the Second Empire under Napoleon III, when fertility fell again. Stone also cites research that suggests that the recent increase in the birth rates in Eastern European countries (which, I add, are still not above 2.1) is due primarily to the fact that religious belief and practice has increased following the fall of communism, which actively suppressed religion in the countries of the Eastern Bloc. The change in cultural values in the United States away from those that endorse the family also explains the findings from the Pew Research Center that “Some 44% of non-parents ages 18 to 49 say it is not too or not at all likely that they will have children someday” and that, of these 44%, 56% say that the reason for their lack of desire to have children is because, “they just don’t want to have kids.”

“

The recent increase in the birth rates in Eastern European countries ... is due primarily to the fact that religious belief and practice has increased following the fall of communism.

“

The fact that the decline in birth rates is a cultural problem suggests that direct state action will not provide the solution.

Lyman Stone, citing research from Guillaume Blanc and Romain Wacziarg, writes in Public Discourse that the decline in birth rates has been largely brought on by a change in cultural values. Blanc and Wacziarg, Stone reports, underwent a study of the historical demographics of a French village named Saint-Germain-d’Anxure, where the birth

he fact that the decline in birth rates is a cultural problem suggests that direct state action will not provide the solution. Indeed, if most non-parents do

The Fenwick Review the household en masse so as to create and raise more children. Therefore, our solution must accommodate both the tenets of classical liberalism and the reality that women will have to balance family life with their careers, which contributes to the fact that we cannot expect the birth rate to return to its levels in the 1950s and 1960s. One simple way that birth rates might rise to at least 2.1 in the United States would be if public schools were barred from teaching their students about sexual ethics. Public schools teach students from an early age about the existence of contraceptives and try to make “value-neutral” claims about abortion and premarital sex. Such “value-neutral” claims always come with implications, however, and these implications lead students away from traditional family values. Students’ parents, not the state, should be the ones who get to teach their children sexual values. Indeed, having the state, in the form of public schools, instruct students in sexual morality is fundamentally opposed to the project of classical liberalism. More students being taught sexual ethics by their families, rather than public schools which dismiss traditional values so as to remain “inclusive,” will doubtless eventually lead to more adults who value the family and the importance of having children.

not want to have children simply because they do not want to, government benefits are not likely to change their minds. A cultural problem requires a cultural solution.

“

Indeed, one of the benefits of living in the United States is that the government allows individuals to hold values in accordance with their conscience. The United States, the foundation of which lies in classical liberalism, will not admit of the government forcing individuals to adopt certain values conducive to creating more children. Indeed, one of the benefits of living in the United States is that the government allows individuals to hold values in accordance with their conscience. Moreover, the United States has technologically progressed enough such that women are no longer bound to the household and can pursue careers. It is unreasonable to expect that women in the United States will return to

The Fight for Freedom John Pietro ‘22 Co-Editor-in-Chief

This article was written on 27 February, 2022. Due to the fluid nature of the conflict, some information may be out of date.

mericans frivolously throw around the word ‘freedom’ all too often without a true sense of what it means. Freedom is a fragile phenomenon, and one that, for the great majority of human history, has not existed. Modern Americans do not know what it is like to have their freedoms truly threatened, to stand on the brink of tyranny and oppression, and we are unbelievably lucky for that. But our experience is an exception to the rule, and the valiant struggle of the Ukrainian people in the face of Russian brutality exemplifies just how precious freedom is.

The Maidan Revolution, or the Revolution of Dignity, was a seminal moment in the country’s history, turning it decidedly in a pro-Western direction. After the Russian invasion and annexation of Crimea, as well as the Russian-sponsored proxy conflict in the Donbas region, there was a rejuvenation of the Ukrainian national identity. The people of Ukraine wanted the freedoms, the prosperity, and the protection that the West – primarily the EU and NATO – offered, and they rejected the autocratic regime of their neighbor to the East. Populations all over Ukraine, including in majority-Russian speaking areas, have come to identify far more with Ukraine over the past eight years of the low-level war with Russia. They see what has happened in the rebel territories of Donetsk and Luhansk: repression, economic stagnation, and militarization. Ukrainians do not want that, and the valiant resistance that they have put up against the Russian juggernaut provides no better evidence of this. During the first phase of the Russian invasion, a Ukrainian marine,Vitaly Skakun Volodymyrovych, made the ultimate sacrifice for his country in order to blunt the Russian advance. Deployed on the border of Russian-occupied Crimea, he gave his life in order to destroy the Henichesk bridge. Knowing he would be unable to exit the blast zone in time, Volodymyrovych decided to complete his mission rather than escape with his life. Ukrainian President

“

Modern Americans do not know what it is like to have their freedoms truly threatened, to stand on the brink of tyranny and oppression, and we are unbelievably lucky for that.

n 2014, the Ukrainian people took to the streets, braving sniper fire and savage police repression, to oust the pro-Russian president, Viktor Yanukovych.

The Fenwick Review Volodymyr Zelensky subsequently announced that the marine would posthumously receive the honor of Hero of Ukraine. Similar cases of heroism abound. Thousands of Ukrainian civilians in Kyiv – men and women who days ago were strolling down the city’s boulevards – have taken up weapons to defend their homeland. These ordinary citizens, alongside the tens of thousands of professional soldiers, have been willing to face down one of the world’s most powerful militaries. It is truly a case of David and Goliath. Even so, much like David, the Ukrainians are fighting for what is truly right and just. Ukrainians have come to understand what freedom tastes like; they have determined, in the words of Patrick Henry, that life is not so dear nor peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery.

November 2021, and it was watched by the world for months. The US, UK, and select other Western nations provided weaponry, but it was woefully inadequate to the need. Russia has undergone a massive military modernization since the mid-2000s, investing tens of billions of dollars to procure and upgrade equipment. It has highly advanced air, naval, and ground forces, along with sophisticated cyber and electronic warfare capabilities. Ukraine, by contrast, has a robust army, but virtually no navy or air force to speak of, and its air defenses are widely known to be insufficient. The West could have sent advanced air defense equipment, ground vehicles, anti-ship missiles, and more antitank weaponry. Much of this equipment sits in storage in American military facilities, and it could have been flown out on relatively short notice. Western countries, starting on 25 February, completely changed their response. Countries from Germany to Sweden to Australia have agreed to supply Ukraine with a substantial quantity of desperately needed weaponry. This deserves much praise, but it should have been done earlier.

“

The question confronting the West now is, just how much does freedom matter to us?

“

When the West does not have the will or the material force to back up its diplomacy, diplomacy becomes worthless. And when diplomacy becomes worthless, there is no inhibition to violence.

he question confronting the West now is, just how much does freedom matter to us? An interstate peace that has more or less reigned in Europe since 1945 – the breakup of Yugoslavia being more of a civil than an interstate conflict – is now shattered. Not since the Nazis marched accross the continent have forces of this size clashed or a war of conquest on this scale occurred there. Take a moment to consider the scale that the invasion of Ukraine entailed: well over 400,000 troops engaged across three quarters of Ukraine’s 4350 mile border, with every major city in Ukraine targeted by airstrikes, and Russian forces fighting in the streets of towns and cities across the country — including the capital. If this can happen on the border of the European Union, on the most developed continent on earth, Westerners would do well to realize it may not stop there. China is watching how the West responds with the utmost care. The people of Taiwan may soon see the same kind of ferocity that Ukraine is now enduring. The West had ample opportunities to bolster Ukraine’s defense before the Russians invaded. Russian troops began their buildup in earnest in

The initial reticence on the part of the West to back up its words of support for Ukraine with effective, truly substantive action reflects both a fundamental misunderstanding of its challenges and a fracturing of its ideological commitment to the Free World Order. Russia and China do not care about a rules-based international order. The only reason they ever work within it is because they are constrained in doing so. It is the Free World that constrains them to it, a Free World that is well-armed and resolute. When

XXIX - IV - March

those boundaries disintegrate, the world returns to the violent place it has been for most of its history. Brutal dictatorships, like the criminals that lurk in the most dangerous cities, listen to nothing but force. When the West does not have the will or the material force to back up its diplomacy, diplomacy becomes worthless. And when diplomacy becomes worthless, there is no inhibition to violence. While the West dithered and bickered over the proper response, Russia was dealt a free hand to execute its brutal invasion. If the West cannot stand up for a fellow democracy in Europe, will it stand up for Taiwan? Where is the line to be drawn? Will it only defend those treaty commitments that already exist, such as NATO? If that is the case, Western peoples must be willing to suffer the consequences of a new world order dominated by the Chinese and the Russians. A new order where violence is but another tool in the pursuit of national interests. In the modern world, countries do not have the option of walling themselves off from the rest of humanity; when evil is allowed to run rampant thousands of miles away, it will eventually reach your doorstep.

he people of Ukraine understand something that the overwhelming majority of Westerners do not: that freedom is tenuous, that it is precious, and that it is worth dying for. Do not take freedom for granted. Do not take your life, with all of its comforts and luxuries, for granted. These things sit on a razor’s edge. Recognize that it is because of the West and the Free World Order that capital cities in the rest of Europe do not have to face missiles and armored columns. That Eastern Europe is largely free from the grip of tyranny. That Taipei and Seoul are home to free and prosperous people. These gifts are not free. The Ukrainian people know this, and they are sacrificing their lives because of that. Keep them in your prayers, and may the peace of Christ come to rest upon Ukraine. слава україні!

“

The people of Ukraine understand ... that freedom is tenuous, that it is precious, and that it is worth dying for.

Servicemen of the Ukrainian National Guard take positions in central Kyiv, Ukraine February 25, 2022, Reuters, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/ ukraines-president-stays-put-russian-invaders-advance-2022-02-25/

The Review Reviews

Anne of Green Gables Anna Moran ‘24 Staff Writer

Anne of Green Gables by L.M. Montgomery is a charming book series from the early twentieth century that captures a young girl’s experience growing up. The first book, published in 1908, introduces an imaginative, spirited young orphan named Anne who is adopted by the Cuthberts and welcomed into the community of Avonlea. The series follows Anne as she grows up, going through her schooling and eventually getting married and having a family of her own. The final few books, Rainbow Valley and Rilla of Ingleside, follow Anne’s children. Though she is not the chief focus of the final books, she is still showcased through the children she cares for, and through their characters, we can perceive the powerful, positive impact Anne has had on her children. This series is a breath of fresh air in the world of modern literature. Rather than being fraught with pessimism, Anne of Green Gables presents readers with a hopeful and positive heroine who finds joy in her everyday life and willingly faces new

challenges. As one stage in her life ends and another is just about to begin, she says she has found herself at a “bend in the road” and says to herself: “I don’t know what lies around the bend, but I’m going to believe that the best does.” This simple motto carries her through countless changes in her life: graduating from grammar school, graduating from high school, preparing for marriage, etc. She is the embodiment of hopefulness, welcoming each new and sometimes unexpected change that God gives her and emerging gracefully having learned new lessons and having enjoyed herself along the way. I have mentioned these “bends in the road,” and now I want to focus on one bend in particular that is relevant to us as college students: Anne’s college graduation. During her college years, she and her friends live in a charming house on the island that is owned by feisty but loveable elderly landladies. Upon finishing their final year of college, the landladies ask the girls what they have learned. The following quotation is actually not spoken by Anne herself; it is spoken by her friend and classmate, Priscilla; however, this lesson perfectly sums up the way in which Anne lives her life: ‘There is so much in the world for us all if we only have the eyes to see it, and the heart to love it, and the hand to gather it to ourselves- so much in men and women, so much in art and literature, so much everywhere in which to delight, and for which to be thankful.’ I think [college] has taught me that… (Montgomery, Anne of the Island) Priscilla reminds us to value what we have been blessed with at any given moment in our lives. I cannot speak to one’s experience in adulthood or older age, but I can speak for a young person’s experience in saying that it feels like we are always looking forward to the next phase of our lives in which we believe things will be better, or if not, we are focusing on what we do not have in the present moment that we wish we had. Though I think the “carpe diem” attitude has been overdone and often leads to the justification of otherwise unwise actions, I do think an appreciation and enjoyment of the moment or the stage of life we are currently in is a valuable enrichment to our lives. Following Anne’s life as she grows up is inspiring because in each epoch of her life, even if it is a challenging one, she finds what there is to be thankful for and has “the eyes to see it, and the heart to love it, and the hand to gather it to [herself]” (217). At one point, she simply notices the beauty of fall and says to herself, “I’m so glad I live in a world where there are Octobers” (Montgomery, Anne of Green Gables). Going through college, especially with the difficulty of our unusual circumstances and the loneliness and frustration that come along with it, L.M. Montgomery gives us a great reminder that there is always something in the world for which to be thankful if we open our eyes to it.

XXIX - IV - March

Cover of 1908 Edition of Anne of Green Gables, housed in Dinand Library

Cover of Irresitible Revolution

Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest and the Unmaking of the American Military Stacey Kaliabakos ‘23 Staff Writer

Although I have read many books relating to political philosophy throughout my life, I have been most influenced by a book I discovered quite recently: Irresistible Revolution: Marxism’s Goal of Conquest and the Unmaking of the American Military by Matthew Lohmeier. Lohmeier had been selected by President Trump as a commander in the Space Force, but was later ousted from his position due to the publication of this book. He is a personal hero of mine, and his book exposed me to the deep-seated connections between Marxism and Maoism as well as their contemporary implications on the United States. The book is divided into three sections, “The Greatness of the American Ideal,” “Marxism’s Goal of Conquest,” and “Unmaking America’s Military.” In the first two parts, Lohmeier discusses the history of American political philosophy and how the development of Marxist ideology has continuously sought to destroy the American way of life. He also explains Critical Race Theory, which he considers a spawn of Marxism. In section three, he then demonstrates the ways CRT is currently being taught in America’s military academies and the detriment it incurs on our military personnel and on our country as a whole. Lohmeier warns his readers that continuing down our current path will cause irreparable damage to the U.S and that the Marxist movements of our day must be stopped dead in their tracks. This book is a magnificent wakeup call. and I highly recommend that all who may even be the slightest bit interested read it.

The Fenwick Review

Encanto

Anthony Cash ‘23 Deputy Editor Disney’s new film Encanto has taken hold of social media and raised much praise from people of all walks of life. On top of the phenomenal music, beautiful design, representation of Colombian culture, layers of symbolism, and unconventional plot, Encanto illuminates the struggles of normal families and individuals through the story of a family gifted with super powers, the Madrigals. Overall, Encanto promotes the importance of the family unit by showing the Madrigals’ shift from a family whose love and affection is based on the usefulness of each family member to a family that loves its members for who they are. The film also promotes a balance of working and serving your community with taking care of yourself and your family. Mirabel from Encanto, courtesy of Disney For much of the film, Abuela and the rest of the family are so consumed with their role in their community as public servants that they forget to care for the wellbeing of their own family. This is shown through Luisa’s Joe Nepomuceno ‘25 Guest Writer insurmountable pressure to help every single person around her, Pepa’s mental health, Bruno’s exclusion from the family, and Isabella’s self-denial The newest iteration of the Marvel Cinematic in favor of Abuela’s wishes. It took someone like Mirabel, who was seemingly Universe’s Spider-Man, Spider-Man: No Way Home, has giftless, to realize that beneath the surface, the family was struggling, received widespread acclaim from both critics and the symbolized by the physical cracks in Casita, their family home. Mirabel, viewing public. I can say with confidence that such praise because she had no gift, was able to stop and pay attention to the needs of is well-deserved and that the film has a great story that will others. This is seen by her support of Luisa and Isabella, her encouragement entertain all audiences. of Antonio, her inclusion of Bruno, and her reconciliation with Abuela. It is through Mirabel that the family returned to the true miracle: the miracle Picking up just after Spider-Man: Far From Home, the film begins with a world where everyone knows Peter of the family unit. Parker is Spider-Man. Eventually Peter asks Dr. Strange to use magic to help him, but the spell instead makes Tom Holland’s Spider-Man end up meeting and fighting both heroes and villains from past Spider-Man franchises for the epic conclusion of the Spider-Man Home trilogy. Despite bringing back old fan-favorites, Spider-Man: No Way Home succeeds at being more than the nostalgia bait typical of blockbuster films, and brings an amazing story to the silver screen.

Spider-Man: No Way Home

Tom Holland’s Peter Parker is finally faced with real sacrifice and responsibility as the consequences of his actions come to fruition. He must grapple with the fact that with great power comes great responsibility, and mature from the teenage boy who wants everything to go perfect in his life, into a grown man with the duty to put others before himself. As with all MCU productions, the film still has humor and comedy throughout, but it is restrained enough so as not to distract from the story and its deeper notes. Along with the comedy and themes, the acting is superb, and all the actors, both main characters and those new to the Home trilogy, work brilliantly together and are a joy to watch. Overall, this film is perfect for viewers young and old, from comic book nerds to those who haven’t watched a single MCU film.

Spider-Man from Spider-Man: No Way Home, courtesy of Disney

XXIX - IV - March

Thank You to Our Donors 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 individuals and alumni donors to The Fenwick Review for their ongoing enthusiasm and support for our mission. Mr. Bob Abbott ‘62

Ms. Kathleen M. Randall

Mr. Chris Millard ‘82

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti

Dr. Dennis C. Golden ‘63

Mr. Patrick M. Murphy ‘89

Mr. Paul G. Byrne ‘61 and Mrs. Martha Byrne

Mr. Daniel J. Gorman

Ms. Kathleen M. Randall

Mr. Robert W. Graham

Mr. Joseph J. Reilly III ‘79 and Mrs. Maryagnes Reilly

Mrs. Theresa Carbone Mr. James Carter ‘59 Mr. Kevin Collins Dr. John P. Connors Dr. Thomas Craig Mr. Kevin Daley ‘77 Michael and Julia Dailey Mr. Ron J. Del Vecchio ‘64 Mr. Bill DiSciullo ‘94

Dr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Patrick D. Hanley The Hon. and Mrs. Paul J. Hanley Mr. Robert R. Henzler Mr. William Horan Mr. Brian Kingston ‘68 Mr. Bernard Long ‘62

Mr. John J. Ferguson

Mr. David A. Luttinger ‘59 and Mrs. Rosemarie Luttinger

Mr. Michael F. Fox ‘68

Mr. Francis F. Marshall ‘48

Dr. Ronald E. Safko Dr. David Schaefer Mr. Anthony J. Selvitella Dr. Bill Sheehy Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Mr. Mark Tassinari ‘82 Mr. George Van Setter ‘62 Dr. Jack Verdon ‘61 Mr. Ed Weil ‘63 Ms. Molly A. Wilkinson ‘89

Mr. Scott Gill

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, you may either donate via credit card through our online donation link, found at the top of our website, or by writing a check to College of the Holy Cross (memo line: The Fenwick Review) and mail to: The Fenwick Review P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

Love us? Hate us? Want to write for us?

Join our writing staff for the 2021-2022 school year! If you’re interested, send us an email at: fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu