September 2017

Volume XXV Issue I September 2017

a talk with R.R. RENO

a CHRISTIAN INTERPRETATION of the AGE OF TRUMP The present political divisions in our society reflect two deep, almost metaphysical intuitions, one that

favors openness and flux, and the other that leans

toward solidity and permanence. It is the latter that is becoming more powerful, and Christians need

to carefully discern what forms of permanence and

solidity are fitting and proper for a healthy society. Is there a politics of permanence, limits, and “borders� that Christians should endorse?

THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 21 / 7:00 P.M. / REHM LIBRARY

Sponsored by the Society of Saints Peter and Paul and the Fenwick Review

Table of Contents

06

Gregory Giangiordano

Let the Dogma Live Loudly in Us!

10

Elinor Reilly

Why Holy Cross Needs a Monastery

| 3 |

Temptation Strengthens the Soul

08

Claude Hanley

12

James Garry

14

Prof. David Schaefer

Confederate Ignore Diversity: Monuments Dishonor Think for Yourself!

Our Heritage

18

16

Bill Christ

Deliberative Abrogation of Congressional Authority

Seamus Brennan

A Reflection on Historical Discrimination and Modern Victim Mentality in the United States

Mission Statement As the College of the Holy Cross’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 College’s Catholic identity, as well as 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 and is produced 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. We welcome any donation you might be able to give to support our cause! To do so, please write a check to The Fenwick Review and mail to: Bill Christ and Claude Hanley P.O. Box 4A 1 College Street Worcester, MA 01610

| 4 |

Check Us Out Online!

Email us @ fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu

Our Facebook @FenwickReview Our Twitter @FenwickReview

https://sites.google.com/a/g.holycross.edu/the-fenwick-review/home

Letter from the Editors To the Benefactors:

Mr. Guy C. Bosetti Mr. Robert W. Graham III Mr. Robert R. Henzler The Hon. Paul J. Hanley Mr. Kevin O’Scannlain Mr. Sean F. Sullivan Jr. Dr. and Mrs. Paul Braunstein Mr. and Mrs. Richard Fisher Mr. and Mrs. Thomas W. Greene Mr. William Horan Mr. Robert J. Leary ‘49 Fr. Paul Scalia Mr. and Mrs. Michael Dailey Mr. and Mrs. Daniel Gorman Mr. Paul M. Guyet Mr. Joseph Kilmartin Mr. Francis Marshall ‘48 Dr. Ronald Safko Mr. John J. Ferguson Dr. Thomas Craig MD, MPH, ‘59 Mr. Patrick D. Hanley Dr. William Sheehy '59 Mr. Robert Abbott '66

Staff List: Editors-in-Chief Claude Hanley Bill Christ Web Editor Elinor Reilly Staff Writers Michael Raheb James Garry Seamus Brennan Greg Giangiordano Stefanie Raymond Patrick Connolly Cover Art Stefanie Raymond

15 September 2017 Dear Reader,

Thank you for picking up a copy of the Fenwick Review.

The Fenwick Review was founded in 1989 as the brainchild of Paul Scalia, son of the late Supreme Court justice, and now a Roman Catholic priest. Intellectual conservatism and orthodox Catholicism are the two intellectual strands which have guided this magazine from its beginnings. Of course, we have not always united those elements in equal balance; individual writers and editors have their own commitments. Our task is to provide them a forum.

But it is more than that. There is a powerful link between these two strands of thought; they did not unite out of mere convenience.

Indeed, the Christian and conservative coalition has been a defining feature of the American political landscape for the past five decades.

The synthesis of Catholic and conservative, personified in William F. Buckley, decisively shaped to Republican party in the modern era.

Whatever one thinks of the current state of the Republican party the intellectual affinity of conservatism and religious orthodoxy is striking.

At this point, the crisis of the Christian-Republican alliance is widely recognized. Reactions to the recent executive action regarding DACA are indicative: the U.S. Catholic Bishops conference, led by some of its most conservative members, decried the decision, as did the Pope; the outlets of the intellectual right, including Buckley’s National Review, have by and large cheered the president on.

So why on earth does the intellectual heritage of a small campus publication mean anything? The answer is simple: the intellectual sources we draw from are often at odds with one another. Throughout this year, as a result, even our contributors will sharply disagree with each other. In the end, however, this magazine is held together by a single insight: that, regardless of the politics of the moment, these two strands of thought remain a coherent pair, with much to say to one another.

We have our intellectual commitments, ones which shape both this publication and the thinking of its writers; we are drawn together by ideas that are more similar than they are different. But these are not exclusionary principles: we won’t be banishing libertarian politics because they aren’t orthodox Catholicism, nor we will expunge Catholic theology because it is insufficiently political. There are limits, of course, but the principle is clear: the belief systems we draw on will not be turned against each other.

With all that said, we set this issue before you. We hope you find it thought-provoking, interesting, perhaps even insightful. Enjoy the reading.

Claude Hanley, ‘18 Bill Christ, ‘18 Editors in Chief

| 5 |

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.

Temptation Strengthens the Soul

by Gregory Giangiordano

| 6 |

The problem with evil is that it isn’t alarming. It isn’t, as the media would have us believe, the monster that hides in the closet, or the faceless, gun-wielding man in the alley, or the possessed, satanic child speaking in tongues. The problem with evil is that it is seductive: it is shiny, inviting, and alluring. Evil is a soft caress on the arm, a silky whisper in the ear, a delicate kiss on the cheek. Evil tempts us with fool’s gold; it is all shine and no substance. Evil parades itself before our eyes and slyly asks us to forget ourselves, to forget our dignity and values, and to give in to every base urge for the promise of pleasure and satisfaction. The problem with evil is that it makes us want it, and it tempts us with the promise of having heaven now.

becomes. Continual temptation is the mark of a healthy soul, the mark of a person who is actively seeking holiness. It is when a person is actively seeking holiness that he or she is hit with temptation more forcefully, because it distresses Satan to know that there are souls who are fighting him, and he employs his cunning to make us fall back into sin. He seeks to have us as his puppets, incapable of recognizing the difference between right and wrong, and habitually falling into sin until we delude ourselves into thinking that the sin itself is a normal and acceptable behavior.

Make no mistake, it is hard to resist temptation. All of us feel the daily pull: the desire to just give in, let go, and stop fighting is a near constant feeling in each of us.

Continual temptation is the mark of a healthy soul, the mark of a person who is actively seeking holiness.

Even though we are continually battered by daily innumerable temptations, it is this very battering that strengthens the soul in its fight for salvation. Saint Pio of Pietrelcina was a priest who was intimately familiar with the ways of the devil, and therefore aware of the multitude of ways in which the devil tries to tempt us. He wrote, in a letter to one of his spiritual children, “Don’t let the countless temptations with which you are continually assailed frighten you, because the Holy Spirit forewarns the devout soul who is trying to advance in the ways of the Lord, to prepare itself for temptations…Therefore, take heart because the sure and infallible sign of the health of a soul is temptation. Let the thought that the lives of the saints were not free from this trial, give us the courage to bear it”. It may sound counter-intuitive, but Saint Pio explains that the more a person is tempted to sin, recognizes that he or she is being tempted to sin, and chooses not to sin, the

But that is what makes the struggle so worthwhile, because the truth is that we are not fighting for anything less than the purity of our souls. It is a difficult path, but ultimately it is a path that leads to joy.

Another Catholic, Blessed Pier Giorgio Frassati, attested to the challenging life to which all Catholics are called. He was a young Italian man, born into an aristocratic family in the early 20th Century, who chose to divorce himself from his aristocratic status and give continuously to the poor, to the chagrin of his family. He wrote, in a letter to one of his friends, “You ask me whether I am in good spirits. How could I not be, so long as my trust in God gives me strength.

We must always be cheerful. Sadness should be banished from all Christian souls. For suffering is a far different thing from sadness, which is the worst disease of all. It is almost always caused by lack of Faith. But the purpose for which we have been created

must get up and go to Confession. We must seek the spiritual medication of the Sacraments. We must attend mass, receive the Eucharist, and allow Christ’s sacrifice to bleed into each one of us. It is a hard and difficult path, and it will, most likely, not bring us the financial or material success that society constantly advertises, but, I promise you, nothing else will bring the lasting and blissful joy that Christ offers. If you take nothing else away from this article, at least remember the last words of the dying thief, who turned to God in his last moments.

As for myself, I will say that I am no saint or “Jesus, remember me when You come into blessed. But the point of the life of a Catholic Your kingdom!” And Jesus said to him, “Truly I is to strive to be a saint, with every fiber of tell you, today you will be with Me in our being, every day. If we fall into sin, we Paradise.”

| 7 |

perhaps strewn with many thorns, but not a sad path. Even in the midst of intense suffering it is one of joy.” The life of the Catholic is meant to be a life of joy: it is a life that is painful, yes, and in no way free from suffering, but it is anything but a sad life. As Pier Giorgio makes plain, it is a lack of Faith in the love of the Trinity that causes one’s life to be sad. Lack of Faith breeds sadness, sadness breeds spiritual weakness, and spiritual weakness breeds habitual surrender to sin.

Let the Dogma Live Loudly in Us!

| 8 |

By Claude Hanley

Last week, the social left’s disdain for people of faith rediscovered one of its most eloquent witnesses. Amy Coney Barrett, a Catholic law Professor at Notre Dame and nominee to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, faced sharp questioning over her religious beliefs at her confirmation hearing. Senator Dick Durbin (D., Illinois) demanded to know whether she considered herself “an orthodox Catholic.” Senator Diane Feinstein (D., California) went further. Implying that Barrett’s religious faith would prevent her from serving effectively, Feinstein declared, “The dogma lives loudly in you. And that’s a concern.” The two senators make an effective example of a process now well underway in this country -- the gradual exclusion of social conservatives and people of faith from the public square. In pursuit of this goal, the rhetoric of “hatred” and “bigotry” has been one of the social left’s most effective tools.

In his essay, Abuse of Language, Abuse of Power, the philosopher Josef Pieper argues that language has two purposes: to express the truth, and to communicate it to someone.

The two are fundamentally linked: if a speaker does not tell the truth, he fails to communicate at all. There is precisely nothing to communicate. If the content is knowingly false, it is nothing, devoid of meaning. Deceit transforms communication into obfuscation. But words, even false words, have consequences. Through a lie, we hoodwink the other person to act in a certain way, to keep silent, or to think as we would have them think. Lies makes others the unwitting implements of our will.

Divorced from truth, language becomes purely a tool of power. In support of a political agenda -- and it almost always is -this sort of speech is a profound threat to any shared intellectual, religious, or political life. It is in precisely these terms that we must understand the accusations “hatred” and “-phobia” so favoured by the social left.

An example will illustrate the point. We have all heard the term “homophobia” employed in any discussion of sexual morality, most likely lobbed at an observant Catholic or Evangelical Protestant.

Frequently, it accompanies an array of other lovely, communicative, dialogue-friendly terms: “hateful bigot,” “judgmental Pharisee,” “ignorance,” et cetera. There are different terms for different topics: “Anti-choicer” for the pro-life crowd, “Islamophobe” for anyone who votes Republican, and so on. Pick a cultural norm, imagine what you’d call a person who transgressed it, and the point is clear.

These examples all share a few common properties. In each case, the accuser pretends to know the heart or mind of the person who holds the offensive view. I know, for instance, that the “homophobe” actively detests gay people, and would very much like to see them chemically castrated -- even if I only met him five minutes ago, and he has done nothing but make an innocuous moral statement. He is, by definition, a stranger to me -- and yet, I know him well enough to comment on his motivations and emotions, and to lecture him about the true reason he believes what he believes. In short, all of these terms are used not in response to the expression of an actual emotion, but in response to a (usually “conservative”) moral or political belief.

There is no ground for the accusation to be true or not; it relies instead on an assumption, often self-serving, about a person’s interior life. Ultimately, the claim these terms make is either unverifiable or manifestly false -but that hardly matters.

The accusation is not, however, an inconsequential one.

“Homophobe,” “Islamophobe,” “sexist” and all the rest do not express an idea in terms which allow for discussion and response. Instead, they act as rhetorical bludgeons, meant to intimidate, discredit, and ultimately silence the other side. When we call people "homophobes,” whatever they say is immediately discredited.

Branding a social or ethical position “hatred” or “-phobia” discredits the idea before it can be rationally evaluated. The most terrifying consequences of such a strategy then become clear. The accusation of bigotry does not rest with the individual; instead, it contaminates the entire system of belief from which the offender speaks. Hence, a Roman Catholic’s opposition to abortion makes the entire religion “sexist” and “anti-choice.” And as a result, any Roman Catholic is discredited in the public eye before his or her arguments can even be heard. No matter whether people of faith argue on biological, philosophical, or constitutional grounds, the political claims will be readily dismissed as “theological,” and the people will be written off as “bigots.”

That is not to say, of course, that legitimate examples of racism, homophobia, hatred and all the rest do not exist. The violence in Charlottesville and the attack on the Pulse nightclub attest to that. Instead, the problem is that the semantic range of the term “hateful bigot” is progressively expanding. We may truly describe the staff of the Daily Stormer as hateful bigots: as a matter of principle, they support ethnic cleansing.

To describe

Christians in the same terms because they dissent from cultural orthodoxy on sex, abortion, and other issues does not express any sort of truth. It merely advances a particular social agenda -- the attempt to expel people of faith from the public square. Feinstein merely attests to the success this movement has enjoyed.

Senator Feinstein does not imagine a world without dogma; she imagines a world without any dogma but hers.

Senator Feinstein does not imagine a world without dogma; she imagines a world without any dogma but hers. Whoever of us relies on accusations of hatred to win debates -whoever abuses language to silence people of faith -- builds up toward that same world. For all Americans, religious or not, this is troubling.

The work of theologian and cultural critic R.R. Reno is insightful. Faith, he argues, is one of the few elements of human life explicitly directed towards higher things, beyond the control of the state and the world. It gives us the courage to resist expansion of both the state and the market, and to scorn the demands of a government that thinks itself all powerful.

It motivates us also to defy injustice, to raise up the poor and promote solidarity. In American society, people of faith are perhaps the best defence that freedom and solidarity possess. Reno writes, “What’s inscribed on our hearts strengthens our spines.” We live loudly in the world because the dogma lives in us.

Jesus and the woman at the well (John 4)

| 9 |

Their ideas are rooted in an irrational hatred of other people. Hatred is bad. Therefore, the ideas are bad. We can ignore them. Hatredlanguage imposes a remarkable skew on any discussion -- one person is forced to defend both an idea and his own character, while the other has merely to make accusations. In this fashion, any argument about a major social or moral issue may be short-circuited before it even begins -- not by superior argument, but by superior sophistry.

Why Holy Cross Needs a Monastery

By Elinor Reilly

| 10 |

As a Catholic and Jesuit school, Holy Cross has certain privileges. We are used to having Jesuits at the school say Mass and hear confessions, as well as teach classes, work in various departments, attend events, and generally act as a positive presence on campus. They participate in a legacy dating back to the school’s founding in 1843, and in one stretching far further into the past. Not all Catholic schools are so lucky; many, particularly those without an affiliation to a religious community, can only occasionally bring in visiting priests and lay missionaries.

The earliest universities were not necessarily Catholic, but there is a long history of affiliations between the Catholic Church and universities. This makes sense; from a practical standpoint during the medieval period when universities first began to appear, the Church had a variety of resources to offer a university, such as the power to grant degrees and legal protection. There is a deeper link, however: the rise of Christianity enabled the growth of science into what we have today. There is a cognitive dissonance in our culture today, where the Church is portrayed by secular entities as the enemy of science and progress. It is remarkable that such critics never question why the Church which is so dedicated to suppressing science has fostered scientific thinkers such as Copernicus, Lemaître, Mendel, Pascal, and Pasteur, as well as running the world-class Vatican Observatory.

We enjoy the inheritance of this religious and scientific collaboration today, usually unconsciously. Even at a small school such as Holy Cross, there is great emphasis placed on the natural sciences, mathematics, and the social sciences. Sometimes it seems that there is too much of this. As a senior about to graduate in the spring, I hear a lot about the importance of a liberal arts degree grounded in both the sciences and the humanities (and less than I would like about the Catholic

history thereof). It is always implied that my degree will lead to a fulfilling career making money—after all, we’re regularly reminded that Holy Cross graduates are highly employable and have an above-average starting salary ($50,534 for the class of 2016, if you’re wondering). However, the focus on the material benefits of our education comes at a steep cost.

What is lost with the emphasis on money and success is any mention of what our most important heritage as a Catholic school is: prayer. I hear more about what companies are recruiting on campus than the fact that the body of Christ is present in our chapels day and night, and I get more reminders about meeting with potential employers than I do about going to Mass.

It might sound silly, or archaic, but this is the belief of the Catholic Church and the focal point which enables our school’s rich study of science, mathematics, and humanities (and the post-graduate jobs in these fields). By not emphasizing the Eucharist or prayer enough, our school is missing out on a beautiful Catholic legacy, and on a lot of graces needed to lead souls to Christ (the actual mission of all Catholic schools). The solution can only come through prayer. The Jesuits are amazing, but their way of life is not conducive to constant intercession on behalf of the Church through formal prayer, though undoubtedly their prayer for the school benefits us all. What Holy Cross really needs, in addition to the prayer and witness of the Jesuits, is a cloistered monastery of nuns or monks on or around our campus.

The 1999 Church document Verbi Sponsa describes the importance of the contemplative life: “The ancient spiritual tradition of the Church, taken up by the Second Vatican Council, explicitly connects the contemplative life to the prayer of Jesus ‘on the mountain’… the cloister is especially well suited to life wholly directed to

As well as praying for our souls and academics, a cloistered monastic community would serve as an inspiration and reminder of what is truly valuable in life, particularly as we grow ever closer to finals/graduation/our departure of this life.

“As a reflection and radiation of their contemplative life, nuns offer to the Christian community and to the world of today, more than ever in need of true spiritual values, a silent proclamation of the mystery of God and a humble witness to it, thus keeping prophecy alive in the nuptial heart of the Church” (Verbi Sponsa). Verbi Sponsa speaks of nuns, and there is something to be said particularly for having an increased presence for women religious on campus. The Jesuits serve as spiritual

fathers to many students, faculty, and staff, and having a similar maternal presence could be nothing but beneficial.

The logistics, admittedly, could be difficult.

The grass lots at the corner of College Street and Southbridge Street have been sitting vacant since the buildings previously there were demolished. Perhaps it is time for them to receive a new lease on life. Or maybe we can install a new cloistered wing off Ciampi. In the worst-case scenario, there are a lot of floors in Hogan that we don’t really need. As for the new community’s finances, I’d be more than happy to donate the part of my tuition that normally goes to the Spring Concert, and I’m sure many other students would be willing to as well. Many monastic communities sell cheese, beer, candy, or other food items so we could also benefit from having good, locally produced food on campus.

And since there is no contemplative branch of the Jesuits, we will have to invite a religious community of a different tradition.

The Benedictines are probably our best option, as St. Benedict, their founder, is a patron saint of students, and St. Ignatius of Loyola had a beautiful experience of prayer and forgiveness at the Benedictine monastery at Montserrat.

Holy Cross needs a monastery so that we can return to our Catholic roots. I do not suggest that we abandon altogether our career searching and grad-school applying, only that each of us re-evaluates our priorities. A monastery on campus or just outside the gates is a way to emphasize the importance of prayer and refocus the mission of the school on bringing souls to heaven and not just to Fulbrights. The spiritual and financial investments would be worth every bit.

I do not suggest that we abandon altogether our career searching and grad-school applying, only that each of us re-evaluates our priorities.

| 11 |

contemplation. Its totality signals absolute dedication to God...” Cloistered religious life is uniquely oriented toward prayer. It takes only a walk around Dinand, even this early in the academic year, to sense that there is already abundant stress and desperation, and probably not enough prayer (not that there ever can be enough prayer). Even beyond the schoolwork, a college or university cannot be a peaceful place; it is a battleground for the future of our world, whether we like to think about it in such dramatic terms or not. Here too, a monastery would act as a center of prayer for the campus. Verbi Sponsa states regarding this: “A contemplative monastery is a gift also for the local Church to which it belongs. Representing the prayerful face of the Church, a monastery makes the Church's presence more complete and meaningful in the local community. A monastic community may be compared to Moses who, in prayer, determined the fate of Israel's battles (cf. Ex 17:11), or to the guard who keeps the night watch awaiting the dawn.”

Confederate Monuments Dishonor Our Heritage

| 12 |

By James Garry The United States, at the risk of pointing out the obvious, is at a major political crossroads.

The polarization within our ideological landscape has reached a nearly unsustainable level, and communication between Left and Right has all but ceased to exist. Whether it be the soft socialism of Bernie Sanders or right wing populism, political possibilities once thought unpalatable in the United States now present themselves as forces sufficient to motivate large portions of the electorate. Although destabilizing, political turmoil such as the one we find ourselves in now distances us from the status quo and allows us to more objectively examine the political world in which we live. It can push us to question our beliefs and values more deeply and accelerate social change like nothing else.

One of the key questions that have been explored is the place Confederate monuments in public life. An honest examination of this issue leaves one inescapable conclusion; that they must be removed from public places of celebration and reverence.

Key to one’s take on the issue is one’s interpretation of the events of the Civil War. Apologists frequently claim that slavery was a minor issue, tangential to the conflict between the Union and Confederacy. The Sons of the Confederacy, an organization of men descended from Confederate veterans, claims that “The preservation of liberty and freedom was the motivating factor in the South’s decision to fight the Second

American Revolution.” Before any productive conversation on the issue can take place, this grave misconception and historical inaccuracy must be succinctly and thoroughly dispelled. The Confederate States rebelled against the Federal government to preserve their ability to maintain slavery. As Ty Seidule, a professor of history at West Point points out, “slavery was, by a large margin, the single most important cause of the Civil War”, adding that “the secession documents of every Southern state made clear, crystal clear that they were leaving the Union in order to protect their ‘peculiar institution’ of slavery.” Even a casual survey of first hand documents of the time reveals a patent and unobscured motivation on the part of Southern states to fight for the preservation of slavery.

To display Confederates monuments in prominent, public positions of honor is thus at odds with our values as both patriots and people of good conscience. In honoring the Confederate military, we honor an institution that sought to tear apart the political order of our country and caused a staggering loss of human life, all in the service of a deeply unethical practice. In memorializing “the Cause”, a term used by the Daughters of the Confederacy, an organization that played the largest role in the establishment of such monuments, we pay honor to a depraved and horrendous worldview; one based in the inhumane subjugation of our fellow Americans. This is not merely a theoretical critique of Confederate memorials, or an

assignment of intentionality, motive, or symbolic significance without evidence. An examination of the history of such memorials reveals a clear pattern to their construction. A modern study of the establishment of such monuments by the Southern Poverty Law Center reveals “huge spikes in construction twice during the 20th century: in the early 1900s, and then again in the 1950s and 60s.” The study also notes that these trends came as a reaction to attempts at establishing robust civil rights for black Americans.

Jane Dailey, a professor of history at the University of Chicago concludes that “the monuments were not necessarily erecting a monument to the past”, but in fact were established with an eye toward “a white supremacist future.” It is thus clear that monuments to the Confederacy were not erected as a simply acknowledgement of history; they were built to perpetuate the legacy of one of the darkest moments in our country’s history and in furtherance of a twisted ideology. This trend indeed continues to this very day, as evidenced by the white nationalist protesters who gathered in Charlottesville in defense of

one such memorial.

Many claim that the removal of Confederate monuments constitutes an “erasing of history.” The memorials to the Confederacy that sit in the parks and public squares of our nation are not archaeological objects, placed long ago in abandoned cities by long dead cultures and people. They do not need to be preserved as though they were windows to a lost world, because they are very much living objects that speak for our own living world. Lt. Stephen Dill Lee, in a speech to the Sons of Confederate Veterans, claimed that his organization was charged with the “guardianship of history.” The notion that history needs to be guarded is a valuable one; we must learn from our history and shape our worldview from accurate historical accounts. In allowing Confederate memorials to remain in places of honor, we allow our history to fall into the hands of treacherous guardians; of those who wish to distort it and expunge from it the lessons that we all must heed.

| 13 |

They do not need to be preserved as though they were windows to a lost world, because they are very much living objects that speak for our own world.

Ignore Diversity: Think for Yourself!

| 14 |

By Prof. David Schaefer, Political Science As has become customary, the start of the academic year brought another announcement of Holy Cross's commitment to "diversity." As currently used in the academic world and elsewhere, the term doesn't mean what it says. Especially in an academic institution the purpose of which, presumably, is the pursuit of learning, one would want students to be exposed to, and become literate in, the greatest possible diversity of serious intellectual viewpoints, particularly as these have been expressed in classic as well as contemporary works of philosophy, literature, theology, history, and the social sciences. They would thereby become best equipped to think through the most important questions of human and political life, and best able to conduct themselves as the sort of thoughtful citizens and family members that a self-governing republic requires.

But that is not at all the sort of diversity that advocates have in mind. A statement from the College president boasts of the College's success in its "commitment to diversity in our faculty ranks" in that "one-third of our tenure-track hires in the past two years have been faculty of color." Additionally, all applicants for "exempt" (administrative) positions are now "require[d] to reflect on their commitment to mission and diversity in their application materials," while "trained Mission and Diversity ambassadors" will be placed "on every search committee" for higher administrative officials. The speaker of the faculty and Dean Taneja "recently wrote to faculty with concrete suggestions on how faculty can include issues of diversity and inclusion in the classroom."

(The requirement to "reflect" on one's commitment to diversity in order to qualify for a position at Holy Cross raises problems of its own. How will administrators be able to tell whether an applicant is really, really committed to diversity - or is only faking it?

What of applicants for tenure-track teaching positions - already required, assuming they

aren't "diverse" themselves, to express their commitment to that goal - who might fake it for six years, get tenure, and then - in the memorable phrase of Harvard's Harvey Mansfield, "Hoist the Jolly Roger"? To avert these problems, might lie-detector tests have to be added? I cannot avoid recalling methods used in the dark past to test the sincerity of people's professions of faith though I don't want to give anyone ideas.)

None of the foregoing policies have anything to do with the proper purpose of liberal education, defined by the 19th-century English critic Matthew Arnold as "the study of the best that has been thought and said in the world." Time that could be devoted to the study of such works is instead to be diverted in the College's unofficial ideology of "diversity and inclusion." Categorizing faculty hires on the basis of skin color means effectively reducing them to members of groups, defined by a purely arbitrary bodily characteristic rather than by their capacity for serious, independent thinking and scholarship. It demeans them by implying that they might not have qualified for their positions on the basis of academic merit alone. (And does anyone think that the discussion of "issues of diversity and inclusion" that professors are encouraged to include in their courses will allow for any dissent from that ideology?)

The situation of faculty and students confronted with the demand to conform to the diversity doctrine does not differ, in some of its essentials, from the one that Socrates faced at his trial. He was condemned by the Athenian people for "corrupting the young," in that he inspired his pupils to question rather than passively accept the then-dominant ideology. Of course there were legitimate reasons for citizens to be concerned if Socrates' questioning, pursued too openly, tended to weaken the religious, moral, and political beliefs on which Athenian democracy depended.

Political Cartoon

By Anonymous

speak out (after thinking the text or issue through) and express your own point of view. Freely discuss the books you are reading outside of class with classmates who don't necessarily share your opinions, let alone your ethnic background etc. But never preface a statement or a question with "As a ---," with the blank filled in by one of the characteristics typically emphasized by the so-called diversity movement.

Unlike all other animals, we human beings have the capacity to reason rather than be governed purely by instinct. But like the inhabitants of the cave depicted in Plato's Republic, we face considerable obstacles to exercising that capacity: the pressure to conform to the dominant prejudices imposed by those who shape our intellectual/ cultural/ political environment. Every nation needs to inculcate a patriotic and moral outlook ideally, supported by moderate religious beliefs - in its citizens. But there's no reason for colleges to engage in the indoctrination business.

Students, think for yourselves!

| 15 |

But the advocates of today's diversity ideology have no such excuse.

I have no capacity to block the progress of the "diversity" movement at Holy Cross or elsewhere, other than refusing to defer to it in my own teaching and writing. But I urge students, whatever your ethnic background or skin color or disability status, whatever your gender or sexual orientation, whatever country you come from or religion you profess (or don't): don't let anyone tell you that any of those factors must determine how you think, what you read, or whom you associate with.

Seek out courses in which the curriculum consists of serious books, particularly classics, taught by faculty who seem to be genuinely interested in what writers like Homer and Plato, Shakespeare and Machiavelli, Nietzsche and George Eliot, or the authors of the Federalist Papers and Frederick Douglass have to teach us rather than imposing the professors' own ideological or partisan beliefs on the works you will be studying. Do your best to understand what we can learn from such profound authors that we didn't already "know" (or rather, believe). If you disagree with what an author (or professor) says,

Deliberative Abrogation of Congressional Authority

| 16 |

By Bill Christ

With President Trump’s recent decision to delay rescinding the controversial Deferred Action for Childhood Arrivals, or DACA, there has been an outpouring of emotional support for those affected by the announcement.

Through emotional appeals, the opponents of President Trump’s decision have criticized him for adopting an uncaring and inhumane policy that punishes children for the sins of their parents. Frequent invocations of children and toddlers being sent back to nations foreign to them have demonized advocates of Constitutional order and legal immigration. Additionally, politicians on both sides of the aisle have been quick to condemn the decision, which is an unlikely occurrence in today’s era of hyperpartisanship. Despite all the outcries, President Trump was right to end the illegal program known as DACA. For one thing, the constitutionality of his actions is hardly in question; prominent figures on the left and the right, along with the federal courts, oppose the legal foundations of President Obama’s DACA policy. Without Congress’s legislative

authority, President Obama created the policy which provided a semi-legal status to those who illegally immigrated with their parents as children. While DACA recipients are mostly well-educated, employed, and provided substantial tax revenue to the government, the actions that President Obama took in 2012 clearly circumvented the Constitution. By unilaterally initiating a temporary immigration policy, President Obama bypassed Congress’s inherent duty to legislate controversial policies into law and took it upon himself to change the immigration laws. In response to President Trump’s actions, California’s senior senator and current ranking Democratic member on the Senate Judiciary Committee, Dianne Feinstein, noted in an interview on MSNBC that DACA was on shaky legal ground and that further legislative action was needed. In addition to Senator Feinstein, prominent Never-Trump conservatives like Andrew McCarthy and Yuval Levin have addressed the unconstitutional nature of DACA and have supported the administration’s actions. Since McCarthy and Levin were some of the President’s strongest and most vocal

In addition to the questionable legality of DACA, the end of the executive action is not the end of immigration reform.

President Trump’s decision to delay rescinding DACA for six months provides Congress with an opportunity to achieve long-lasting immigration policy. Within hours of the administration announcement that it was rescinding DACA, prominent Republicans like House Speaker Paul Ryan and 2016 presidential candidate Marco Rubio have spoken out in favor of maintaining a similar policy for DACA recipients. Concerning potential legislative solutions to the rescinding of DACA, the number of Republicans criticizing the administration’s action combined with both democratic caucuses should indicate that a solution is more than likely. Simultaneously, the ten Democratic senators up for reelection in a year in states that President Trump won in 2016 could side with the administration if their state constituencies compel them and adopt a conservative solution. If both Congress and President Trump can compromise, a long-lasting solution to

illegal immigration could potentially be secured before the president’s imposed six month deadline.

Currently two Congressional Bills propose reforms to the broken American immigration system. The Curbelo-Tillis Bill proposes granting legal status to the DREAMers who have been in the country long-term. Meanwhile, the RAISE Act is a proposal by Senators Tom Cotton (R-AR) and David Perdue (R-GA) which aims to curb the chain migration and incentive immigration based on specialized skills. In response to the administration stance on DACA, Senator Cotton noted that he would be willing to provide legal status to the almost million DACA recipients already in the nation.

Understandably, most reactions to President Trump’s policies, including the DACA decision, have been met with feelings for those affected by them. While this display of compassion is commendable, the blatant disregard for the rule of law and the institutions that have guided the American republic since the founding is not. Additionally, the empathy expressed by the media, colleges, and major cities ignores the people who experience the fallout from the loose immigration policies and voted for the candidate to fix them. If this ignorance and overt indifference for the rule of law and this constituency continues, Donald Trump will be reelected president on November 3, 2020.

If this ignorance and overt indifference for the rule of law and this constituency continues, Donald Trump will be re-elected president on November 3, 2020.

| 17 |

conservative critics, their support of the DACA decision demonstrates the illegal steps the Obama administration undertook to unilaterally create immigration policy. Furthermore, the policy of providing illegal immigrants with a semi-legal status through executive orders was blocked by the courts when several states challenged the legality of DAPA, or Deferred Action for Parents of Americans.

A Reflection on Historical Discrimination and Modern Victim Mentality in the United States

| 18 |

By Seamus Brennan Despite the significant dissimilarities between societal marginalization in the United States now and in previous centuries, the dominant ethos across many sectors of our country would suggest that America in 2017 is a toxic, rancorous nation that judges and discriminates against individuals on the basis of their demographic or ‘identity’ group. Mindsets like this have paved the way to insistence upon the existence of systemic, universal discrimination based on these ultimately irrelevant factors, which has led to a subculture in which identity-based victimhood is celebrated while merit-based success is discouraged and virtually meaningless. A culture in which victimhood is embraced ironically encompasses the very mindset that makes success impossible.

Although some cases of identity-based marginalization certainly do exist, defaulting to accusations of discrimination in inequitable situations usually demonstrates flawed perception, not systemic inequality.

Ultimately, society at large - drawing influences from the media, political rhetoric, higher education, and even one’s own family - must be doing something wrong if it is responsible for exposing and practically feeding this sort of mentality to America’s youth.

in 1947, and after many unsuccessful attempts at finding work, he changed his name from Seamus to Jim to avoid the unfortunate stigma of being an Irish immigrant. Of course he would have preferred to keep his name – a meaningful indicator of personal and cultural identity – but he felt that he needed to do so in order to take advantage of all that America had to offer as well as to more easily assimilate into American culture. Meanwhile, he managed to find several jobs working in lumberyards and as a carpenter, until he saved enough money to create his own business in 1951 building homes in suburban Chicago. His business continued to grow and prosper, and in the coming years he would get married and raise a family of five.

My grandfather’s story is a prototypical example of the American Dream, and surely there are countless other success stories similar in nature. Ultimately, my grandfather realized that he needed to make the change to adapt to his new country, not the other way around. The American Melting Pot did not come into being through demands of multicultural awareness and lack of pride in the United States. Rather, immigrants toiled for their success – and a great deal of them reached it – through accepting the capitalistic Historically, minority groups in the United nature of the American workforce and States unquestionably faced discrimination working hard while still upholding an in most facets of life. The unique struggles appreciation for the country and culture they immigrants encountered in the nineteenth left behind. My grandfather’s Irish heritage and twentieth centuries were real, significant did not die when he chose to go by a barriers. Immigrants had to vehemently fight different name, nor did his personal identity for their position in society, and ultimately, or sense of self-perception. Cultural pride they experienced the fruits of their labor not and making necessary changes to ensure by demanding recognition and challenging opportunity are not mutually exclusive; pre-existing American societal norms, but by rather, they complement each other quite earning societal respect through well. Culture is not a definitive asset to one’s contribution of labor and acceptance of the life. While culture ought to be recognized established American cultural fabric. and celebrated for its frequent influences on one’s perspective and broader life outlook, My grandfather, after whom I am named, life is not meant to be lived within tight, immigrated to the United States from Ireland subjective cultural boundaries. Often, it

misleading to certain individuals, but this dilemma is, once again, an issue of distorted perception rather than an unjust society.

At Marquette University in February 2017, political commentator and novelist Ben Shapiro justifiably claimed, “On campus, because there is such focus on victimhood, a certain ‘victim privilege’ has been established. Not ‘white privilege,’ ‘victim privilege.’ If you’re a member of a victim group, you now have a privilege. And that privilege amounts to, you get to tell other people to shut up and you also get to hurt people.” The recently promulgated view Of course, instances of inequality and that American society is ‘out to get’ certain discrimination still exist in 2017 America, individuals and groups of people based on although they are much less prevalent than their race, gender, or class is in fact what in the post-war 1940s. Given the discourages these people from pursuing significant disparity between these their dreams and seeking out any instances of discrimination in modern meaningful level of success. As was true America and the extreme marginalization for my grandfather, the opportunity is faced by many in previous centuries, one there, and if it has not yet presented itself must ask: why do so many perceive to you, ask yourself: is it truly American themselves to be victims in the freest, society holding you back, or are you most opportune, most tolerant and holding you back? nondiscriminatory nation in the history of the world? Does the very existence of this Ultimately, having the expectation that freedom, opportunity, tolerance, and others must change to meet your nondiscrimination in the United States subjective needs is unhealthy and create illusions for certain people, leading unproductive, and a much better to self-perceived needs for entitlements alternative would be to start focusing on and a more socialistic government? The what can be created for oneself. More competitive nature of the American often than not, this change in mentality can economy may be intimidating or amount to life changing proportions.

| 19 |

seems, clinging onto cultural significance is responsible for creating this self-perceived victimization, as people have difficulty drawing the line as to how much influence culture should have on one’s life, decisions, and identity. Moderate cultural appreciation and the embracement of American opportunity truly make the best of both worlds. As my grandfather used to say, “Opportunity is not given; it’s earned.”

To him, working hard and overcoming obstacles was a vital part of his path to realizing the unique freedoms and opportunities that only America could provide.

College of the Holy Cross fenwickrev@g.holycross.edu Find us on facebook @Fenwick Review