On February 10, the Holy Cross Board of Trustees announced Vincent D. Rougeau as the College’s new president. Currently dean of Boston College Law School since 2011, he previously served at Notre Dame Law School as a tenured professor and later an associate dean. Rougeau writes frequently on topics ranging from legal education to Catholic social thought, and currently serves as a senior fellow at the London-based Centre for Theology and Community, where his research focuses on community organizing, immigration, and citizenship. Beyond his impressive resume, he will have the notable distinction of being Holy Cross’s first lay and black president.
At Holy Cross, Rougeau will offer “strategic vision, deep experience as a faculty member and administrator, and commitment to liberal arts education,” said Board Chairman Richard Patterson ‘80 in a statement. “Both his scholarship and leadership demonstrate his profound dedication to Catholic social teaching and educating students towards seeking justice and making a meaningful difference in our world.” The question all Holy Cross students, faculty, and alumni surely have is what exactly the new president’s strategic vision and leadership will look like in practice. While much will remain unknown until he takes office in July, Rougeau’s extensive writings and administrative record at two of America’s top law schools provide useful, if incomplete, insights into what can be expected of the new president’s tenure at Holy Cross.
From a symbolic standpoint, Rougeau represents a marked departure from the College’s venerable and (until now) unbroken tradition of having Jesuit priests as presidents. Many in the Holy Cross community, including here at The Fenwick Review, hoped this tradition would continue after Father Boroughs’ retirement in June. However, given the rapidly declining number of Jesuits in the United States in recent decades, it is fair to say the day Holy Cross selected a lay president was probably inevitable. Beyond the practical difficulty of finding a stellar candidate among a shrinking pool of Jesuits, the Holy Cross student body unfortunately proved not to be incredibly invested in the idea, with only slightly more than half saying they would prefer the next president be a Jesuit in a survey taken by the presidential search committee.
All the more important, then, if the new president is to be a layperson, that they should exhibit a deep commitment to the College’s Catholic, Jesuit identity and tradition. Here, there are reasons to be hopeful. Rougeau, as he noted in his virtual introduction via livestream on February 11, comes from a deeply Catholic family with roots in the Creole community of southern Louisiana. His writing on issues facing American Catholics today, particularly in the realm of Catholic social teaching, is certainly admirable. Having a president who, at the very least, is engaged with Catholic teachings and practice is something to be grateful for.
That being said, there are also more than a few causes for concern. On this matter, it is important first to consider the present state of the College’s religious identity and its recent trajectory. Faith and spirituality are undoubtedly alive and well at Holy Cross, as evidenced by a number of active faith-based student organizations, including Students for Life, Pax Christi, Active Bible Study, and the Society of Saints Peter and Paul. The College’s student body is predominantly Catholic, and school Masses are fairly well attended.
In contrast, the Holy Cross administration’s commitment to sustaining the College’s Catholic tradition is questionable at best. At worst, it is nonexistent — as exemplified by the 2013 hiring of religious studies professor Tat-Siong Benny Liew, whose controversial scholarship was brought to light in a 2018 article by this publication. Liew is a scholar best known for his article “Queering Closets and Perverting Desires,” which described Jesus as a “drag king” who imagined His crucifixion through the lens of a “masochistic,” incestual relationship with God the Father. Such ideas would be almost laughable if they weren’t so obscene, and their consequences so pernicious — this professor was (and still is, as of Spring 2021) responsible for teaching the College’s primary introductory course on the New Testament.
Professor Liew’s appointment gave rise to a petition signed by more than 14,000 calling for his removal, and earned Holy Cross the ire of Bishop Robert McManus of the Diocese of Worcester. Bishop McManus stated at the time that he was “deeply troubled” with Professor Liew’s “highly offensive and blasphemous” views, and criticized President Boroughs’ decision to retain Liew on faculty in the name of “academic freedom.” Bishop McManus rightly noted that Catholic universities, as made clear by Pope John Paul II in Ex Corde Ecclesiae, have a duty to teach in accordance with the Church’s beliefs and intellectual tradition, and to uphold their Catholic mission and identity in “all aspects of their intellectual endeavors.” Academic freedom at Catholic colleges, he added, abides by certain limits, especially in the areas of theological education.
Challenges to the College’s religious identity do not always come in such glaring forms as the Professor Liew controversy. Smaller, everyday decisions by the administration, which may occur behind closed doors and pass with little notice, are less blatant but can be similarly pernicious if allowed to accumulate over time. By the same token, equally important to what the administration does is what it neglects to do. A case in point is Father Boroughs’ silence on the issue of abortion, despite countless statements and emails on a myriad of other recent topics, including the 2020 presidential election, the Black Lives Matter movement, and the January 6 Capitol riot. In a statement last May, Father Boroughs rightly asked the Holy Cross community to “pray for an end to the sin of racism.” But on the issue of abortion, which takes over 800,000 innocent lives in the U.S. each year, has featured prominently in the news media, and which Pope Francis describes as a “grave sin”… silence.
Evidently, the administration’s allegiance to Catholic principles extends only insofar as they are applicable to the progressive social justice causes they really care about. But if the College’s religious identity is to be abandoned, and a leftist political ideology adopted instead, the least the administration could do is ensure a tolerant atmosphere for those with different views. Unfortunately, even this appears to be too much to ask.
Two years ago, when Bishop Robert McManus visited Holy Cross for a healthcare conference to deliver an address on the Church’s moral understanding of the issue of transgenderism, his talk was blasted as “hurtful and offensive” by two of the College’s top deans. What about the president? Defending the right of a Catholic bishop to affirm Catholic teaching on the campus of a Catholic college should have been a no-brainer. But Father Boroughs demurred from making a public statement on the issue, implicitly legitimizing the deans’ unwarranted criticisms. But then again, Father Boroughs allowed the “Digital Transgender Archive” to set up shop down the hall from his office a few years ago with no complaints, so maybe this shouldn’t be a surprise. No wonder Bishop McManus says he’s “very concerned” with the present state of Holy Cross’s Catholic identity.
Unfortunately, it is not just the College’s religious identity that is in jeopardy, but also the freedom of expression of students whose views differ from the prevailing progressive ideology on campus. In 2019, when The Fenwick Review invited conservative author Heather Mac Donald to speak on campus, students from the Black Student Union and Student Government Association teamed up in an attempt to silence her voice. Showing up early, they took the majority of seats in the venue (thus ensuring many who legitimately wished to hear the speaker were unable to) and, when the event began, shouted Mac Donald down with chants of “My oppression is not a delusion!” and “You are not welcome!”
More concerning than some Holy Cross students’ desire to silence opposing views was the administration’s complete lack of concern. As National Review vice president Jack Fowler (a Holy Cross alumnus) described it at the time, “School officials seemed unperturbed by the display, with terms like ‘academic freedom’ and ‘free speech’ and ‘chilling effect’ nowhere to be found in the official comments.” From an administration so eager to cite “academic freedom” in defending the hiring of an arguably heretical theology professor, when it came to the Heather Mac Donald debacle… crickets. But, as Fowler put it, “Nothing much seems to perturb Holy Cross’s administration, as long as things traditional go by the wayside, or are upended.”
Would there be a more appropriate response from the Holy Cross administration if an incident like these were to occur in the future, under a President Rougeau? The jury is still out, but Rougeau’s tenure at Boston College doesn't give much cause for hope. In addition to his post at the helm of BC Law, Rougeau served as the inaugural director of BC’s Forum on Racial Justice in America. In an America magazine piece about the forum, Rougeau wrote, “If we are committed to [the core values of Boston College] we must, as the scholar Ibram X. Kendi has noted throughout his work, choose to be ‘antiracist.’” As many on both the right and left have pointed out — including here at The Fenwick Review — today’s “antiracism” of the Kendi variety couldn’t be farther from that of the civil rights era, and its ideas range from kooky and laughable to Orwellian and downright racist. It is a noxious, radical, and unequivocally illiberal ideology that, as education scholar Frederick Hess of the American Enterprise Institute has written, has no place in any American educational institution, much less a liberal arts college like Holy Cross.
The BC Forum on Racial Justice in America’s website touts itself as a “catalyst for bridging differences, promoting reconciliation, and encouraging new perspectives.” This is an admirable mission. But if the forum’s discourse is centered on the work of Ibram X. Kendi and other radical ideologues, there is surely little reconciliation occurring, or differences being bridged. The Holy Cross administration has itself recently become enamored with “antiracist” ideology. Under our new president, there is reason to be concerned that it, and other divisive political causes, will become even more entrenched, at the continued peril of the College’s religious heritage and culture of free expression.
To be clear, Rougeau has every right to express his views as a citizen, scholar, and writer. And his engagement with the pressing issues of today, both within our Church and society as a whole, is undoubtedly commendable. But serving as president of a Catholic liberal arts college comes with a unique set of responsibilities. Rougeau the citizen may, to his heart’s desire, champion whatever political cause he wishes. Rougeau the scholar and writer may argue forcefully in favor of a progressive interpretation of Catholic social teaching or US race relations. Rougeau the president of Holy Cross may still do these things, but must also balance his personal social and political views with a sense of respect for the College’s religious tradition and liberal arts environment.
Upon being named the College’s next president, Rougeau said he admired Holy Cross for its “unique place as our nation’s only Jesuit, Catholic liberal arts college.” As recent years have made abundantly clear, this “unique place” is in jeopardy due the administration’s consistent unwillingness to defend the very qualities that define the College as Jesuit, Catholic, and liberal. Rougeau also rightly added in his first statement that “Our current moment in history cries out for the mission-driven education that Holy Cross provides.” The question now is… which mission will it be? A progressive political agenda grounded in polarizing ideology? Or the mission of the College as it has been traditionally understood — a mission grounded in Catholic faith and the Jesuit intellectual tradition, and dedicated to the pursuit of truth in an environment of free expression, open discussion, and civility? Time will soon tell.
Let’s end on a hopeful note. As many questions and concerns as this article has raised, it is important we keep an open mind and offer our new president the utmost respect and goodwill as we welcome him into the Holy Cross community. Let’s all pray for him in his new role — his success will be the College’s, and we all want that.